Introduction

Since World War II came to an end in 1945, the number of interstate wars constantly

decreased. However, conflicts inside countries, or intrastate conflicts, have occurred

more frequently and taken over the majority of type of conflict (UCDP 2024). Intrastate

conflicts pose global and regional security concerns, since they often have ramifications

outside the conflict-affected countries. Such factors as global terrorism, religious

extremism, ethnic relations, ideological tensions, and natural resources drive state

failure to address grievances, especially for independent states that inherited colonial

legacies of the past.

Responses to counteract against the immense forces of conflict have existed. In 2000s,

after decades of violence, the two countries – the Philippines and Colombia - came to

declare their commitment to peace globally by signing peace agreements to resolve

their conflicts in their own countries. Despite the geographical distance, the two

conflicts share some similarities. First, conflicts in both countries have their origins in

the legacy of Spanish colonialism, which left profound difficulties in relations between

indigenous (and marginalized) populations and the dominant groups. Second,

discriminatory treatment against the local communities and the distribution of land and

resources since the colonial period caused discontent, with the dominant groups

controlling the majority of wealth and power. Third, both countries experienced violent

conflicts in the 1960s that involved armed groups – MNLF/MILF in the Philippines and

FARC-EP/ELN in Colombia – seeking self-determination in the form of independence

or autonomy from the central government.

More importantly, the two countries share the similar experiences of conflict resolution.

First, the two countries for a long time sought to resolve their national conflicts but

faced serious challenges due to structural factors from political, economic and social

conditions that formed complexity. Nevertheless, their repetitive failures in

negotiations and attempts to resuscitate talks led to practical approaches by dealing with

grievances through civic participation, redistribution of wealth, recognition of ethnic

diversity, etc. Second, neighboring countries in their regions facilitated negotiations and

demonstrated regional support for the peace process. Indonesia and Malaysia assisted

the Mindanao (Philippine) Peace Process by facilitating communication between the

two conflicting parties, as Cuba, Chile and Venezuela did the Colombian peace process.

Third, other third parties outside the regions played crucial roles in mediating the

negotiations. This includes states like Norway in both conflicts, United States for

Colombia and Japan for the Philippines, international governmental organizations like

the UN in Colombia and EU in the Philippines, and many other international non-state

actors. In a nutshell, the Philippine and Colombian peace agreements as records of

international communication with global, national and local actors have significance in

understanding how today’s world can achieve peace to guarantee sustainability of

humankind.