Colombia Rejects Peace Deal with FARC


A narrow win for Colombia’s opponents to a government peace deal with FARC rebels has thrown the country into disarray, leading one journalist to starkly declare, “Nobody really knows what will happen tomorrow.” Likened to the fallout from the United Kingdom’s “Brexit” referendum, the vote’s unexpected failure has left the Colombian political classes reeling and unsure how to respond in order to save four years of hard negotiation with the Marxist militia. And while a meeting of the deal’s principals is scheduled for Monday morning, FARC’s financial disclosures – and possibly a disarmament campaign that began last week-- have been questioned.

Why did they reject it? In the weeks leading up to Sunday’s vote, many Colombians were angered by what they saw as insufficient punishment for those who perpetrated a litany of crimes against their people. It’s estimated 220,000 were killed in the 52-year conflict which displaced as many as 5 million people. At the height of its terror campaign, the armed group seized territory, attacked government forces and conducted high-profile kidnappings.

The rebels also hijacked planes, made millions trafficking cocaine and forced children to fight. For just over half of those who voted, the FARC’s past crimes were too much to forgive. Was there a plan B? The rejection of the plan has left the administration of President Juan Manuel Santos wrongfooted and, as the president himself said, “without a plan B.” Now the rebels and the Colombian government, facilitated by international leaders, will have to go back to the drawing board to re-imagine a peace that is acceptable to the people of Colombia, speaking on behalf of the victims of murder, extortion and kidnapping. “I hear those that said ‘no’ and those that said ‘yes’ and we all want peace. Tomorrow we will get all our political parties together to continue dialogues and finding alternatives for peace. I will not give up, I will continue to fight for peace,” Santos said.

What happens now? It is largely unclear what the path forward looks like. Santos said Sunday a ceasefire will remain in place and negotiations will continue in Havana, Cuba, while his counterpart, FARC leader Rodrigo Londoo Echeverri, agreed that the referendum result would not sway the former rebels from the path of peace. “With today’s result, we know that our challenge as a political movement is even greater and demands for us to be stronger, to build up a durable and stable peace,” Londoo, who also goes by the alias Timolen “Timochenko” Jimnez, said Sunday night. “The FARC-EP maintains the willingness for peace and they reaffirm their disposition to use only the word as a constructive weapon towards the future. To the Colombian people who dream with peace, they can count on us. Peace will triumph.”

Can a new deal be agreed? The country is divided, says Virginia Bouvier, Senior Advisor for Latin American Programs at the US Institute of Peace, and while the accord represented a “unique and very exciting endeavor to hold accountable those who have committed horrific crimes,” opponents of the deal reduced it to an oversimplified outcome: whether former rebels would see the inside of a jail cell. Regardless of the outcome, “the path of peace will continue and both sides will follow it,” Bouvier told CNN via Skype. "Santos… speaking as president of all those who voted, said that he recognized that he had put it to a vote but maintained that he would be convening all political sectors to enter in dialogue and take that back to Havana. “Trying to implement something that half of the population is against it is very difficult,” she said, adding that in Colombia today there are deep divisions and the country polarized. “I think this gives an option to go back to the drawing board to tweak to see what works for the entire population. I wish the (dealmakers) tremendous stamina for the next stage,” she said.

Will there be political repercussions? Almost without doubt. The ‘no’ vote was seen as somewhat of a referendum on Santos, who lost support through his agreement to sit down with the rebels. The ‘no’ campaign was led by his predecessor, lvaro Uribe, who would like to run again as president. “This is a huge blow to the political future of President Santos,” Journalist Simone Bruno told CNN. "Just a few days ago we saw him signing this important agreement with the FARC leader and had huge support from the international community. “He was one of the main candidates for the Nobel Prize and now he has to go back again. What he said is that he will never lose the chance to negotiate until the last day of his mandate. Now he wants to keep on going, keep on negotiating but of course of things are changing and nobody really knows what will happen tomorrow.”

What could a new deal look like? It’s unlikely that the FARC leadership would give up former rebels to jail time to satisfy the demands of the slim majority which rejected the deal. FARC members and supporters already feel that the group has conceded too much in its quest for a settlement. Santos has called a meeting of the principals of the imperiled deal for Monday morning in Bogota to decide what step to next take. One thing is for sure; no one wants a return to all-out conflict between government troops and a dwindling band of rebels in Colombia’s jungles.

As so little is known about what comes next, it is unclear if the process to get the derailed deal back on track will happen quickly or slowly. The president still holds a majority in congress and will do so for the two remaining years of his term, so while the vote result is politically damaging he still has a lot of sway in congress. It is unlikely that the whole deal will be scrapped, but rather the contentious clause which keeps former rebels out of jail will be renegotiated.


Interesting that the Obama administration supported the deal and was seeking a doubling of our aid to Colombia if the initiative passed. Interesting.


Considering that the Colombian people aren’t too pleased about making deals with terrorists, it’s no surprise this Obama backed initiative failed. It all has to do with referendum voting. Could you imagine if we were allowed to vote on the Iran deal? The same thing would have happened.


Cuba, Obama’s 51st State. Perhaps Obama is angling to place his presidential library in Havana?


50.2% vs. 49.76%

So freaking sad.

The areas least affected by the violence won.


I have not followed the details of the proposed deal, and the concept of putting a peace deal to a vote is a bit unusual to me, but can anyone describe the main aspect of the plan that people find objectionable? Is it basically seen as “giving in to terrorists” by those opposed? Or is it more that the “opposition” would actually prefer to continue fighting a civil war for some reason?


The US was strongly supportive of the agreement. It appears the turnout was only about 37%. Apparently, there was torrential rain that hit the “yes” areas hardest.

The opposition was built primarily on familiar arguments: you can’t let these criminals get away with this, we can get a much better deal, etc.

Alvaro Uribe has been a strong opponent to the accord. That isn’t surprising since his family has longstanding ties with right wing groups, including paramilitaries.

Again, because we often think we’re the center of the universe: this isn’t about the US and really has no impact on us, other than the US favored the agreement.


Argh, why can’t anything in this world go right. Whether it’s Brexit, Philippines, and now Colombia, democracy - or what passes for it - seems determined to fuck itself over these days. What’s next, President Marine le Pen and a new Hitler in Germany?

Please let the U.S. be the exception to this pattern this November. Please.



Well you just showed all of your cards. I think you mean, anything that happens democratically that you don’t agree with seems to be the trouble for you and your leftist pals. Isn’t it surprising that when the people shape their own fate it becomes abunduantly clear that they don’t want to be told what to do by nanny state politicians? Isn’t it abundantly clear that people aren’t afraid to cower when it comes to confronting enemies and making difficult choices? Yes, democracy is going all wrong from the leftist perspective.


perfect example why you don’t let people vote on matters of national policy.

Our Founding Fathers knew this and chose a Representative Democracy for just this reason.

Humans are a spiteful bunch.


@SteveSPHR you are so right. This type of voting eliminates the need for informed and well educated representation and places a critical decision in the hands of the uninformed. This is a dangerous and irresponsible practice that must come to an end globally if we are veneer to see real progress.


I guess that is a fair statement. Especially so when crooked politicians don’t follow the will of the people.

I think you have that backwards.


And yet is is progressives who have 1) worked tirelessly to centralize government and 2) make the process of government more democratic. I would say it is the more lefty states that seem to embrace referendum and progressives will take all the credit for the 17th amendment. good way to consolidate corruption too…


Hi Ashley,

Well with this do noting Congress I will certainly not defend any of them, they all should be ashamed.

However as far as the will of the people go whenever it comes to a majority vs. a minority the minority never seems to make out too well so in that point I would say thank whatever God you believe in that we don’t follow the will of the people, we do eventually, and as Churchill said after exhausting all other options, do the right thing.

But in no way shape of form from anything our people have done.

No I take that back…we have every single national election since FDR’s first term chosen the best person for the job out of those running. Every single President since FDR has done well for us by pushing the right agenda and achieving the progress they could.

Aside from that though as a people Americans are among the last to jump onboard anything to progress the human race.


Yeah - that whole defeating an imperial monarchy over taxation without representation did nothing to progress the human race. Thanks for “Correcting the Record” on this.


well, it really didn’t when you list all the things we needed a executive order or law to get us to do the right thing because we couldn’t do them on our own.

resting on our laurels because of something none of us did I no way to move a nation forward.