When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime .


Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital Magazine NEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch

For Colombia, Mandela's Hard Lessons Of Peace And Reconciliation

What does Mandela's example mean for Colombia as it seeks to end decades of bloody conflict with leftist guerrillas?

What can Colombia learn from Mandela?
What can Colombia learn from Mandela?


BOGOTA — The world has been unanimous in expressing grief for the loss of the singular human being who was Nelson Mandela. A tireless fighter for racial and social equality and tolerance, the South African icon was immense as a leader and simple as a person — he was, in short, one of those rare historical figures who come along once a century, leaving behind a political legacy as an example to us all.

Yet beyond the cults of personality and pernicious messianic tendencies he detested, Mandela’s exemplary life cannot remain restricted to recalling his 20th century achievements. On the contrary, this is the moment for his teachings to influence societies, where many of the problems he fought in South Africa persist.

And there’s no need to venture far. Let’s start with our own country, especially as we are engated in a peace process that could give us the long-anticipated end to a conflict that has cost far too much blood, pain and tears.

Peace and reconciliation are made with one's enemies, as the saying goes. That happened in South Africa in 1990, where the white minority President P.W. Botha pardoned an arch-enemy who was in prison, serving the life sentence Apartheid judges gave him. That allowed Mandela to win the country’s first free presidential elections in 1994 and start a difficult reconciliation process. It was no easy task with the accumulated hatred and resentment, but he did it.

Memory and contrition

While there is no single formula that can be applied to all domestic conflicts, we would do well to look to South Africa’s experience. As author Ariel Dorfman said, Mandela “understood that reconciliation is possible as long as memory is not betrayed and we demand the other’s contrition.”

That will be essential for Colombia to remember, especially in the post-conflict phase. All parties involved in this process must act with enough magnanimity to understand that, beyond personal interests and petty political calculations, society’s well-being is at stake. We are within reach of peace.

Once he had attained the objectives of freedom and equality for his compatriots, Mandela preferred to return to private life and stay with his family after a lifetime of tumult. If only this example of humility were emulated in Colombia by those who, by contrast, wish to inspire future generations by the sheer force of keeping alive intolerance — not to mention their personal hatreds.

Our homage is best concluded by Mandela’s own words: “Death is something inevitable. When a man has done what he considers to be his duty to his people and his country, he can rest in peace. I believe I have made that effort and that is therefore why I will sleep for the eternity.”

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.


The Unsustainable Future Of Fish Farming — On Vivid Display In Turkish Waters

Currently, 60% of Turkey's fish currently comes from cultivation, also known as fish farming, compared to just 10% two decades ago. The short-sightedness of this shift risks eliminating fishing output from both the farms and the open seas along Turkey's 5,200 miles of coastline.

Photograph of two fishermen throwing a net into the Tigris river in Turkey.

Traditional fishermen on the Tigris river, Turkey.

Dûrzan Cîrano/Wikimeidia
İrfan Donat

ISTANBUL — Turkey's annual fish production includes 515,000 tons from cultivation and 335,000 tons came from fishing in open waters. In other words, 60% of Turkey's fish currently comes from cultivation, also known as fish farming.

It's a radical shift from just 20 years ago when some 600,000 tons, or 90% of the total output, came from fishing. Now, researchers are warning the current system dominated by fish farming is ultimately unsustainable in the country with 8,333 kilometers (5,177 miles) long.

Professor Mustafa Sarı from the Maritime Studies Faculty of Bandırma 17 Eylül University believes urgent action is needed: “Why were we getting 600,000 tons of fish from the seas in the 2000’s and only 300,000 now? Where did the other 300,000 tons of fish go?”

Professor Sarı is challenging the argument from certain sectors of the industry that cultivation is the more sustainable approach. “Now we are feeding the fish that we cultivate at the farms with the fish that we catch from nature," he explained. "The fish types that we cultivate at the farms are sea bass, sea bram, trout and salmon, which are fed with artificial feed produced at fish-feed factories. All of these fish-feeds must have a significant amount of fish flour and fish oil in them.”

That fish flour and fish oil inevitably must come from the sea. "We have to get them from natural sources. We need to catch 5.7 kilogram of fish from the seas in order to cultivate a sea bream of 1 kg," Sarı said. "Therefore, we are feeding the fish to the fish. We cannot cultivate fish at the farms if the fish in nature becomes extinct. The natural fish need to be protected. The consequences would be severe if the current policy is continued.”

Keep reading...Show less

The latest