[simonmd]

This is just another version of the white savior complex. Developed countries support 'peace' processes that make them feel good about themselves, with little regard for the root causes of the conflict to begin with. Apparently they think us colombians are too backwards to deserve first-world justice, so they applaud compromises that they would NEVER accept themselves.

[davidpelaez]

Except they had. First world countries had the worst war on history and they rebuilt their societies making big concessions. Europe and Japan know a lot about accepting had agreements exactly as our peace process suggests. This is a great way of supporting the work a great president truly committed to changing our country because he was born rich and it's extremely obvious that the peace agreement with FARC and possibly ELN it his way to transcend. I applaud this price and the support of developed countries to the process.

[simonmd]

Name ONE developed country that would accept zero jail time and political eligibility for someone convicted of multiple war crimes, with hundreds of years in cumulative prison sentences.

That is precisely my point. You are just one of many colombians who can't seem to make the connection between repeatedly helping criminals dodge justice and Colombia's current situation.

[javpaw]

What about this in general: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_peace_process

And this particular case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_McGuinness

[simonmd]

Not directly comparable for two important reasons:

The Good Friday Agreement was signed before the Rome Statutes on War Crimes came into effect (in no small part as a response to similar "blank-slate" deals in the 80's and early 90's). That means that signatory countries are bound by international law to prosecute and punish war crimes and crimes against humanity committed after their signing, proportionally to the severity of the crime. That's what I mean by first-world justice. Even in Ireland, no crimes under the Rome statute after 2002 can be met with the level of impunity the FARC-Santos deal guarantees.

And with respect to McGuinness, even if the Rome statute had been in effect during his participation in the IRA, he was never charged with anything resembling a war crime, even after the Saville Inquiry. He would be more akin to a member of the shady, FARC-friendly political party "Marcha Patriotica". The crimes of the FARC leadership, on the other hand, are fully documented, and sentenced in-absentia. Most of them have over 400 years of cumulative sentences, including murder, extortion, torture, kidnapping, child recruitment etc. All constituting war crimes and crimes against humanity.

[javpaw]

Stop overfitting.

You asked for an example and I gave it to you a valid one. McGuinness was an IRA leader and IRA committed many kind of crimes; there are more ex-IRA leaders that are now in the civil life.

If I give you another example you will discard it for some random reason, so this discussion makes no sense.

On the other hand, if you see the signed peace treaties in the region, and in the world, you'll notice that these have generally gone well.

Bye.

[jasonlotito]

> Name ONE developed country...

The USA.

[simonmd]

Really? which convicted war criminal holds office? If you say 'Bush' you didn't really read my comment. I fully support him being investigated for war crimes. But until he is convicted, that is a non-sequitur.

[mc32]

You should evaluate it on its own terms unencumbered. Is it worth it, is it not worth it (to you or to your country). Encumbering it with what other people or other societies is interesting but not useful to you.

If I were you, I'd take the deal. But that's me. After half a century or more of guerilla warfare, I'd think it was enough, even if some bad Marxist guys and gals get away with atrocities as well as extrajudicial government action also goes unpunished.

You risk more death, destruction, poverty, stunting of progress and having all your bright minds and entrepreneurs leave for more stable places exacerbating the issue further by ensuring prosperity is stunted and grievances unresolved.

[simonmd]

And colombians did, last sunday.

Guerrillas were created because justice was not applied when crimes were committed against their founders. Paramilitaries were created because the state did not apply justice or provide security to victims of guerilla crimes. Most of the problems colombia has faced during the past 50 years are not due to guerrillas or paramilitaries, but because we as a society apparently find justice to be an 'obstacle' to other ends, large and small.

[cloverich]

Can you contrast this with ceronman's comment below (or maybe above) that the areas most likely to vote for the compromise were the people most affected by the guerilla violence?

[simonmd]

Gladly. That is one of the favorite simplistic spins of the supporters of the FARC-Santos deal, when in reality it has little to do with the victims and a lot to do with internal colombian political structures. Most maps you will see supporting this idea mix together 'victims of conflict' without separating them between paramilitary/FARC or drug trafficking victims, so it would be inaccurate to conclude that the most areas affected by FARC violence were in favor of the deal. Add to that the states where Santos mobilized his political machinery to buy votes, which coincides more precisely with the states supporting the deal (http://www.elpais.com.co/elpais/colombia/proceso-paz/noticia...). For example, the state with most victims (Antioquia) voted overwhelmingly against (62.00%). To say that Antioquia, Santander, Norte de Santander, Risaralda, Caldas, Quindío, Tolima, Cundinamarca, Huila, Caquetá, Meta, Casanare and Arauca states saw little violence is just a lie and affront to their victims.