The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos
nobelprize.org
nobelprize.org
In Colombia lots of terrible things have happened. There is people that had made a fortune simply murdering and stealing entire families, and of course drugs.
Peace process means legalization of all this crimes, and laundering all the money and power gotten mainly by extortion. There are thousands of victim's families that are angry because it means no justice for them, the people that killed their family members will not go to jail and the properties that were stolen will not go back to the families.
Uribe put the guerrilla on his knees by force, making it to want to make a deal in the same way the Germans or Japanese wanted a honorable peace deal when everything was lost. Now Santos gets all the Glory basically capitulating against the Guerrilla.
The deal is a very bad deal, for example it makes Guerrilla a "democratic" party, but if the people do not vote them, it does not matter because representation is warranted by law, basically giving them the territories that they already controlled by force.
No, they weren't in "his knees", that's a lie perpetuated by Uribe himself.
Being elected doesn't give them any power over any territories, they will be just part of the Congress, so they will have power to vote there, but not over "specific" territories.
By the way today an scandal is up in Colombia where one of Uribes friends declared all the tactics to emotionally manipulate the people to vote against the treaty with lies and overly exaggerated claims (https://www.google.com.co/amp/amp.noticias.caracoltv.com/acu...)
The process didn't legalize the crimes nor allow the guerrilla to keep their drug dealing money. That's just FUD. The kind of FUD that made uninformed people vote no.
Uribe fought the guerrilla fiercely, but he did it by getting alliances with paramilitary groups that were even worse than the guerrilla.
The peace treaty is not perfect, and yes, there were some concessions made to the guerrilla. Like the possibility to have 10 out of 270 positions in the congress even if they didn’t get the votes, but only for two periods. It’s not easy to negotiate after 50 years of crude war, but all the lives saved with it are completely worth it.
Or maybe because people in those territories support the guerrillas?
The treaty was voted down because some political movements lied to the people in the cities (not the victims), telling them that Colombia would become Venezuela, that their income will suffer by new taxes, and that the treaty had Gender equality points (which is true).
I would probably still have voted 'yes' but I have a hard time to denunciate people for thinking otherwise: that paying someone to not terrorize you anymore amounts to "extortion money".
Economically it makes sense. You will have thousands of people which only work skill is to combat. With the end of the guerrilla, they won't immediately find jobs. If they don't have money, they will become thugs.
Still. Morality is often on bad terms with money. If you want to talk with people about principles they often become fundamental money-wise.
Negotiating with terrorists where they get off the hook and even allowed to be part of government is not truly a good idea. Most likely the current regime went this way because of the incredible foreign aid they are betting on once a peace process is hammered out, I doubt they truly care that six million or so displaced people want to come back and there is no guarantee with a peace deal they actually will be able to do so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_of_April_Movement#Demobil...
Oh and none of the allies war criminals were punished. You forgot to mention that.
The German army was just German army, not specifically a "Nazi army" even though the country was lead by Nazis and even though modern click-baiting headlines equate the two.
As far as I know, Ratzinger had nothing to do with National Socialism beyond what was compulsory and unavoidable under pain of death in Nazi Germany (i.e. being drafted).
Let me remind you that ALL the Allies war criminals were also basically given amnesty everywhere, just because they were victors.
if you think that's fair, well that's your call.
And the ongoing killing of prisoners who surrendered (a US army speciality in the Pacific, no prisoners, just kill them all)
I don't think it was right.
My point was that plenty (and the majority) of Nazis were killed during the war. You know, the ones who actually fought on the battleground. If we call the regim Nazi Germany and Hitler had more than 90% popularity, then you should assume that most of the fighters were Nazi as well. Which proves my point.
I found this article[1] on the idea well worth reading. The thesis is that long memories keep longstanding grudges alive, so the "forget" part of "forgive and forget" is itself important -- whatever that may say about respect for previous generations, leaving their battles behind can make your life better.
1: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/mar/02/cult-of-me...
Some enlightening/depressing background for context: http://www.insightcrime.org/investigations/bacrim-and-their-...
Lost in most of the US/European coverage is the huge threat the peace process represents to the Colombian political elite: when guns are put down, eventually their long history of collaboration with criminals will come to light. (E.g. in August Uribe's niece and her mother were extradited...)
Sadly, the corruption runs very, very deep and it goes straight to the top.
I fully supported the Yes vote (I'm not Colombian) but I also recognize that the government vs. FARC battle is only one front in a much larger war under which the Colombian people continue to suffer.
For a start, there were parts about restitution, and that means some people bought lands very cheap because the wars made their rightful owners displace to Bogotá or somewhere else. These lands are in the hands of capitalists and they are a big group supporting the NO.
A big part of the campaign was disinformation, proponents of the NO where saying we would become just like Venezuela. They proponents of the NO did a big campaign about how a big part of the agreements were about LGBT rights and abortion (that was not true), and the backwards conservative people believed that.
And, to further disagree with your 'it makes the Guerrilla a "democratic" party', we had another peace process 25 years ago, with the M-19 Guerrillas. And in fact some of them have been some of the best politicians of the last two decades, like Antonio Navarro, who won the distinction of being the best Colombian mayor, when he was mayor of Pasto.
The people supporting the NO are: clueless people, religious fundamentalists, yuppies who never leave the city and the owners of lands that could lose some terrain in the restitution process.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the
Nobel Peace Prize for 2016 to Colombian President Juan
Manuel Santos for his resolute efforts to bring the
country's more than 50-year-long civil war to an end, a war
that has cost the lives of at least 220 000 Colombians and
displaced close to six million people.
The award should also be seen as a tribute to the Colombian
people who, despite great hardships and abuses, have not
given up hope of a just peace, and to all the parties who
have contributed to the peace process. This tribute is
paid, not least, to the representatives of the countless
victims of the civil war.
Ending a 50 year civil war would be amazing for Colombia. Kudos to the comittee for taking such an "old" conflict and not picking up a (for lack of a better word) "hip" topic.
I do not mean that the White Helmets or every other Organisation on the short list would not have earned the price, however I think it is a good thing that they try to strengthen a peace process that would put an end to such a long-lasting conflict.
There has been pictures of "rebels" with guns for a day, then a White Helmet the next day switching back and forth.
(That said, for all I know the white helmets is a front for ISIS. But either way, the Assad junta and the Russians have an obvious interest in tarring them black.)
Of course, who wouldnt choose to be melted to pieces by an expensive explosive device with advanced guidance and autonomous systems rather than a cheap ones?
Here you have my standard reference, quite critical of the US, regarding the laws of war. Please compare the US behavior with the Syrian/Russian Rules Of Engagement.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n04/michael-byers/the-laws-of-war-u...
Never heard of this. Do you have a source?
I might as well have written ""for all I know the white helmets might be working for the lizard men."
Disclaimer: English is not my first language so for all I know, I might be misusing the expression. :-)
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.
The USA.
And this particular case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_McGuinness
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.
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.
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.
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.
The people awarding the physics prize seem to be waiting until they are absolutely certain the discoveries are important. So correct me if I'm wrong, but it's mostly given to old men for things they've done decades ago, not for outstanding accomplishments in the past year.
Unlike the peace prize works. Which is by the way awarded by politicians.
Regarding Obama's prize, Wikipedia has this quote:
Jagland said the committee was influenced by a speech Obama gave about Islam in Cairo in June 2009, the president's efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation and climate change, and Obama's support for using established international bodies such as the United Nations to pursue foreign policy goals.[11] The New York Times reported that Jagland shrugged off the question of whether "the committee feared being labeled naïve for accepting a young politician's promises at face value", stating that "no one could deny that 'the international climate' had suddenly improved, and that Mr. Obama was the main reason...'We want to embrace the message that he stands for.'
I think it's hard to quite grasp how much Bush and his war rhetoric was despised in intellectual circles in Europe. Then he was re-elected, and it was really as if Americans were hellbent on the us-vs-them attitude.
It's too bad that Obama later started executing people remotely, but that's the problem with giving out awards for something done in the past year, it may be a better motivator and much more relevant, but you might end up handing out a prize to someone who later doesn't look like he or she still deserves it.
> It's too bad that Obama later started executing people remotely,
Civil war in Syria. hundreds of civilian drone killings. Failed to close Guantanamo.
'It's too bad' is a huge fucking understatement. If a selection process yields peace prize to these kinds of people that is in fact, 100% worthless.
Since people do still pay attention to it for some reason, I'm glad that they used the prize to put more international attention on the Columbian peace process, which at least in the US seems to have barely been mentioned.
Perhaps the award should only go to pacifists who have spotless records, regardless of how little impact they may have had?
I hope this helps restart the process, and change public opinion.
This is quite unfortunate timing. But I guess they couldn't find somebody else on short notice after the referendum on the peace deal failed. (also, it's not the first time this prize has been awarded for intentions instead of results)
To suggest otherwise is in my opinion, utterly naive, but in the very least shortsighted.
Conflicts aren't always bad. We just need conflict resolution.
I don't care about the Nobel Peace Prize one jot, but if I did, I'd definitely want a prize for Assange, though he is a very controversial figure.
I don't regret the sarcasm: your presumption that defining what can be classified as a veritable struggle for human welfare can, in turn, be used as an argument for which struggles are most deserving of praise is what is called a straw man argument, perhaps the most annoying fallacy to refute before an audience of undecided thinkers as it is effective despite being logically inconsistent.
Is there a notable prize for civil disobedience or similar?
The Rafto Prize comes pretty close; its purpose is more or less explicitly stated as raising awareness of lesser-known human rights activists to make their work easier and provide the modicum of protection that international awareness gives.
Jail time, usually.
This is a really difficult situation, and this Nobel prize was really unexpected. When the plebiscite results where announced last Sunday, the whole country was astonished, even those who where for the No vote, as polls predicted and overwhelming support for Sí. I was very dissapointed with the result, even ashamed, as it was barely a win for No, but shown mostly an abstention level not seen in two decades. I cannot understand that a majority of Colombians didn't want to take part in one of them is important decisions in a century. Unbelievable.
Regarding the No: I can understand that people feels this peace deal brings impunity to the victims, that will be difficult to support financially, and puts a handful of insurgents directly on the congress. It does, and I believe basically no one is happy with that. But we are negotiating with a 50-year old billionaire militar criminal enterprise with strong Marxist roots and an original mission to take the power by force. And maybe it's own existence is due to the government actions in what was called Operation Marquetalia, which doesn't help with trust. It is worth remembering that Colombia is one of the most unequal countries in the world, with a top ten Gini coefficient.
Regarding Alvaro Uribe: even if successful in weakening the guerrillas, has a complicated history with the paramilitary, which have been at least as vicious as the guerrillas itself. His brother has been convicted due to ties with this groups, and his government and way of thought is from the hard right, and his way of talk is based on populism and loaded language. He is the major proponent of the No, and as a I see it, only to get his name on the deal, and even more, to push for a constitutional reform so that he is able to become president, for a third time. I feel that's sabotage.
Regarding Juan Manuel Santos: I did not vote for Santos in 2010, but for Mockus. He is not without scandals, mainly due to his actions under Uribe, who is know his strongest opposition. But I did vote for him in 2014, because he is a outstanding negotiator: and I was right, he got the peace deal signed, which no one was ever able to do before. Sadly he is a very bad political leader for the people, lacking good rhetoric and sympathy, and was not ably to rally the masses for the Sí. I'm simply unable to judge at this point if this Nobel prize should have been given to him.
Regarding the Sí: This is not the best deal we could have dreamed, maybe not even the best we expected, but was what could be achieved at that table at that time. I don't think we can get a peace deal without high sacrifice, and coming out smiling from the negotiation. This is a matter of opportunity cost: what reality did you prefer, the one where we painfully finish this conflict throughout the next decade, or the one where we perpetuate the longest lasting conflict in the Americas. Those most affected by it chose the Sí. I did too.
I just hope that we find a way out of this, with peace as a final outcome.
Many people are willing to stand on the sidelines rather than take action when there don't seem to be any good solutions. This is partly why the work Santos is doing is important. There are no solutions that would make everyone happy, but passively doing nothing is not a good option, only the easy option. Santos has had the courage to put forward a path to peace, even if it is not popular.
Did I just happen to ask the wrong people or is political awareness that low in Colombia?
And yes, political awareness in Colombia is low. The abstention for this plebiscite was greater than 60%.
That surprises me as people weren't at all shy about how much they disliked the FARC.
And yes, political awareness in Colombia is a bit like an Internet forum: where memes are more prevalent than intelligent discourse.
The peace agreements are imperfect and generate impunity, but it is the best possible tradeoff in exchange for long term wellbeing in the country, and Santos has successfully understood and negotiated under this premise, even though it has meant some huge compromises on his and the government's part. This is why he truly deserves the Nobel peace prize.
Unfortunately the opposition manipulated and lied about the contents of the 297 pages peace agreements (which the director of the opposition party openly recognized and for which he will probably go to jail for), and spread baseless claims that old people would lose their pensions, that communism would take over power and private property would be eliminated, which ultimately ended up in them winning the plebiscite.
But even after this big reversal Santos has not renounced to the presidency and is now negotiating with the opposition to see what modifications need to be done so that a peace deal with the guerrilla can finally be closed, coming to a 60 year division.
In fact, just allowing people to vote again would be an effective strategy.
I don't mean to make light of this...I (like many others) just question the timing of this awarding of the prize. While I'm extremely happy that the world has taken notice of this very important challenge that Colombia has been facing, I would have expected the committee would have waited until a plan is actually implemented, etc. Nevertheless, the very fact of this award is a clear, positive signal of the collective world's desire for peace for Colombians.
Disclaimer: I'm born, raised in the U.S. with Colombian parents (themselves naturalized U.S. citizens from years ago).
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/12/henry-kissingers-war-cri...
In 2009, the peace prize really was quite strange in my opinion: Obama had achieved rather little except winning an election campaign (becoming the U.S. president the same year) on promises that undoubtedly sounded good to the Committee (but which later on were not kept very well or quickly).
I'm a big Obama fan, but I'm with you on the 2009 prize.
In 2008 the 'false positives' scandal was uncovered,referring to revelations concerning extrajudicial executions carried out by members of the military in order to artificially increase the number of guerrillas killed by the Army and claim rewards from the government. On 4 November 2008, Santos admitted that the military had carried out extrajudicial executions
There was a misuse of an International Committee of the Red Cross symbol during Operation Jaque used to safely rescue hostages from FARC."
Now extra-judicial killings are no bar to being given the Nobel "Peace" Prize. The least credible of the Nobel Prizes continues to deliver....