https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...deal-with-farc
Colombia referendum rejects peace deal with Farc guerrillas
President Juan Manuel Santos fails to win approval as voters appear to balk at an agreement that included amnesty for war crimes
Sibylla Brodzinsky in Bogota
Sunday 2 October 2016 19.30 EDT Last modified on Sunday 2 October 2016 20.38 EDT
Colombians have rejected a peace deal to end 52 years of war with Farc guerrillas, throwing the country into confusion about its future.
With counting completed from 98% of polling stations, the no vote led with 50.23% to 49.76%, a difference of 61,000 votes.
The verdict on the deal between the government of Juan Manuel Santos and the Farc reached after four years of intense negotiations means it cannot now be implemented.
'Forgiveness can change a country': Colombians on peace deal referendum
Read more
Polls before the vote predicted yes would win with a comfortable 66% share. Santos had been confident of a yes result and said during the campaign that he did not have a plan B and that Colombia would return to war if the no vote won. His opponents, led by former president Alvaro Uribe, said a win for their side would be a mandate for the government and rebels to negotiate a “better agreement”.
Both government and rebels have repeatedly said that the deal was the best they could achieve and a renegotiation would not be possible.
Supporters of the peace deal watch the results of the referendum in Cali on Sunday.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Supporters of the peace deal watch the results of the referendum in Cali on Sunday. Photograph: Guillermo Legaria/AFP/Getty Images
Santos, who watched the results come in at the presidential palace in Bogota, said he accepted the “no” result but said a ceasefire would continue.
Santos, who has staked his legacy on achieving peace, said he would meet with all political parties on Monday to find a way forward for the peace process. The vote would not affect Colombia’s stability, he said.
The Farc leader, Rodrigo Londono, said the insurgent group maintained its desire for peace despite the failure of a plebiscite to approve its recently signed deal with the government.
“The Farc reiterates its disposition to use only words as a weapon to build toward the future,” said Londono, who is known by his nom de guerre, Timochenko. “To the Colombian people who dream of peace, count on us, peace will triumph.”
Under the agreement rejected by voters, the Farc’s 5,800 fighters and a similar number of urban militia members would have disarmed and become a legal political party. A bilateral ceasefire has been in effect since 29 August and it is uncertain whether that will remain in place.
Antono Sanguino, leader of the Green party that promoted the yes vote said the results of the plebiscite left the country in a “situation of vertigo”.
Half of the voters were convinced by a “discourse of hate”, he told Caracol television. “Not even the promoters of no know what happens now.”
Meanwhile, supporters of the no campaign publicly reached out to theFarc.
Francisco Santos, a former vice-president, said commanders would be given “all the guarantees to continue negotiations for this peace process to have a good conclusion”.
Both the Farc and government had believed that was what they had reached.
In a ceremony on 26 September, with UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon, US Secretary of State John Kerry and a dozen Latin American leaders on hand as witnesses, Santos and Farc leader Timochenko signed the deal their negotiators had reached after four years of talks in Havana.
Read more
In the days before the vote, Farc commanders rushed to make a round of public apologies to their victims in an attempt to boost support for the yes vote. On Thursday, chief rebel negotiator Iván Márquez presented the community of Bojayá, Chocó, where the 2002 bombing of a church killed 119 people, with a new crucifix. At a similar event on Friday in Apartadó, Antioquia, the site of a 1994 Farc massacre of 35 people, Márquez said it “never should have happened”.
On Saturday UN monitors oversaw the Farc’s destruction of over 620 kilos of explosives in a remote corner of the country. The group also promised to give an accounting of their assets, to be used to compensate victims of the war, despite having previously said they had no money.
But the apologies and promises appear to have come too late.
The deal would have allowed rebel leaders to avoid jail if they confessed to their crimes such as killing, kidnapping, indiscriminate attacks, and child recruitment, something that many Colombians found hard to swallow.
By promoting a no vote, Uribe argued that he did not support continued war but rather hoped to force the government and Farc to renegotiate a better deal. “Peace is exciting,” he said after casting his vote. “The texts from Havana are disappointing.”
Colombia referendum rejects peace deal with Farc guerrillas
President Juan Manuel Santos fails to win approval as voters appear to balk at an agreement that included amnesty for war crimes
Sibylla Brodzinsky in Bogota
Sunday 2 October 2016 19.30 EDT Last modified on Sunday 2 October 2016 20.38 EDT
Colombians have rejected a peace deal to end 52 years of war with Farc guerrillas, throwing the country into confusion about its future.
With counting completed from 98% of polling stations, the no vote led with 50.23% to 49.76%, a difference of 61,000 votes.
The verdict on the deal between the government of Juan Manuel Santos and the Farc reached after four years of intense negotiations means it cannot now be implemented.
'Forgiveness can change a country': Colombians on peace deal referendum
Read more
Polls before the vote predicted yes would win with a comfortable 66% share. Santos had been confident of a yes result and said during the campaign that he did not have a plan B and that Colombia would return to war if the no vote won. His opponents, led by former president Alvaro Uribe, said a win for their side would be a mandate for the government and rebels to negotiate a “better agreement”.
Both government and rebels have repeatedly said that the deal was the best they could achieve and a renegotiation would not be possible.
Supporters of the peace deal watch the results of the referendum in Cali on Sunday.
Supporters of the peace deal watch the results of the referendum in Cali on Sunday. Photograph: Guillermo Legaria/AFP/Getty Images
Santos, who watched the results come in at the presidential palace in Bogota, said he accepted the “no” result but said a ceasefire would continue.
Santos, who has staked his legacy on achieving peace, said he would meet with all political parties on Monday to find a way forward for the peace process. The vote would not affect Colombia’s stability, he said.
The Farc leader, Rodrigo Londono, said the insurgent group maintained its desire for peace despite the failure of a plebiscite to approve its recently signed deal with the government.
“The Farc reiterates its disposition to use only words as a weapon to build toward the future,” said Londono, who is known by his nom de guerre, Timochenko. “To the Colombian people who dream of peace, count on us, peace will triumph.”
Under the agreement rejected by voters, the Farc’s 5,800 fighters and a similar number of urban militia members would have disarmed and become a legal political party. A bilateral ceasefire has been in effect since 29 August and it is uncertain whether that will remain in place.
Antono Sanguino, leader of the Green party that promoted the yes vote said the results of the plebiscite left the country in a “situation of vertigo”.
Half of the voters were convinced by a “discourse of hate”, he told Caracol television. “Not even the promoters of no know what happens now.”
Meanwhile, supporters of the no campaign publicly reached out to theFarc.
Francisco Santos, a former vice-president, said commanders would be given “all the guarantees to continue negotiations for this peace process to have a good conclusion”.
Both the Farc and government had believed that was what they had reached.
In a ceremony on 26 September, with UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon, US Secretary of State John Kerry and a dozen Latin American leaders on hand as witnesses, Santos and Farc leader Timochenko signed the deal their negotiators had reached after four years of talks in Havana.
Read more
In the days before the vote, Farc commanders rushed to make a round of public apologies to their victims in an attempt to boost support for the yes vote. On Thursday, chief rebel negotiator Iván Márquez presented the community of Bojayá, Chocó, where the 2002 bombing of a church killed 119 people, with a new crucifix. At a similar event on Friday in Apartadó, Antioquia, the site of a 1994 Farc massacre of 35 people, Márquez said it “never should have happened”.
On Saturday UN monitors oversaw the Farc’s destruction of over 620 kilos of explosives in a remote corner of the country. The group also promised to give an accounting of their assets, to be used to compensate victims of the war, despite having previously said they had no money.
But the apologies and promises appear to have come too late.
The deal would have allowed rebel leaders to avoid jail if they confessed to their crimes such as killing, kidnapping, indiscriminate attacks, and child recruitment, something that many Colombians found hard to swallow.
By promoting a no vote, Uribe argued that he did not support continued war but rather hoped to force the government and Farc to renegotiate a better deal. “Peace is exciting,” he said after casting his vote. “The texts from Havana are disappointing.”
The Americas
If the FARC deal passes, kiss Colombia goodbye
By Fergus Hodgson
·Published October 02, 2016
Facebook
Twitter
livefyre
Email
April 2, 2012: A Brazilian air force helicopter emblazoned with the Red Cross logo takes off from an airfield to pick up members of the last group of soldiers and police held by Colombia's main rebel group, in Villavicencio, Colombia.
April 2, 2012: A Brazilian air force helicopter emblazoned with the Red Cross logo takes off from an airfield to pick up members of the last group of soldiers and police held by Colombia's main rebel group, in Villavicencio, Colombia. (AP)
Talk of non-interventionism from the Venezuelan regime belies an eagerness to expand influence beyond their borders. For many years, they have had their eyes on Colombia; now the so-called Peace Agreement will open the door for 21st-century socialism, perhaps irreversibly.
ADVERTISEMENT
The lengthy negotiation with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) proceeded under the protection of communist Cuba in Havana, after five decades of conflict with the brutal terrorists. Now the 297-page agreement is up for approval on Sunday. It needs a majority of votes and support from 13 percent of the electorate.
On both counts, passage looks probable. Half of constituents plan to vote, and the "yes" side has the edge in support. Many on the "no" side will abstain and discourage participation, since they deem the referendum unconstitutional.
Almost no one will read the agreement before voting, and the devil is in the details. Adamant support from Bolivarian Alliance neighbors, however, indicates what lies beneath the surface. This bloc, the brainchild of Hugo Chávez, opposes US influence in the Americas and advocates 21st-century socialism. Presidents Rafael Correa and Nicolás Maduro continue Chávez's ambition in Ecuador and Venezuela.
These regimes have some of the most suffocated economies in world and a flagrant disregard for human rights such as free speech. Venezuela came in 159th and last in the latest Fraser Institute freedom ranking, and Ecuador is not much better at 142nd.
Venezuela is now more violent and dangerous than Colombia, with regime-backed militias such as the Tupamaro. Last week a gang took over the Caracas University Hospital, and over 100 Caracas policemen have been murdered in 2016.
The Marxist FARC are overt Chavistas and have a strong presence in Venezuela — with mutual affection expressed by both Chávez and Maduro — so they have negotiated in that direction. The agreement has 161 mandates, with 114 solely on the government.
Beyond impunity, the terms create the institutional and political gateway for a new member of this Bolivarian Alliance. Colombia would ignite the Chavista dream of a socialist Gran Colombia, a short-lived 19th-century republic under Simón Bolívar.
The agreement sets up a Reconciliation Council, local councils, long-term agrarian reform, and 10 guaranteed seats for the FARC through 2022: five in both the Senate and the House. In other words, new socialist bureaucracies and guaranteed political power.
The FARC have largely boycotted past elections, but would be a force to be reckoned with. In part, they have already succeeded, since President Juan Manuel Santos's coalition included sympathizers whose priority was the agreement. They would be able to draw on drug-cartel funds, activist networks, violence and intimidation, and state propaganda from the Chavista TeleSUR. All TeleSUR presidents have been Colombian since the 2005 founding, with an eye on influence there.
The agreement prohibits drug trafficking, but some FARC fronts will likely ignore this. The like-minded guerrilla Popular Liberation Army is also ready to move into vacated territory and sustain the profits.
Further, many politicians support the FARC goal of 21st-century socialism. That includes Gustavo Petro Urrego, a former Bogotá mayor, guerrilla, and now presidential aspirant with an approval rating of 40 percent.
To make matters worse, the deal comes when Colombians are vulnerable and desperate. As Colombian Senator Iván Duque Márquez has noted, "[Colombia] has the perfect conditions forChavista rhetoric: economic crisis and corruption."
Like other Latin American countries, Colombia already has socialist leanings. At 116th on the Fraser Institute ranking, she only needs a nudge to line up with her authoritarian neighbors.
This downward spiral would be hastened by the cost of the agreement's implementation, which necessitates national debt and new taxes. Negotiation was in the tens of millions of dollars, but that is pennies compared to what is in store, up to $187 billion in the first 10 years. One reason is the bribe for FARC members: $700 up front and $217 per month for two years for 10,000-17,500 people.
Gushing international praise from the likes of President Barack Obama is naiveté and wishful thinking. There are reasons why former President Álvaro Uribe Vélez (2002-2010) rejected any concessions. He understood that there was no common ground, and that the FARC would renege on any agreement.
Colombia yearns for peace, but she need not capitulate before Latin America's most bloodthirsty guerrillas. Voters can still reject this agreement and pursue a just and lasting solution.
Fergus Hodgson (@FergHodgson) is an economic consultant with the Fraser Institute in Canada and a research fellow with the Tax Revolution Institute in Washington, DC.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/...a-goodbye.html
If the FARC deal passes, kiss Colombia goodbye
By Fergus Hodgson
·Published October 02, 2016
livefyre
April 2, 2012: A Brazilian air force helicopter emblazoned with the Red Cross logo takes off from an airfield to pick up members of the last group of soldiers and police held by Colombia's main rebel group, in Villavicencio, Colombia.
April 2, 2012: A Brazilian air force helicopter emblazoned with the Red Cross logo takes off from an airfield to pick up members of the last group of soldiers and police held by Colombia's main rebel group, in Villavicencio, Colombia. (AP)
Talk of non-interventionism from the Venezuelan regime belies an eagerness to expand influence beyond their borders. For many years, they have had their eyes on Colombia; now the so-called Peace Agreement will open the door for 21st-century socialism, perhaps irreversibly.
ADVERTISEMENT
The lengthy negotiation with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) proceeded under the protection of communist Cuba in Havana, after five decades of conflict with the brutal terrorists. Now the 297-page agreement is up for approval on Sunday. It needs a majority of votes and support from 13 percent of the electorate.
On both counts, passage looks probable. Half of constituents plan to vote, and the "yes" side has the edge in support. Many on the "no" side will abstain and discourage participation, since they deem the referendum unconstitutional.
Almost no one will read the agreement before voting, and the devil is in the details. Adamant support from Bolivarian Alliance neighbors, however, indicates what lies beneath the surface. This bloc, the brainchild of Hugo Chávez, opposes US influence in the Americas and advocates 21st-century socialism. Presidents Rafael Correa and Nicolás Maduro continue Chávez's ambition in Ecuador and Venezuela.
These regimes have some of the most suffocated economies in world and a flagrant disregard for human rights such as free speech. Venezuela came in 159th and last in the latest Fraser Institute freedom ranking, and Ecuador is not much better at 142nd.
Venezuela is now more violent and dangerous than Colombia, with regime-backed militias such as the Tupamaro. Last week a gang took over the Caracas University Hospital, and over 100 Caracas policemen have been murdered in 2016.
The Marxist FARC are overt Chavistas and have a strong presence in Venezuela — with mutual affection expressed by both Chávez and Maduro — so they have negotiated in that direction. The agreement has 161 mandates, with 114 solely on the government.
Beyond impunity, the terms create the institutional and political gateway for a new member of this Bolivarian Alliance. Colombia would ignite the Chavista dream of a socialist Gran Colombia, a short-lived 19th-century republic under Simón Bolívar.
The agreement sets up a Reconciliation Council, local councils, long-term agrarian reform, and 10 guaranteed seats for the FARC through 2022: five in both the Senate and the House. In other words, new socialist bureaucracies and guaranteed political power.
The FARC have largely boycotted past elections, but would be a force to be reckoned with. In part, they have already succeeded, since President Juan Manuel Santos's coalition included sympathizers whose priority was the agreement. They would be able to draw on drug-cartel funds, activist networks, violence and intimidation, and state propaganda from the Chavista TeleSUR. All TeleSUR presidents have been Colombian since the 2005 founding, with an eye on influence there.
The agreement prohibits drug trafficking, but some FARC fronts will likely ignore this. The like-minded guerrilla Popular Liberation Army is also ready to move into vacated territory and sustain the profits.
Further, many politicians support the FARC goal of 21st-century socialism. That includes Gustavo Petro Urrego, a former Bogotá mayor, guerrilla, and now presidential aspirant with an approval rating of 40 percent.
To make matters worse, the deal comes when Colombians are vulnerable and desperate. As Colombian Senator Iván Duque Márquez has noted, "[Colombia] has the perfect conditions forChavista rhetoric: economic crisis and corruption."
Like other Latin American countries, Colombia already has socialist leanings. At 116th on the Fraser Institute ranking, she only needs a nudge to line up with her authoritarian neighbors.
This downward spiral would be hastened by the cost of the agreement's implementation, which necessitates national debt and new taxes. Negotiation was in the tens of millions of dollars, but that is pennies compared to what is in store, up to $187 billion in the first 10 years. One reason is the bribe for FARC members: $700 up front and $217 per month for two years for 10,000-17,500 people.
Gushing international praise from the likes of President Barack Obama is naiveté and wishful thinking. There are reasons why former President Álvaro Uribe Vélez (2002-2010) rejected any concessions. He understood that there was no common ground, and that the FARC would renege on any agreement.
Colombia yearns for peace, but she need not capitulate before Latin America's most bloodthirsty guerrillas. Voters can still reject this agreement and pursue a just and lasting solution.
Fergus Hodgson (@FergHodgson) is an economic consultant with the Fraser Institute in Canada and a research fellow with the Tax Revolution Institute in Washington, DC.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/...a-goodbye.html
Comment