Colombians reject a peace deal after 50 years of civil war with FARC rebels - by a fraction of a percent. I know a lot of atrocoties were committed, but that certainly applied to both sides. So at least give peace a chance...
Voters in Colombia's referendum have narrowly rejected a peace accord between the government and the Marxist group, FARC.
The outcome of Sunday's vote endangers a deal expected to end 52 years of war and allow FARC fighters to re-enter society and form a political party.
With more than 99 percent of polling stations reporting, 50.2 percent of ballots opposed the accord while 49.8 percent favoured it - a difference of less than 60,000 votes out of a total of 13 million.
Al Jazeera's Latin America Editor Lucia Newman, reporting from Bogota, called the vote result "very surprising" as every poll before the referendum had given the "yes" camp a lead.
rowan wrote:Colombians reject a peace deal after 50 years of civil war with FARC rebels - by a fraction of a percent. I know a lot of atrocoties were committed, but that certainly applied to both sides. So at least give peace a chance...
Voters in Colombia's referendum have narrowly rejected a peace accord between the government and the Marxist group, FARC.
The outcome of Sunday's vote endangers a deal expected to end 52 years of war and allow FARC fighters to re-enter society and form a political party.
With more than 99 percent of polling stations reporting, 50.2 percent of ballots opposed the accord while 49.8 percent favoured it - a difference of less than 60,000 votes out of a total of 13 million.
Al Jazeera's Latin America Editor Lucia Newman, reporting from Bogota, called the vote result "very surprising" as every poll before the referendum had given the "yes" camp a lead.
Yeh, under 40%. I think the government is already working on having it anulled on that count. Maybe they just made too many concessions though. I mean, giving them a guaranteed 10 seats in the congress, for example, along with 'light' prison setences for those who fess up to their crimes. But that's how peace negotiations are made, at the end of the day. We almost reached that point in Turkey with the PKK, until the Kurdish party became just a little too popular for comfort and the bombing, etc, started again.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
This is one of the reasons why peace deals are so difficult to achieve. Often leaders who negotiate need to push the limits with what their own side will tolerate.
I hate the sight of Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams parading on TV as respectable members of the community (well legit politicians anyway). But if that is the requirement for a lasting peace deal in NI then so be it.
But MMcG is a respected member of the community - his community. If any peace deal is to endure, then both sides must accept the legitimacy of the other. I would say that McGuinness has come a lot further than you would appear to have managed s-d? Not only was he prepared to lay a wreath in memory of Irish soldiers killed on the Somme and at Messines Ridge, but he was pretty vocal in support of the decision to commemorate the British soldiers killed during the Easter Uprising. I know this is a long way from embracing the likes of you and I, but I get the distinct impression that the republican side is playing the role of appeaser while the unionists remain bitterly unreceptive.
We are preparing for a state visit from the President of Columbia in the next few weeks. Perhaps when he sees how fecked up we continue to be despite 18 years of peace process, he'll realise that getting 20% of the country to vote for peace is a step in the right direction.
SerjeantWildgoose wrote:But MMcG is a respected member of the community - his community. If any peace deal is to endure, then both sides must accept the legitimacy of the other. I would say that McGuinness has come a lot further than you would appear to have managed s-d? Not only was he prepared to lay a wreath in memory of Irish soldiers killed on the Somme and at Messines Ridge, but he was pretty vocal in support of the decision to commemorate the British soldiers killed during the Easter Uprising. I know this is a long way from embracing the likes of you and I, but I get the distinct impression that the republican side is playing the role of appeaser while the unionists remain bitterly unreceptive.
We are preparing for a state visit from the President of Columbia in the next few weeks. Perhaps when he sees how fecked up we continue to be despite 18 years of peace process, he'll realise that getting 20% of the country to vote for peace is a step in the right direction.
Smart politics by him. Like I said, I accept the necessity and if I were still serving I'd be polite to the bloke f my job required it.
Unionist MPs often make Farage and Corbyn appear sane and normal.
Mellsblue wrote:a) Kudos on the subject title.
b) The govt need to get the masses reading 'Rwanda. History and Hope'.
Thanks & yeh. Meanwhile, according to this report, threats from right-wing extremists had kept the likely 'Si' voters away; the campesinos, indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities. & the 'No' vote is seen as a victory for the oligarchs, who had been receiving lethal aid and the latest military technology from the US under the Plan Colombia scheme - led by the Clintons, and touted as one of their major success stories.
Mellsblue wrote:a) Kudos on the subject title.
b) The govt need to get the masses reading 'Rwanda. History and Hope'.
Thanks & yeh. Meanwhile, according to this report, threats from right-wing extremists had kept the likely 'Si' voters away; the campesinos, indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities. & the 'No' vote is seen as a victory for the oligarchs, who had been receiving lethal aid and the latest military technology from the US under the Plan Colombia scheme - led by the Clintons, and touted as one of their major success stories.
Counterpunch is only a domain which carries articles by a wide variety of writers, including some of the most respected political analysts in the world. I don't think this article is blaming the Americans so much as pointing out the 'No' vote makes a mockery of the Clintons' claims about the success of the Plan Colombia scheme. Meanwhile, the brunt of the writer's scorn appears reserved for the Colombian oligarchs themselves, and also the right-wing thugs who allegedy influenced the outcome of this referendum and kept the voters away. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's the way I read it.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
rowan wrote:Counterpunch is only a domain which carries articles by a wide variety of writers, including some of the most respected political analysts in the world. I don't think this article is blaming the Americans so much as pointing out the 'No' vote makes a mockery of the Clintons' claims about the success of the Plan Colombia scheme. Meanwhile, the brunt of the writer's scorn appears reserved for the Colombian oligarchs themselves, and also the right-wing thugs who allegedy influenced the outcome of this referendum and kept the voters away. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's the way I read it.
Does that mean that Counterpunch publish a wide variety of articles supporting the US and their policies?
No, it's devoted to alternative media and political critique designed to counterbalance the mostly right-wing conformist government propaganda state and mainstream media have been brainwashing us with.
Anyway, as mentioned, the article in question seemed to be primarily an attrack on the Colombian oligarchy, with the slight on the Clintons' misguided Plan Colombia scheme merely tossed in as an afterthought.
So did you disagree with the premise of the story and, if so, why exactly?
About the author: Roger D. Harris is on the State Central Committee of the Peace and Freedom Party, the only ballot-qualified socialist party in California.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
I'm sure it would. I've seen plenty of links to the BBC, Guardian and other notorious propaganda sheets often enough. But even they carry a lot of good material to go along with their obvious political biases. So, really, it just comes down to the article itself and what you think of it. If there's an actual problem with the content (apart from, perhaps, mention of the Clintons - evidently taboo here), I'd be interested to know what it is. Personally I agreed with the writer's viewpoint. The 'No' vote is a victory for the oligarchs.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
I loved the author's style and use of complicated words. It felt like I was really there when I was reading. I closed my eyes and felt the warm embrace of the Bogota air as it caressed my face, giving me the comfort I so dreamed of from my mother....
Interesting report in The Nation from Greg Grandin:
Polls show that a majority of Colombians favor peace. But Uribe and his allies in the media and congress lied, obfuscated, and scared. They managed to convince a small minority (the 54,000-vote victory margin for “no” is about a quarter of the number of civilians killed or disappeared by the state since the start of the civil war) that the agreement was a giveaway to the FARC and that Santos was “delivering the country to terrorism.” The Times identifies Uribe and the “far right” as the “biggest winner.” The former president “had argued that the agreement was too lenient on the rebels, who he said should be prosecuted as murderers and drug traffickers. ‘Peace is an illusion, the Havana agreement deceptive,’ Mr. Uribe wrote on Twitter on Sunday after casting his ‘no’ vote.” Thus Uribe has forced himself on the bargaining table, with Santos saying, as paraphrased by the Times, that he would be “reaching out to opposition leaders in the Colombian Congress like former President Álvaro Uribe,” with the Times adding that “experts predicted a potentially tortured process in which Mr. Uribe and others would seek harsher punishments for FARC members, especially those who had participated in the drug trade.”
I read up a little on the history of FARC today. They were founded by farmers and land workers in 1964 during a time of considerable government oppression and inequality. This followed a brutal 10 year civil war sparked by the assassination of liberal politician Jorge Gaitin in 1948. FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) were inspired by the success of the Cuban Revolution and adopted a Marxist-Leninist philosophy. They have remained primarily a rural-based movement and claim to be fighting for the rights of the poor. Their fiercest opponents of course are the wealthy elite, including land-owners. The 52-year struggle has claimed around 220 K lives, about 3/4 of whom were civilians. In recent years America has increased its support for the government, causing rebel numbers to drop from around 20 K in 2002 to between six & seven thousand at the present. Their leader Rodrigo Echeverri goes by the alias Timochenko.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
When did FARC target indigenous people? I'm no expert, but so far as I know this has basically been a struggle between the wealthy elite and the impoverished masses, and I'd assume the native minority would generally fall into the latter category. It's the same story right throughout Latin America, of course.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
Thanks for the links, I'll have to get a book about FARC or something, though I've never seen one on the shelves. They have all these accusations & counter-accusations in Central America, too, over who is killing more of the native population, the US-backed dictatorships or the leftist rebels. I have read quite a bit about that topic (Stephen Kinzer's written some great books about it) and it does seem most of it is being carried out by the former. During my time in Spain I had a number of Colombian friends and they were generally supportive of FARC, while also acknowledging they'd committed their share of atrocities. I think that's where I came in, not defending FARC at all, only supporting the peace negotiations . . .
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
Well, looks like they're pushing ahead with peace negotiations anyway. Obviously the terms won't be the same as those set out in the referendum, but this is a good sign, and no doubt spurred along by Santos' Nobel Peace Prize.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
"Another fateful Kennedy decision in 1962 was to send a special forces mission to Colombia, led by General William Yarborough, who advised the Colombian security forces to undertake “paramilitary, sabotage and/or terrorist activities against known communist proponents,” activities that “should be backed by the United States.” The meaning of the phrase “communist proponents” was spelled out by the respected president of the Colombian Permanent Committee for Human Rights, former Minister of Foreign Affairs Alfredo Vázquez Carrizosa, who wrote that the Kennedy administration “took great pains to transform our regular armies into counterinsurgency brigades, accepting the new strategy of the death squads,” ushering in what is known in Latin America as the National Security Doctrine. . . . [not] defense against an external enemy, but a way to make the military establishment the masters of the game . . . [with] the right to combat the internal enemy, as set forth in the Brazilian doctrine, the Argentine doctrine, the Uruguayan doctrine, and the Colombian doctrine: it is the right to fight and to exterminate social workers, trade unionists, men and women who are not supportive of the establishment, and who are assumed to be communist extremists. And this could mean anyone, including human rights activists such as myself.
"Vázquez Carrizosa himself was living under heavy guard in his Bogotá residence when I visited him there in 2002 as part of a mission of Amnesty International, which was opening its year-long campaign to protect human rights defenders in Colombia because of the country’s horrifying record of attacks against human rights and labor activists, and mostly the usual victims of state terror: the poor and defenseless. Terror and torture in Colombia were supplemented by chemical warfare (“fumigation”), under the pretext of the war on drugs, leading to huge flight to urban slums and misery for the survivors. Colombia’s attorney general’s office now estimates that more than 140,000 people have been killed by paramilitaries, often acting in close collaboration with the U.S.-funded military.
"Signs of the slaughter are everywhere. On a nearly impassible dirt road to a remote village in southern Colombia a year ago, my companions and I passed a small clearing with many simple crosses marking the graves of victims of a paramilitary attack on a local bus. Reports of the killings are graphic enough; spending a little time with the survivors, who are among the kindest and most compassionate people I have ever had the privilege of meeting, makes the picture more vivid, and only more painful. This is the briefest sketch of terrible crimes for which Americans bear substantial culpability, and that we could easily ameliorate, at the very least. "
I said I'd read up on this
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
