News

Addressing the Causes, but Also the Impacts of Violence

Sponsors

Julio Torres Cuadros, Executive Secretary of the College of Forest Engineers of Chile

A very common tendency when facing complex problems like violence in the southern macrozone is to propose, in an exclusionary manner, a strategy that only targets the causes of the phenomenon or a strategy that solely addresses its impacts. This dilemma is not unique to the conflict in La Araucanía; it also arises when analyzing crime, poverty, and most complex social issues.

The cause-based strategy argues that any measure not targeting the root of the problem will only be a temporary fix—a solution addressing symptoms but not the disease. Therefore, this strategy emphasizes the historical analysis of the phenomenon and the pursuit of agreements between conflicting parties as the most effective way to de-escalate violence. However, its implementation is slow and uncertain in outcome, as there will always be those who seek to sabotage dialogue and escalate the conflict to gain a stronger position in future negotiations.

On the other hand, the impact-based strategy aims to contain the damage and minimize the victims the conflict generates. In the case of violence in the southern macrozone, there are numerous victims, and the trend is toward increasing their numbers and the severity of the harm. Initially, it was only material losses, but now the conflict has claimed the lives of Carabineros and PDI officers, forestry workers, farm owners, truck drivers, Mapuche community members, and others. Not to mention the impact on nature due to numerous intentional forest fires in the region, the theft of harvested timber with no environmental consideration, and the illegal occupation of protected areas. Now, attention is focused on the INIA's Carillanca center and the Rucamanque property of the University of La Frontera. Unfortunately, research has also become a victim of the conflict.

The debate over which strategy is best is pointless but useful for those who wish to maintain a state of uncertainty and insecurity. The cause-based "historical" strategy is called "seeking agreements" or "political strategy," while the impact-based strategy is labeled "militarization." The latter term, of course, carries a clearly intentional pejorative connotation aimed at instilling guilt in authorities. A third approach is also overlooked—one that pursues a comprehensive strategy, not shying away from controlling violence through coercive measures under the state's responsibility while simultaneously seeking political solutions. Both can and should be addressed, as they are not mutually exclusive.

Take, for example, the case of a chronic smoker suffering a heart attack or a drunk driver crashing their vehicle and sustaining severe injuries. Reproaching their vices while doctors try to save their lives is pointless. The priority is to stabilize them. There will be time later to address the causes that led them to that situation.

The analogy with violence or crime is clear. We cannot rely solely on dialogue and agreements while daily attacks (not sabotage) claim new victims. The patient is bleeding out today, and we will achieve nothing by giving them lifestyle recommendations. The first step must be to stop the bleeding.

Stopping the bleeding of violence is the primary and most urgent challenge for the new government, and it will not be achieved through lawsuits or invitations to dialogue with those who murder workers or burn machinery, homes, schools, and churches. Politics and state administration cannot be exercised in a voluntaristic and naive manner.