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."
Related Stories
Colombia and FARC Resume Peace Talks
Colombia and FARC have resumed peace talks in Cuba, following the narrow defeat of the previous peace deal in a public referendum. The deal will have to be rewritten... and probably not in FARC's favor:
An amendment to the deal that does not include FARC transitioning to a political movement would be difficult for the leftist movement to stomach. Under the deal, FARC would have been given 10 congressional seats in government, which opponents say is unacceptable. The rebels, Colombia's armed forces and right-wing paramilitaries have all been implicated in crimes committed during the nearly five-decade war, which has claimed at least 220,000 lives and displaced some 8 million people. President Juan Manuel Santos, who won the Nobel Peace Prize earlier this month for his efforts, has extended a ceasefire until the end of the year and vowed to reach a new peace deal as soon as possible.
Colombian President Receives Nobel Peace Prize for Rejected Accord with FARC
The World Socialist Web Site reports
[October 7], Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in the four years of negotiations to reach a peace accord with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrillas. The announcement came five days after Colombians narrowly rejected the accord in a referendum marked by widespread abstention.
As the second Colombian to receive a Nobel prize--after the renowned novelist Gabriel Garcia Marquez received the prize for literature in 1982--Santos accepted it "in the name of all Colombians", He also announced on Sunday that the $930,000 reward will be "donated for the reparation of the victims" of the civil war.
This attempt to exploit the prize to promote national unity fell flat, however, in the face of the deep and bitter divisions revealed by the unexpected rejection of the accord in a referendum that saw only a 37 percent turnout and a margin of victory for the "no" camp of just 60,000 votes out of the 13 million ballots cast.
The selection of Santos for the Nobel Peace Prize only underscores the dubious character of this distinction, which has been bestowed on the likes of Barack Obama in the midst of military escalation in Afghanistan and drone assassinations, [as well as] figures ranging from the US war criminal Henry Kissinger to the right-wing Israeli leader and former terrorist Menachem Begin.
As is often the case, the selection of Santos for the prize was driven by definite political and economic interests. The bourgeoisie internationally has a serious stake in the Colombian accord, which it hopes will end the armed conflict, opening up the country to far more intensive penetration by transnational capital. At the same time, it would serve to turn the FARC, the last major guerrilla movement, into a new bourgeois party tasked with containing and diverting the struggles of the Colombian working class.
[...] The 2016 Nobel Peace Prize celebrates this political figure and a "peace accord" that grants virtual impunity for war crimes carried out by the government, the paramilitaries, and the FARC.
Previous: FARC Peace Deal Rejected by Colombians
The Colombian government and Farc rebels are set to sign a peace deal, although the terms of the deal are subject to a referendum:
The Colombian government and left-wing Farc rebels are set to sign a historic agreement deal that formally brings an end to 52 years of civil war. The last of the major Cold War conflicts killed 260,000 people and left six million internally displaced. President Juan Manuel Santos and rebel leader Timoleon Jimenez, known as Timochenko, will use a pen made from a bullet to sign the deal on Monday.
[...] Under the deal, the Farc will be relaunched as a political party. The agreement will be put to Colombian voters in a popular vote on 2 October. It comes after four years of talks in Havana, Cuba, between President Santos and Timochenko, The pair will shake hands on Colombian soil for the first time.
Controversially, it will allow rebels to avoid prosecution for various war crimes so long as they admit to committing offenses.
(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.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(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".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:50PM
In the countryside, where they feel the effects of the warfare most strongly, there was overwhelming support for peace.
The cities, with chickenhawks stirring up the populace[1] and with large numbers who aren't particularly affected, offset the votes of the folks out in the sticks.
[1] Hah! Spelled it right that time.
I wonder how long it will be until FARC redirects their efforts.
Remember the ST:TOS episode where the planet had continuous simulated warfare because all the "casualties" died a painless death in a specially-build chamber?
...then Kirk blew up the chamber.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 04 2016, @11:19PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2016, @01:50AM
Yeah. As Stalin pointed out, it doesn't matter who votes, just who -counts- the votes.
Earlier in the (meta)thread, esperto123 mentioned how the results of a survey were released and it's thought that that increased apathy and led to a low turnout.
That sounds a whole lot like Associated Press' untimely release of their cherrypicked survey back in June that said the candidate of The Establishment had the nomination sewed up.
The AP's call for Hillary Clinton ruined California's [primary] election party [latimes.com]
Democracy (or even the appearance of it) seems to be on the wane worldwide.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:16PM
Those fucking SJWs are sticking their noses in where they don't belong. Again!
Who cares what a bunch of Ivy league students think about FARC?
Come January 21, 2017, those pissant kids will be up against the wall with all the other SJW scumbags!
They're worse than the niggers and wetbacks, as they're traitors to their own kind.
Trump/.Pence 2016, FTW!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:52PM
They can't be up against the wall until it gets built. And built it will. And FARC will pay for it.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @11:08PM
Ha! I've noticed an uptick in trolling on SN, who's been linking to SN on the script-kiddie sites??
Also, the quality of trolling has gone down... I blame alcohol, some people have stopped caring about their jobs and just drunk post to SN in order to feel powerful.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2016, @12:06AM
I blame alcohol
You're far off.
If the troll posts were Ethanol-fueled, then they would be of higher quality.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday October 05 2016, @12:50AM
Higher proof/ABV
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2016, @01:08AM
or just maybe it's not the ABV but the AB InBev-SABMiller amalgamation
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2016, @03:01AM
I'm hoping we can go back to normal after November 8. I admit, I'm not entirely blameless in the crass trolling. It seems like the least destructive way to vent frustration with the ambient insanity right now.
They keep trying to reassure me it'll all be ok and we're not actually going back to 1890s wrt civil rights….
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2016, @04:01AM
We're basically there already. I keep trying to fight the fascists, but they keep increasing in number. America's fall to fascism is all but inevitable at this point. :(
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2016, @02:16PM
You're one of those young drama queens with no sense of history, aren't you? Let me guess, you've recently discovered and finished The Fountainhead and now realize society is losing all it's personal responsibilities and freedoms, right?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday October 10 2016, @02:40AM
Colombian Opposition to Peace Deal Feeds Off Gay Rights Backlash [nytimes.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]