Colombia peace deal

rojito

Hi all,

Given our own history I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts about the announcement today about an imminent peace deal between the Colombian government and FARC.

The biggest question seems to be about impunity, although people can still be punished for war crimes. In my opinion, the peace deal is good as it promises a better future for all, and although you can't just forgive the past, pursuing jail time for all just drains energy and money and stirs up the original resentment in the first place. Also, the president (Santos) has said something along the lines of "Nobody signs a peace agreement that puts them in jail", the point of which I cannot disagree with.

So, is this a good thing for Colombia, or are they letting a criminal group (FARC stopped having a legitimate political motive a long time ago) off relatively scot-free?

NoCrackHaving

rojito wrote: »

Hi all,

Given our own history I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts about the announcement today about an imminent peace deal between the Colombian government and FARC.

The biggest question seems to be about impunity, although people can still be punished for war crimes. In my opinion, the peace deal is good as it promises a better future for all, and although you can't just forgive the past, pursuing jail time for all just drains energy and money and stirs up the original resentment in the first place. Also, the president (Santos) has said something along the lines of "Nobody signs a peace agreement that puts them in jail", the point of which I cannot disagree with.

So, is this a good thing for Colombia, or are they letting a criminal group (FARC stopped having a legitimate political motive a long time ago) off relatively scot-free?

Unlike the Colombian armed forces or the the AUC or the countless right winf paramilitaries who have also gotten off scot free? The Colombian government and the AUC far, far, far outstripped FARC and the ELN in their slaughter of innocent civilians and use of torture but have never been brought to account. FARC have committed atrocities but you can't let the government and AUC off the hook but try to punish FARC, it would never work.

rojito

NoCrackHaving wrote: »

Unlike the Colombian armed forces or the the AUC or the countless right winf paramilitaries who have also gotten off scot free? The Colombian government and the AUC far, far, far outstripped FARC and the ELN in their slaughter of innocent civilians and use of torture but have never been brought to account. FARC have committed atrocities but you can't let the government and AUC off the hook but try to punish FARC, it would never work.

I'm not sure if that is fact or can be proven but I do agree with your overall point.

Pursuing every possible conviction on all sides would just cripple the country financially and emotionally for years. And I see no value in continuing to wage war, as wanted by Uribe and cronies (speaking of the AUC...).

So that basically seems to have been the choice: war or impunity. Internally there are some very strong feelings of course, but for the future and reputation of the country surely a peace deal is the only option?

We ourselves had the early release of prisoners, has there been any long lasting damage or resentment caused on that front? (I ask having lived abroad for a long long time, I really don't know.)

Muahahaha

Backpacked around Columbia in 2004, they were talking peace back then too. The amount of distrust there between all sides is astoinishing, but then when you hear of the murders and torture on all sides it becomes less so and you realise how the atrocities on all side mean no one can trust anyone else.

Its an unwinnable war for everyone and all sides realise it. Problem is the entire country is armed to the teeth and even lone wolfs can destablise peace agreements, it really is that shaky there.

rojito

Muahahaha wrote: »

Backpacked around Columbia in 2004, they were talking peace back then too. The amount of distrust there between all sides is astoinishing, but then when you hear of the murders and torture on all sides it becomes less so and you realise how the atrocities on all side mean no one can trust anyone else.

Its an unwinnable war for everyone and all sides realise it. Problem is the entire country is armed to the teeth and even lone wolfs can destablise peace agreements, it really is that shaky there.

It must have been some place back in 2004! I remember reading an old Lonely Planet from that time that basically said "Yeah, Medellin... don't go there, you'll get shot...", whereas now the city is over-saturated with expats.

As regards the topic, I think the situation has improved since that era, with narcos and paramilitaries less prominent and the feeling being that FARC were really suffering prior to entering talks. There is, I believe, a commitment from them to decommission but whether that happens and to what degree remains to be seen.

But even since 2004 and the really bad years that preceeded, the country has made a lot of progress. Hopefully this peace deal signifies a continuance of that and even brighter things to come.

NoCrackHaving

rojito wrote: »

I'm not sure if that is fact or can be proven but I do agree with your overall point.

Pursuing every possible conviction on all sides would just cripple the country financially and emotionally for years. And I see no value in continuing to wage war, as wanted by Uribe and cronies (speaking of the AUC...).

So that basically seems to have been the choice: war or impunity. Internally there are some very strong feelings of course, but for the future and reputation of the country surely a peace deal is the only option?

We ourselves had the early release of prisoners, has there been any long lasting damage or resentment caused on that front? (I ask having lived abroad for a long long time, I really don't know.)

A peace deal is the only option I think, what would more war achieve for anyone.

I t think a lot the victim's families are understandably bitter. When you see people like Michael Stone being released you can definately understand that. But as you say what's the alternative, another 20 years of bloodshed?

rojito

NoCrackHaving wrote: »

A peace deal is the only option I think, what would more war achieve for anyone.

I t think a lot the victim's families are understandably bitter. When you see people like Michael Stone being released you can definately understand that. But as you say what's the alternative, another 20 years of bloodshed?

Totally agree. I guess I was interested to see if anyone here was in favour of the pro-war stance.

The last election came down to two candidates with the only major differing factor being their stance on FARC:
- Zuluaga, an Uribe-puppet promising to completely wipe out FARC
- Santos, a former Uribe-puppet, now pro-peace and seemingly willing to accept huge concessions in order to achieve it within his term so that his own place in the history books is secured.

Now it might be clear from the above I consider Santos a rather slimy character, but the definite lesser of two evils in this case. I just hope the kind of peace he has sought is lasting.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

I believe surveys have shown that the people in the areas affected by the conflict are far more likely to support the peace deal.

Personally I have a strong distaste for the middle-class Colombians, far-removed from the war and who bribed their way out of military service who denounce the peace talks. I think they'd be more on board if there was a risk of them taking a bullet.

rojito

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I believe surveys have shown that the people in the areas affected by the conflict are far more likely to support the peace deal.

Personally I have a strong distaste for the middle-class Colombians, far-removed from the war and who bribed their way out of military service who denounce the peace talks. I think they'd be more on board if there was a risk of them taking a bullet.

Isn't that just a bit of middle-class bashing wrapped up in a generalisation?

I don't think Zuluaga would have run Santos so close on the middle class vote alone.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

rojito wrote: »

Isn't that just a bit of middle-class bashing wrapped up in a generalisation?

I don't think Zuluaga would have run Santos so close on the middle class vote alone.

You're right, opposition to the peace deal isn't just a class thing, lots of people from all backgrounds are opposed.

But the corruption of the country's military service means the burden of the conflict falls mainly on the poor. A lot of Colombians seem keen for the war to continue, so long as their family members aren't expected to fight.

rojito

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

You're right, opposition to the peace deal isn't just a class thing, lots of people from all backgrounds are opposed.

But the corruption of the country's military service means the burden of the conflict falls mainly on the poor. A lot of Colombians seem keen for the war to continue, so long as their family members aren't expected to fight.

I am sure they do exist in the middle-class and that is pretty reprehensible but I don't think it is representative of the middle-class as a whole.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Uribe is the prime example for me given that none of his family served in the military and he has refused to comment on this.

Also, even leaving aside the widespread bribery, it's systematically biased against the poor, as those who haven't graduated from secondary school are obliged to serve a longer term in the military. Obviously a peasant from Choco or an unemployed young man from the south of Bogotá are more likely to fit into this category.

It's a big contrast to South Korea where I previously lived. Avoiding conscription is held in contempt there, while in Colombia it's perfectly fine if you can pay your way out.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Eamon Gilmore is now the EU envoy to the peace process.