ENVOY 'HERDING CATS' IN COLOMBIA

Drugs, Money And 2 Sets Of Guerrillas Challenge UN Negotiator

BOGOTA -He organized the "Norwegian channel," which led to a peace
plan between Israelis and Palestinians, and he has had a hand in peace
talks from Central America to Central Africa. Now, as a UN emissary in
Colombia, Jan Egeland is leading efforts here to solve a 35-year
conflict unlike any he has seen.

"What is unique in Colombia comtared with most other processes is the
size and scale of the armed actors and armed conflict, and the size of
the black money associated with drugs and other criminal activities,"
Mr. Egeland said in an interview here recently. "So the sources
fueling the conflict are bigger than they have been in many other
places, and that makes it more challenging."

Officially, his title is merely that of special adviser to the
secretary-general on international assistance to Colombia. But after
just six months on the job, Mr. Egeland, 42, has emerged as a trusted
intermediary between the Colombian government and left-wing guerrilla
groups, which until recently agreed on one thing: They did not want
any foreigners in the negotiations.

"In Colombia we have always had the fear that internationalizing the
peace process would also mean internationalizing the conflict, so we
were suspicious of outsiders wanting to enter," said Fernando Cepeda
Ulloa, a former interior minister. "So Egeland's presence here is a
good thing because it means a barrier has been breached- "

Mr. Egeland, who has been a journalist, deputy foreign minister of
Norway and a Red Cross official, is careful to play down his own role.

"We have no formal third-party role vis-a-vis the Colombian conflict,
nor are we seeking one," he said. "It may be premature to say that we
are facilitating any kind of peace process, because none of the
parties have asked anyone to really play that kind of an activist role."

Still, Mr. Egeland has been instrumental in "attempting to get the
guerrillas out of the jungle and into the modern world," said Cynthia
Arnson, editor of a new book, "Comparative Peace Processes in Latin
America." As in Guatemala,, she noted, here you had "a guerrilla
movement that was so isolated politically and had operated so long in
clandestinity that it had lost touch with politics and public opinion
and needed to be reacclimated. "

While both the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Guatemalan
guerrillas were nearly bankrupt when they began peace talks, here the
two main insurgent forces are flourishing as a result of their links
with drug trafficking, kidnappings and extortion. In addition, the
biggest group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, has
formally been given control of an area the size of Switzerland and now
seems to want to deal with the government on almost a state-to-state
level.

"Our situation is very odd and ambiguous, in that there is a
coexistence between the government and the guerrillas that I don't see
elsewhere," said Mr. Cepeda Ulloa. "Thatmakes Egeland's job more
difficult, in that the guerrillas think it perfectly natural to ask
the state for territory or the international community for financing."

But Mr. Egeland said that in other respects, the issues in Colombia
are not as intractable as elsewhere.

"It is more difficult to negotiate Jerusalem than agrarian reform in
Colombia," he said. "Oneof the positive aspects of Colombia compared
with other places is that the parties are not necessarily so much
poles apart on some of the issues as many believe."

The Revolutionary Armed Forces and the other main left-wing guerrilla
group, the Army of National Liberation, are engaged in separate but
parallel negotiations with the government. "Later on," Mr. Egeland
said, "there should be a convergence"of the two sets of talks because
"in the end there is only one country and society to reform."

In an essay in "Herding Cats," a new book about peacemaking, Mr.
Egeland writes that he agrees with the refusal of the government here
to negotiate with right-wing paramilitary groups because they are
"criminal terrorist organizations that should only be met with to
discuss the laying down of arms." He added, "therandom killing of
fellow citizens in a society should not lead to negotiations in the
presidential palace."

He softened his tone somewhat in the interview. The paramilitaries
have "little political content, and a big human-rights violation
content," so "they should he treated differently from other actors."
But, he added, "one should not be categorical about leaving anyone in
or out" of the peace negotiations.