SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The peace deal negotiated between the Colombian government and FARC rebels has been narrowly rejected by Colombian voters:
Colombians narrowly rejected a peace deal with Marxist guerrillas in a referendum on Sunday, plunging the nation into uncertainty and dashing President Juan Manuel Santos' painstakingly negotiated plan to end the 52-year war. The surprise victory for the "no" camp poured cold water on international joy, from the White House to the Vatican, at what had seemed to be the end of the longest-running conflict in the Americas.
The "no" camp won by 50.21 percent to 49.78 percent. Voter turnout was only 37 percent, perhaps partly owing to torrential rain through the country.
Both sides in the war immediately sought to reassure the world they would try to revive their peace plan. Santos, 65, said a ceasefire already negotiated would remain in place. He vowed to sit down on Monday with the victorious "no" camp to discuss the way forward, and send his chief negotiator back to Cuba to meet with FARC rebel leaders.
Both sides remain committed to peace (for now):
FARC rebels, also known as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, released a statement expressing sadness at the vote. "With today's result, we know that our goal as a political movement is even more grand and strong. The FARC maintains the will of peace and reiterates its disposition to only use words as a weapon for constructing the future," the statement said.
Just last week, in a scene generations of Colombians never dreamed of seeing, President Santos and FARC leader Rodrigo Londoño used pens made of recycled bullets to sign a deal ending a 52-year-old war. But now it seems the rebels and the Colombian government, facilitated by international leaders, will have to go back to the drawing board to reimagine a peace that is acceptable to victims of murder, extortion and kidnapping. It is largely unclear what the path forward looks like, as rebel fighters were supposed to give up their weapons and rejoin society. Santos, who has said before there is no "plan B" if the deal fails, said a ceasefire will remain in place and negotiations will continue in Havana, Cuba.
[more...]
An op-ed in the Boston Globe explains the result this way: Colombia voted against impunity for FARC, not against peace:
It is too soon to definitively answer why, but I did see some hints that predicted Colombians might reject the peace accord. A couple days after the celebrations in Bogota, I travelled to the frontier town of Vista Hermosa, deep in FARC territory. The mood there was far less jubilant. The local governor and officials from Bogota had flown in on a Blackhawk helicopter, with a well-armed military protection detail, to encourage locals to vote "Si" in the referendum. These townspeople had suffered during the war. The FARC fighters had long preyed on them for protection money, and everyone knew someone who had been killed or kidnapped by the guerillas. They were relieved at the cease-fire, but they also wanted "justice."
(Score: 4, Informative) by jelizondo on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:47PM
I was totally surprised by this vote, so I took to investigate what the hell happened.
Basically, fear was the motive for the NO vote. Right-wing politicians whipped the people over issues like the general amnesty ('they'll get away with murder') and the spectre of the FARC, transformed into a political party, would win the elections thru fraudulent means and install a narco-chavista government similar to that in Venezuela (which borders Colombia.)
However, there are two sides to every story and probably the real reason for the opposition was the agrarian reform and the requirement for al actors (FARC and right-wing death squads) to come forward and confess their crimes.
The BBC [bbc.com] has a good summary, not very detailed.
If you can read Spanish, El Mundo [pagina12.com.ar] has a detailed account, which mentions such factors as land and a new, to be created, Special Juridiction court which would deal with crimes commited during the civil war.
Can't say that I blame Colombians for rejecting a peace deal that might have been too lenient with people involved in crimes but I doubt that was the real reason certain circles opposed it and fanned the hate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:49PM
When the results came in, President Santos was heard to say "Aw, FARC".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by IndigoFreak on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:31PM
Listening to NPR this morning. They also said that it's generally believed FARC wants peace, and will stop aggression regardless of this vote. So why give them amnesty when they are going to stop fighting anyway.
While it's a nice moral victory to be able to prosecute war criminals, I would much rather let them off, and save people that are living. They are gambling with peoples lives on both sides.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by jmorris on Wednesday October 05 2016, @01:12AM
Well one good reason to oppose your notion is that we are talking about hard-core Communist Revolutionaries who added in narco-terrorism when the Soviet Union couldn't pay them anymore. Give em amnesty and they probably won't settle down as peaceful farmers. Or at least you couldn't be blamed for suspecting it. If they are wanting peace it is because they have given up hope, now is the time to grind them into extinction. To make sure you don't have the whole thing crank back up again the second conditions become favorable.
If I were calling the shots I'd draw up a list of the top 10% of the known officers, leaders and hard cases and declare eternal enmity against them, like Nazis, no statute of limitations to bring them in dead or alive. Publish that list widely and declare that any who aren't listed can turn themselves in within thirty days and get a deal. Offer a good enough deal for the underlings that most would melt away in the night, do some forced community service and stuff but generally be allowed to come in from the mountains. Then after exactly thirty days make an all out, last ditch effort to utterly exterminate the holdouts to the last man; no mercy and no prisoners taken. With all of the leadership dead the low level people would be a lot less likely to form up into crime gangs. But no 'negotiated treaty' with the 'international (read fellow commies and assorted monsters) community' and certainly not anything negotiated in Cuba.
(Score: 5, Touché) by DeathElk on Wednesday October 05 2016, @03:11AM
And thus the war continues.
(Score: 4, Touché) by IndigoFreak on Wednesday October 05 2016, @04:25AM
If the government had the power to wipe out far they would have done it long ago. The war has been at a stalemate for a long time. It sounds as though the rebels are sick of fighting though. It's a good time to offer a carrot and assure peace.
What you say sounds grand and strong, but does nothing but kill more people. And not just the rebels who committed previous atrocities. But Fuck it, long as you aren't the one dying might as well grab the 'moral high ground'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2016, @01:40PM
why am I not surprised to hear this from you jmorris
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday October 04 2016, @11:16PM
Apparently, former president Alvaro Uribe was really a ringleader of opposing the peace deal, and the most likely reason he opposed it is that his whole political career had been based on the all-too-common plan of "oppress your own people and say the outside threat is why you had to do it". Get rid of the outside threat by making peace, and that screws up the whole scam.
Of course, there's another outside group that had a strong interest in continuing the war, namely those US companies that wanted a valuable market for their latest military equipment. I wouldn't be surprised if they had convinced the CIA to do a bit of work in Columbia making sure that this deal didn't actually happen, because an end to the war would cut into their business.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday October 04 2016, @11:34PM
I have just done some reading about Alvaro Uribe and if I read between the lines I can see him being very worried by the whole "all sides confessing" deal, as he is implicated in the right wing anti FARC side of this civil war, which seems to have been funded by the CIA.
Being given the presidential medal of freedom by George W doesn't help that perception either.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by esperto123 on Wednesday October 05 2016, @12:43AM
From what I could tell the cause was probably the surveys results that were made public before the vote. The "yes" was appearing with such a high margin, at about 2/3 of the total, i.e. twice as many as the "no", that likely made most people just go "fuck it, I don't need to vote" and cause a poor turn out at the ballots, with only 37% of people actually voting.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2016, @07:38AM
Well, we've seen this before. Only fifteen years ago when Uribe (ex president of the Republic) let all the fucking paramilitaries off the hook, by allowing them time to buy uniforms (therefore making them an "army" instead of just bands of bastards).
I would have voted "no" if I were near a consulate to do so. See, it's not a "no" to peace. The peace is a given. It's a "no" to the lenient conditions those cunts are going to get. Those fuckers have killed and kidnapped people I've known personally. I've had to try and control screaming students whilst some prick fired a semi-automatic into the school (they got the wrong place, they were aiming for the Coronel next door). I once found my neighbour in pieces in plastic bags in the street, apparently after arguing with someone who was aligned with these arseholes. (War is not just soldiers and tanks). I've experienced two bombings, one of which blew out my bedroom window...if I weren't under the bedcovers and lying on my stomach, I'd be scarred for life. Why should they get off without criminal proceedings? Why should they get observer seats in the government? It would be like saying to Al Qaeda: "Look, hand in your weapons and go home and we'll just forget about it all, OK? Have a good night, good dreams!".
50 years ago they had a point. Even 25 years ago they still had half a point. The last 20 years they've had no point at all. Even that fuckwit Escobar had more good points (at least he *did* stuff for the poor). The FARC just kept the country weak, allowing the mafias and paras and politicians to run amok. We even gave away half the country to them, but it still wasn't enough! Not to mention the money spent on more and more yankee weapons. money that should be going to social services.
Now they have to go back to the table and do a better deal. As they should.
Unfortunately, it's just too complicated to really describe to foreigners in a short post. I can think of zillions more reasons why so many people said "no".