Interview
As an official Permanent Accompanier in the dialogue between the Government of Colombia and the EMC-FARC (EMBF) guerrilla group, the World Council of Churches (WCC) continues to play a vital role in supporting peaceful solutions to longstanding conflict.
Below, Jenny Neme, WCC deputy special envoy to the peace dialogue table; Dr Humberto Shikiya, WCC senior advisor for peacebuilding in Colombia, and Rev. Dr Fernando Enns, member of the WCC executive and central committees, reflect on hopes and challenges related to the future of the WCC’s work in Colombia.
This is the second interview in a two-part series.
What are some challenges on the horizon?
Neme: I want to stress that we are facing a race against time. The current government’s term ends on 6 August 2026, and many processes are therefore advancing with urgency in order to reach agreements. The government’s bet is that these agreements will be irreversible—that is, not dismantled with the arrival of a new administration. That irreversibility depends to a large extent on whether the Temporary Location Zones become fully operational and are supported by solid judicial guarantees. However, serious doubts remain, as there is still no sufficiently clear legal framework to ensure their sustainability under a future government.
Shikiya: We are in a transitional phase. In 2026, a second stage will begin. This new phase will require a major effort in at least two directions.
The first is to continue supporting the role of the WCC as a permanent accompanying actor in the dialogue process between the government and the EMBF. There is a historical accumulation here: it was precisely through this path that the WCC began its work, and it is important that it remains visible and active.
The second direction is discernment. We are entering a phase that demands a high level of discernment, because this process will unfold in an electoral context. The year 2026 will likely be the most politically charged moment of the peace process. Discernment is therefore essential, including clarity about with whom discernment is undertaken, given the multiplicity of actors connected to the WCC.
These actors include the international community: embassies, governments, the United Nations, and multilateral organizations. Among them are the European Union, Germany, Switzerland, Norway, Venezuela—also a participant at the same table—Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, the Nordic countries more broadly, Finland, and the United Kingdom. Japan and Spain are also part of this network of relationships.
I would also highlight the strategic importance of the WCC’s relationship with the Colombian Embassy in Washington, which is especially critical in the current context.
It is also necessary to strengthen inter-church cooperation. With the exception of the experience with FELM—driven largely by the initiative of the Finnish government and its mediation center—this field requires much more deliberate activation. It is essential to bring into dialogue the inter-church cooperation actors present in Colombia.
This discernment should not be limited to cooperation agencies based in Bogotá or Colombia, but should also extend to those whose headquarters are in Europe and North America.
Another fundamental axis of discernment is the relationship with the Catholic Church and with other churches that are not part of the ecumenical movement in Colombia but have a very strong territorial presence. DiPAZ has played a key role in this accompaniment.
Finally, a fourth key issue is sustainability. How do we ensure sustainability throughout 2026 and project it into 2027 and 2028?
How does this fall into the context of the WCC’s Pilgrimage of Justice, Reconciliation, and Unity?
Enns: This is the context in which we are trying to “walk in these big shoes,” guided by what we call the Pilgrimage of Justice, Reconciliation, and Unity. This metaphor helps clarify – to ourselves and to others – that our engagement is not simply political advocacy. As a global fellowship of churches, we are called to walk with the people of Colombia. We recognize that what happens in Colombia affects the international community, just as decisions taken internationally have direct consequences for Colombia.
Understanding our work as a pilgrimage also means recognizing that no one walks alone. It is a shared journey. Spiritually, it sends a powerful message to the churches in Colombia: you are not alone; the international community walks with you. At the same time, it reminds the international community that violence and injustice in Colombia affect us all. When one person is killed in Colombia, the whole body is wounded.
The pilgrimage metaphor remains central. It reminds us that this is not about portraying Colombians as passive victims in need of rescue. The people of Colombia have agency. Often, our role is to amplify their voices—voices that are too often silenced, people who are too often rendered invisible.
Image
From left: Dr Humberto Shikiya, Jenny Neme, Rev. Dr Fernando Enns.
WCC
What are some perspectives on the long-term outlook?
Enns: First of all, it is important for us, as the WCC, to understand that when we become involved in peace processes – no matter how complex – they are processes we enter with the intention to stay. Governments and political actors come and go, shaped by elections and shifting interests. Churches, by contrast, are called to long-term commitment.
As we look ahead to Colombia’s elections next year, this perspective is especially important. Regardless of the outcome, the WCC is committed to remaining engaged. Election results may influence our working methods, styles, or partnerships, but they do not alter our fundamental commitment. Peacebuilding is never a short-term endeavor; it always requires sustained, long-term involvement.
When we look at wars in Gaza, Ukraine, or Sudan, churches are present everywhere. The question is not whether churches are there, but how they understand and exercise their role. The people of Colombia offer us a powerful lesson in this regard, reminding us of our calling and our potential as churches united in peacebuilding. This includes being a prophetic and critical voice—speaking together, with courage, against the principalities and powers that continue to believe that war can be an option.
What are some of the biggest challenges that lie ahead?
Shikiya: For me, the central challenge of the transition toward 2026 is how, in such a highly political year and in a process of this nature, civil society can be strengthened in preparation for what lies ahead. But beyond that, how civil society can be strengthened through the proposals it is able to construct, and how those proposals can be channeled—not only through the dialogue tables, but also through future or newly elected members of Congress.
I believe that the prophetic voice of civil society must be accompanied by a propositional voice. This requires a learning process that, at this moment, demands a willingness to listen to peasant organizations, Afro-descendant communities, youth and women’s organizations, both at the territorial level and within the national networks that make up civil society.
Neme: The immediate future requires us to undertake a critical analysis—without, of course, losing our pastoral and humanitarian perspective—but also incorporating a more explicitly geopolitical lens. In the Colombian case, this means not only observing internal conflict dynamics, but also regional dynamics, relations with the United States—which are particularly complex—and the threats looming over the region, such as the risk of military intervention.
In this sense, it is indispensable to carry out a political and geopolitical analysis of the near future. Who occupies the presidency will be decisive, particularly in shaping future relations with the United States. Peace agendas must therefore be informed by these factors. It is not enough to focus solely on internal dynamics; the regional and international context must also be taken into account.
Secondly, when reflecting on Colombia’s peace processes, it is crucial to maintain a multi-level perspective. One of the major lessons of the peace process with the FARC, which culminated in the 2016 agreements, is the need for sustained investment in territorial peace. When the Colombian state fails to reach its territories, conditions are created for the continuation and escalation of armed conflict.
Peace cannot be understood merely as the silencing of guns or the reintegration of armed actors into civilian life. Structural issues must be addressed: land, human rights, comprehensive attention to victims, environmental concerns, and illicit economies—all of which are fundamental to any peace agenda. Addressing these issues requires concrete responses from the state, involving the judicial system, legislative bodies, and different levels of government.
As churches, we must also maintain a critical stance on these matters, without abandoning our vocation to accompany those who suffer—particularly the civilian population caught amid the multiple harms generated by armed conflict.
Finally, we face a major challenge in how we understand security. Under the current government, at least at the conceptual level, there was progress in incorporating the notion of human security into the peace agenda. However, insufficient effort was made to translate this concept into practice. Once again, a militarized logic of security is gaining ground, especially as new technologies of war—such as drones and other high-precision mechanisms—become increasingly prevalent.
Peace process in Colombia: what is the WCC’s current role? (WCC interview, 8 January 2026)
WCC deepens commitment to peacebuilding efforts in Colombia (WCC news release, 11 December 2025)
