A study of the conflict and the negotiation process, from a realistic-sistemic-structural perspective.
Autor: Luis DALLANEGRA PEDRAZA email@example.com
© Luis DALLANEGRA PEDRAZA
E-Book. 1. International Politics. 2. International Law. I. Title
- CDD 327.1
Citation: DALLANEGRA PEDRAZA, Luis, “Paz o Pax” en América Latina: Conflicto en Colombia, (Córdoba, Edición del Autor, 2017).The purpose of this book is linked not only to show a vision of a process of peaceful resolution of disputes, especially in intrastate level, but fundamentally, as "test-case" for Latin America, about the characteristics of States and how they, in how they are made -since its formal independence- how they operate and how they are governed -either the right or the left- are the real generators of social conflict.
The political system, as they exist in Latin America, political systems tend to the status quo, and do not provide equity and change, so they end up being sources of conflict and instability.
Latin American society is dependent on leadership styles and speech that promises answers to their aspirations and needs. Their culture prevents it from being participatory and active in the construction of their own destiny, which favors political parties -right or left- circulate for power shifts to reach through elections, leading to policies that favor corporate sectors -businesses, investors or banks to the right; "clientelism" to the left-wing- but not to the nations.
These factors constitute
the steady state component of nonconformity and, in many cases,
conflict situations such as those historically, and even at
present observed in Latin America.
A region that has mineral wealth and food in addition to the advantage of drinkable water, strategic and nonstrategic, on land and at sea, like no other on earth and yet remains in a state of backwardness, underdevelopment And dependency, in addition to the fact that some States have governments whose characteristics attract more investment and are more reliable in relation to the great powers; actually it shows that failures are within itself -and are more related to lack of project that material reasons- and not outside.
One of the
factors that have an impact on backwardness and conflict
is the lack of a country project and long-term vision,
as well as stability and continuity in decision-making.
None of the integrative projects and regional institutions
that has been addressed to date have succeeded in solving
the problems of backwardness in the region, much less in
order to insert it in a dynamically changing global
context and achieve technological as well as social
The case of
the conflict in Colombia has historically been
raised and is currently facing, as the problem of a
country that has anti-systemic groups, preventing their
normal development. As carried out the negotiation
process, the government of Juan Manuel Santos -like previous
governments did- the central goal is not to make structural
reforms in the country, but end once and for all with the
"conflictors" (conflict generators)- to provide guarantees to
investors and execute projects, where much of the
not endorse or agree with the methodology and objectives
of the guerrillas- have expressed their disapproval and rejection.
"Peace", "Democracy", "Republic", "Social Justice" are
constantly mentioned, though its content and definition
are lost or become totally blurred. There is talk of "Peace"
when clearly the Government -as the previous did- is facing a peace process -"Pax"- which involves the
restoration of order, in which justice is done in the
terms that It implies order and not according to the
demands and claims raised by different sectors of society
in different ways. Reference to "Democracy" is
made, limiting it only to the electoral process, in which
participation beyond the ballot box or demands are not
accepted on the facts and, in many cases, are
criminalized. Reference to the "Republic" It does,
in Colombia and in the rest of Latin America- the schemes, high
"presidential" content, subordinate and prevent the
controls should exercise a true Republic the legislative
and judicial powers. The guerrillas, as well as many
sectors of society -although not necessarily coincide with the
objectives and methods of the guerrillas- calling for a "democracy
with social justice", but without clear how that
goal is achieved. The guerrillas continue to pose
left-wing methodologies in the cold war, when the USSR was
still a world pole, which at the stage of globalization,
are very difficult to implement successfully, let alone
maintain in a stable way.
Peace should be the result of the proper functioning of the state in terms of "Social Pact". In Colombia -and in general in Latin America-, the state does not work so that the Social Pact operate by establishing and maintaining equity, which has become the main responsible for the conflict. Guerrillas, is not the cause of conflicts or problems in the state, but the result of their absence. Where there is no state, other deal or try to occupy those spaces. If governments try to solve it with repression, they are actually adding or ignoring absences and accentuating the conflict.
The process undertaken by the government of Juan Manuel Santos -like the previous-, has been to seek a negotiated, the demobilization and disarmament of the guerrillas, agreeing to certain guarantees for their reintegration. Colombian society, with these methodologies, left out of the process, it is absent from the Table of Dialogue and, therefore, lacks the clout to establish guidelines on which it should establish Peace in Colombia, beyond this demobilization/disarmament/reintegration is considering the Government.
Colombian governments and,
particularly, that of Santos, have not taken into consideration
the methodology of negotiations undertaken by the ANC and Nelson
Mandela in South Africa, where the people, in general, has had
a very important role. Moreover, the Colombian governments
have left completely out the alternative of “multi-track diplomacy”
model developed and supported by the James Carter Foundation, in
which the different actors of the society involved in the
process of generating Peace in addition to the Government.
Government authorities are more concerned with carrying out the
negotiation mechanisms they learned at Harvard School, that to
solve the structural problems of the country.
I found along all facing negotiation processes, notable divergences of views and aspirations on the features to take the Peace in Colombia. Moreover, it is clear that major sectors of the Colombian population representing communities as the Afro-Colombian, indigenous, small farmers, small-scale miners, internally displaced and abroad, the relatives of the victims who have been left out of negotiation process -in all cases faced by the various governments- even if they are referred to in it and which also do not feel represented nor by guerrilla groups and the government have expressed their problems differently, needs and aspirations that according to the Government were heard and taken into account, but tangentially, rather than structural.
The government has been playing “good and bad” -in general has been the focus of all governments that have embarked on a negotiation process-. Faced with this type of approach, it is considered hypothesis: what if it were possible to eliminate the guerrillas and drug trafficking: policy change and should focus on eliminating poverty, social inequality, the accumulation of land by landowners linked to Government, the street children and the exploitation of child labor and sexual?; or conversely, they continue leaving the solution of these problems in the hands of the “market,” as dictated by the neoliberal model? One thing is to show that “we” are the good and those who are not like us “are the bad” and another is the situation of social disaster, backwardness and underdevelopment that exist in Colombia. With the “pacification”, investors will be confident and feel that the “state of law” works, but that does not solve the real, deep and structural problems of Colombian society that have not been beneficiaries never will be, of that “state right” to seek for investors.
The Colombian conflict is a very complex process with a long history, and it is extremely difficult to say that, even if agreements are signed and demobilize the guerrillas, peace is achieved or the path to its achievement begins.
Perched on the legitimacy that gives, in domestic law, the electoral process and international, the approval of the majority of the governments of countries of first order and potential investors with interest to enter once and for all to Colombia with certain assurances, the government is moving in the negotiation process with the conviction that it takes more than what is being promoted for Peace.
To see how far this is successful or not, I have undertaken a series of steps to analyze the Colombian problem, in theory, doctrine and history. I have sought to rethink and discuss some concepts that seem obvious, but I think together more formal requirements than real as the idea and role of the “State”, the scope of the term “government” in the same way that the meaning of “Democracy”; and the relevance, or not, from the point of view of the doctrine on the right to rebellion.All these elements, I tried to go down to the Colombian reality, to show the true origin and causes of conflict, beyond the idea raised of “the good ones and ill” and how it is moving toward peace or sowing the seeds of future conflict. Colombia is heading towards a completely fragmented alleged Peace and with governments to formally lead the process, but not really represent the people. I drafted an annex containing information extracted own versions expressed by different sectors of society, to show the profound degree of divergence that exists in this country.
PhD in Political Science and International Relations (National University of Rosario, Argentine). Professor and assessor in Degree, Post degree and Doctorate in the country and abroad. Director of the Center of International-Argentinean Studies (CIAS/CEINAR), and of the Argentine Review of International Relations, 1977-1981. International Observer of the International Committee of Support and Verification (CIAV-OAS) in the guerrilla's "demobilization", "contra" in Nicaragua, 1990. Director of Doctorate in International Relations, National University of Rosario, (Rosario, Argentine), 2002-2005. Scientific Researcher of the "National Council of Scientific and Technical Researches" (NCSTR/CONICET), Argentine, 1988-2013.
Luis DALLANEGRA PEDRAZA
December 22, 2016
Realismo e Idealismo y Teoría de las Relaciones Internacionales
Cosmovisión y Teoría
Realismo: ¿Céntrico y/o Periférico?
El Realismo en Tucídides
El Problema de la Etica y la Justicia en Tucídides
La Equidad: Problema de los “Débiles”
Críticas a la Teoría “Realista” de Hans Morgenthau
Política Exterior Realista
1) Política de Status Quo
2) Adquisición o Incremento del Poder
a) Construcción o Adquisición de Poder
Cambios Estructurales en el Sistema de Equilibrio de Poder
Factores para la Convergencia
b) Expansión del Poder
3) Demostrar Poder
Poder y Acción Política
De la “Intervención Preventiva” a la “Negociación Preventiva”
Una Periferia “Inteligente”
La Corriente Sistémica en Relaciones Internacionales
Evolución Epistemológica del Debate sobre el Tema
La Anarquía como Característica Sistémica para Waltz
Orden Anárquico y Equilibro de Poder
El Buen Gobierno del Mundo
Sistemas de Análisis
El Estructuralismo-Sistémico en la Argentina
El “Motor Direccionador” y el “Motor Propulsor”
Interés y Poder
El Poder como Variable Central
Poder y Política
Situaciones que Favorecen las Conductas Antisistémicas
Niveles de Poder
El Poder de la Autoafirmación
Poder como Dominación
Poder y “contra-poder” o resistencia
Poder y Orden
Tucídides y el
Malos? ó ¿Poderosos y Débiles?
El Poder y la Justicia
Factores que Favorecen la Dependencia y el Subdesarrollo, o Permiten la Autonomía
Paz, Orden y Equilibrio de Fuerzas
Posibilidad del Orden Justo
Teorema del Poder y el Orden
Teorema del Orden Justo
La Justicia en Tucídides
Construcción de Poder
La Astucia como Poder la “Nesciencia” como Subordinación
El Concepto de Autonomía como Concepto de Poder
Condicionantes a la Autonomía de los Países Periféricos
“Racionalidad” del Poder en la Generación y Mantenimiento del Orden
La Racionalidad en la Política
Tendencias Dominantes en Política Exterior Argentina
La Búsqueda de la Autonomía
La Viabilidad como Requisito
Política Externa: ¿“Acción” o “Reacción”?
Las Constantes de la Política Exterior y su Coherencia
“¿Ser o No Ser?”
De la Indecisión al Pragmatismo
¿Por qué Actúan las Naciones?
¿Para qué han Usado la Política Exterior los Gobiernos Latinoamericanos?
Características de los Sistemas Políticos Latinoamericanos
“Integración” de las Economías Latinoamericanas a la Economía Mundial
Las Estrategias de Desarrollo
Forma de Inserción Mundial de América Latina
Contexto Latinoamericano Post Reykjavik
Posibilidades de Reformulación del Sistema Político Latinoamericano
Gráfico 1 Realismo según Tucídides
Gráfico 2 Línea de Control Intra-hegemónico
Gráfico 3 Parámetros de Permisividad-Libertad de Acción
Gráfico 4 Enfoque Sistémico Waltz
Gráfico 5 Sistema Político Internacional Rosencrance
Gráfico 6 Estructura Internacional Hoffmann
Gráfico 7 Sistema Analítico de las Relaciones Mundiales
Gráfico 8 Sistema Mundial: Desarrollo Histórico
Gráfico 9 Características del Mundo y su Origen
Gráfico 10 Macro-Etapas/Micro-Etapas
Gráfico 11 Condicionantes a la Política Exterior
Gráfico 12 Sistema Internacional Estratificado
Gráfico 13 Política Exterior
Gráfico 14 Grandes Poderes y Orden Mundial
Gráfico 15 Concentración-Difusión de Poder
Gráfico 16 Posibilidad del Orden Justo
Gráfico 17 Poder, Orden y Justicia Mundial
Gráfico 18 Génesis y Evolución del Sistema y el Orden
Gráfico 19 Régimen y OrdenGráfico 20 Dimensión Cuadrática del Derecho Internacional
1 The so-called “Theory of Dependency”, which had great validity -at least academically- in the 1960s and part of the 1970s in Latin America, privileged this type of perspective, at least in its neo- Marxist, in which the “center-periphery” link prevailed, highlighting the few possibilities for the “periphery” if the “center” did not modify its action. Paradoxically, for the mentors of this “theory”, the subordination of the “periphery” to the “center” could not be modified if it did not change its attitude and gave it opportunities, instead of depending on the degree and form of “ Power “and of generation of means for the development that the “periphery” would carry out to modify its status quo.
2 Essential factors for “governance” and the generation of a long-term national project.
3 I refer to the original pact, studied and shown by authors like Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, etc., not to inter-party pacts in the style of the “National Front”, the “Punto Fijo” in Venezuela in Colombia or “Moncloa” In Spain, etc.