[simonmd]

Read the final agreement (if you dare and don't vomit easily): - Those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity will NOT go to jail, in a blatant violation of the Rome statute. - Despite earning BILLIONS from drug trafficking, they will not issue any reparations to the victims, instead, ordinary colombians will be taxed for that purpose. - They will be GIVEN between 10-30% of control of the senate. No election necessary. - They will be GIVEN 26 regions where there will be no state presence. Coincidentally in every strategic drug corridor. - They will not return the recruited minors. - They will participate in the creation of a "super-tribunal" with absolute legal powers, even over cases that have been sentenced and closed.

This is not an agreement, it is the surrender of a state and should be an international disgrace. In a real country this would constitute high treason.

https://www.mesadeconversaciones.com.co/sites/default/files/...

[hannibalhorn]

Did you read it?

I see that they're guaranteed 5 (out of 100) senate seats, which by my math is definitely not 10-30%. I doubt most normal folks will vote for them, especially in the countryside where people have been the most affected by the conflict.

Yes, those responsible for war crimes - on all sides - (police, soliders, paramilitary, as well as the rebels) have the opportunity to confess before a tribunal and avoid jail time. It will be up to judges, but they will receive up to 8 years of restricted movement and community service (whatever that may be.) This is definitely the most controversial part of the agreement, as 95% of the country feels these folks are crooks and should be punished.

I could go on - I'm an American and have lived in Colombia for about 6 years now, and see an entire country that has been held back due to this stupid war - the agreement isn't perfect, but this needs to be put to bed, so the country can move forward. After having just seen the whole "brexit" fiasco, I'm a little worried about how this is being put to a referendum and seeing so much disinformation being spread. Even on an English speaking tech news site.

[simonmd]

Yes I read it. Word by word. I am born and raised colombian, and for over 40 years have seen the result of sacrificing justice for short term gains or individual vanity. It's not 5 seats. It's 5 in the senate, 5 in congress, and 16 in special circumscription where only FARC friendly candidates can participate.

They have massive amounts of money stashed for the upcoming campaigns, and by now you should be aware that money buys regional candidates in Colombia. Add to that fear of FARC retaliation in areas where the government now will have NO presence during elections or afterwards. (they have strategically left Frente Primero out of the accord, to handle the residual drug operation and armed coercion).

"Confessing" to war crimes and crimes against humanity does not constitute appropriate punishment under any international standard. The International Criminal Court and Human Rights Watch have both been quite clear that no jail time would be unacceptable.

You have lived here barely enough to have only seen Santos as president, who has done absolutely NOTHING except push his narcissistic agenda forward, at the expense of justice, economy and the independence of the branches of power. I am old enough to know colombia's problem is not 17,000 asshole terrorists in the jungle, it is LACK OF JUSTICE at every level, with politicians, guerrillas, paramilitaries etc. Sacrificing justice to appease one criminal entity is exactly why my country cannot 'move forward'.

[mc32]

I think this is the pragmatic approach vs an ideological approach. What would the cost be if the peace were not agreed upon? More kidnappings, more drugs, more innocent deaths, etc. Or you could try and continue the stalemate for another 30 years and vindicate justice.

At some point you have to cut your losses and consider sunken costs. It's not easy. Lots of people will be displeased, but in the end it might be the best outcome for their society.

[simonmd]

There was no 'stalemate'. FARC in 2010 were 5000 strong, taking heavy losses and on the run. Then came Santos, who obsessed over winning international recognition that has eluded him at home, legitimized FARC, gave them an international stage and set in motion a 6 year 'peace process' that has left FARC in congress and senate, with all their crimes whitewashed, and with our already weak justice system mortally wounded.

[fmp]

>I think this is the pragmatic approach vs an ideological approach

I'm all for pragmatism, but I believe in long term pragmatism, not short term pragmatism.

Rewarding terrorists gets them to stop killing you, which is pragmatic, except in the long run it encourages other terrorist groups to start killing you, which is unpragmatic.

[michaelkeenan]

> Those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity will NOT go to jail

I dislike the injustice, but I've come around to the view that agreements like this are often consequentially appealing. If the end to a conflict leads to one's imprisonment or execution, the incentive might be to keep fighting even with unfavorable odds. I don't know the particulars of this case, but it's possible that a peace agreement could only be reached if it includes this provision, and so it might be worth it.

[simonmd]

By that logic there should be no plea bargains or criminal surrenders. You negotiate not only to be released with no consequence. You also negotiate to lessen your punishment. The AUC paramilitary leaders did this and are now paying reduced sentences (8 years) in the USA, which if you ask me is shameful considering their crimes. FARC leaders, for the same crimes will not see one day in jail.

[pastProlog]

This all started when the right wing murdered Gaitán in 1948. Then the US began coming into Colombia heavily into the 1980s.

The left wanted to end the violence so founded UP in the 1980s and ceased violence. The landowners, AUC, CIA etc. murdered candidates, shot campaign workers, made it impossible to win electorally. They forced FARC back to the gun, they didn't want the left in elections.

For a long time FARC had nothing to do with cocaine, so who was sending it to the US in the 1970s? The AUC and right wing. Once the US began pouring billions into Colombia, the FARC could no longer prevent campesinos from growing coca in its areas.

It's funny too, as the US produces the deadly tobacco drug and distributes it to Colombians, but that is not a "drug" because the US doesn't want it to be. Yet Colombian campesinos who grew coca for centuries send coca to the US - then that is a drug and they are drug dealers. The AUC and Uribe and his father send coca north but the US government gives them a free pass.

[nikcheerla]

Yes, we are all aware that your ideological allies are saints, forced to do the wrong things by fate and circumstances. While your ideological enemies murder babies for fun.

[simonmd]

FARC apologists will always find a way to make everything about Uribe. All manners of crime are justified because 'Uribe did it first'. Colombian leftists are nothing if not hypocritical.

[BurningFrog]

This sounds like a peace agreement between two parties that will keep coexisting.

What you want is a victory.

[ivanca]

I'm Colombian, and they want more than victory, they want more violence, that's why the propaganda against the agreement is lead by the infamous paramilitary-involved ex-president Alvaro Uribe.

[simonmd]

Who is 'they' exactly? Expecting justice hardly makes me an 'Uribista'.

[ivanca]

Violence is the only thing that will continue to go on if we keep asking for justice, so our children and grandchildren will die fighting wars we could have stop just because we hold that word in such high stem.

[ivanca]

And the worse is it all is that _their_ children will continue to kill ours for reasons they think justifiable, and despite being truth or not it will cost them all their lives.

[simonmd]

Not equal parties. A legitimately constituted state with 50 million people vs. 17,000 guerillas. All countries have terrorism and 'coexist' with it. In the meantime their citizens can go about their business. That was the state of things when Santos took office and revived the FARC guerilla.

[ivanca]

[Citation needed]

FARC had been taking heavy losses but there was no end in sight.

The state of business when Santos took government was hundreds of killings per month, which has been reduced in a 90% since the first agreements: http://colombiareports.com/how-the-farcs-failed-ceasefire-di...

If only the ones who are alive today thanks to the reduction of violence had a HN account, but they are the poor in the rural areas, not the computer scientists of La Javeriana.

[simonmd]

If you stop your constitutional obligation to combat crime, OBVIOUSLY there will be fewer deaths in combat. That does not make it right.

And of course, in typical izquierdista fashion, you justify your arguments by turning it into a class warfare statement, even grouping me with computer scientists (I am not) from La Javeriana (fine private university, but I'm also not from there).

[thaumasiotes]

This is a pretty mystifying set of complaints. When the South lost the US civil war, how much of the senate did they get? How much territory was ceded to them?

[simonmd]

The Union and Confederate armies both had around 200,000 soldiers each in 1861. That is a war on equal terms. FARC guerillas are about 17,000 now (about 5000 in 2010, before this 'peace process'). The colombian army is 500,000 plus 40 million regular citizens who despise FARC. The situation is quite different from US post-civil war reconstruction efforts.