Alexandra Nariño is a member of the Peace Delegation from FARC-EP at the Havana (Cuba) negotiations between the guerrilla movement and the Colombian government led by President Juan Manuel Santos.

She has been dubbed by the media the "Dutch" guerrilla. Indeed Alexandra is a young, Dutch woman. Her real name is Tanja Nijmeijer. She joined the FARC-EP guerrilla ten years ago.

We met her in Havana, during a recession of the negotiations.

Let's begin with the question everybody asks you: what made you join the FARC-EP?

I am glad you ask me this, because you give me the opportunity to answer without the risk of my words being wrongly interpreted or taken out of context. At first glance, and most of all from the point of view of someone born in Europe, I know it is very difficult to understand why we fight for peace with social justice using weapons. I understand it, because I'm Dutch and when I came to Colombia for the first time I had the same concerns. I want to explain my point of view, and perhaps explain a little about my background, and how I made the decision to join the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People's Army, because I think that can also help in creating a better understanding of the situation.

When I arrived for the first time in Colombia, I was a university student and had no political ideas in my head, but I'd always had a social conscience. I also had (and I have) concerns about poverty, inequality.

I would like to comment on a story from my early days in Colombia. I was visiting Bogotá, the capital of Colombia, and went to visit a church, in a neighborhood called the 12th of May. There I saw a horrible scene: A group of about 20 people, in rags, some mutilated, with terrible suffering faces, some crying, all in front of a statue of the Virgin Mary, begging her to bring an end to their suffering. What I felt was anger, grief and desire to help. But, how? I thought of many things, I even created a project to infuse ethical and moral values in Colombian children, because I thought the problem was cultural and idiosyncratic.

But my doubts continued: Was that really the problem? Then, in a long process of studying Colombia’s history, and confronting that knowledge with the reality of the country, I realized that this wasn´t the problem. I learned that in Colombia, since independence from Spanish rule, and with the victory of Santander, there has existed a cruel and violent ruling class that systematically excludes ordinary people from the political, economic and social life of the country, and this is still continuing today.

The peace talks appear to have stalled on the issue of political participation. What does “political participation" mean for the FARC-EP?

Political participation for us is a key issue in the peace process that we are now undertaking with the government of President Santos, because the existence of state terrorism in Colombia has never allowed political participation from below. That is precisely the reason why our armed uprising was necessary. The struggle for land has been, from the beginning, one of our main battle flags. However, we always wanted to conduct this struggle through peaceful means, and we knocked on all the doors to do so. But all doors were closed on our face, violently. A gesture with which the government told us: "We will not surrender our wealth, our lands to the farmers who need it. In this country, there's no room for people who wish for something other than the current system".

So for this reason there are the weapons, the conflict. If at this time the government, for whatever reason, is obliged to grant us political participation (not only to the FARC-EP, but to all peasant organizations, indigenous peoples, Afro-descendants, in a word to ordinary people ) we have to try and work to bring about the much desired peace for our country.

Which are the proposals put forward by the FARC-EP to favour political participation ?

The FARC-EP, over all this time, have made dozens of proposals to boost political participation. The general title of this specific point of the agreement is political participation for real democratization, peace with social justice and national reconciliation. All proposals are aimed at a general objective, which is the democratization of state structures, for example, there are propsals to redistribute the powers of public authorities, to convert the Armed Forces into a peacekeeping force, to protect national sovereignty. Indeed, the stimulus of social and popular organizations is very important at all levels of political participation. We advocate for the creation of new entities, with autonomy and empowerment, allowing genuine participation in the political life of the country and where people are elected directly. These are just some of the proposals. A complete selection of the proposals can be found on our webpages www.pazfarc-ep.org (in Spanish) or www.farc-epeace.org (in English).

Can you expand on the proposal of a National Constituent Assembly ?

In our proposals we have talked about the need for a National Constituent Assembly as a mechanism for ratifying the agreements. A Constituent, that is, which will see a representative participation of all sectors of society. This, we believe, would be the ideal mechanism to endorse the agreements, as it allows a broad and truly democratic discussion about the agreements. It's like giving the agreements to the primary constituents and let them extend them, approve them or disapprove them. It will also facilitate the necessary constitutional adjustments so that agreements can really be implemented and thus build a just, lasting and stable peace. The discussion on this point really is to be found in point 6 of the Agenda (implementation, verification and ratification), which would look at how it is organized in a way that is truly democratic and participatory.

The Colombian government insists on a referendum instead of the creation of a Constituent Assembly.

Yes, the Colombian government's first response was negative. They advocate conducting a referendum, but I repeat: this is a discussion we should have when we get to discuss point 6 of the agenda, not now. What we have said is that a referendum falls short as a mechanism for ratification. First because the partial agreement on the first point alone is about 20 pages long: too much to be answered to with a simple "yes" or "no". Second, because there are few exceptions (outstanding issues) that require a comprehensive discussion by all sectors. The FARC -EP believe there is nothing to fear from a broad participation of all the people. A Constituent Assembly should not scare anyone.

After almost one-and-a-half years of exploratory meetings between the two parties, in August 2012, the government and FARC-EP agreed on an agenda for the peace talks: the General Agreement for the Termination of the Conflict and the Construction of a Stable and Lasting Peace.

The Agenda consists of a preamble, in which the two parts establish criteria according to which the discussions should be held: “The construction of peace is an issue concerning society as a whole that requires the participation of everybody, the respect for human rights is a goal of the State's that should be promoted; economic development with social justice and in harmony with the environment is a guarantee of peace and progress; social development with equality and well-being for all, including the great majorities - all of these would allow us to grow as a country, a Colombia in peace that would play an active and sovereign role in regional and global peace and development, and the amplification of democracy as a condition to achieve solid bases for peace”.

The Agreement lists six issues that should be addressed in order to move the the peace talks forward. These are: 1) An integral agricultural development policy 2) political participation 3) an end to the fighting 4) a solution to the problem of illicit drugs 5) victims and 6) Implementation, verification and ratification.

After fourteen rounds of exchanges the FARC-EP has put a mimimum of around 200 proposals on the Table to solve rural problems, and the problems of Political Participation and citizenship. Although a little more than 25 pages of partial agreements have been made, the scope is modest. The recent national agrarian and popular strike corroborates the social dissatisfaction and discontent, which tells us that we are right and expresses the correctness of the proposals we have taken to the Table for discussion.The 19 dead and 850 wounded, and the hundreds of reported detained and prosecuted during this strike, make an agreement on sufficient guarantees for opposition for social organizations and movements that are now in the streets demanding their rights even more urgent.