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: 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".