Colombia’s Milestone in World Peace

Unfortunately violence probably will not end instantly, since the drug trade will continue to be a big business, and that a part of the trained militias will not be able to readjust to normal civilian life once the peace is signed. But at least criminals and narcos will not be shielded under a political left wing speech and be united under a flag, which will eventually lead to violence ending.

I am completely confident that the Colombians will vote Yes for the peace process, and that the implementation will be successful. Some very big war criminals will probably walk away scot-free, but the huge overall benefit for the entire country will far outweigh the short term injustice.

Expect a lot of big startups coming out of Colombia and some very interesting investment possibilities, since the peace agrement shows confidence in the Colombian institutions and constitution, which will lead to a booming middle class in a 50 million person country which has a lot of space to grow in since it has been historically been overlooked because of the security issues.

Antioquia/Eje Cafetero will definitely be the region with the largest 'No' voting population. I would even think that the region with the next largest 'No' voters would be Bogotá DC. All of this is exactly because of what you say.

But let me tell you something: Even in Medellín, there's a correlation between being a young and studied person with voting 'Yes'.

The best analogy for me is the Brexit. Where old and uneducated people ruined the UK for the future generations.

The entity calling itself "The Islamic State" -- ISIS is an acronym for one English translation of its previous name for itself -- isn't "frozen in time" by the Cold War (you can certainly argue that a number of aspects of the Cold War formed important historical bases for its development, but the proximate trigger for it developing from al-Qaeda in Iraq into the Islamic State in Iraq (and then Iraq and the Levant -- or "Iraq and Syria" to much of the US news media, etc.) comes from the US invasion of occupation of Iraq, which was sort of the culmination of more than a decade of post-Cold War US-Iraq conflict and confrontation.

We'll all kinda go, "Well, we couldn't just invade them, could we?", and just silently acknowledge that everyone in the world sat there while millions of people were starved, butchered, or tortured.

And then we'll probably have a fight over what's left.

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.

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.

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.

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.

What you want is a victory.

They want to run things with the army, with the US army and billions coming in from Plan Colombia etc. They don't want to let people vote or campaign, they'd prefer the FARC control a few departments in the south and they rule by force in the rest of the country.

Thanks for making things clear. You don't see this kind of clarity in the US, where liberals say FARC wants violence and other nonsense.

The fear mongering as been done by a self-proclaimed enemy of the current president, the ex-president Alvaro Uribe. Wich has been involved in many paramilitary scandals but somehow he is still free (despite many of his close friends being not)

By the way deaths by war have been decreased in a 95% since the first agreements with FARC.

1) The people who just base their arguments on what they see on tweets and memes. Those are the same who won't read the agreement paper and who haven't read about how Ireland and Rwanda solved their conflicts and how they prospered afterwards. Those are the ones who see 'shooting them all' as something physically plausible.

2) Then there are the ones who are more responsible and actually read the agreement paper. These ones will counterargument in more intelligent ways. However, all of this group's arguments converge to the fact that they are ignoring that this is the most realistic, achievable and actionable version of the agreement. They're heavily sceptical about FARC's intentions and they would like everything to be renegotiated.

3) Finally, the ones who have a huge emotional investment in the topic because their family has been directly affected by FARC. This is the group which I personally comprehend the most, but still think they are not seeing the big picture. There's no such thing as a perfect peace and FARC will evolve into smaller rebel groups. But if we have been able to combat the big group, imagine what we can do against a smaller version of it.

doozy I'm assuming you haven't read the agreement. I invite you to read the parts that explain how there will be a transitional justice mechanism that'll not only subside FARC victims but will become an investment in infrastructure, education, etc.

I also invite you to read the part that talks about how FARC will get participation in politics. There are currently 102 seats in the senate and only 5 additional ones will be given to FARC. They will also get 5 seats in the Reprsentatives Chamber, out of the current 165.

When Colombia successfully negotiated a peace treatment with another marxist guerilla in the '90s (M-19) and they became the 'Unión Patriótica' party they got 15 seats and forward to 2016, we're not Venezuela 2.0. Our economy has done pretty well actually.

A decade later, and the results still stand. A bland, technical page with with a tabulation of the countries Within, Without and Somewhere In Between the two Sets dominating the page.