Political Geography. Article Review

Allison Brown Political Geography Dr. Crane Febuary 25, 2022 Article Review Sara Koopman’s 2018 article Political in Geography entitled, “Building an inclusive peace is an uneven socio-spatial process: Colombia’s differential approach” examines the 2016 Peace Accord between the Colombian government and FARC. Koopman’s argument asserts Colombia’s differential peace accord represented a shift in the plurality of peace and in turn how peace, an inherently spatial phenomenon, varies across time, space, and scale. Koopman’s thesis argues attempts to construct an inclusive peace process can be strengthed through a better understanding of peace as an ongoing socio-spaitial process, and examining how the collective understanding of peace as a process which can be better developed through inclusive means and intersectionality (Koopman, 2018, p. 1). Koopman presents this thesis as a means of examining the Colombian peace agreement through different marginalized groups within society and how social hierarchies exist in a spatialized context and how efforts to build peace in the Colombian example attempted to build peace to address spatialized inequalities. The argument and thesis for the article prepares readers to examine a case study of the unprecedented Colombian peace accord and how the vote for its passage and subsequent implementation in 2016 was shaped by socio-spatial, demographic, and cultural tensions. Koopman approaches her thesis by first providing readers with a background on Colombian armed conflicts and the unrest leading up to the peace agreement. In this section, the article then begins to address the specialization of the peace process, “the Colombian case is detailed here to make a broader argument … inequalities like race and gender are spatialized. They operate in and through space, in interlocking ways, and as such shape how space is made daily by all of us in relations” (p. 2). By building this foundational knowledge, Koopman defines the geographical importance in the article to both construct inclusive and effective peace as well as work to continue to better understand the socio-spatial element of peace building. To make her argument of Colombian’s differential peace accord, Koopman examines the peace through the lens of LGBT Colombians, the vote on the peace accord, the differential approach, and the understanding of intersectionality in the peace accord. A technique which Koopman deployed in her explanation of the voting procedures and the “two Colombias” was the strategic use of maps and geographical context to construct geographical correlations in the vote of different populations. After the vote in which Colombia adopted the accord, there was a distinct split in those who voted for and against the agreement. Fundamentally, the regions which were most affected by the war voted for peace and those who were less directly affected voted no. Utilizing both physical and topographical maps, Koopman constructs the correlation which relates the altitude and the levels of victimization seen in 2014, finding a correlation of -0.29 (p. 6). Koopman in this argument briefly examines the past and the impacts of territory leading to colonization and different socio-economic settings, and how these factors contributed to a yes vote in the Colombian peace agreement. The author analyzes how this correlation relates to her central arguments regarding territory and peace, “the relationship between peace and space is always shaped by various interlocking socio-spatial hierarchies that are always worth examining when we are looking to understand the spatial dynamics of peace, and particularly so when working to build an inclusive peace” (p. 7). Koopman’s dynamic approach to this issue of the correlation between physical location and victimization rates is an example of using geography in order to map and better understanding the socio-spatial relations of a country and how these relations in turn impact broader issues as well as marginalized communities. Another example of 2 Koopamn’s technique in the article is how she addresses the voting and strategies deployed by the Colombian government to ensure the passage of the accord. In short, the author discuses how the LGBT differential approach to the agreement created strong dissent and campaigns to vote no from groups such as the Catholic Church and those supposedly concerned with the degradation of the typical family unit in Colombia. Misinformation was widespread during the campaign to vote no against the peace accord, and Koopman compares the misinformation campaigns to the reality of the situation in Colombia, weighing the impact of the LGBT differntial approach to the accords against the overall popularity by using polling data and detailing different campaigns for and against the peace agreement (p. 5). Koopman’s article isn’t organized with the typical subheadings, but instead moves chronologically through her argument to conclusions which feel natural given the structure. By first defining the differential approach of the Colombian peace accord and then moving in to better examine the dynamics of LGBT differential approaches, the voting for the agreement, and later the intersectionality, Koopman is able to ensure readers can draw connections between the issues. This is critical to her argument, as she begins her introductory section by noting peace is varied across space and social groups and how these socio-spatial relationships “operate in and through space, in interlocking ways, and as such shape how space is made daily by all of us” (p. 2). By continually relating the interlocking arguments to one of her central argument, Koopman ensures readers make connections throughout the article. Koopman succinctly summarizes them in her conclusion while examining the future differential peace accords need and their necessary understanding of space. The conclusion begins weighting the intersectionality of previous sections, “it was the intersection of hierarchies of race, gender, and sexuality in particular, in and through space, that shaped opposition to the 3 Colombian peace accord, in part because, as an inclusive accord, it addresses precisely those inequalities.” (p. 9) The author also briefly reflects on the effectiveness of implementation of the Colombian accord, calling many of the provisions “poorly” implemented (p. 9). In the closing sentences, the article again refers to the central argument and asks readers when considering peace development to not only examine how space shapes peace and the inverse, but also how social inequities operate in spatial ways which continue to shape how peace work. Koopman concludes by asking readers theoretically when supporting peace building globally to strengthen development by “understanding peace work as an uneven socio-spatial process” (p. 9) in which social hierarchies interact within and give authority to one another through given spatial contexts and understandings. 4