Graduate School of Social Sciences MSc Conflict Resolution and Governance
Dual Transitions: The Social Reintegration of
Child Mobilized-Adult Demobilized Combatants
in Bogotá
Author: Maja Bredman Student number: 12118419 Date of submission: 28 June 2019 Words: 19 035
Supervisor: Dr. Polly Pallister-Wilkins Second reader: Dr. Michelle Parlevliet
List of abbreviations
AM-AD Adult Mobilized-Adult Demobilized Combatant ARN Agencia para la Reincorporación y la Normalización AUC United Self Defense Forces of Colombia
CBR Community-Based Reintegration
CM-AD Child Mobilized-Adult Demobilized Combatant DDR Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration ELN National Liberation Army
ETCR Territorial Training and Reincorporation Spaces FARC Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia FBA Folke Bernadotte Academy
ICBF Colombian Family Welfare Institute
IDDRS Integrated Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration Standards IDP Internally Displaced Person
PPR Person in the Process of Reintegration
PRVC Program for the Reincorporation into Civilian Life of Illegal Armed Groups RdR Ruta de Reintegración
UN United Nations
Table of contents
1. Introduction ...4
2. Background: The definition and evolution of DDR practice ...7
3. Literature review and theoretical framework ...8
3.1 Literature review ...9
Theoretical foundations of DDR ...9
Youth in the reintegration literature ...10
Communities in the reintegration literature ...12
3.2 Theoretical framework: The vital role of communities in the social reintegration of CM-ADs ..14
4. Research design and methodology ...17
4.1 Research design: A reflexive approach to studying social reintegration ...17
4.2 Methods and ethical considerations ...18
5. Findings and analysis ...21
5.1 A brief historical overview of DDR in the Colombian context ...22
5.2 Contemporary DDR approaches: The “Ruta de reintegración” and the “Reincorporación”……23
5.3 The interplay between the Ruta de Reintegración and Colombian CBR strategies ……….……26
5.4 Challenges faced by CM-ADs in Bogotá………..30
Social stigma and its implications for CM-ADs’ community relationships ...30
Psychosocial ramifications of having been socialized into an armed group ...34
Low socioeconomic absorptive capacity in receiving communities of Bogotá ...38
6. Conclusion ...41
4 1. Introduction
In the mid-1980s, a new field of practice within multilateral peacebuilding was taking shape aimed at the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) of former combatants in the aftermath of civil war. There was increasing recognition of the need to address this particular population as ex-combatants were conceived of as potential spoilers, threatening to jeopardize recently achieved and fragile peace by returning to hostilities. Today, such programs are considered to be an essential component of multilateral peace operations globally (Molloy, 2017). Since the field first emerged, it has undergone some significant conceptual and practical changes based on lessons learned and as a result of certain policy developments within the broader peacebuilding community. For one thing, contemporary reintegration policies are (at least in theory) more sensitized to the needs of various sub-groups of ex-combatants, such as women and ethnic minorities. By now, the special position of ex-combatant youth – defined here as individuals between 18 and 29 years old1 – is also widely recognized (see for example Podder and Özerdem, 2015; Specht, 2008; Bowd and Rhea, 2017; UN IDDRS Module 5.20). The fact that ex-combatant youth go through two parallel transitions – not only from soldiers to civilians, but also from children to adults – implies unique challenges for their reintegration process. Those challenges may be particularly pressing for those youths who were recruited into an armed group when they were children and subsequently demobilized as young adults, referred to in recent DDR literature as Child Mobilized-Adult Demobilized combatants (CM-ADs). Although they have been de
facto child soldiers during a certain period of time and experienced the same types of
disruptions to their “social, emotional, and educational development”, they enter the same reintegration programs as adults due to the fact they fall under the same legal category (Bowd and Rhea, 2017: 8).
Another noteworthy development is the growing prominence of so called based reintegration (CBR) programs, aimed at fostering social cohesion at the community-level by targeting not only ex-combatants but also other groups, such as refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) (Asidieu 2012; Transition International, 2015). While there is widespread consensus among scholars and policymakers on the virtues of such approaches, it is less clear why CBR matters for the particular population of CM-ADs. The theoretical argument of this thesis is situated at the convergence of the two debates on the reintegration of CM-ADs on the one hand, and the design and implementation of CBR
1
This is the definition agreed upon in the UNSC Resolution 2250 on Youth, Peace and Security. The literature review will elaborate further on different definitions of youth.
5 approaches on the other. In combining a set of existing theories from several distinct disciplines, including peacebuilding, sociology and developmental psychology, I argue that communities can play a particularly vital role in the social reintegration of CM-ADs. The rationale underpinning this claim is that youth in general tend to have a strong need for a sense of social belonging (Cotterell, 2007), and this need is supposedly even more salient for CM-ADs who have spent a formative period of their lives in a military environment, often characterized by strong social cohesion and clearly assigned roles (Kirke, 2010). When communities provide strong social support systems and have high socioeconomic absorptive capacity, they “can help to cater for youth’s demand for life skills, education, and vocational training, endowing them with a sense of belonging” (Kemper, 2005: 11). Conversely, communities characterized by unemployment, low social cohesion, and weak social support systems can be particularly detrimental to youth and CM-ADs, as youth have been shown to be more prone to recidivism (Kaplan and Nussio, 2018a). Due to the dual transitions that CM-ADs experience and the challenges that these transitions imply, well-functioning communities are arguably of vital role importance to this group.
In order to explore these theoretical assumptions in further detail, a qualitative case study was carried out in Colombia, with a special focus on the urban setting of Bogotá. Colombia is a country known to host a significant amount of CM-ADs, as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and other leftist guerilla groups have been recruiting children into their organizations over the past decades (Podder and Özerdem, 2015). Furthermore, Colombia has organized its current reintegration efforts along two distinct “tracks” – the individual “Ruta de Reintegración” (RdR) and the collective “La Reincorporación” –, thereby also making it an interesting case to study from the perspective of CBR policies. The main research question that this thesis seeks to answer is “What challenges do CM-ADs face in their social reintegration into the urban setting of Bogotá?”. In addition, it also looks into the following two sub-questions: (1) “How do CM-ADs in Bogotá relate to their receiving communities?”, and (2) “How do Colombian CBR strategies interplay with the individual-centered RdR?”. This last question is of a more factual character and stemmed from a curiosity with regard to how the objective of social reintegration is pursued by targeting ex-combatants on an individual basis. The methods applied to study these questions were mainly narrative and semi-structured interviews with Colombian CM-ADs as well as practitioners representing the Colombian Agency for Reintegration (ARN), conducted during a fieldtrip in May 2019. The findings indicated that the main challenges that CM-ADs in Bogotá face are the high levels of social stigma associated with being an ex-combatant, the psychosocial
6 ramifications of having grown up in and been socialized into an armed group, as well as the low socioeconomic absorptive capacities in urban recipient communities in Bogotá. The interviews also revealed a tendency of CM-ADs to keep their social circles small and refrain from activities at the community-level. This tendency was traced back to the experienced stigma as well as fear of reprisals from remaining FARC members, which placed restraints of CM-ADs opportunities and willingness to engage with the broader communities into which they resettled. As for the interplay between the targeted RdR and the CBR strategies, the findings demonstrated that the latter are implemented as a complement to the former. Furthermore, it appears that the targeted, individual approach enjoys a somewhat higher status due to the fact that the RdR is mandatory whereas participation in CBR strategies takes place on a voluntary basis. Nonetheless, the RdR also includes mandatory activities at the community-level. In sum, the empirical findings lead me to conclude that communities do indeed play a vital role for CM-ADs, considering that two of the identified challenges impeding their social reintegration were to be found at the community-level; i.e. the rejection they experience from fellow community members as well as the low socioeconomic absorptive capacities in receiving communities. The fact that CM-ADs pointed out stigma as the main challenge is interpreted as an indication of this population’s urge to feel more part of their communities. It should be clarified that I do not suggest that reintegration efforts should focus exclusively at the community-level, given that – as the findings will reveal – CM-ADs (and ex-combatants in general) can benefit greatly from targeted, psychosocial support as well. Rather, I highlight the virtues of mixed approaches to reintegration and unpack why communities matter for CM-ADs. The main contribution of the study lies in the development of an expanded theoretical lens through which to make sense of how the social reintegration of CM-ADs can be influenced by and, in turn, influence community relationships.
The thesis is divided into six chapters and proceeds as follows: Firstly, chapter two provides a more elaborate definition of DDR and outlines a brief history of how the field of practice has evolved since it first came into being. Chapter three consists of a literature review, situating the thesis in its academic context, followed by a theoretical framework laying out the argument of this thesis. Subsequently, chapter four describes and motivates the methods used to conduct this study and discusses their limitations. Chapter five presents and analyzes the findings from the fieldtrip, and, lastly, chapter six provides some conclusive remarks and reflects on theoretical and practical implications of the findings.
7 2. Background: The definition and evolution of DDR practice
The following section outlines the UN definition of DDR and its different components and also includes a brief account of how the practice has evolved since its inception, in order to provide some relevant background information and situate the thesis in its global policy context. By contrast, the subsequent literature review places the paper in its academic context and recounts how scholars have theorized around practical developments. Historically, the DDR field has tended to be marked by an incongruity between practice and theory, but this scholar-practitioner gap is fortunately diminishing (Molloy, 2017).
DDR consists of three distinct but interrelated components, namely disarmament, demobilization and reintegration. Disarmament principally concerns the collection and disposal of weapons circulating among ex-combatants and civilian populations, whereas the central aim of demobilization is to formally discharge combatants from their military structures. The latter tends to take place in temporary centers or cantonment sites. As for the definition of the reintegration component – the main focus of this study – , it is “the process by which ex-combatants acquire civilian status and gain sustainable employment and income” and “essentially a social and economic process with an open time-frame, primarily taking place in communities at the local level” (UN Secretary-General, 2005; UN IDDRS, 2006, 2.10: 5). Furthermore, the UN emphasizes that reintegration programs cannot be implemented as stand-alone interventions but must be connected to the broader peacebuilding and reconciliation project of a post-conflict country, which often “necessitates long-term external assistance” (UN IDDRS, 2006, 2.10: 5). The reintegration component is divided into three sub-categories, notably economic, social and political reintegration. Whereas economic and political reintegration is typically assessed based on indicators such as employment and participation in democratic processes, social reintegration regards the acceptance from and participation in receiving communities (UN IDDRS, 2006, 4.30).
The practical development of DDR programs converged with the broadened scope of UN peacekeeping missions by the end of the Cold War. As these missions were becoming increasingly occupied with state-building and post-conflict reconstruction, the demand for DDR programs increased rapidly (Paris and Sisk, 2004). On a conceptual level, the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (UN DPKO) has divided the history of DDR programming into two different “generations” (UN DPKO, 2010: 3). The difference is explained in the following way: “Whereas traditional DDR focuses mainly on combatants that are present within military structures, the focus of Second Generation programmes shifts away from military structures towards the larger communities that are affected by armed
8 violence” (UN DPKO, 2010: 3). The community perspective developed in response to some severe criticism directed against the first wave of DDR programs, which in some cases allegedly exacerbated inter-group tensions in the very communities where they sought to bring stability (Colletta and Muggah, 2009). While ex-combatants – often perpetrators of war-time violence – received targeted socioeconomic support of various kinds, other marginalized community members – i.e. civilians – were not eligible for the same type of assistance (Podder and Özerdem, 2015). The CBR approach therefore emphasizes the importance of fostering social cohesion at the community-level and involving not only ex-combatants but also other groups, such as refugees and IDPs. Another central principle is that community members themselves should participate in and be able to exercise influence over the design and implementation of reintegration policies (Transition International, 2015; Asiedu, 2012).
In 2006, the UN published the first version of the so called Integrated DDR Standards (IDDRS); a policy document providing policymakers and practitioners with guidelines with regard to the design and implementation of DDR programs (IDDRS, Module 1.10)2. The IDDRS are not supposed to be interpreted as a doctrine on “how to do DDR” but rather as a toolbox of potential interventions that need to be tailor-made according to every specific context (IDDRS, Module 2.10; Molloy, 2017). The IDDRS includes one module which specifically regards youth in DDR programming, which states that “DDR programmes should design specific measures for young ex-combatants, and not assume that their needs resemble those of older adults” (IDDRS, Module 5.20: 3). Yet, in practice, many DDR programs still fail to recognize the special needs of this group (Bowd and Rhea, 2017).
3. Literature review and theoretical framework
Since DDR gained its status as an integral part of international peace operations, an extensive body of academic literature has also developed in relation to the practice. Scholars have studied factors affecting the likelihood of ex-combatant recidivism, gendered biases and implications of DDR programs, and how ex-combatants’ wartime experiences shape post-war behavior (see for example Themnér, 2013; Jennings, 2007; Humphreys and Weinstein, 2004). The literature review provided in section 3.1 below begins with a brief explanation of some of the broader theoretical assumptions that underpin DDR as a field of practice. Given the research question and sub-questions of this thesis, the ensuing sub-sections look into two
2Over the last years, a comprehensive process of updating the IDDRS – including the module on youth – has been undertaken, led by the so called Inter-Agency Working Group on DDR. The new version is to be published in August 2019 (Kingma, 2019).
9 relevant clusters within the DDR research; firstly, the position of youth in reintegration programs, and secondly, the role of communities in processes of reintegration.
While many scholars and practitioners have already highlighted the benefits of CBR approaches in DDR programming, as will be made evident in the literature review, research on the relationship and unique dynamics between CBR and youth remains limited. In the theoretical framework that follows after the literature review, the main argument of this thesis – that CBR is of particular relevance for CM-ADs – will be elaborated on. The thesis contributes to theory development by combining and building on a set of existing theories from several distinct disciplines, including peacebuilding, sociology and developmental psychology.
3.1 Literature review
Theoretical foundations of DDR
The period following the signing of a peace agreement tends to be paved with a number of security-related challenges that threaten to jeopardize a country’s peace process and ultimately lead to conflict relapse. For example, there is often a large number of easily accessible small arms circulating in post-conflict societies that risk ending up in the hands of ex-combatants or civilian populations. Furthermore, when a rebel group has been defeated and dissolves, if often leaves large groups of marginalized people without employment. If the opportunities for alternative means of sustainment are meager, it may give rise to widespread feelings of frustration and exclusion as a consequence of unemployment (Kingma, 1997; Banholzer, 2014). Another imminent dilemma is the oftentimes low levels of trust between previously warring parties and commitment issues related to the implementation of peace agreements (Walter, 2009).
DDR can be conceived of as a kind of confidence-building measure, aimed at establishing “a level of trust between parties to the conflict that will encourage the belief that the decision to cease the conflict is real and not just a ploy to permit consolidation” (Molloy, 2017: 17). The objective of DDR programs is essentially to create incentives for ex-combatants to commit to an alternative way of life which is more beneficial than the return to an armed group would be. As one author puts it, “effective programs ultimately have to persuade ex-combatants that peace pays off, for both society as a whole and, more important, for them as individuals” (Kemper, 2005: 11). Implementers of DDR programs strive after this objective by offering various kinds of support to ex-combatants, such as cash payments, vocational training, education and/or psychosocial support. DDR is an “inherently political process” in
10 which “the political will from both internal and external actors is an imperative for the successful implementation of reintegration policies and programmes” (Podder and Özerdem, 2015: 44). The failure by a government to deliver on provisions of a DDR program risks leading to even higher levels of distrust and a return to violence (Molloy, 2017). It should be noted, however, that our understanding of how to achieve successful reintegration remains limited. In the words of Podder and Özerdem, “Few academics and practitioners can confidently claim knowledge on what works, what does not, what alienates and what integrates” (Podder and Özerdem, 2015: 39). Furthermore, the indicators against which “successful” DDR should be assessed is a contested question in and of itself. Advocates of the so called minimalist approach argue that DDR should focus on short-term, security-related objectives, such as the collection of weapons and the provision of reintegration packages. In the dominant maximalist view, on the other hand, DDR is should be a comprehensive, development-oriented, and long-term project (Waldorf, 2012).
Youth in the reintegration literature
In reviewing the literature the reintegration of ex-combatant youth, it is necessary to begin with an introduction to some conceptual definitions of this particular group. In a comprehensive volume on “Youth in Conflict and Peacebuilding”, Sukunya Podder and Alpaslan Özerdem (2015) identify three dominant approaches to defining youth, i.e. the age-specific, the social constructivist, and the physiological. The first approach conceives of youth as a group of people falling into a specific age-span. For statistical purposes, this approach is often adopted by international organizations. While there is no universally agreed upon age-specific definition of youth, the one employed by the UN in Resolution 2250 on Youth, Peace and Security holds that youth are people between the age of 18 and 29 (UNSC, 2015). As for the social constructivist approach, it is less occupied with age and rather views youth as a socio-cultural construct which varies across contexts (De Waal and Argenti, 2002). In this view, the transition from being a child to an adult is “an active, social process” that is subject to “a process of negotiations between individuals, family members, peer groups and the wider community in the context of life events and rites of passage” (Mawson 2004: 226). Finally, the physiological perspective conceptualizes youth as “a transitional stage in life between childhood and adulthood”, defined by certain physical conditions (Podder and Özerdem, 2015: 3).
In their above mentioned volume on “Youth in Conflict and Peacebuilding”, Podder and Özerdem devote one chapter specifically to examine current discourses and practices related
11 to the reintegration of ex-combatant youth. The authors argue that both in theory and in practice, ex-combatant youth have tended to be “projected either as vulnerable and in need of protection or as perpetrators with the potential to un-leash large-scale violence” (2015: 39). In their view, this discourse creates a problematic dichotomy which either demonizes or infantilizes combatant youth. They further argue that “the broader discourse on ex-combatant reintegration generally, and reintegration of young people specifically, suffers from the inability to view youth as political capital or to focus on their development in positive terms” (Podder and Özerdem, 2015: 41). McMullin similarly argues that “The mere presence of youth in the global South is construed as dangerous, destabilising and crippling to development” and that youth have often been portrayed as “sleeper agents ready to be activated into violence at the flip of a switch” (2011: 760). Nonetheless, the conclusion is not to abandon youth-sensitized interventions in reintegration programs but rather to acknowledge youth’s agency and ensure their active influence over their process of reintegration to a greater extent (McMullin, 2011).
Bowd and Rhea (2017) look into a specific population of ex-combatants who were recruited into armed groups as children and subsequently demobilize above the age of 18, and are hence legally considered adults. The authors refer to these as Child Mobilized-Adult Demobilized (CM-AD) combatants and argue that this group faces a set of unique challenges in their reintegration into receiving communities (which are not necessarily the same as their communities of origin). In DDR programming, there is a clear distinction in programs aimed at the reintegration of child soldiers on the one hand and the reintegration of adult combatants on the other. The distinction is grounded in international law, according to which the recruitment of children into armed groups is classified as a war crime. This implies – among other things – that reintegration programs for children have different time frames and scopes (Module 5.30, 2006: 1). According to Bowd and Rhea, the sharp child-adult dichotomy in DDR programming is problematic from the perspective of CM-ADs. While they have experienced similar “disruptions to their social, emotional and educational development” as child soldiers, “they often shoulder responsibilities others of their age are not facing or are better prepared for” (2017: 8-9). Furthermore, due to their legal status as adults, CM-ADs are expected to behave as such in spite of the above mentioned disruptions. These expectations may come from other community members but also, oftentimes, from CM-ADs themselves. While emphasizing the need to recognize youth’s agency, Podder and Özerdem share the view that this group faces unique challenges in post-conflict reintegration. They state that “the fallouts of conflict participation can be both different as well as more wide-ranging for
12 children and youth than their adult counterparts. These differences are particularly observed in the areas of mental health impacts, loss of education, lack of skills, and deep-rooted socialization into violence that make it difficult to transition into non-violent civilian roles” (2015: 47).
Communities in the reintegration literature
At this point, the importance of engaging local communities and adopting bottom-up approaches in peace initiatives – as opposed to top-down, externally imposed interventions – has been widely recognized in academic literature on peacebuilding (see for example Autesserre, 2014; De Coning, 2018; Van Tongeren, 2018). When it comes to the DDR field more specifically, the theoretical assumption underpinning the shift from individually-focused programs to the community-based approach is that the roots of conflict are often to be found at the societal level, and consequently, any attempt to solve or mitigate such conflicts should also address that level (Podder and Özerdem, 2015). In research on causes of armed conflict, it has also been argued that perceived “horizontal inequalities” – i.e., inequalities across culturally defined groups – can accentuate and spur conflicts (Stewart, 2008). Against this backdrop, CBR aims at fostering social cohesion and improving relations between former combatants and other community members.
Several DDR scholars have highlighted the virtues of the community-based approach to reintegration. Alpaslan Özerdem, for one, argues that “For effective reintegration, particularly in post-conflict contexts with deep and wide societal divisions, the community-based social reintegration approach would be the most comprehensive way of addressing ex-combatants’ needs and aspirations” (2013: 234). Irma Specht further contends that “the reintegration of ex-combatants cannot be achieved in isolation from the communities in which they will live” (Specht, 2008: 2). One intricate problem when it comes to engaging and addressing local communities in DDR, however, is the fact that in many post-conflict contexts, there does not exist any organized community to reintegrate into. Podder and Özerdem have pointed out that in spite of the upsurge in CBR policies in the recent decade, there is often “a complete lack of critical inquiry into what ‘community’ is in a post-war context” (2015: 46). Protracted violent conflicts tend to disrupt livelihoods and result in a loss of human and social capital; a kind of “sociological superglue” which “involves networks within society, norms, and especially trust, to enable collective action” (Putnam, 2011; Kilroy and Basini, 2018: 350). The CBR approach therefore also recognizes the need to rebuild communities, reconstruct their social capital and local institutions as part of the reintegration process (Podder and Özerdem, 2015).
13 Kaplan and Nussio (2018b) recently conducted a study on the role of communities in the social reintegration of ex-combatants in Colombia, with a special focus on participation. Whereas many previous studies had assessed levels of social reintegration by looking at the extent to which receiving communities accept returning combatants, they argue that ex-combatants’ participation in those communities is a more relevant indicator. According to the authors, this is because participation “is a more personal, local, and sustained form of social reintegration than the mere perception of social acceptance”, seeing as participation “has the potential to durably enmesh ex- combatants in civil society and transform potential spoilers in a personalized way” (2018: 136; 2018: 147). Their main hypothesis (for which they find support) is that communities with a participatory culture and robust patterns of organization are more likely to achieve successful social reintegration, simply because there are more opportunities for ex-combatants to participate in various social contexts. A community’s level of organization is viewed as an indicator of its social “absorptive capacity” (de Vries and Wiegink, 2011). In the reintegration literature, this term is typically associated with economic conditions in receiving communities – e.g. whether there are opportunities for employment, enough land for food provision etc. – but the authors thus suggest that a community’s absorptive capacity can also relate to its levels of social organization (Kaplan and Nussio, 2018b; De Vries and Wiegink, 2011). By contrast, disorganized communities characterized by a “culture of distrust” (Sztompka, 1999) limit opportunities for social participation and thus increase the risk of recidivism. By supporting and reinforcing social networks, CBR strategies can therefore make communities more resilient to violent conflict (Kaplan and Nussio, 2018b).
Whereas the discourse on CBR has predominantly been positive, some voices have also been raised nuancing the debate and highlighting that CBR may come with certain drawbacks, also with a special regard to the reintegration of youth. Podder and Özerdem argue that there is a risk that reintegration programs at the community-level will “reinforce pre-existing gerontocratic power structures” which may ultimately disadvantage youth and exclude them from decision-making processes (Podder and Özerdem, 2015: 46). Collective, non-targeted assistance also risks overlooking “the fact that different experiences of conflict necessitate different types of interventions. The result could be driving beneficiaries into vocational training or public works programmes that deliver few long-term benefits to youth and do little to enable their agency” (Podder and Özerdem, 2015: 46). The authors conclude that there are mixed drawbacks and benefits of both targeted- and CBR approaches (Podder and Özerdem, 2015).
14 3.2 Theoretical framework: The vital role of communities in the social reintegration of CM-ADs
The theoretical argument of this thesis is situated at the convergence of the two parallel debates described above, on CBR on the one hand and youth’s post-conflict reintegration on the other. In light of what has previously been written on the subject, it departs from the assumption that youth – and particularly those falling under the CM-AD category – is a population subject to a unique set of challenges in the face of a post-conflict reintegration process. Although AM-ADs have doubtlessly also experienced various types of social disruptions and face many similar socioeconomic challenges as CM-ADs, these challenges are supposedly more salient in the case of the latter. This assumption is made due to a number of experiences and psychosocial characteristics that define CM-ADs as a group. First of all, CM-ADs have spent a formative period of their lives living together with an armed group, and hence begun constructing their adult identities in a context marked by violence and militarism. From this it follows that their familiarity with “peacetime skills and norms” is limited (Bowd and Rhea, 2017: 4). Secondly, being recruited into an armed group as a child soldier often implies missing out on important opportunities for education (IDDRS Module 5.20). A lack of educational attainment has been found to be one of the main variables in explaining ex-combatant recidivism (Kaplan and Nussio, 2018a). Thirdly, research within developmental psychology has shown that the part of a human being’s brain known as the prefrontal cortex – performing functions such as reasoning, planning, judgment, and impulse control – is not fully developed until we reach the age of 25 (Arain et. al, 2013). In other words, from a strictly physiological point of view, youth may be less inclined to make rational decisions and successfully manage their transition into a civilian way of life than AM-ADs. All these conditions combined supposedly make the reintegration process more difficult for a CM-AD combatant than for somebody who has been able to grow up, go to school, learn practical skills, and develop their identities in times of peace. In sum, the fact that they undergo two parallel transitions – not only from soldiers to civilians but also from children to adults – arguably has implications for their reintegration process. Recalling the different approaches to defining youth, as outlined in the literature review above – the age-specific, the social constructivist and the physiological – this thesis draws on all of these approaches.3
Scholars of developmental psychology have also argued that youth who find themselves in a transitional stage between childhood and adulthood have a particularly strong need for a
3
In line with the UN definition, I interviewed CM-ADs between the ages of 18 and 29 years old, as will be noted in the subsequent methodology chapter.
15 sense of social belonging to a group. Therefore, a central concern of youth tends to be “fitting in and gaining acceptance” from their peer groups (Cotterell, 2007: 99). Moreover, research from social psychology on young refugee populations – who, similarly to CM-ADs, have often experienced disruptions “to their social, emotional and educational development” (Bowd and Rhea, 2017: 8) – have shown that “establishing a sense of belonging to their family and community, and to their country of resettlement is essential for [their] wellbeing” (Correa-Velez et al., 2010). Given the fact that youth in general are characterized by a strong need for social belonging, it is conceivable that CM-ADs experience this need even stronger. They have been socialized into and become acquainted to a military environment, often characterized by strong group cohesion and hierarchal command structures where members have clearly assigned roles (Kirke, 2010). Taking all this into consideration, it seems likely to assume that CM-ADs is a population with a particularly salient need for strong social support systems upon leaving the familiar environment of the armed group and embarking on a reintegration trajectory. If such support systems are not available, there is a risk that “young people continue to live with the same frustrations and therefore remain vulnerable to re‐ recruitment or engagement in criminal networks and activities” (Specht, 2008: 7). A comprehensive study recently carried out in Colombia found that age was one of the variables correlating with recidivism (Kaplan and Nussio, 2018a). One possible explanation for this might be that youth’s “feelings of exclusion and drive for independence” can be “easily manipulated and exploited for military purposes” (Kemper, 2005: 10). In other words, a desire to socially belong to a group can be one of the forces at play in mobilization processes of youth. Several studies have also found that ex-combatant youth “are noted to rely on wartime social networks, especially unit commanders, after conflict for survival and employment” (Podder and Özerdem, 2015: 47). Previous research has also showed that “unemployed, demobilized young men, socialized into violence and brutality during war, are more likely than others to form gangs, particularly in urban areas” (De Watteville, 2002: ix). Once again turning to the field of developmental psychology, evidence shows that peer rejection increases the risk of young people engaging in violence (Cotterell, 2007). If they have no alternative networks to join in their communities, and no sense of belonging to that community, there is an imminent risk that CM-ADs will face difficulties committing to their reintegration process. Societal networks are important for ex-combatants in general, but arguably for CM-ADs in particular, because of their “longing to belong” to a group, combined with a propensity to reengage in criminality and violence.
16 Another dimension of the argument relates to the setting into which CM-ADs reintegrate. Previous cross-cultural research has shown that reintegration programs have been more successful in rural settings than in urban environments. The theory offered to explain this relationship maintains that rural areas tend to have stronger supporting societal networks (Kingma, 2000; Molloy, 2017). Why do networks matter, then? In studies of social psychology, it has been argued that social networks have a significant impact on our well-being because they can provide life meaning and role satisfaction, emotional support, practical and logistical support, feedback, and normative incentives (Sluzki, 2010). In Sluzki’s study, “normative incentives” refer to behaviors related to maintaining a good personal health. When it comes to community characteristics of reintegrating CM-ADs, such incentives could rather translate into norms like “civic mindedness, collective responsibility, solidarity and interdependence between those who involve themselves in [CBR] activities” (Bowd & Özerdem, 2013: 465). Another author similarly notes that “communities can help to cater for youth’s demand for life skills, education, and vocational training, endowing them with a sense of belonging” (Kemper, 2005: 11). Taking all this into account, this thesis makes the case that adopting a youth-sensitized, community-based approach to reintegration programming is particularly relevant for the needs of CM-ADs reintegrating into an urban environment. In urban settings, where societal networks and thereby also the aforementioned “absorptive capacity” are typically weaker, CBR strategies can arguably serve to provide platforms where community members – ex-combatants as well as non-combatants – can come together to form new networks and reconstruct social capital. The previously referred to “culture of distrust” (Sztompka, 1999) can at least to some extent be mitigated by way of engaging different groups of people in joint projects. As accounted for in the literature review, DDR came about as a confidence-building mechanism aimed at establishing trust between parties to the conflict. Such confidence-building needs to occur at the local level as well, between former combatants and the communities into which they resettle. Finally, as a point of clarification, I do not argue that reintegration programs should exclusively focus on the community-level or that targeted support should be less prioritized. Rather, I highlight why community support matters for CM-ADs and unravel some of the special dynamics between this population and their communities.
17 4. Research design and methodology
The following chapter introduces the research design and methodologies applied in seeking to examine the reintegration-related challenges faced by CM-ADs in Bogotá, as well as their relationships with receiving communities. The chapter is divided into three distinct sub-sections, where the initial section 4.1 explains the scientific model that has guided the research process and justifies why the specific case of Colombia is relevant to study in this context. The subsequent section 4.2 outlines and motivates the choice of methodologies and also provides a discussion of their limitations. Finally, in section 4.3, I describe the different ethical considerations that have been made in the course of the research project.
4.1 Research design: A reflexive approach to studying social reintegration
This thesis represents a qualitative, theory-driven single-case study. The scientific model that has guided the research process is what sociologist Michael Burawoy has referred to as “reflexive science” (1998). One of the defining principles of reflexive science is that it “takes as its premise the intersubjectivity of scientist and subject of study” (1998: 4). In other words, it postulates that social scientists cannot separate themselves from the world that they study. Doing research requires some kind of intervention and this intervention will inevitably have an impact on the context that is being examined. Besides, the argument goes, interventions are not necessarily all bad since active engagement and disruptions of the ordinary can often generate interesting findings. In the words of another author, “the most advanced form of understanding is achieved when researchers place themselves within the context being studied” (Flyvbjerg, 2004: 429). This line of reasoning stands in contrast to the positive model of science, which holds that researchers should attempt to detach themselves from the environment that they study, minimize the effect of their personal intervention by applying standardized tools, and control for external variables to the maximum extent possible. The two approaches also have different aspirations with regard to what claims to make based on findings drawn from one specific case. Whereas the positive model strives to identify a representative sample to study which allows the researcher to produce conclusions that are generalizable to other cases as well, the reflexive approach embraces the uniqueness of each case. This is because the latter is less “interested in its ‘representativeness’ as its contribution to reconstructing theory” (1998: 16). When it comes to research and policymaking on DDR, the importance of recognizing the uniqueness of each national and local context has been widely recognized at this point. Indeed, one of the main lessons derived from three decades of DDR programming has been that factors explaining success or failure in one context are not
18 necessarily the same in another (IDDRS, Module 2:1: 4). Therefore, it is necessary to underline that my findings about the relationships between CM-ADs and their receiving communities in Bogotá are not believed to be generalizable to all other cases where CM-ADs undergo a reintegration process. Rather, the purpose of the study is to contribute to theory building with regard to the social reintegration of CM-ADs and add to the accumulated collection of theory, which the conclusions chapter will elaborate on in further detail.
The process of social reintegration in Colombia is an interesting case to study from a youth perspective for several different reasons. First of all, the peace agreement between the government and the FARC was signed only a year after the UNSC adoption of Resolution 2250 on Youth, Peace and Security. It has been argued that “This convergence represents an opportunity for Colombia to be an example in building inclusive peace that takes into consideration youth’s aspirations and concerns in the territories” (SCG, 2018: 12). Secondly, Colombia is a case where child soldiers and young people have been recruited into armed groups to a considerable extent, in various leftist guerilla groups such as the FARC (Podder and Özerdem, 2015). Thirdly, as subsequent sections will explain in more detail, the national DDR program in Colombia is unique in the sense that it is clearly divided between a targeted, individually-oriented reintegration process and a collectivist, community-based track. This sharp divide makes the country an interesting case to study in examining relationships between CM-ADs and their receiving communities. Community-based reintegration strategies have been carried out in the country since 2007 (IOM, 2017).
4.2 Methods and ethical considerations
The primary methods for collecting empirical material in order to respond to my research question were narrative and semi-structured interviews. These interviews were conducted during a field visit to Colombia in May 2019. The research was carried out as part of a broader project together with the Swedish agency for peace, security and development – the Folke Bernadotte Academy (FBA). The FBA is a government agency reporting to the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with the overall mission to support international peace processes (FBA, 2019). It should however be clarified that the arguments made and conclusions drawn in this thesis are those of my own and do not necessarily reflect the position of the FBA.
The interviews were conducted with two different categories of respondents; on the one hand, CM-ADs who currently participated in or recently had completed the individual RdR, and on the other, two different categories of practitioners employed at the Colombian Agency
19 for Reintegration (ARN). In the former case, the interviews followed a narrative format since the aim of these meetings was to gather personal accounts of CM-ADs’ experiences of reintegration and community relationships. Narrative interviews are a suitable method when you wish to obtain information which “includes both scenes and events external to the respondent and the respondent’s own thoughts and feelings” (Weiss, 1995: 66). The interviews were organized with the help of ARN staff and mainly took place at the agency’s regional offices in Bogotá. All of the interviewed ex-combatants were former FARC members who fell under the CM-AD category and were all between 18 and 29 years old, i.e. the most recent UN definition of youth. Since I was also interested in gathering more factual information about the interplay between the RdR and CBR approaches, I conducted semi-structured interviews with ARN practitioners specialized on the design and implementation of community-based strategies. In semi-structured interviews, the interviewer “employs a blend of closed- and open-ended questions, often accompanied by follow-up why or how questions” (Adams, 2015: 493). Finally, there is a specific category of practitioners within the ARN referred to as “reintegrators” (reintegradores) who work directly towards ex-combatants on a local level and assist them in the different steps of their reintegration process. Since I expected these practitioners to hold important perspectives on the specific challenges faced by CM-ADs, they were identified as a relevant population to interview. A total number of five interviews were conducted – three out of which were with CM-ADs and two with ARN experts on CBR strategies – as well as one focus group meeting, where I met with five CM-ADs and two reintegrators.4 The implications of the limited amount of interviews will be discussed in the final chapter. Seeing as I do not speak Spanish, I had an interpreter by my side during all my interviews. In order to avoid respondents’ original stories going lost in translation, I asked the interpreter to review my transcripts and re-listen to audio files to correct any potential errors. Finally, in addition to the empirical data collected during the fieldtrip, the study has also drawn on various policy documents – e.g. reports by the ARN and the International Crisis Group (ICG) –, scholarly journals, and news articles in order to present necessary background information on the Colombian conflict and reintegration process.
Just like any other research method, interview studies come with a set of advantages and drawbacks which all have important implications for my conclusions. The main strength of an interview study is that respondents can provide the researcher with in-depth information and
4
Out of the CM-ADs who participated in the focus group, I interviewed two individually later on, which implies that I met with a total number of six CM-ADs.
20 personal accounts of the topic examined. This is especially the case with narrative interviews, which do not follow a predetermined, standardized template of questions but rather an open-ended format which puts the respondent’s story in focus. A commonly referred to limitation of interview studies, on the other hand, is the inevitably subjective positions of both researcher and respondent and the effects these have on the results. This is commonly referred to as interview effects; how “interviewer characteristics (for example, race or gender) or the interview schedule itself (for example, order or form of questions) significantly affect responses” (Burawoy, 1998: 12). My position as a white, middle-class woman without Spanish language skills may very well – indeed, is likely to – have had an impact on the dynamics between me and the respondents. If another researcher with different characteristics were to conduct the same interview – even if the questions were the same and asked in the same order – they may receive somewhat different answers. However, recalling the reflexive approach as defined by Burawoy, it holds that research in social sciences is inherently intersubjective and no standardized tools can fully control for context effects. Rather, the reflexive model recognizes that “interviews cannot be isolated from the political, social and economic contexts within which they take place” (1998: 12). Moreover, “context is not noise disguising reality but reality itself” (1998: 13).
Throughout this research project, a number of pressing ethical concerns have been taken into consideration. First of all, demobilized combatants in Colombia are a group of people facing very real threats. The decision of an ex-combatant to lay down their weapon and enter a reintegration process is a controversial one, as it is often considered by remaining members of armed groups and criminal gangs as an act of betrayal. In recent years, Colombian ex-combatants who have participated in demobilization and reintegration programs have been subject to intimidation, physical threats and sometimes even murder (Kaplan and Nussio, 2018b; Briscoe et al, 2011). According to the UN Secretary General’s latest quarterly report on Colombia, 85 FARC ex-combatants have been killed only since the signing of the peace agreement in 2016 between the guerilla group and the government (UNSC, 2018). Thus, ensuring the anonymity of the respondents was of utmost importance in this study. This was done by anonymizing the data collected during interviews and allowing respondents to choose a pseudonym to be used when bringing in quotes in the final thesis. The names used when citing respondents in this thesis are not the persons’ real names. Furthermore, an informed consent form was handed out at the beginning of each interview which provided some basic information about the research project and underlined that that respondents have the right to
21 withdraw their consent at any time. It also asked for their permission to record the interviews – which all of them agreed to – and informed about the ways in which the data would be used.
Another important ethical aspect that was taken into account in planning my interviews was that some of the respondents, i.e. CM-ADs, may suffer from some degree of psychosocial trauma. Considering that I hold no professional expertise of how to communicate about trauma, I consciously formulated my questions so as to focus on specific aspects of youth’s
post-conflict experiences and roles. My main role during interviews with ex-combatants was
to engage in active listening and, as previously mentioned, I clarified at the beginning of each interview that respondents may choose to abstain from answering questions at any time if they wished. Finally, seeing as I am formally employed at the FBA, I follow under the agency’s “Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct”. This document includes a number of provisions on how FBA employees should (and should not) behave whilst in the field. Among other things, it states that “I am aware that my professional role as well as my presence can mean that I have a position of power in relation to my surroundings, and I shall not use that relation in an unduly manner” (FBA, 2018).
5. Findings and analysis
In the following chapter, the empirical findings from the aforementioned fieldtrip to Bogotá will be presented and analyzed. Before delving into these findings, however, the initial section 5.1 provides some necessary background information on the evolution of DDR approaches in the Colombian context. In the subsequent section 5.2, the contemporary parallel processes of reintegration and reincorporation are explained, partly drawing on information from policy documents and partly on interviews with ARN staff. Section 5.3 addresses the sub-question regarding the interplay between Colombian CBR policies and the individual-centered RdR. Considering the fact that the RdR targets ex-combatants on an individual basis, while also working towards the social reintegration of ex-combatants into their receiving communities (ARN, 2017a), one of the objectives of the thesis was to explore how this plays out in practice. This section therefore looks into how CBR strategies are currently defined and implemented by the ARN and how CM-ADs undergoing the RdR experience the balance between individual and collective components. Finally, and most importantly, section 5.4 presents and interprets findings with regard to the two most central questions of this study, i.e. the challenges that CM-ADs face in their social reintegration back into the urban setting of Bogotá and how CM-ADs in Bogotá relate to their receiving communities. This section is organized around three different themes that were identified in the empirical material
22 collected via the interviews, namely (1) social stigma and its implications for CM-ADs’ community relationships, (2) the psychosocial ramifications of having grown up in and been socialized into an armed group, and (3) the low socioeconomic absorptive capacity in receiving communities of Bogotá. Given that the material gathered through the interviews constitutes my main source of data, a considerable amount of quotes by CM-ADs and ARN practitioners have been incorporated into sections 5.3 and 5.4.
5.1 A brief historical overview of DDR in the Colombian context
For more than half a century, Colombia has been entwined in protracted armed conflict between the government and a myriad of non-state actors, including paramilitary right-wing groups, leftist guerilla movements and criminal gangs involved in the drug trade. The country was in a state of civil war for over half a century, which officially came to an end in 2016 with the signing of the peace agreement between the national government and the country’s largest and longest standing guerilla; the FARC. Two and a half years later, however, several provisions of the peace accord have yet to be implemented and levels of violence are once again on the rise. This violence is mainly perpetrated by Colombia’s last remaining guerilla group, the National Liberation Army (ELN), as well as various criminal gangs, often targeting human rights activists and indigenous local leaders (HRW, 2019). Factors contributing to the perpetual state of conflict include pronounced social inequalities, political exclusion of marginalized groups, the lucrative (and more thriving than ever) drug trade and production of coca crops, a strong rural-urban divide, land grabbing, as well as widespread corruption on all levels of government (Briscoe et al., 2011; ICG, 2017).
Since the 1990’s, four DDR processes have taken place in Colombia (Molloy, 2017). According to the ARN, a total number of 59 906 combatants had undergone a national DDR program in the years between 2003 and 2018 (ARN, 2018b). The country’s DDR efforts were institutionalized under the presidency of Alvaro Uribe, who in 2003 installed a new unit within the Ministry for Internal Affairs known as the “Program for the Reincorporation into Civilian Life of Illegal Armed Groups” (PRVC). The unit was tasked with the design and implementation of a collective DDR program targeting the paramilitary group known as the United Self Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) (ARN, 2016a). In 2006, the PRVC changed name to the High Council for Reintegration (Alta Consejería para la Reintegración, ACR), which was to undertake ambitious reforms of the national DDR efforts and adopt a more maximalist approach. This was also the period during which the so called RdR was set up – a reintegration program providing ex-combatants with economic benefits, opportunities to
23 study, vocational training, and psychosocial support on an individual basis, still ongoing to this day (Briscoe et al., 2011). Political commitment to DDR continued to increase as the ACR was transformed from a program within the Ministry of Internal Affairs to an independent government agency in 2011, following the election of President Juan Manuel Santos. This transformation consolidated the position of the ACR and granted it higher levels of administrative and financial autonomy5 (ARN, 2016a). The newly elected President Santos also emphasized the need for a decentralized and community-based DDR process linked to broader peacebuilding efforts and the importance of addressing underlying socioeconomic causes of conflict (Molloy, 2017). Santos’ presidency came to be marked by persistent efforts to negotiate peace with the FARC; a controversial mission that was finally accomplished in August 2016 when an agreement was signed between the two parties, following years of high-level peace talks in Havana (ICG, 2017).
While DDR has been a political priority under presidencies as diverse as Uribe’s to that of Santos’, the national approach to the practice has varied significantly depending on the incumbent government. Under Uribe’s presidency, the DDR program was part of the national counter-insurgency plan where ex-combatants were given financial rewards in exchange for their provision of military intelligence about the group they had left (Briscoe et al., 2011). As Santos took office, the focus of the DDR process shifted to a more human security-oriented approach aiming for the long-term socioeconomic reintegration of ex-combatants (Molloy, 2017). In June 2018, the presidential elections resulted in the victory of current President, Iván Duque. The election of Duque represents a shift in Colombian politics to a more hardline stance with regard to the peace process. Throughout the President’s political campaign for office, he promised to “modify” the peace agreement with the FARC as he considers the deal to represent an injustice which has offered guerilla members impunity (ICG, 2018). The subsequent section elaborates in more detail on current reintegration approaches in Colombia.
5.2 Contemporary reintegration approaches: The “Ruta de reintegración” and the “Reincorporación”
Since 2016, there are two ongoing reintegration processes in Colombia; the individual “Ruta de Reintegración” and the collective “La Reincorporación”6
, exclusively targeting the FARC. Among many other provisions, the 2016 peace agreement stipulated that the FARC was to
5
In June 2019, the ARN employed 1569 persons, indicating the robustness of the national Colombian DDR infrastructure (ARN, 2019a).
6
Parallel to the reintegration and reincorporation programs, there is also a process for transitional justice aimed at commanders who held higher ranks in the FARC or other groups (WPR, 2018).
24 undergo a collective “reincorporation” process under the auspices of the ACR. For political reasons, the FARC did not agree to enter the already existing individually-focused RdR, as the organization’s leadership feared this would dissolve its structures. As an organization, the FARC is characterized by a strong unitary identity and social cohesion, which was clearly demonstrated in the negotiations regarding the conditions of the DDR program (Gutiérrez-Sanín, 2018). Moreover, the FARC’s leadership also opposed the use of the word “reintegration” as they considered this to imply that its members up until then had been excluded from mainstream society, which they did not consider to be the case. Instead, a collective process – La Reincorporación – was agreed upon, aimed at transforming the FARC from an armed group into a political party. The term “reincorporation” would thus signal the entry of the FARC in Colombian politics. Consequently, the ACR underwent yet another name change and officially became the “Agencia para la Reincorporación y la Normalización”. The reincorporation process also includes components aimed at the social and economic reincorporation of the FARC through collectivist projects, in line with the ideological underpinnings of the group (ARN, 2019b).
Before the peace agreement was signed and the reincorporation process initiated, however, thousands of FARC members had already deserted from the group in order to join the individual RdR (ARN, 2019b). The latter is the primary focus of this thesis and has been implemented since 2009. From the moment when an ex-combatant enters this program, he or she is referred to as a “Person in the process of reintegration” (Persona en proceso de reintegración, PPR). The RdR has a multidimensional focus and is organized along eight different themes. First, there is the personal dimension, which aims to support individuals in redefining their identity and creating a “life plan” within legal boundaries. Second, the
productive dimension focuses on economic aspects and includes vocational training. Third,
the family dimension encourages the PPR to improve family relations and establish “common beliefs” within the family. Fourth, the housing dimension provides the PPR with support to improve his or her living situation. Fifth, the objectives of the health dimension are to ensure that the PPR and his or her family members are tied to the national health system, and that they receive health education. Sixth, the education dimension aims to provide PPRs as well as potential under aged family members with education. Seventh, the citizen dimension strives to ensure that the PPR (1) acquires a personal ID, (2) is aware of his or her legal status, and (3) develops knowledge about the state and its various functions. The eighth and final dimension regards security, and aims to prevent the victimization and recidivism of PPRs. The PPRs discuss their personal “route” together with their assigned reintegrator and is given the chance
25 to focus especially on one or several of the eight dimensions that he or she considers to be of particular relevance (ARN, 2017a). Ex-combatants are offered support via the RdR for a period of up to six and a half years (2019c).
In terms of financial support, PPRs receive a maximum of 480 000 COP (approximately 147 USD) per month during the first two and a half years of their reintegration process, granted that they participate in at least 90 % of activities related to education, vocational training, and psychosocial support. Moreover, PPRs can apply for a grant of 8 million COP (close to 2500 USD) upon completing their reintegration route, in case they wish to buy a house, enroll in higher education or set up a business. The money is paid directly to involved agencies (e.g. universities) rather than to individual ex-combatants themselves (ARN, 2019c). One factor which carries important implications for the type of financial and institutional support that an ex-combatant is entitled to during their reintegration process is the age of the person in question at the time of his or her demobilization. According to Colombian law, anyone who demobilized below the age of 18 is considered a victim of the conflict, whereas ex-combatants who demobilized above the age of 18 are legally conceived of as perpetrators. This implies that minors are granted the right to receive financial compensation from the Colombian Victims’ Unit. This compensation currently amounts to approximately 25 million COP, equivalent to 7800 USD (UARIV, 2019). In addition to the financial compensation they receive from the Victims’ Unit, child ex-combatants are also provided with housing and meals from the Colombian Family Welfare Institute (ICBF), which is the national agency in charge of the reintegration of child ex-combatants. Once a child ex-combatant turns 18, he or she is transferred to the ARN where they enter a specialized reintegration route referred to as the “differentiated approach”. This program has a special focus on family reunification and the creation of a protective environment which promotes the ex-combatant’s physical and mental well-being (ARN, 2018a). In sum, there is a significant difference between the financial and institutional support that child ex-combatants receive vis-à-vis CM-ADs. The sharp dichotomy between children and adults which Bowd and Rhea (2017) have previously problematized is thus present in Colombia, both in terms of their reintegration support and how they are conceptualized as either victims or perpetrators. Nevertheless, as the next section will reveal, the ARN implements certain youth-sensitized policies both on the individual- and at the community-level.
26 5.3 The interplay between the Ruta de Reintegración and Colombian CBR strategies As previously mentioned, the individual-centered RdR has been the modus operandi with regard to reintegration programming in Colombia for one decade. Parallel to the RdR, CBR strategies have also been implemented in the country since 2007 (IOM, 2017). Currently, there are two strategies in place based on the principles of CBR; the so called Community-based Reintegration Model (MRC) as well as the “Mambrú no va a la guerra – Este es otro cuento” (Mambrú does not go to war – This is a different story)7
. While the MRC primarily targets adults, the Mambrú strategy is aimed at children and youth between 7 and 28 years old8, and has a special focus on the prevention of the (re)recruitment into armed groups and criminal gangs (ARN, 2017b). CBR expert Lorenzo from the ARN’s Community Group explains how PPRs become involved in the community-based strategies, as well as how local communities are selected for interventions:
“So we have the individual route and we have the community-based strategies. The way it is formulated in the individual RdR, there is one part that is the work plan which is developed between the reintegrator and the PPR in question. And this RdR has certain goals within its eight dimensions, and these goals depend of course on the individual's profile. One of the dimensions is the ‘citizenship dimension’, which largely corresponds to the line of work dealing with citizenship training in the community strategies. So, when the reintegrator identifies that there is an individual who needs or wishes to prioritize this dimension, or who has an interest in leadership issues, that’s when they become engaged in these processes […]. One of the criteria that we take into account whenever we identify or prioritize a territory for intervention is the number of PPRs who live in a given municipality, neighborhood, or local area. We see that for some demobilized, there is a need to work with this dimension and so we offer these scenarios that they can work with in their communities.” (Lorenzo, Interview 7 May 2019)
Out of the 20 local districts that Bogotá is divided into, there are currently five prioritized areas in which community-based strategies are being implemented, namely the capital district of Bosa, Kennedy, Ciudad Bolivar, San Cristobal, and Usme. Lorenzo explains that the work starts out with a “participative diagnostic stage, during which we try to identify the needs and opportunities to do a joint work with the different distinct populations who live in that area” (Interview, 7 May 2019). In line with the conceptual definition of CBR (as outlined in chapter two), the MRC and Mambrú strategies engage not only ex-combatants but also members of the broader communities into which ex-combatants resettle. Ex-combatants and other community members come together in a collective process of trying to “reach common
7
The title of the latter alludes to a famous children’s song with the Spanish title “Mambrú se fue a la guerra” (Mambrú went to war).
8
Since Mambrú’s target group with regard to age largely corresponds to that of this thesis, the interviews revolved mainly around this strategy and to a lesser extent the MRC.
