If you voted “no” because you think the peace agreement wasn’t hard enough on FARC guerrillas – and therefore didn’t give justice to the victims – then why did people in the most affected regions (i.e. places with the most victims) vote overwhelmingly “yes”?
— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) October 3, 2016
(Also read Las víctimas votaron por el Sí and watch Video: Colombia’s FARC victims campaign for ‘Yes’ vote)
Ex-President Uribe’s influential “no” campaign never came up with their own terms for a peace agreement. They still haven’t. So, what would your terms be? (edit: since writing this, Uribe’s come out with counter-proposals. Click here to see them)
If you believe your vote was objective – that “no” was simply best for the country – then why was voting split along political lines?
— Robert A. Karl (@RAKarl) October 3, 2016
If you only want a peace if FARC guerrillas “go to jail” and “pay compensation” (two of the leading points of the “no” campaign), do you believe you’re in a world where an army of narcoterrorists would agree to pay to go to jail? If not, what’s your realistic alternative plan for peace? (Edit: Again, click here see Uribe’s counter-proposals)
What do you say to the farmers who wanted peace, and are now uncertain about their future?
What do you say to the indigenous people and Afro-Colombians who wanted peace, and are now uncertain about their future? (Note: indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities were initially very wary of the terms of the peace accord; “…there are plans to give up our territories to mining exploitation, and in this way finance the implementation of peace in the country. This isn’t peace.” However, the government was careful in the peace agreement to guarantee them rights, representation and protection.)
Why was anti-gay sentiment so important to the “no” campaign? Do you really think it’s better to be at war than to have gays be accepted in society? Do you also denounce the peace agreement’s commitment to more equitable gender relations, and [a] willingness to accept alternative genders and sexualities? (Also read “Colombian Opposition to Peace Deal Feeds off Gay Rights Backlash”.)
Due to the political nature of the voting trends (i.e. more “no” votes where Uribe is more popular), I’m betting you didn’t actually read the terms of the agreement. Did you?
And, yes, it does need to be one that they’ll sign! So the bonus question is: where will you compromise?
[Edit: Those were my questions. And I have yet to read or hear a “no” voter answer them. But, if you want to see the important counter-proposals the “no” campaign has given since they won (read: and everyone else lost), click here.]