After Obama got a peace prize, it's really hard to take any of this seriously.
[deleted]
The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos
71–80 of 123 posts
Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
The people who vote against claim they are not in favor of the war but in favor of another agreement. There's very few people in everyday life that want "the same". However, through many lies popular believe is that we can close the conflict making things even, like there's a better amazing deal we are missing altogether and need to stop and rethink it all. There's no full justice we can achieve as a country as there will never be anyone who can repair all the WWII deaths, destruction and suffering. That didn't mean that Europe couldn't recover and that Jews, as the most clearly affected group by size, where not able to cope and forgive in many cases. That's the point that voter against don't see and think they can easily get through another agreement.
Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos
#73Earlier 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…
Is it possible the map looks like that is because a lot of the people affected by the attacks left the afflicted areas, and the voters that remain are ones benefiting from the guerrillas?
You don't benefit from mines, hard work conditions, no access to anything and the risk of getting bombed by planes or being in cross fire. I understand the logic for your question but once you check the facts of those parts of the country it's obvious that only the guerillas and huge land owners could be benefiting and they don't had enough control in this situation to affect the result of the vote.
Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos
#74This 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.
You should evaluate it on its own terms unencumbered. Is it worth it, is it not worth it (to you or to your country). Encumbering it with what other people or other societies is interesting but not useful to you.
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.
Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos
#75I 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…
I live in Colombia. 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…
Thank your for a reasonable comment! There is indeed a lot of ignorance from the outside. There's a logic to many points and theories but definitely people should be more informed even here in HN.
Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos
#76This 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 possi…
Name ONE developed country that would accept zero jail time and political eligibility for someone convicted of multiple war crimes, with hundreds of years in cumulative prison sentences.
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.
Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos
#77I 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.
> You can't end a war without leaving the past behind.
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...
Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos
#78What 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…
As they claim in the Q&A posted on Twitter, this encourages the process and celebrates the effort of president Santos to reach this far. If we do not reach an agreement to end this war it's a problem of other forces in the country and the ignorance of our people but for sure not by Santos failure. If we don't solve this for good, his brutal shift of the conflict from war to negotiation is already a great result.
Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos
#79Earlier 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…
What about the monthly alimony every FARC combatant was to receive? 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".
For how long would they receive the 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.
Re: The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos
#80After Obama got a peace prize, it's really hard to take any of this seriously.
Okay, this whole theme is getting a bit annoying: Only if you expect the peace prize to be awarded in the same way as physics prize.
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.