The Man Blocking Peace in Colombia
nytimes.comit isn't just one man... this went on for a vote and the majority of the people voted against it... sure he probably helped but a lot of us, including myself saw this deal as an insult to the millions of victims of the FARC... Colombia said no to a narconsitution for the second time in my lifetime and for that I am kinda proud.
The FARC IMHO are already defeated and they know it... the government just want to give them a way to save face, however they have no popular support and the country is moving forward without them...
Hate breads only more hate my friend. FARC doesn't have the majority, no, but they're not small either. They are a very large and established group, impossible to defeat, because they are part of Colombia, just as you are. You have to agree on the way to live together, and say "yes" to something eventually. That is, without resorting to brutal dick waving that is war once again.
the farc only have around 10000 people in their ranks... that's .02% of the population... that is pretty small...
they only look larger due to their narco-wealth (in fact they are one of the wealthiest terrorist groups in the world) add the colombian government history of just ignoring the pleas of the poor and their remote location... and that's how they get away with this crap.
It's oversimplifying to imply that a vote against the terms of one peace deal is just fueled by hatred and machismo.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this article accuse Uribe of being hyperbolic for suggesting the deal contains amnesty, then describe the deal as amnesty for most, and lenient punishment for the worst (keep in mind, FARC spent decades terrorizing Colombians).
I don't know enough to speak on who is right, but this article is engaging in exactly what it accuses Uribe of doing.
the treaty was giving amnesty to about 80% of farc members... and although I agree that this is probably necessary for peace... man... these guys are rapists murderers and drug traffickers... so...
I like the fact that the article tries to be objective by recognizing that Uribe's government was of great value to the country, but that because of his overwhelming popularity as president he became entitled, arrogant and egocentric, and he has now become a spoke in the wheel for progress and peace in the country.
In addition to being corrupted by power, he has also surrounded himself with yes men who have led a Trump-like lie campaigns around the country (recognized by them) that led people to vote for No in the peace process, and is now demanding impossible concessions from the government and the guerrilla to try and stall the peace process until he or his party members are reelected into power (next presidential elections are less than a year and a half away), while leaving the country at huge risk of going back to guerrilla warfare, terrorism and political violence.
Although it is an editorial, the bias is astonishing. The whole nation has cast a vote - but instead of respectine people's opinion, NYT portrays them as manipulated, misguided children.
They have been manipulated. There's a investigation close to begin to the PR person of the NO leaders. I would agree with describing the Colombian people as "misguided children".
It's a dangerous position to take if you can't fathom that someone may legitimately disagree with you.
A large amount of people disagree, but what has come out after the vote has shown than an even larger segment voted because they were intentionally lied to and confused about the actual contents of the agreements.
It was actually pretty funny, because the leader of the NO campaign gave an interview boasting about how they had successfully conned the country into thinking that gender ideology gay marriage and other subjects were being voted for with the agreements (they estimated that over 2mm evangelical christians voted No because of this), and how by lying on social media they managed to execute an incredibly cheap political campaign. He was removed as campaign leader the next day and the opposition quickly distanced themselves from him by pretending his role was minor, since he is also pending penal investigation and will probably go to jail, since under Colombian law intentionally lying to the electorate to change the outcome of an election is punishable by law.
This was the actual interview: http://www.larepublica.co/el-no-ha-sido-la-campa%C3%B1a-m%C3...
Archive.is linky for those who can't read the article (even via the "web" link above):
https://www.yahoo.com/news/majority-colombians-back-peace-de...
Kind of weird how virtually overnight support apparently went from 59.5 in favor/33.2 against to 49.8 in favor/50.2 against.
Pure opinion without any indication of facts. Perhaps Uribe has legitimate reasons for wanting to punish the rebels?
After our Civil War the U.S. government imprisoned Jefferson Davis and others, and confiscated great quantities of land from former rebels.
Seriously, the American Civil War? The mid-19th century does not provide great models for politics of any modern nation.
Anyway, the Confederation was soundly defeated within a couple of years. The Columbian government has been trying to destroy FARC with military force for half a century. At some point, you have to try something else and be prepared to make concessions for peace, even if it does not seem like perfect justice to those who still believe in a military solution.
His new proposals do not include any significantly more punitive measures for the guerrillas, but rather seek more impunity by changing the transitional justice from an international tribunal overseeing a truth process, to a local secret tribunal with complete impunity for paramilitary leaders, business leaders and politicians who helped finance the both parties and took part in the drug trafficking that helped finance the war.
Was there not an annoucement of new negotations that were announced in Havana again after this vote went through? What happened to that?
there will be a new negotiation, both sides are still commited it'd take a while because the government should demand jailtime...
I believe the cease fire will continue tho
>>He also asserted, without evidence, that the deal would hurt the private sector.
Bourgeoisie propaganda.
>>even admitted in an interview that they had steered clear of explaining the content of the agreement and instead “focused on a message of indignation."
So it is literally propaganda, paid for by..
>>The Uribe administration has continued dealing with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, securing loans, agreeing to cut expenses, agreeing to continue debt payments, privatize public companies and foment investor confidence, in order to comply with financial orthodoxy.
Capitalists.
Communism is good in theory, but in practice it usually just ends up being destroyed in a military coup financed by the CIA.
LOL, good in what theory? Communism is an unworkable mess that demands the use of violence to subjugate the individual to the whims of the majority.
Communism is destroyed in practice by people not wanting to stand in line for a ration of toilet paper, and wanting to have an identity, rather then all being the same (and the connected elite "samer")