Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos

nobelprize.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 123 posts

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos

#61

Post by maxxxxx »

ekianjo wrote: post #36
yabatopia wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nazi not punished ? Most of them died in the war. Oh and none of the allies war criminals were punished. You forgot to mention that.

Plenty of high-ranking Nazis had good careers after the war and were not punished. In Germany and everywhere else. Look at Wernher von Braun, the "father of the moon rocket".

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos

#62

Post by ptaipale »

ceejayoz wrote: post #50
runholm wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was the problem with awarding it to Kissinger? Generally curious? I don't recall the details, but as far as I understood he pretty much laid down the foundation to end the Vietnam war.

Carpet bombings of Laos, helping Nixon interfere with negotiations in Paris to end the war, looking the other way while Pakistan massacred people in Bangladesh, supporting Pinochet, etc.

That was past; then came the deal to an armistice to end the Vietnam War (though then after the armistice NVA and VC continued the war and South Vietnam collapsed). The point of that prize was not that there had been war, it was that the parties had signed to end hostilities.

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).

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos

#63

Post by mxuribe »

What if...the idea for the award of this nobel prize was purposefully implemented by the world's secret/shady powers-that-be...in an effort to generate more social/political pressure to all but ensure that some resolution (perhaps ANY resolution, good or bad) gets completed before Santos' time as president finishes...?

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).

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos

#64

Post by simonmd »

This is just another version of the white savior complex. Developed countries support 'peace' processes that make them feel good about themselves, with little regard for the root causes of the conflict to begin with. Apparently they think us colombians are too backwards to deserve first-world justice, so they applaud compromises that they would NEVER accept themselves.

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos

#66

Post by Graphon1 »

ceronman wrote: post #33
tarancato wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

No, I'm taking about territories that were attacked by the guerrilla. Like Toribio Cauca, that got more than 600 guerrilla attacks since the 80s. 81% of them voted yes to peace treaty.

I'm uninformed, but is it possible the vote was basically a choice between "war" and "not war"? Maybe people voted for anything but more of the same?

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos

#67

Post by cloverich »

simonmd wrote: post #64

This is just another version of the white savior complex. Developed countries support 'peace' processes that make them feel good about themselves, with little regard for the root causes of the conflict to begin with. Apparently they think us colombians are too backwards to deserve first-world justice, so they applaud compromises that they would NEVER accept themselves.

Can you contrast this with ceronman's comment below (or maybe above) that the areas most likely to vote for the compromise were the people most affected by the guerilla violence?

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos

#68

Post by ceejayoz »

ptaipale wrote: post #62
ceejayoz wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carpet bombings of Laos, helping Nixon interfere with negotiations in Paris to end the war, looking the other way while Pakistan massacred people in Bangladesh, supporting Pinochet, etc.

That was past; then came the deal to an armistice to end the Vietnam War (though then after the armistice NVA and VC continued the war and South Vietnam collapsed). The point of that prize was not that there had been war, it was that the parties had signed to end hostilities. In 2009, the peace prize really was quite strange in my opinion: Obama had achieved rather little except winning an election campaign (becoming…

Kissinger was directly and personally responsible for lengthening and intensifying the conflict. Giving him credit for ending it later on seems odd.

I'm a big Obama fan, but I'm with you on the 2009 prize.

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos

#69

Post by davidpelaez »

simonmd wrote: post #64

This is just another version of the white savior complex. Developed countries support 'peace' processes that make them feel good about themselves, with little regard for the root causes of the conflict to begin with. Apparently they think us colombians are too backwards to deserve first-world justice, so they applaud compromises that they would NEVER accept themselves.

Except they had. First world countries had the worst war on history and they rebuilt their societies making big concessions. Europe and Japan know a lot about accepting had agreements exactly as our peace process suggests. This is a great way of supporting the work a great president truly committed to changing our country because he was born rich and it's extremely obvious that the peace agreement with FARC and possibly ELN it his way to transcend. I applaud this price and the support of developed countries to the process.

Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos

#70

Post by davidpelaez »

forgotpwtomain wrote: post #65

After Obama got a peace prize, it's really hard to take any of this seriously.

I agree that Obama's was pretty shitty, but from my internal view as a Colombian I would really suggest that you find out about his work for peace. He's still a politician and hardly everyone's cup of tea, but he has really make a huge effort against many walls to find peace in Colombia. He has gone from defense minister all the way to finding an agreement we can implement. The patience to go between those such opposite positions is admirable.
Post reply on HN