“Peace or Pax” in Latin America
Conflict in Colombia

A study of the conflict and the negotiation process, from a realistic-sistemic-structural perspective.

Conflict in ColombiaAutor: Luis DALLANEGRA PEDRAZA        luisdallanegra@gmail.com

© Luis DALLANEGRA PEDRAZA 

ISBN: 978-987-33-2238-9 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.

Right-wing governments are more concerned about profitability and investment by state affairs, and left for his ideological dogmatism and doctrine, which responds to a concept of society, but not operating reality and how transform, except excluding those who consider imperialists, capitalists or "cause bad" or hoping that capitalism into decadence and imperialist states, facts that are closer to a naive idea of reality and wishful thinking to weaken, that the possibility of achieving the goals of a democracy with social justice.

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 objectives.

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 conflict -and "conflictors" (conflict generators)- to provide guarantees to investors and execute projects, where much of the communities -though not endorse or agree with the methodology and objectives of the guerrillas- have expressed their disapproval and rejection.

Terms like "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, but -both 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.
Foto Autor

 

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.



Prolog

This is a work that I originally started towards the end of the 1990s as a research project for the National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET) of Argentina. From my separation, after more than thirty years, starting in 2013, I decided to continue it personally, given its general interest and relevance.

The purpose of this book is not only to show a vision of a process of peaceful negotiation of conflicts, especially in the intra-state sphere, but also, fundamentally, as a “test case” for Latin America, about the characteristics of States And how these, in the form in which they are constituted -from their formal independence-, how they operate and how they are governed -whether right or left- are the true generators of social conflict.

Political systems, as they exist in Latin America, tend to the status quo, and do not facilitate equity and change, so they end up being sources of conflict and instability.

Right-wing governments are more concerned with profitability and investment than with state affairs, and with left-wing governments, because of their ideological dogmatism and doctrine, which responds to a concept of society, but not to the functioning of reality and how Transforming it, except by excluding those who consider imperialists, capitalists or “evildoers”, or waiting for capitalism to decay and imperialist states weaken, facts that are closer to a naive idea of reality and expressions of desire, Than to the possibility of achieving the objectives of a democracy with social justice 1.

Latin American society is dependent on caudillo leadership and discourse that promises responses to its aspirations and needs. Its culture prevents it from being participative and active in the construction of its own destiny, which favors that the political parties -of right or left-, circulate by the power in the shifts that reach by means of elections, carrying out policies that favor to Corporate sectors -companies, investors or banking for the right; “Clientelism” for the left- but not the nations.

These factors constitute the component of a constant state of dissatisfaction and, in many cases, of situations of conflict such as those that historically, and even today, are observed in Latin America.

A region that has mineral and food riches - in addition to the advantage of potable water - strategic and non-strategic, 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; It actually shows that failures are within themselves -and are more linked to the lack of a project than to material reasons- and not to be.

One of the factors that has 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 2. None of the integrative projects and regional institutions that have 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 objectives.

The case of the conflict in Colombia has historically been raised and is currently being tackled, such as the problem of a country that has anti-systemic groups, which prevent its normal development. As the negotiation process carries out, the Government of Juan Manuel Santos -like previous governments did- the central objective is not to carry out structural reforms in the country, but to end once and for all with the conflict -and the “Conflictors”- in order to grant guarantees to investors and execute projects, in which a large part of the communities -although they do not support and do not agree with the methodology and objectives of the guerrillas- have expressed their disapproval and rejection.

Terms such as “Peace”, “Democracy”, “Republic”, “Social Justice”, are permanently mentioned, although their content and definition have been lost or rendered totally diffuse. It speaks of “Peace”, when clearly the Government - as the previous ones did - is facing a process of pacification -”Pax”-, which entails the restoration of order, in which justice takes place in the terms that this Order implies and not according to the demands and claims raised by different sectors of society in different ways. Reference is made to “Democracy”, limiting it only to the electoral process, in which participation beyond the polls or demands are not accepted in the facts and, in many cases, are criminalized. The “Republic” is referred to, but - both in Colombia and in the rest of Latin America - regimes with a high “presidentialist” content subordinate and impede the controls that should be exercised in a real Republic by the legislative and judicial powers . Guerrillas, as well as many sectors of society -although they do not necessarily coincide with the guerrillas' objectives or methods- call for a “Democracy with Social Justice”, but without being clear on how this objective 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 3. In Colombia -and in general in Latin America-, the State does not function in a way that the Social Pact operates by establishing and maintaining equity, and has therefore become the main responsible for the conflict. That there are guerrillas, is not the cause of conflicts or problems in the State, but the result of their absence. Where there is no State, others occupy or try to occupy those spaces. If the governments try to solve it with repression, they are actually adding or avoiding absences and accentuating the conflict.

The process undertaken by the Government of Juan Manuel Santos -like the previous ones- has been to seek in a negotiated way, the demobilization and disarmament of the guerrillas, agreeing certain guarantees for their reintegration. The Colombian society, with these methodologies, was left out of the process, absent from the Table of Dialogues and, therefore, lacks the influence to establish the guidelines on which Peace should be founded in Colombia, beyond this demobilization/disarmament/reintegration proposed by the Government.

The Colombian Governments, and particularly that of Santos, have not taken into account the negotiation methodology of the ANC and Nelson Mandela in South Africa, in which the people in general have played a very important role. Moreover, the Colombian governments have totally left out the alternative of “multi-track diplomacy”, a model developed and sustained by the James Carter Foundation, in which the different actors of society intervene in the process of generation of Peace, In addition to the Government. Government officials are more concerned with carrying out the negotiating mechanisms they learned at Harvard than with solving the country's structural problems.

I have found throughout all the negotiation processes faced, notable divergences with respect to the perspectives and aspirations on the characteristics that Peace must have in Colombia. Moreover, it is clear that important sectors of the Colombian population that represent communities such as Afro-Colombian, indigenous, small farmers, small miners, internally displaced persons and outside the country, the relatives of the victims, who have been left out of the Negotiation process -in all cases dealt with by the different Governments- although they are contemplated in it and do not feel represented either by the guerrilla groups or by the Government, have manifested in different ways their problems, needs and aspirations which according to the Government were heard and taken into account, but in a tangential rather than structural way.

The Government has been playing “the good guys and the bad guys” -in general it has been the axis of all the governments that have faced a process of negotiation-. Faced with this type of approach, the following hypothesis should be considered: what would happen if the guerrillas and drug traffickers were eliminated: would the policies change and concentrate on eliminating poverty, social inequality, and the accumulation of land by landowners linked to the Government , Street children, and exploitation of child labor and sex ?; Or would they continue to leave to the “market” the solution of these problems, as dictated by the neoliberal model? It is one thing to show that “we” are the good ones and those who are not like us “are the bad ones”, and another is the situation of social disaster, backwardness and underdevelopment that exists in Colombia. With “pacification”, investors will be confident and will feel that the “rule of law” works, but that does not solve the real, deep and structural problems of Colombian society that has not been, and will not be, beneficiaries of that “state of Right” that is sought for the investor.

The Colombian conflict is a very complex process with a long history, and it is extremely difficult to say that, however Agreements are signed and the guerrillas are demobilized, Peace is reached or the path to their achievement is achieved.

Given the legitimacy granted to it, in the internal order, the electoral process and in the international one, the approval of the majority of the governments of countries of first order and of the potential investors with interests to enter Colombia once and for all With certain assurances, the Government advances in the process of negotiations, with the conviction that it does not need more than what it is promoting for Peace.

To see to what extent this is the right thing or not, I have taken a series of steps to analyze the Colombian problematic, in the theoretical, doctrinal and historical. I have tried to rethink and analyze some concepts that seem obvious, but I think they meet more formal requirements than real ones like the idea and role of the “State”, the scope of the concept of “Government”, in the same way as the meaning of “Democracy”; As well as the relevance, or not, from the point of view of doctrine, on the right to rebellion.

All these elements, I have tried to lower them to the Colombian reality, to show the true origin and causes of the conflict, beyond the idea of “the good and the bad ones” and, to what extent it is moving towards Peace or Sowing the seeds of future conflict. Colombia is heading towards an alleged Peace in a totally fragmented way and with governments that formally lead the process, but do not really represent the people. I have prepared an annex with information extracted from the own versions of the different sectors of society, to show the deep degree of divergence -and lack of convergence- that exists in this country.

I would like to express my deepest gratitude, first of all, to María del Pilar Ostos Cetina, Magister and Doctor of International Relations, Colombian resident in Mexico, Researcher at the Research Center on Latin America and the Caribbean and Professor at the Autonomous University of Mexico ( UNAM) and Dr. Arturo Ponce Urquiza, Professor of Definitive Subject, Introduction to the Study of International Relations (UNAM), Faculty of Higher Education (FES) Aragon, for having been those from the beginning, have had the kindness and patience To read the drafts of my works and make suggestions to me. Your help has been enriching and also encouraging. My thanks also go to Margarita Irma García Bottelli, a Psychologist, with postgraduate courses in psychoanalytic and systemic therapies in Argentina and Spain, who has helped me to reflect on the work that Sigmund Freud published in 1930, "Malaise in Culture" From which I extracted important elements in order to understand the functioning of the imbalances and the causes of generation of conflict in the State. It has also helped me a lot, to be able to present my thoughts and work on the conflict in Colombia and the different methodologies for their peaceful resolution, for which I express my gratitude to Dr. Nidia Graciela Fernández, Coordinator of the Social Sciences Area of ​​the Research Center Of the Faculty of Philosophy and Humanities (CIFFyH) of the National University of Cordoba, Argentina, for organizing analysis and discussion meetings; As well as Dr. Luis Salvático, Director of the CIFFyH of the National University of Cordoba, Argentina, for encouraging the debate by inviting Dr. Omer Calderón, Former President of the Patriotic Union of Colombia and Dr. Luz Stella Aponte Jaramillo, Attorney Of victims of the conflict in Colombia, a member of the Non-Governmental Organization Restart.


Luis DALLANEGRA PEDRAZA

Cordoba, Argentine, December 22, 2016


"pdf" Conflicto en Colombia to print it as a book, respecting Copyright - "ePub" Conflicto en Colombia To read it in digital tablet, respecting Copyright

INDEX

Introduction

Part I

Chapter I

Realismo e Idealismo y Teoría de las Relaciones Internacionales

Cosmovisión y Teoría

Realismo: ¿Céntrico y/o Periférico?

Chapter II

El Realismo en Tucídides

El Problema de la Etica y la Justicia en Tucídides

La Equidad: Problema de los “Débiles”

Chapter III

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”

Chapter IV

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 Idealismo-Sistémico-“Funcional”

El Buen Gobierno del Mundo

El Neoliberalismo

Sistemas de Análisis

El Estructuralismo-Sistémico en la Argentina


Part II

Capítulo V

El “Motor Direccionador” y el “Motor Propulsor”

Interés y Poder

El Poder como Variable Central

Ser-Afirmarse-Imponerse

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 Poder

¿Buenos y Malos? ó ¿Poderosos y Débiles?

Capítulo VI

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

Capítulo VII

Construcción de Poder

La Astucia como Poder la “Nesciencia” como Subordinación

Capítulo VIII

El Concepto de Autonomía como Concepto de Poder

Condicionantes a la Autonomía de los Países Periféricos

Capítulo IX

Racionalidad” del Poder en la Generación y Mantenimiento del Orden

La Racionalidad en la Política

Capítulo X

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

Capítulo XI

¿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

Cambios Necesarios

Bibliografía

INDICE DE GRAFICOS

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 Orden

Gráfico 20 Dimensión Cuadrática del Derecho Internacional



Home   -  Up Up



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.