
The Nobel Peace Prize 2016: Juan Manuel Santos - okket
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2016/press.html
======
pipio21
I 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 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.

~~~
ceronman
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. 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.

~~~
woodpanel
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".

~~~
neves
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.

~~~
diegorbaquero
2 years. It's cheaper to do that than to continue the war.

~~~
woodpanel
Well if that's true I give up. It's indeed a cheap price. Instead of alimony
the term "grant" or "transition backing" would be the better fitting word.

Still. Morality is often on bad terms with money. If you want to talk with
people about principles they often become fundamental money-wise.

------
okket

      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.
    

See also the answer to the question: "Does this year's prize encourage a
process more than a result, since a slim majority of Colombians voted no?"

[https://twitter.com/NobelPrize/status/784323887374831617](https://twitter.com/NobelPrize/status/784323887374831617)

------
jagermo
Interesting choice, especially since the referendum itself fell through. But
it is a strong signal for Santos and the FARC to work out a new deal.

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.

~~~
antocv
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.

~~~
tobltobs
Digging out the wounded and dying is a subversive act?

~~~
berntb
It probably is -- from the viewpoint of those that bombs civilians with barrel
bombs.

(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.)

~~~
antocv
> of those that bombs civilians with barrel bombs.

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?

~~~
berntb
You are knowingly dishonest by ignoring the word "civilian".

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...](http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n04/michael-byers/the-laws-of-war-us-style)

------
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.

~~~
davidpelaez
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.

~~~
simonmd
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.

~~~
javpaw
What about this in general:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_peace_process](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_peace_process)

And this particular case:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_McGuinness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_McGuinness)

~~~
simonmd
Not directly comparable for two important reasons:

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.

~~~
javpaw
Stop overfitting.

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.

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

~~~
olau
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.

~~~
forgotpwtomain
> Okay, this whole theme is getting a bit annoying

> 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.

------
mavdi
I think he deserves it. It took years to set up the peace process. Had it not
been down to the fact that democracy is the tyranny of the stupid, Colombia
would finally see peace.

I hope this helps restart the process, and change public opinion.

------
chkuendig
Related: [http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/05/americas/colombia-
ceasefir...](http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/05/americas/colombia-ceasefire-
farc/)

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)

------
gotofritz
Well, what did you expect from the people who have given a prize to Kissinger,
Arafat, Obama?

~~~
rurban
Well, they had to avoid Snowden at all costs.

~~~
gotofritz
Whatever you think of Snowden, you can hardly claim that what he's done has
directly affected any conflicts for the better

~~~
techdragon
Peace is about far more than conflict.

To suggest otherwise is in my opinion, utterly naive, but in the very least
shortsighted.

~~~
newjersey
Yup. The sun engulfing the earth instantly today ending life would end all
conflicts in one sweep.

Conflicts aren't always bad. We just need conflict resolution.

------
jjfigueredou
I am Colombian.

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.

~~~
forinti
I was in Colombia in 2010 (what a beatiful country and people - I loved it).
There were elections and I saw "De la U" posters all over. So I asked a few
people what the U stood for. Nobody seemed to know. This is the party that won
the presidency.

Did I just happen to ask the wrong people or is political awareness that low
in Colombia?

~~~
javpaw
This was one of the parties that supported former president Uribe back then,
so many people think that the "U" is for him. But in fact "De la U" is for "De
la Unidad Nacional" (National Unity).

And yes, political awareness in Colombia is low. The abstention for this
plebiscite was greater than 60%.

~~~
forinti
> 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.

------
mxuribe
<conspiracy-theory> 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...? </conspiracy-theory>

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).

~~~
davidpelaez
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.

------
Dowwie
The nobel peace prize award decision making process continues to boggle the
mind.

------
gman83
I thought the White Helmets would win.

------
xyzzy4
The Nobel Peace Prize lost all credibility when it was given to Obama in 2009.

~~~
runholm
He was awarded the price for his use of diplomacy instead of provoking more
new wars. There was a lot of controversy regarding the decision, but to say
that it lost all credibility is simply not true.

~~~
jbuzbee
Cough. According to Wikipedia[1] - "Nominations for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize
closed just 11 days after Obama took office." That must have been a busy 11
days doing diplomacy...

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize)

------
whyagaindavid
Kudos

------
quickly
Isn't the Nobel Peace Prize widely considered a joke to begin with?

~~~
MrFeynmannsJoke
At least since 2009 when Obama Receiver it.

~~~
ghostDancer
Kissinger was before that and much worse than Obama.

~~~
runholm
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.

~~~
ceejayoz
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.

~~~
ptaipale
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).

~~~
ceejayoz
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.

~~~
ptaipale
There are other examples where the Nobel prize has been given to someone who
previously intensified the conflict, but then worked for peace. Menachem Begin
and Anwar Sadat in 1978, for instance.

------
seesomesense
"During his time as Defence Minister, notable controversial events included a
military raid inside Ecuador's territory that killed FARC leader Raúl Reyes on
1 March 2008.

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....

~~~
tsaprailis
This is a very complicated issue. There have been many crimes committed by
both sides. The FARC themselves came out with an apology on all the victims
they have kidnapped over the years. I think the point of the prize is not to
delete his older actions but rather to congratulate him for his attempts to
finally bring an end to a civil war that has costed hundreds of thousands of
lives over the years. Just like the rest of the prizes are given for specific
discoveries by scientists, and not for their every discovery during their
life's work, similarly his action on trying to end the civil war was deemed
worthy. Additionally actions are judged relative to one another and 2016 has
not a good year for peace actions.

------
qj4714
I am far from an expert on Colombia but there are many reasons to be skeptical
of this peace deal, and the failure of the yes vote is a sign that many people
did not support it for reasons related to immunity deals for guerrillas and
political representation as well. The peace deal is full of unfunded promises
that the GOC lacks the capacity to fulfill. For example, my understanding is
that the GOC has agreed to add police forces to the 40 percent of the land
that they do not control, but they lack trained officers and funds to pay
them. Land reform has been at a standstill, this is a very significant issue
that has not been resolved. Lastly, coca production is at an all time high in
Colombia. This is after years of reductions under Plan Colombia. Coca fuels
the FARC and corruption in Colombia. The perception is that the GOC was going
to target development aid under the peace agreement towards areas of high coca
development, they cut off aerial spraying and the result is massive increases
in coca. I don't see any way you can have peace in Colombia without addressing
the coca issue.

