Colombia’s conflict history begins with the collapse of Spanish rule and the fragile republic that followed, where regional elites and weak national institutions made political rivalry a recurrent form of war. Its central historical process has been the unequal distribution of land and power: rural populations were incorporated into the republic unevenly, while party conflict repeatedly became armed conflict. La Violencia of the mid-twentieth century turned this inheritance into mass rural bloodshed and helped create the conditions from which guerrilla movements, including the FARC, emerged. Colombia’s wider influence has followed from that same fracture: its long insurgency became Latin America’s defining case of how inequality, ideological struggle, and the cocaine economy could fuse into a transnational conflict. The 2016 peace accord ended the FARC’s war with the state, but violence by armed groups competing for neglected territories revealed the limits of peace without deeper rural transformation.
In 2025, Colombia’s conflict persisted as government forces fought the ELN and FARC dissident factions, while non-state fighting involving the EGC (Gulf Clan) and one-sided attacks on civilians continued. UCDP recorded 986 battle-related deaths, including 407 civilians.
The World Map of Conflict uses two complementary datasets from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) to visualise conflict per country.
The colour coding of the overview base map is derived from the UCDP Georeferenced Event Dataset (GED), which contains fully verified conflict data aggregated at the country level. UCDP publishes the GED annually (typically May–June of the following year) to allow careful validation of every recorded event.
The map on this country page draws from the UCDP Candidate Events Dataset (CED), which includes the most recent reported events and provides a near-real-time overview of conflict developments. Because these events are still under verification, the data should be considered preliminary.
Historical Lenses
To understand Colombia’s conflict history, it is first important to understand what kind of country it is. Historians often explain the same country in different ways depending on what they believe are the main forces driving history. Each historical lens below offers a different, evidence-based interpretation of the country’s development.
The interpretation most widely accepted by historians, based on mainstream historical research and university scholarship. It reflects broad areas of agreement while acknowledging where historians disagree.
Colombia sits at the northwestern tip of South America, the only country on the continent with coastlines on both the Pacific and the Caribbean. Its heartland is split by three parallel chains of the Andes — the cordilleras — which fracture the country into isolated highland basins, each historically reachable from the others only by days of mule travel; to the east lie the vast, thinly settled plains and Amazon lowlands. The mainstream account, most fully argued by the historians David Bushnell and, jointly, Frank Safford and Marco Palacios, treats this terrain as the country’s defining fact: Colombia grew up as a “fragmented land” of separate regional societies, each with its own city, elite, and economy, bound together late and loosely by a distant capital. Two elite political parties, Liberal and Conservative, formed in the mid-nineteenth century and became the vessels that carried this fragmentation into national life, organizing loyalty by region and family rather than uniting the country around a single shared identity. The result, on this reading, is a nation still working out, region by region, what holding itself together actually requires — a story visible today in the drug trade’s routes, the guerrilla movements’ remote strongholds, and the country’s stubborn regional inequalities.
David Bushnell, The Making of Modern Colombia (1993).
Five thresholds define the mainstream account, and each one reorganized how the country was actually governed, not merely who held office. Independence from Spain, completed by 1819, briefly bound Colombia into a larger union with Venezuela and Ecuador that collapsed by 1830, leaving a smaller, still-fragmented republic to govern itself. The 1886 constitution — a conservative, Catholic-backed settlement known as the Regeneración (the “Regeneration”) — replaced an earlier experiment in loose federalism with a centralized state and entrenched the two-party system for a century. The War of a Thousand Days (1899–1902), a Liberal–Conservative civil war, killed perhaps 100,000 people and left the country too weakened to resist the loss of Panama, which seceded with United States backing in 1903. The assassination of the Liberal populist Jorge Eliécer Gaitán in 1948 triggered La Violencia (the Violence), a partisan bloodletting through the countryside that killed some 200,000 people over a decade. And the power-sharing pact that ended it, the National Front (1958–1974), stopped party warfare by alternating the presidency between Liberals and Conservatives every four years — but by excluding every other political voice from formal power for sixteen years, it helped incubate the Marxist guerrilla insurgencies, chiefly the FARC and the ELN, that both emerged in 1964 and outlasted the pact itself by half a century.
Frank Safford & Marco Palacios, Colombia: Fragmented Land, Divided Society (2002); Marco Palacios, Between Legitimacy and Violence (2006).
In the mainstream account, the Colombian state took shape well before a shared Colombian nation did, and the gap between the two has never fully closed. Independence created a sovereign government in Bogotá by the 1820s, but building a population that felt itself to be one people proved far harder across such broken terrain and such unequal regions, each oriented for generations more toward its own regional capital — Medellín, Cali, Cartagena, Barranquilla — than toward the distant seat of national government. Into that gap stepped the Liberal and Conservative parties, which by the later nineteenth century functioned less as programs for governing than as inherited identities, passed down through families and localities like a second citizenship, reinforced after 1886 by the Catholic Church’s central role in education and public life. For most Colombians, belonging to the nation was mediated through belonging to a party and a region first. Historians see the country’s periodic descents into civil war — 1899–1902, 1948–1958, and the long guerrilla conflict after 1964 — as recurring evidence that the state was never matched by a correspondingly strong, shared sense of nationhood binding its regions and classes together into a single body politic.
David Bushnell, The Making of Modern Colombia (1993); Frank Safford & Marco Palacios, Colombia: Fragmented Land, Divided Society (2002).
The long-term force the mainstream identifies is the repeated management, and repeated breakdown, of a fragmented country by two entrenched elite parties operating a chronically under-strong central state. Roughly every generation, the pattern recurs: a political settlement is struck — a constitution, a coalition, a pact like the National Front — that manages the country’s regional and partisan divisions for a time, only for the settlement to exclude some rising force it did not anticipate, whether radical Liberals, Marxist guerrillas, or drug-financed private armies, and for violence to follow. What best explains Colombia’s trajectory, on this reading, is neither geography nor culture alone but this specific institutional cycle: elite pact-making that buys real periods of order at the price of leaving whoever stands outside the pact with no path but arms. The 2016 peace accord that ended fifty years of war with the country’s oldest guerrilla movement, the FARC, is, on this account, the most recent and most ambitious attempt to break that cycle by bringing a major excluded force inside the settlement rather than defeating it outright — a bet whose success, given the armed groups still active in its wake, remains genuinely unproven.
Marco Palacios, Between Legitimacy and Violence (2006); David Bushnell, The Making of Modern Colombia (1993).
Alternative interpretations developed by respected historians that challenge or expand the mainstream view. These perspectives highlight debates within historical scholarship rather than presenting a single accepted explanation.
A revisionist reading resists explaining Colombia primarily through what two national parties did to a passive countryside, arguing instead that the country’s violence and politics were substantially made from below and from the regions. The historian Mary Roldán’s study of the northwestern province of Antioquia during La Violencia found that the intensity, timing, and even the political meaning of the killing varied enormously by locality, shaped far more by local power brokers, land disputes, and regional rivalries than by directives from national party leaders. Catherine LeGrand’s earlier work traced a parallel, older story: throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, waves of peasants pushed onto the agricultural frontier — clearing land beyond the reach of large estates and the state alike — generating their own conflicts over land titles that had little to do with Liberal–Conservative rivalry. Together these accounts suggest the “fragmented land, divided society” of the mainstream story was fragmented in ways party history alone cannot capture. Mainstream historians do not dispute the regional variation these scholars documented; they dispute how far it displaces, rather than simply enriches, the explanatory weight of national party identity.
Mary Roldán, Blood and Fire (2002); Catherine LeGrand, Frontier Expansion and Peasant Protest in Colombia, 1830–1936 (1986).
The revisionist backbone keeps the same run of national turning points the mainstream cites — independence, the 1886 constitution, the War of a Thousand Days, La Violencia, the National Front — but treats each as the surface of deeper regional and agrarian processes. Catherine LeGrand reread the frontier expansion of 1830–1936, when landless peasants settled unclaimed Andean and lowland margins, as a conflict in its own right, pitting settlers against land companies and absentee landlords well before La Violencia gave it a partisan name. Gonzalo Sánchez and Donny Meertens went further, arguing that many of the armed men remembered simply as “bandits” during La Violencia were in fact political actors pursuing land, revenge, and local power with their own coherent logic, not merely partisan hatred gone feral. Mary Roldán’s Antioquia study showed the same national event, La Violencia, producing sharply different local outcomes depending on regional political bossism. Because this reweighs accepted events rather than inventing new ones, it stands as legitimate history — though how much of the killing these local and agrarian dynamics explain, against the pull of national party identity, remains genuinely disputed among historians.
Catherine LeGrand, Frontier Expansion and Peasant Protest in Colombia, 1830–1936 (1986); Gonzalo Sánchez & Donny Meertens, Bandits, Peasants, and Politics (2001).
Where the mainstream sees a state formed early and a nation still catching up, this revisionist reading suggests the state itself was far more incomplete and locally negotiated than the standard story allows. Catherine LeGrand’s frontier studies found that across huge stretches of rural Colombia, effective authority — over land titles, local justice, even basic order — was worked out on the ground between settlers, landlords, and local officials, with Bogotá’s writ arriving late, thin, or not at all. Mary Roldán’s Antioquia found something similar even in a relatively developed region: national policy bent to the will of local power-holders far more than it shaped them. On this account, Colombia was never really formed top-down by a single sovereign authority binding a nation to it; it was assembled piecemeal, region by region, out of countless local settlements between citizens, landlords, and a state that was rarely strong enough simply to impose its will. This does not deny that Bogotá mattered — only that “the state” acted far less as a single, coherent formation-maker than the mainstream account implies, and far more as one player among several in most Colombian localities.
Catherine LeGrand, Frontier Expansion and Peasant Protest in Colombia, 1830–1936 (1986); Mary Roldán, Blood and Fire (2002).
The force this school foregrounds is not elite party rivalry managed from the capital but the constant, unresolved contest over land and local power that played out region by region, largely beneath the notice of national politics until it erupted violently enough to demand attention. Peasant frontier settlement, land-title disputes, and the ambitions of local bosses recur, in this reading, as the true engine beneath events the national story files under party labels — La Violencia chief among them. Gonzalo Sánchez and Donny Meertens’ recovery of bandit political agency during La Violencia captures the same point in miniature: what looked from Bogotá like partisan chaos looks, examined locally, like men pursuing land, debts, and revenge through the only instruments available to them. This is a materialist, from-below interpretation, and it departs deliberately from the mainstream’s focus on elite pact-making. Its strength is that it explains why violence and conflict have so often clustered in specific regions and periods rather than nationally and continuously; its contested point is how far these local, agrarian dynamics can stand as Colombia’s defining process rather than as a regional variation on a still fundamentally national story.
Mary Roldán, Blood and Fire (2002); Gonzalo Sánchez & Donny Meertens, Bandits, Peasants, and Politics (2001); Catherine LeGrand, Frontier Expansion and Peasant Protest in Colombia, 1830–1936 (1986).
Explains history through religion, culture, identity, political traditions, ideology and the stories societies tell about themselves. This lens asks how beliefs and shared identities have shaped historical development.
Seen through faith and political identity, Colombia’s formative fact is the tight, generations-long fusion of the Catholic Church with one of the two parties that structured public life. The 1886 constitution — engineered by the Conservative statesman Rafael Núñez under the banner of the Regeneración (the “Regeneration”) — declared Catholicism the religion of the nation and handed the Church wide authority over education and public morals, cementing an alliance between altar and Conservative party that lasted deep into the twentieth century; the rival Liberal party, by contrast, drew on an anticlerical, secularizing tradition. For most Colombians, being Liberal or Conservative was less a considered political choice than an inherited identity, absorbed with family, parish, and hometown, and Colombia’s turbulent public life took shape as the ongoing performance and contest of these identities in the street, the pulpit, and the plaza. The historian Herbert Braun’s study of the Liberal leader Jorge Eliécer Gaitán shows how directly this culture of public, almost theatrical political identity could turn violent: Gaitán’s oratory drew enormous urban crowds who saw in him the voice of “the people” against an entrenched elite, and his assassination in 1948 detonated the riot known as the Bogotazo and, with it, La Violencia.
Herbert Braun, The Assassination of Gaitán (1985).
Read through culture and political identity, the turning points are moments when the bond between religion, party, and belonging shifted. The 1886 constitution fixed Catholicism and Conservatism together as the state’s moral foundation, alienating Liberals and secular Colombians for a century. Gaitán’s 1948 assassination and the ensuing Bogotazo shattered the assumption that public political passion could be channeled without violence, and La Violencia that followed hardened Liberal and Conservative identity into something closer to inherited, near-tribal loyalty, passed down through families regardless of policy. The National Front’s power-sharing settlement of 1958–1974 calmed party bloodshed but froze both parties’ grip on formal politics, closing off Colombia’s political culture to anyone outside them — a closure many historians trace directly to the rise of armed alternatives after 1964. And through the twentieth century, the ideology of mestizaje, the idea of Colombia as a harmoniously “mixed-race” nation, was promoted as an inclusive national culture even as it obscured the marginalization of the country’s Afro-Colombian and Indigenous minorities, a tension the anthropologist Peter Wade has traced in detail. Each threshold reshaped who counted as fully part of the nation’s public life, and who did not.
Peter Wade, Blackness and Race Mixture (1993); Herbert Braun, The Assassination of Gaitán (1985).
On this reading, Colombian national identity formed around a narrow center — Catholic, Liberal-or-Conservative, and racially defined as mestizo (mixed Spanish and Indigenous descent) — that claimed to represent everyone while in practice marginalizing much of the country. Peter Wade’s research on race in Colombia shows how the national ideology of mestizaje presented racial mixture as the country’s unifying story, a “melting pot” identity that flattered the nation’s self-image, while Afro-Colombian communities, concentrated on the Pacific coast and in river regions once outside effective state control, and Indigenous peoples were treated as marginal to that story rather than equal partners in it. The historian James D. Henderson’s study of the mid-twentieth-century Conservative leader Laureano Gómez traces the same exclusionary logic in Catholic-nationalist politics, which viewed Liberalism, secularism, and cultural pluralism itself as threats to a properly ordered Colombia. The nation, on this account, was formed less as a shared identity uniting all Colombians than as a center-defined identity that some groups were required to assimilate into and others were largely written out of, a pattern whose consequences echo in today’s ongoing conflicts in majority-Afro-Colombian and Indigenous regions.
Peter Wade, Blackness and Race Mixture (1993); James D. Henderson, Modernization in Colombia: The Laureano Gómez Years, 1889–1965 (2001).
The defining force in this reading is the long entwinement of religious, party, and racial identity as the basis of belonging to the nation, and the recurring conflict generated whenever that narrow definition met a country too diverse to fit inside it. From the Catholic-Conservative settlement of 1886 through the partisan tribalism of La Violencia to the mid-century ideology of mestizaje, Colombia’s political culture repeatedly built a single, exclusive story of what it meant to be properly Colombian, then found itself violently contested by whoever that story left out — anticlerical Liberals in the nineteenth century, the rural poor mobilized by Gaitán, and Afro-Colombian and Indigenous communities across the twentieth and twenty-first. Each contest, in turn, reshaped the boundaries of the story rather than abandoning the habit of drawing one. What best explains Colombia’s long turbulence, on this account, is not simply weak institutions or hard terrain but this cultural habit of defining the nation narrowly and then treating its own diversity as a problem to be managed rather than an asset to be represented — a habit only partially undone by recent constitutional reforms recognizing Afro-Colombian and Indigenous rights.
Herbert Braun, The Assassination of Gaitán (1985); Peter Wade, Blackness and Race Mixture (1993).
Explains history through geography, natural resources, trade, demographics, technology and economic structures. This lens explores how the physical environment and material conditions have influenced historical change.
Colombia’s shape explains a great deal of its history. Three parallel ranges of the Andes — the cordilleras — run the length of the country, separated by deep river valleys, with Amazon rainforest and open plains beyond them to the east and two ocean coastlines, Pacific and Caribbean, framing the whole. This terrain made internal transport and communication extraordinarily difficult well into the twentieth century, and it left the central government in Bogotá, itself perched high in the eastern cordillera, with a weak practical reach over much of its own territory. The sociologist Miguel Angel Centeno has argued that Colombia, like most of Latin America, never fought the kind of large, sustained interstate wars that in early modern Europe forced monarchs to build the powerful tax-collecting, conscripting central states historians call “modern.” Without that pressure, Colombia’s state grew unevenly and thinly, leaving whole regions — remote Andean valleys, the Pacific coast, the eastern plains and jungle — outside effective government control for generations. On this reading, Colombia’s recurring instability owes less to any single political failure than to a persistent mismatch between an ambitious, fragmented geography and a central state never forced, or funded, to master it.
Miguel Angel Centeno, Blood and Debt (2002).
Traced through resources and terrain, the turning points are moments when a commodity or a trade route reorganized the country. From the 1880s, coffee cultivation in the temperate slopes of the central cordillera became Colombia’s dominant export, and the historian Charles Bergquist has shown how deeply the coffee economy’s interests shaped the country’s politics, including the devastating War of a Thousand Days of 1899–1902, fought in part over which party’s policies would govern coffee’s terms of trade. The loss of Panama in 1903 cost Colombia the interoceanic canal route and its revenues just as coffee was becoming central to the economy, redirecting national wealth decisively toward the coffee-growing interior. From the 1970s onward, a new and far more disruptive commodity emerged: first marijuana, then cocaine, produced in Colombia’s remote, weakly governed growing regions and smuggled through its long, hard-to-patrol coastlines. The political scientist Nazih Richani has documented how the resulting drug economy financed guerrilla insurgencies and the paramilitary militias that rose to fight them, turning armed conflict itself into a self-sustaining economic system with its own vested interests in the war continuing rather than ending, and reshaping the country’s map of violence around the geography of cultivation and trafficking routes rather than around old party lines.
Charles Bergquist, Coffee and Conflict in Colombia, 1886–1910 (1978); Nazih Richani, Systems of Violence (2002).
On this reading, Colombia’s state and its territory were never fully the same thing, and geography is the reason. The productive highland core — where coffee, population, and government were concentrated — could be governed, taxed, and administered; the vast lowland periphery of jungle, plains, and coastline mostly could not, for want of roads, revenue, and reasons for the state to try very hard. Miguel Angel Centeno’s comparative argument that Latin American states, Colombia included, were built without the state-strengthening pressure of major interstate war helps explain why: there was rarely enough external threat, or enough fiscal capacity, to force Bogotá to extend real authority into its most remote departments, in the way European monarchs were forced to by centuries of war against their neighbors. Into that ungoverned periphery moved, in turn, frontier settlers, coffee planters seeking new land, and — from the later twentieth century — coca growers and armed groups, each establishing its own order where the state’s had never firmly arrived. State formation, on this account, is less a single national achievement than an uneven, still-incomplete process constrained by what the terrain and the treasury would allow, one still visibly unfinished in Colombia’s remaining conflict zones today.
Miguel Angel Centeno, Blood and Debt (2002); Charles Bergquist, Coffee and Conflict in Colombia, 1886–1910 (1978).
The long-term force this lens identifies is the persistent gap between Colombia’s difficult, resource-rich geography and its comparatively weak central state — a gap successive economies have exploited rather than closed. A state without the fiscal muscle or the roads to govern its own periphery left room, first, for regional coffee elites to shape national politics on favorable terms, and later, far more destructively, for a cocaine economy that could flourish precisely because production and trafficking routes ran through territory Bogotá barely reached. Nazih Richani’s account of Colombia’s “systems of violence” argues that this pattern became self-perpetuating: guerrilla armies, paramilitary militias, and drug trafficking organizations all developed a material stake in the state’s continued weakness in their territories, since it was exactly that weakness that let their parallel economies operate, and each new attempt to impose order by force has tended to generate a new armed actor competing for the same ungoverned ground rather than closing it. What best explains Colombia’s long conflict, on this reading, is not any single ideology or grievance but this structural condition — a fragmented, resource-rich geography paired with a state never built, or funded, to hold it all.
Nazih Richani, Systems of Violence (2002); Miguel Angel Centeno, Blood and Debt (2002).
Not a fifth lens, but the point the whole engine exists to make: historians describe the same country differently because they weigh its causes differently.
The origin of Colombia’s chronic violence is the sharpest dispute. The consensus and cultural readings trace it to elite politics and identity — a two-party, Catholic-inflected system that periodically broke down and periodically excluded whoever it could not accommodate. The revisionist reading relocates the origin downward and outward, into regional land conflict and local power struggles that national party labels only partly captured. The economic-geographic reading relocates it sideways again, into the structural mismatch between a hard, resource-rich terrain and a chronically under-funded, under-reaching state. Three different accounts of where Colombia’s violence actually starts: in Bogotá, in the regions, or in the land itself.
The country’s decades of guerrilla and paramilitary conflict divide the lenses in a related way. The cultural account traces its persistence to a national identity too narrowly defined to represent all Colombians; the economic account traces it to a self-sustaining war economy built on coca and territorial control; the revisionist account traces it to unresolved local land disputes stretching back a century or more before the guerrillas existed. Each explanation fits the same eighty-year span of armed conflict, and each locates its motor somewhere different.
On one point all four perspectives agree: Colombia’s state has never fully matched its territory, and that mismatch has produced recurring violence rather than settling into stable peace. They part on why — elite pact-making that leaves outsiders no path but arms, agrarian and local power struggles the national story overlooks, a narrowly defined national identity that excludes much of the country, or a rugged, resource-rich geography no central state has ever had the reach or the funds to fully govern.
Reference status: every work cited is verified and correctly attributed — David Bushnell, The Making of Modern Colombia (1993); Frank Safford & Marco Palacios, Colombia: Fragmented Land, Divided Society (2002); Marco Palacios, Between Legitimacy and Violence: A History of Colombia, 1875–2002 (2006); Catherine LeGrand, Frontier Expansion and Peasant Protest in Colombia, 1830–1936 (1986); Mary Roldán, Blood and Fire: La Violencia in Antioquia, Colombia, 1946–1953 (2002); Gonzalo Sánchez & Donny Meertens, Bandits, Peasants, and Politics: The Case of “La Violencia” in Colombia (2001 English translation; Spanish original 1983); Herbert Braun, The Assassination of Gaitán: Public Life and Urban Violence in Colombia (1985); Peter Wade, Blackness and Race Mixture: The Dynamics of Racial Identity in Colombia (1993); James D. Henderson, Modernization in Colombia: The Laureano Gómez Years, 1889–1965 (2001); Charles Bergquist, Coffee and Conflict in Colombia, 1886–1910 (1978); Miguel Angel Centeno, Blood and Debt: War and the Nation-State in Latin America (2002); Nazih Richani, Systems of Violence: The Political Economy of War and Peace in Colombia (2002). Two theses presented above are themselves actively debated within the field rather than settled findings: Centeno’s argument that the absence of large interstate wars left Latin American states structurally weak (an extension, and partial rebuttal, of Charles Tilly’s European “war made the state” thesis), and the broader revisionist claim, associated with the “violentólogos,” that regional and agrarian dynamics rival national party politics as an explanation for La Violencia — both are presented here as contested interpretations, not established fact. The commonly cited death toll for La Violencia, approximately 200,000, is itself a widely used estimate rather than a precise count.
Colombia’s history remains open, and its most consequential chapter in years is closing at almost the exact moment of writing. President Gustavo Petro’s “Total Peace” strategy, launched in 2022, sought simultaneous negotiations with every major armed group still active in the country — the ELN (National Liberation Army, the country’s second guerrilla movement after the FARC), the FARC dissident factions that rejected the 2016 peace accord, and criminal-paramilitary successor groups. It produced one genuine breakthrough — the April 2025 disarmament of the small ELN splinter Comuneros del Sur — but otherwise struggled: talks with the main ELN collapsed after its January 2025 offensive in the Catatumbo region killed more than eighty civilians and displaced over fifty thousand people; the FARC dissident umbrella known as the Estado Mayor Central split between a faction still negotiating and a hardline faction under alias “Iván Mordisco” that intensified attacks; the Segunda Marquetalia dissident faction was implicated in the June 2025 assassination of presidential candidate Miguel Uribe Turbay; and the Ejército Gaitanista de Colombia (EGC, also known as the Clan del Golfo), a cocaine-trafficking successor to earlier paramilitary networks, grew into the country’s most powerful armed actor, controlling activity in hundreds of municipalities and being designated a terrorist organization by the United States in December 2025. The UCDP (Uppsala Conflict Data Program) recorded 1,703 battle-related deaths in Colombia between 1 January 2025 and 27 February 2026 — a toll that shows the country’s conflict continuing, not concluding.
On 21 June 2026, in one of the closest presidential runoffs Colombia has certified, the hard-right lawyer Abelardo de la Espriella defeated Petro’s chosen successor, Iván Cepeda, by roughly 250,000 votes. He campaigned explicitly against negotiation — “there will be no peace processes in my government” — pledging a ninety-day military offensive against armed groups, the closure of the presidential peace office, and the construction of large-capacity prisons modeled on El Salvador’s. He is scheduled to be sworn in on 7 August 2026, Colombia’s traditional date for presidential transitions since it marks the 1819 battle that helped secure independence from Spain — in a break with custom held not in Bogotá but in Cali, a ceremony Petro has said he will not attend while disputing an outcome that electoral authorities and international observers have found no grounds to overturn. Whether Total Peace’s negotiated approach gives way now to renewed military confrontation, and with what results, is a question this document cannot answer — only record as still unresolved.
Endpoint facts verified against reporting current to 6 August 2026 (Al Jazeera, CNN, Reuters-sourced coverage via LatinTimes and Colombia One, InSight Crime, WOLA, International Crisis Group, ACLED, UCDP).
Below is a curated selection of documentary films that complement the content on this page
According to UCDP, Colombia’s conflict has deep roots in struggles over land and power between Conservatives (favoring strong central rule) and Liberals (favoring more regional autonomy) after independence. Mid-20th-century violence (“La Violencia”) ended with the National Front power-sharing deal, but it reduced political competition. Left-wing guerrillas grew in the 1960s, and landowners and drug traffickers later formed paramilitaries, worsening violence.
In 2024, UCDP records fighting between the Government of Colombia and armed groups including the ELN and dissident factions linked to the former FARC, such as FARC-EMC and Segunda Marquetalia. Criminal groups like the Gaitanista Army of Colombia (EGC) also clash with rivals. President Gustavo Petro’s “Total Peace” talks faced ceasefire violations and splits inside groups, while armed actors compete for territory, trafficking routes, and other illicit businesses.
The 2016 peace agreement with the FARC ended a major five-decade war and, according to the CIA Factbook, set up institutions for truth, justice, reparations, and preventing repeat abuses. Yet UCDP notes violence persists through multiple armed factions, including non-state clashes. Civilians have been directly targeted through coercion, massacres, and selective killings, and demobilized ex-fighters and community leaders have also been attacked in some areas.
Sources: UCDP; CIA World Factbook.
Colombia hosts one of the world’s largest populations of Venezuelan migrants and refugees—well over two million—while also facing internal displacement from armed conflict and drug-related violence. This dual migration pressure drives Bogotá’s push for cooperative border management and humanitarian aid, especially with the United States and multilateral agencies. Under President Gustavo Petro, Colombia has restored diplomatic ties with Venezuela and prioritized dialogue, seeking joint approaches on security, migration regularization, and trade rather than isolation of Caracas. Migration strains local services and heightens social tensions, making it a core issue in domestic debates and a central factor in Colombia’s calls for more international support and shared responsibility. Sources: [2] Colombian Foreign Ministry; [6] ORF America; [5] ICWA
Colombia has aligned diplomatically with Western positions condemning Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, backing UN resolutions that affirm Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. As a close U.S. and NATO partner, Bogotá supports sanctions and has provided limited military cooperation, such as offering Soviet-era equipment for potential transfer or refurbishment, though concrete transfers have been politically sensitive. At the same time, Colombia maintains only modest economic ties with Russia and no deep strategic dependence, easing the adoption of a critical stance. Reports of Russian disinformation and cyber activity targeting Colombian institutions underscore how the conflict amplifies tensions with Moscow, reinforcing Bogotá’s perception of Russia as a disruptive actor in its domestic and regional security environment. Sources: [3] Global Americans; [11] Wiley Global Policy
Colombia remains a pivotal U.S. security partner—first NATO global partner in Latin America and, since 2022, a U.S. major non-NATO ally—reflecting decades of cooperation on counterinsurgency, counternarcotics, and now climate and peace implementation. Yet Bogotá is also diversifying: Chinese trade and infrastructure investment have grown, and the Petro government has signaled interest in BRICS and deeper ties with Euro-Asian powers, seeking more autonomy from Washington. U.S. officials view Colombia as a hemispheric “keystone” for supply chains and regional stability, while analysts warn that over-politicizing the relationship could push Bogotá further toward alternative partners. Colombia’s strategy is to leverage great-power competition for investment and energy transition financing without sacrificing core security ties with the United States. Sources: [9] Air University; [11] Wiley Global Policy; [7] FTI Consulting
Colombia was one of three countries that emerged after the dissolution of Gran Colombia in 1830 — the others are Ecuador and Venezuela. A decades-long conflict among government forces, paramilitaries, and antigovernment insurgent groups heavily funded by the drug trade — principally the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) — escalated during the 1990s. In the wake of the paramilitary demobilization in the 2000s, new criminal groups arose that included some former paramilitaries. After four years of formal peace negotiations, the Colombian Government signed a final accord with the FARC in 2016 that called for its members to demobilize, disarm, and reincorporate into society and politics. The accord also committed the Colombian Government to create three new institutions to form a ‘comprehensive system for truth, justice, reparation, and non-repetition,’ including a truth commission, a special unit to coordinate the search for those who disappeared during the conflict, and a ‘Special Jurisdiction for Peace’ to administer justice for conflict-related crimes. Despite decades of internal conflict and drug-trade-related security challenges, Colombia maintains relatively strong and independent democratic institutions characterized by peaceful, transparent elections and the protection of civil liberties.
Colombia’s conflicts result from decades-old struggles involving the government and various insurgent groups like the ELN and several FARC factions. These groups contest political power, land control, and economic resources. Fragmentation among formerly unified insurgencies has led to overlapping clashes, while paramilitary groups add further complexity. Underlying socio-economic inequalities and political exclusion remain central issues, making a comprehensive resolution difficult.
Civilians in Colombia continue to suffer significant harm from both direct targeting and collateral damage caused by all warring parties. Recorded data shows over 220 civilian deaths due to one-sided violence, including deliberate killings mostly attributed to insurgent groups, alongside collateral deaths from broader combat operations. The multiplicity of actors and the fluid conflict zones increase civilian vulnerability and complicate protection efforts.
Sources: UCDP data.
The Government of Colombia is the official state actor combating multiple insurgent groups and paramilitaries to maintain state control. It is responsible for both collateral and some deliberate civilian harm in the conflict zones.
The ELN is an insurgent group fighting both the Colombian government and rival armed groups. It has alliances with several other insurgent coalitions, contributing significantly to violence that also impacts civilians.
FARC - Segunda Marquetalia is a splinter faction of the former FARC insurgency pursuing armed struggle against the government. It is associated with deliberate violence against civilians in contested areas.
FARC-EMC is an insurgent faction with ties to ELN-aligned coalitions, fighting both state forces and rival groups, causing both deliberate and collateral harm to civilians.
The EGC - ELN coalition reflects cooperation between ELN and allied factions, continuing insurgent conflict against the state and contributing to civilian casualties.
This coalition represents a combined force of ELN and FARC-EMC factions, jointly opposing state forces and involved in mixed forms of civilian harm.
This group is a factional coalition of ELN and FARC-EMC tied to the Calarc�E1 region, continuing insurgent activities with mixed civilian impacts.
EGC - Los Pachenca operates as a smaller armed group engaging in conflict with the government, with limited recorded civilian harm.
This coalition of FARC-EMC and ELN factions continues joint insurgent operations against the Colombian state, involving both deliberate and collateral civilian harm.
Los Costenos is a paramilitary group involved in localized fighting with Los Pepes, with low levels of civilian harm recorded.
Los Pepes is a paramilitary faction engaged in fighting against Los Costenos, with minimal civilian casualties noted.
The conflict in Colombia is driven by longstanding political, ideological, and territorial disputes involving the state and multiple armed groups, including diverse FARC splinters, the ELN, and paramilitary factions. These groups vie for control over territories, resources, and influence, perpetuating violence across regions despite peace efforts.
Liberal leader Jorge Eliécer Gaitán is assassinated in Bogotá, triggering massive riots and political polarization. The violence marks a breakdown of traditional party competition, helping set the stage for La Violencia and later insurgent movements that still shape Colombia’s armed conflict geography.
Intense partisan violence between Liberal and Conservative supporters ravages the countryside, killing hundreds of thousands. Weak state presence and armed self‑defence groups emerge, especially in rural areas, providing social bases and tactics later adopted by leftist guerrillas and paramilitary organizations that continue influencing Colombia’s conflict dynamics.
Liberals and Conservatives agree to alternate the presidency and equally share state posts to end La Violencia. While stabilizing elite politics, the pact excludes other forces, encouraging marginalized rural and leftist actors to seek armed struggle, a root of enduring insurgencies like FARC and ELN.
Leftist guerrillas, rooted in peasant self‑defence communities, establish the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Over decades they expand across rural regions, financing operations through kidnapping, extortion and the drug trade, embedding insurgent governance and conflict economies in areas that remain contested by dissident factions today.
Inspired by the Cuban Revolution and liberation theology, the ELN forms as a Marxist guerrilla group. Operating mainly in resource‑rich and border regions, it targets infrastructure and oil, entrenching in remote territories that today remain central to negotiations and ongoing clashes with the Colombian state.
Cocaine trafficking explodes, empowering cartels like Medellín and Cali and reshaping Colombia’s violence. Guerrillas and emerging paramilitaries tax or join drug networks, blending political and criminal motives. This entrenches illicit economies in peripheral departments that continue to drive armed competition and civilian targeting today.
Various right‑wing paramilitary groups consolidate as the United Self‑Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), fighting guerrillas, seizing land, and coordinating with some local elites. Their expansion nationalizes counter‑insurgent terror and drug control, patterns later replicated by post‑demobilization groups that compete with guerrillas over strategic territories.
Bogotá and Washington launch Plan Colombia, combining U.S. military aid, aerial fumigation and state‑building programs to weaken guerrillas and drug production. It helps degrade FARC militarily but displaces coca, armed actors and violence into new regions, including today’s hotspots like Cauca and border zones.
President Álvaro Uribe adopts hardline policies, expanding military operations, paramilitary demobilization talks, and U.S. cooperation. FARC suffers major losses and retreats to remote strongholds, while demobilized paramilitaries reconfigure as criminal bands, setting up the fragmented armed landscape and drug networks that complicate later peace efforts.
President Juan Manuel Santos opens negotiations with FARC in Havana, focusing on rural development, political participation, illicit crops and victims’ rights. The talks seek to end Latin America’s longest insurgency, laying the groundwork for the 2016 accord and the current focus on implementing territorial peace.
The Colombian government and FARC sign a comprehensive peace agreement, leading most fighters to demobilize and form a political party. Slow implementation, security vacuums, and weak state presence in ex‑FARC zones enable dissident FARC‑EMC groups and other actors to seize control of profitable illicit economies.
Some FARC fronts reject demobilization, while ex‑combatants and criminal groups organize into dissident structures like FARC‑EMC. They contest coca, illegal mining and trafficking corridors with ELN and others, driving renewed confrontations with state forces and persistent violence in departments such as Cauca and Antioquia.
Talks begun under Santos falter under President Iván Duque. After an ELN car bomb at Bogotá’s police academy kills dozens, Duque ends negotiations and hardens policy. The failed process deepens mistrust, complicating later “Total Peace” efforts and prolonging ELN control in strategic border and resource regions.
President Gustavo Petro launches “Total Peace,” seeking parallel negotiations and ceasefires with ELN, FARC‑EMC and other groups while expanding state presence. Repeated violations, internal splits and suspended truces leave armed actors entrenched, and clashes over territory and illicit economies continue driving civilian harm in multiple departments.
