Ernesto Samper: "If Putin and Trump are neutralized, Guaidó and Maduro will have to agree on a democratic solution"

Ernesto Samper was president of Colombia between 1994 and 1998, while peace in the Caribbean was still very distant. Closer in time, it was between 2014 and 2017 the last Secretary General of UNASUR, the regional body today virtually extinguished after the resignation of the majority of its members. He is now a regular speaker on alternative policies in the fight against drug trafficking and mechanisms of regional integration, while offering as a consensus maker to consolidate peace in his country. and avoid conflicts on the continent. He traveled through Buenos Aires to speak with a handful of opposition leaders such as Cristina Kirchner, Eduardo Duhalde, Roberto Lavagna and Sergio Mbada. Infobae, "take the pulse of what is happening in Argentina"

– And what is the vision that comes from outside what is happening in Argentina?

"It's a bittersweet vision because, on the one hand, the change of the common ideological denominator in the region is a reaffirmation that democracy works, that we can bring about radical changes without altering democratic continuity." . But from a practical point of view, I have great concerns because the region, I think, is socially social, not necessarily badociated with changes in government, but we have not done the job well in recent years. The 120 million poor people we were able to lift out of poverty also did not increase, but many returned to their poverty. This is very disturbing, it is a setback.

– A few days ago, at the time of Alan García's suicide, you stated that "we can not continue to convert the courts into scenarios of political confrontation". Beyond the specific case of García, do you really believe that what is happening in many Latin American countries is a politicization of justice and not a pursuit of justice in many cases of blatant corruption suffered by governments of the continent? last decades?

Nobody opposes the fight against corruption. But the only thing more dangerous than the fight against corruption is the political use of the fight against corruption, which is starting to happen in Latin America. It is the judiciarization of politics. It is to transfer to judges and prosecutors the debates that should be given in the democratic scenarios. With the aggravating circumstances that we are changing the justice system, the inquisitorial system that started from the basis of the presumption of innocence, where every person is innocent until the culprit is proven, we moved to an adversarial system of negotiated justice, in which each person is guilty until it shows the opposite. And that opens the way to a process of negotiating justice, false witnesses, false anonymous, a little exploited by the media, reaching extreme cases like Alan Garcia, who, after knowing his posthumous letter, you can think that this person was right, they did not listen to him, he could not exercise his right to defend himself or there was no evidence against him. And it will be late when it will be established because he has already committed suicide. I am not saying that I am innocent or guilty, I do not enter this discussion, but what I am saying is that this negotiated justice leads to the judicialization of the policy that touches on cases like this. observed in Brazil, namely the politicization of justice. . That the person who persecuted former President Lula to be appointed Minister of Justice is tantamount to closing a vicious circle.

– But in the Latin American tradition, it is usual for corruption investigations to take years and corruption cases in politics almost never lead to a conviction.

– That's true, but in this the media help a lot. Nobody opposes the media spotlighting and the actions of politicians are much more transparent. Have ethical standards in awarding public contracts. The problem is not the fight against corruption, which we all support categorically, but the fact that it is used as a political weapon, for which we politicians have some responsibility. We left the responsibility for the discussions that were normally given in political debates, in open and transparent debates. we move them so that some judges and prosecutors who become protagonists of the media end up resorting to justice to produce political effects, which is undesirable.

-To tackle specific cases, do you think that the corruption investigations of Lula da Silva, Cristina Kirchner, Rafael Correa, Alan Garcia and other former Peruvian presidents who do the same? subject of investigation in the Odebrechet case are unfair?

-I think that there is a common denominator in them. I do not enter in the specific case of each of them, but I believe that there is what they call lawwhich is the legal war of using the instruments of justice to produce political results. This has much more to do with the emergence of factual powers in the region that are large communication groups, international NGOs, judges and prosecutors transformed into media protagonists who have in a way replaced the parties. Because the traditional parties no longer speak to the people the language they understand, they do not represent their constituents … there is a crisis of representativity that benefits these powers, who are political actors, who make politics, but without political responsibility.

-You were the last general secretary of Unasur. After him, it was not possible to elect a new secretary general and today, Unasur is practically dead, what is his feeling?

-First, a sense of worry because the rule that allowed Unasur to be born was that all decisions had to be made by consensus, which the twelve countries had to decide. And it was the one who, oddly enough, ended up hurting her because they could not agree to choose my successor, which is unfortunate. But it is worse than this institutional paralysis has not consisted in reforming the statutes and conditions of the organization, but to open another mechanism of integration. The region needs fewer integration mechanisms and more convergence. We now have ten integration mechanisms in Latin America, ALBA, Mercosur, the Andean Community, Unasur, the Amazon Pact, the Association of Caribbean States, the Celiac …

-What responsibility did the UNASUR leaders have that could not be effective and who did not know how to solve their own problems?

– The subject of Venezuela is undoubtedly a topical issue, but Venezuela was among the countries and there were eleven other countries. Never, when I was in Unasur, ideological considerations of regional considerations were brought to the fore. We managed to create advocacy, health and education councils in South America … We managed to get a Colombian working in Argentina and an Argentinian in Peru. The original Mercosur work permit has been extended to the entire region. There have been some important achievements, but unfortunately we have not been able to overcome political differences. But I am not pessimistic. There must be a space …

– Do you trust the new Prosur?

-Because the Prosur is more Pronorte than Prosur. Because there are two visions of integration: a vision that follows the Latin term breathe polum, in the United States, thinking that our only destiny is to integrate us in the United States, which is an important but not the most important partner, and the similar respite , which is the birthplace of Unasur, who looks at the neighbor. We, between us, understand ourselves as a regional south, we can do a lot of things together with other parts of the south. These two visions are the ones we face today.

– Do you think that Nicolás Maduro is the legitimate president of Venezuela and that there is an attempt of coup d'etat to remove him from power or does he recognize, on the contrary, Juan Guaidó as the legitimate president in charge executive power?

– I believe that Juan Guaidó is the legitimate representative of the Legitimate Assembly of Venezuela and that President Maduro is the legitimate representative of the executive power of Venezuela, but I believe that the discussion is not about that. This discussion on Venezuela can not continue to revolve around the diagnosis but on what is the solution. And I believe that there are two ways: good or bad. The exit to evil is somehow sponsored by the United States and must create the destabilization of the country or military intervention or overthrow, what they are currently trying to achieve is to overthrow Maduro and put Guaidó. That does not solve anything, because tomorrow, Chavez will try to overthrow Guaidó. Another way is good, and that's what the United Nations, the European Union, the Contact Group, Pope Francisco, Mexico have advocated … namely: let's make a democratic outing with elections.

-But it has been tried in recent years. There have been innumerable conversations and negotiations in this direction, but they have failed and Maduro has organized elections with banned candidates, banned opposition parties and has proclaimed winner in conditions that most countries in the world did not recognize as legitimate and started a second term. It seems that one who does not want a good outing is mature.

-I think that he must understand that the solution will eventually impose the good or the bad. And there is a subtle but important element that allows me to be more optimistic than it was a week ago: the dialogue between the two chancellors [de Estados Unidos y Rusia]. This will not be arranged between Putin and Trump, but if they neutralize him, those who have to enter into agreement who are Venezuelans could enter. Guaidó and Maduro, sooner or later will have to agree to reach this democratic exit.

– Do you still believe that this will happen after so many frustrating negotiations between Chavez and the opposition, even with the mediation of third parties?

– Indeed. I myself have participated in many of these negotiations, especially with Guaidó and the legislature. I understand that the Constituent Assembly is a leap into the void … but I think that if external forces are neutralized, the possibility opens with effective mediation from the United Nations and with the active participation of an actor like the Mexico has shown neutrality. active in this process, that no one can say from one side or the other, we could find the way out. Because countries can not be closed. How much more suffering must we impose on Venezuelans to find a way out? This is the moral dilemma we face.

-A little more than two years of the peace agreement in Colombia, how do you evaluate the results obtained and the intention of the President-in-Office, Ivan Duque, to carry out reforms?

-The first and fundamental is that after fifty years of killing in Colombia, the silence was agreed on the rifles. It was historic of course. But for some, this is at the end of the process and no one understood that from the moment the rifles were silenced, it was necessary to build the building that was in the foundations. It's the difference in depth with President Duque. Unfortunately, the country, during the last five years of negotiations, has taken a look at peace: less than three thousand victims, kidnappings have almost disappeared … But I am very worried about what is happening. Because these seeds of violence are sown there. There are already four or five strategic sites in the country in which guerrilla forces, narcotrafic forces, and paramilitary forces are converging, which could be the seeds of national conflict. And I do not think the current government is aware of the risk that we run, that these seeds are metastasizing and that we can come back in five or six years to have a national conflict. I want to say it sincerely, because it is above all a voice of alarm.

-To conclude, I consult him for two new leaders of the region who, by their particular style, have attracted the attention of the whole world: what do you think of Andrés Manuel López Obrador and Jair Bolsonaro?

-Well, of course, my personal inclinations are more on the side of López Obrador, not because of an ideological option but because of his own trajectory of person engaged in social issues, independent, a very sensitive person to the reality of his country … and He also observed with great concern the trajectory of Bolsonaro, as the Bible says: "You will know them, you will know", but I think that both represent the two forces around which the international politics of Latin America has evolved and will continue to evolve. .