I hope this helps restart the process, and change public opinion.
The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos
31–40 of 123 posts
Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
"Lesser known" is probably where Snowden fails the criteria for that one.
Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are not well informed. In Colombia the majority of the victims of the conflict support the peace process. You can easily see it in the map of how the people voted and you’ll notice that those territories where the war was actually fought got the big majority of the votes supporting the peace treaty. The process didn't legalize the crimes nor allow the guerrilla to keep their drug dealing money. That's just FUD. T…
>You can easily see it in the map of how the people voted and you’ll notice that those territories where the war was actually fought got the big majority of the votes supporting the peace treaty. Or maybe because people in those territories support the guerrillas?
Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos
#34Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whatever you think of Snowden, you can hardly claim that what he's done has directly affected any conflicts for the better
Peace is about far more than conflict. 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.
Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos
#36I was in Colombia two weeks ago. I am Spanish so I could talk with the people. Not everybody supports the "peace process" like any Western media displays. 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…
You can't end a war without leaving the past behind. And that means you have to make concessions. You make the comparison with Germany at the end of WWII. Not every Nazi or was punished, on the contrary, the majority escaped what uou call justice. Yes, it's unfair and hard to accept, but that's what makes every peace process so damn hard.
Oh and none of the allies war criminals were punished. You forgot to mention that.
Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos
#37Isn't the Nobel Peace Prize widely considered a joke to begin with?
Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Arent White Helmets a subversive CIA group? There has been pictures of "rebels" with guns for a day, then a White Helmet the next day switching back and forth.
Digging out the wounded and dying is a subversive act?
(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.)
Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos
#39I was in Colombia two weeks ago. I am Spanish so I could talk with the people. Not everybody supports the "peace process" like any Western media displays. 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…
Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos
#40This 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.