Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
COLOMBIA’S GOVERNMENT AND FARC guerrillas will sign a new peace accord tomorrow, after a previous agreement to end their half-century-old war was defeated in a referendum, both parties said.
The new, revised accord will be submitted to Congress for approval, rather than put to another referendum, they added.
Last month voters taking part in that referendum surprisingly snubbed the first accord. Critics said it went too easy on the rebels, who have been waging what is now Latin America’s last major insurgency.
“The government and FARC delegations have agreed to sign the final agreement to end the conflict and build a stable and lasting peace,” negotiators from both sides said in a statement yesterday.
The new accord was first announced on 12 November. The signing will take place at 11am (4pm Irish time) at the Colon Theater in Bogota.
The accord will later be submitted to Congress for its approval, the two sides said.
“We are working out the procedures necessary for this,” they said.
The government holds a majority in the legislature.
President Juan Manuel Santos insists the new proposal is stronger and takes into account changes demanded by his political opponents.
Rejected
However his chief rival, ex-president Alvaro Uribe, has rejected even the revised deal.
Uribe has insisted, for instance, that FARC leaders should not be allowed to run for office while still serving sentences for atrocities.
“Whether the entire (current) text is voted on, or just the issues that have been sensitive and where there has been no agreement, we ought to do it by national referendum,” Uribe said.
Santos’s government is scheduled to present its revised peace deal in Congress today to discuss its details.
Santos called yesterday for it to be implemented quickly.
A two-way ceasefire between the government and the FARC has been in force since August. But the sides have warned it is fragile.
“This limbo is increasing the risks,” Santos told reporters.
“It is urgent that we move to the second phase of regrouping the FARC” for their demobilisation, he said.
He spoke after an urgent meeting with top officials to tackle a recent wave of alleged political killings in southern Colombia.
Fears for the ceasefire had already risen last week when two FARC guerrillas were killed in what authorities said was a clash with the army.
Uribe has offered to meet with the FARC. But the force rejected that proposal, branding Uribe an obstacle to peace.
“Uribe misgoverned, corrupted and caused bloodshed in Colombia for eight years” when he was in office to 2010, said one of the FARC’s commanders, Pablo Catatumbo, on Twitter.
He has never wanted peace, only the defeat of the FARC, which he couldn’t achieve.
Political analyst Jorge Restrepo said it would be better if there were a consensus on Colombia on the new accord.
“But that is almost impossible to achieve” given the demands of Uribe’s party, Restrepo said.
What is more, if there is opposition to the accord the government and the FARC will be more compelled to show their commitment to complying with it, said Restrepo, head of a conflict analysis consultancy called Cerac.
“And Uribe has no veto or blocking power,” said Restrepo.
Commander Rodrigo “Timochenko” Londono and other FARC leaders arrived in Bogota on Monday to finalise the deal.
Ahead of the referendum, the FARC’s 5,700 fighters gathered to wait in their jungle bases.
The full peace accord aims to see them demobilise and disarm over the coming months under UN supervision.
But officials warned that the longer the accord is delayed, the higher the risk of violence.
The Colombian conflict started in 1964 when the FARC formed to fight for land rights for rural communities.
It drew in various left- and right-wing armed groups, state forces and gangs.
The conflict has killed at least 260,000 people and displaced seven million, according to authorities.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Wouldn’t be like the government if they didn’t lose money on something that should be easy to manage..
@Bobby Neary: the govt have investment managers managing this. They will be restricted in what they can invest in so pretty much only govt bonds. With negative rate environment it is to expected that there will be a loss
@dublindamo: so we back apple. Keep the money safe, it loses 70 million a year, they win their case, we have to pay them back what we lost. Ireland
@Tommy C: no we only pay back what is left in the pot. The govt is not liable if the fund value decreases
@dublindamo: I’m sure our government will find a way to pay back what was lost. They hate to see business struggle.
@Bobby Neary: and the lad who doesn’t have a clue has over 100 likes!
How would you expect that money to be managed?
CFDs? Would you put it into futures? Maybe you’d look at shorting some companies? I am really interested to see how you would keep your money safe and generate a return in a negative interest environment? Im
@joe: no need to be investing it.
Just place it in a holding account.
There is zero need to be taking risks with that amount of money..
@Bobby Neary: That amount of money – in a savings account? With whom? What about concentration risk? Currency risk? Bankruptcy of the deposit taker? Also, you do realize that credit unions are calling deposits at €15k because the banks are charging them negative rates on their corporate deposits?
@Bobby Neary: @Bobby Neary: that is in the holding account you fool! Negative interest rates! Cash and cash equivalents I.e in the bank!
@Bobby Neary: if they stuck it in the hot press or under the mattress, they would have made more!!
With interest rates at -0.5% this is actually doing well
@dublindamo: I agree except for the €2million in operating expenses
€2 million in operating expenses. Easy money if you can get it.
@dstaffx:
This I don’t get. Systems are automated with buy/sell triggers at predetermined rates.
There isn’t army minding gold here. The administrative costs are minimal.
@Sequoia: buying and selling bonds has a cost as do the various taxes, insurances, staff costs, reporting and software systems required to manage a bond fund of that size.
Sure we don’t have a housing crisis, sure we don’t have a homeless crisis, sure our prisons are not over crowded, sure we don’t have people waiting on trollies in A&E, sure we can wait longer for the childrens hospital to be built, sure we don’t need to put money into education in this country, sure we don’t really need the 14 billion do we? Not sure we don’t . Discracefull government running this country, voted in by the people of this country to keep the poor poor and make the rich even richer!!!!
@gary mullen: people need to realise if Ireland didn’t appeal this we wouldn’t have had a 14bn windfall to spend. However there would have been significant macro consequences as a result
@gary mullen: This needs to be repeated over and over again. That money isnt ours no matter who wins. If we win, it goes back to apple. If we lose it goes to the countries where it should have been paid. If we do lose, the repercussions could cost our economy significantly more than 14 Bn.
@Cian: what are the macro consequences – you think apple will leave cork ? where will they go? Why not try something different and see how it goes? See what Ireland stands to gain, no one knows. Tim Cook didn’t come out and say “Lads if that money is collected, we’ll leave Cork”
Thats like saying €14,000 loses €70. Not exactly a hole in it.
@Euro McPúnty: it shouldn’t be losing any money whatsoever
@Gerard Heery: how do you figure that when interest rates are negative?
@Gerard Heery: It has to lose money – deposit rates are negative.
@dublindamo: the money should have but in short term investments and managed it could years before a ruling is made on whether we get the money or not and the legal end that’s years in Ireland ,70 m is alot of money when you ain’t got it
@Gerard Heery: it’s in fixed interest instruments which is as safe as you can get. Unfortunately, the rates on them are in negative territory as the ECB continues it’s QE programme to try and get inflation up to target.
Yes, an equity based investment would be performing better at the moment but if the market were to drop by 10% overnight (as it did last December) then it would be down a significant amount more.
The money has to be kept as safe as possible and, with the current climate, that’s where it is – just happens that safe havens have a negative return.
@Dara O’Brien: stop talking sense. It won’t get you likes around here
@dublindamo: and yet Ireland pays a fortune in interest on its dedt Ireland definitely thrown under a bus
@Gerard Heery: the ntma recently issued a 10 year bond at negative rates.
@Dara O’Brien: They should have stayed clear from Europe in the first place. US Treasury notes and Municipal bonds are still attractive and positive should have kept it in them.
@Jack McInerney: and then have additional FX risk from the fluctuations of the Dollar v Euro
History would suggest that If they let our Bankers ‘look after it’, under central bank and government guidance – all 70 billion will be lost to both Apple and the country with the tax payer footing the bill….
Ah, The Journal Comments – filled with people who know little or nothing about financial markets, but insist on commenting as if they do…
@Jodi: thats right.. because financial people are sooo clever….. i seem to remember the big bang from the celtic tiger… that didnt make them look to clever
Only Ireland could manage this
2 million in operating expenses???? How???
Ill mind it for free…
Just think what benefit that money would be to the country… more Gardai, improved rural broadband…better pay for frontline staff. etc etc …. but no the Paddies dont want it… we think we are so frikking clever
@Johnny Rielly: Unfortunately that is never going to happen as the money isn’t ours in the first place. It is either Apple’s or it belongs to other countries where the revenues were earned. If Apple loses the case there will be a big queue of counties with the paw out looking for their cut.
@Johnny Rielly: Do you honestly believe that we would hang onto that money? Because I can pretty much guarantee you that as soon as we keep it the other countries would come looking for their slice of it.
In the words of Father Ted.
“THAT MONEY WAS JUST RESTING IN MY ACCOUNT BEFORE I MOVED IT ON”
If it costs money just to hold money in goverment bonds at negative rates .this never happend in human history . ! Upsidedown world either something is very wroung or central banks have found means turn base metals into gold
@Den Sullivan: it has happened in economies like Japan in the past. The NTMA recently issued a bond with negative yield
Corporations don’t pay taxes, their customers do.
Could they not just print a one time 14 billion euro note? And keep it someplace safe, like under a mattress or a jam jar?
@Lukevic101: Haha, Doesn’t work that way I’m afraid.
@Jack McInerney: sorry Jack was a poor attempt at humour. Like in the Simpsons with the Trillion Dollar Bill.
have your say