How to build true “secure democracies”
The policy (singular) of national security is a failure, says the author.
(From Bogotá) THOSE WHO SHOULD UNDERSTAND THE REALITY of today’s world do not want to understand it. But there are, against all evidence, examples that demonstrate how things are. Neither the deception of some leaders, nor the media’s well organized campaign of disinformation (orchestrated with the best existing technical resources), nor the demonstration of economic power, can oppose the real truth. The lies last for awhile, even for a long time, but their discovery produces deadly effects.
For decades now, nobody has won a war. And nobody will win a war in the future.
“Before the tragedy the
Battles can be one, but they are by no means the end-all. Now that armies have reached perfection, battles have other fronts and other possibilities. A great number of deaths becomes a defeat; the ruins that remain are a defeat; a military defeat can now be an unexpected success. The Popular Party in
And so are many leaders, and according to how they treat it they will or will not compromise their future and prestige. No longer is the only objective to win some elections at the ballot with an ample number of votes. The true success goes beyond certain existing premises of triumph. And besides, it is correct to judge that triumph and success are not the same.
THE CONCEPT OF SECURITY
Before the tragedy the
Until now, this has been a simple rhetorical or linguistic matter. However, it goes past simple semantics to constitute a political problem (and a grave political problem), and the policy (or the policies) move away more every day from grammatical analysis, from logic (and pragmatism), if you want to call it that. This means that the recourse that some leaders find in speaking of security like a flat concept is not simple and systematic. “To return to the case of
National security, for example, as the common citizen thinks of it, has to do with the nonexistence of delinquents, injustice, mishaps. Its important aspects even reach religious and ideological criteria. A country in which everyone can believe and think what they want is secure. A country in which union members and homosexuals are killed would not be secure. Nor would a country in which there is unemployment be secure. In the collective unconsciousness, there is not security if this happens.
ABOUT FALLACIES AND FAILURES
At the same time, this collective unconsciousness can think that there is security when one has access to everything one needs, from an individual or communitarian perspective, although everyone sees and hears that the rest are not secure or do not enjoy this cited security. “The Iraq of Saddam Hussein was more secure for Americans (an incredible paradox) than the occupied country is today” A fallacy from many view points. A fallacy handled with a certain shamelessness by the mass media, which perfects its advertising messages, for example, founded on individual, not collective, security. What would it mean, therefore, to buy a secure telephone? Why is the security of using sanitary towels emphasized?
Therefore, is the failure of the security policy (or policies) notable? To return to the case of
“Is it worth it, for national security, to fight the guerrillas with blood and fire and arrive at an agreement with the paramilitaries? Is it for the security of the
A national security problem for whom? If drug trafficking is a national security problem for the
And in Latin America also,
AS AN IRRITANT IN THE COLOMBIAN CONFLICT WASHINGTON
“The crisis that
The crisis that
A serious interference inasmuch as it does not propose to help to resolve the conflict but rather is interested in extending it in order to conceive its survival strategy with the excuse of the widely spread thesis of national security. It is not the simple outline of the intensity of the problems, but the global economic scope of these problems.
A WARHORSE THAT TAKES LIVES ALL OVER THE WORLD
“The terrifying bombs dropped by the American air force and their allies over
And Bush and Putin, Rodríguez Zapatero and Rajoy, Chávez and Uribe, the Palestinians and the Israelis all talk of terrorism. A warhorse that in the meantime takes the lives of thousands of people all over the world. “Fifty years ago it was communism, now it is terrorism, with the semantic aggravations of a word that is turned into an adjective” The terrifying bombs dropped by the American air force and their allies over
If we counted all of the times the word terrorism has been pronounced, it would win over words like democracy, justice, well-being, human rights. Fifty years ago it was communism, now it is terrorism, with the semantic aggravations of a word that is turned into an adjective. Another linguistic problem one must handle with care.
Terror, from which terrorism is derived, cannot be exclusive to those who have economic and military power. The bombings of
THE TRUE TRUTH
“To recognize that the crisis results from a poorly developed policy and that the solution is not blood and fire, is the first step in cementing a secure democracy” Now, and to conclude this first part, we can only guarantee that the policy (not the policies) of national security is called a failure. This policy has not been woven with honesty, it has favored a cloak of impunity and disloyalty, it does not promote consensus, it is not fair to all, and it frequently seeks to annihilate a presumed (recognized) enemy and with that extends the problem of security to other ranks, to other borders.
The alliances concerned with some suspect instigators of the conflict are not the best way to start this. To recognize, therefore, that the crisis results from a poorly developed policy and that the solution is not blood and fire, is the first step, it is the search to cement a secure democracy, without more tacitly gathered adjectives.
To fail to recognize, for example, the failures of the battle against drugs, or the hardship of wide sectors of Colombian society and to want to attribute them to others is to favor insecurity and to work with terrorism. It is not a rhetorical problem, it is historical, and only human beings (and that is to understand the term human) resolve these problems. This is the true truth.