How To Develop Alternative Development

Transcription

1 1 DRUG TRAFFICKING: PERSPECTIVES FROM EUROPE, LATIN AMERICA AND THE UNITED STATES Edited by Álvaro Camacho Guizado Proceedings from the international seminar Drug Trafficking: the Relations between Europe, Latin America and the United States, Narcotráfico: las relaciones entre Europa, América Latina y Estados Unidos, which took place at Universidad de los Andes Hosted by Observatorio de las Relaciones entre Europa y América Latina OBREAL and Centro de Estudios Socioculturales e Internacionales CESO Bogotá, Colombia October 24-26,

2 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS OPENING REMARKS... 4 Carlos Angulo Galvis... 5 Carl Langebaek... 8 PROLOGUE Álvaro Camacho Guizado THE VIEW FROM THE UNITED NATIONS Sandro Calvani Should Colombia Just Reduce Its Illicit Crops, or Also Diminish the Number of Cocaine Producers, Slaves of Cocaine Traffickers, Slaves of Armed Groups? THE VIEWS FROM EUROPE Georges Estievenart Anti-Drug Strategy of the European Union and Latin America Alain Labrousse Cooperation in Terms of Drugs between the European Union and Latin America THE VIEWS FROM THE UNITED STATES Ethan A. Nadelmann Reducing the Harms of Drug Prohibition in the Americas Peter Reuter On the Consistency of United States Policy towards Colombia Coletta A. Youngers Drugs, Narco-Terrorism and United States- Latin American Relations THE VIEWS FROM LATIN AMERICA Luis Astorga Mexico: Drug Trafficking, Security and Terrorism

3 3 Francisco E. Thoumi Drug Policies, Reforms, and Colombo-American Relations Alexandra Guáqueta Transformation and Effects of Anti-Drug Cooperation Between Colombia and the United States of America ( ) Ricardo Vargas Mesa Drugs, War, and Crime in Colombia: A Symbiosis that Nourishes the Extension of the Conflict

4 4 OPENING REMARKS 4

5 5 Carlos Angulo Galvis * I am very pleased to welcome you to this International Seminar on drug trafficking, where a very distinguished group of experts has gathered to analyze a particularly important topic around the world; a topic, in regard to which, unfortunately, we are very far from attaining a solution. The enormously complex problem of drug trafficking has an undeniable international reach and is no longer, as it was before, a problem solely of producing countries. The influence this phenomenon has today, over the political, social and economic structures of every country is acknowledged and perceived. It is regrettable that we have plenty of examples here in Colombia. Nonetheless, such influence cannot only be seen within a local framework. In the globalized era we are living in, this analysis must also consider the effect that drug trafficking has on the international relations between countries. Above all, we are dealing with a problem that has to be analyzed in an integral way, and that should include the producing countries along with the consuming ones. We, in the producing countries, often stigmatized, are the ones who suffer from the worst prejudices; discrimination that includes environmental, economic, social-cultural and political aspects. With regard to the Colombian case, it is a universally accepted fact that the enormous strengthening of all insurgent groups is in great measure due to drug trafficking, which, in turn, continuously meets the constant demand coming mainly from the most developed countries. Unfortunately, Colombia has become a problem country, in which corruption has increased and expenses for the judicial and penitentiary systems raised, without having any positive effects at a general level. Last week, on a trip I undertook to Canada, I saw, once more, the uselessness of the above mentioned efforts. In an article published on October 19 th by the National Post, I was informed that a member of the Canadian Parliament was worried because marihuana was being grown at a commercial scale in an elegant residential zone of Toronto. The article also stated that marihuana was the major commercial crop in British Columbia, and that it was being exported to the United States. You all can remember that some years ago, * Rector of Universidad de los Andes. 5

6 6 Colombia was an important exporter of marihuana; today, fortunately for us, we have been overtaken by other countries and by local production. The next day, an article in the same newspaper dealt with a book by Norm Stamper former Seattle Police Chief. In this work he acknowledged that the measures applied to counteract drug trafficking have not been successful: while the consumption rates increased, he argued, so did the number of arrests. In 1980, 580,000 American citizens were arrested accused of some kind of drug-related crime, and in 2003 the same kind of arrests touched 1,678,000 people. The author of the book also took into account the negative experience the United States had with alcohol prohibition during the last century, and concluded that the most convenient solution is the depenalization of drugs and the control of their use. It is clear enough that eradicating drug plantations, which comes at such high costs for Colombia, has not had the expected results. It is also clear that it cannot attain those results as long as the demand from richer countries continues. Despite the colossal efforts made to eradicate drug plantations, the drug prices on the streets of the main cities around the world have not changed. It is therefore essential to effectively attack consumption. We can continue in our never-ending task to eradicate illicit crops, but as long as the demand is not controlled, the problem will remain unsolved. There is a multiplicity of aspects that can be analyzed from different points of view, ranging from punitive issues to public health dilemmas; and the possible solutions that have been put forward stretch from extreme prohibition to an open market. In this context, interesting ideas about depenalization and harm reduction have been suggested, and they deserve to be considered by the international community. International commitment to resolve this problem is urgent. And that does not mean just talking about producing or consuming countries. It is about understanding how this phenomenon affects the collective development of humanity by penetrating all of its social spheres and harming it directly or indirectly. With this in mind, we considered nothing could be better than to bring together a group of experts from the United States, the European Union and Latin America during these two days. They will describe and analyze the politics with which this affliction is met and dealt with in each of their regions. 6

7 7 The various debates that will take place during these days will enlighten us with different perspectives that, I hope, will broaden the discussion about the effects the production, distribution and consumption of internationally prohibited substances have on our societies. Given that the campus is the most suitable place for the discussion of highly important topics for our country and for our world, we are very pleased to host this event. Welcome to the Universidad de Los Andes. Thank you very much. 7

8 8 Carl Langebaek * Álvaro has asked me to give a shorter speech than usual. More than that, he has requested that I, in spite of being an archeologist, set a position on regards to the main issue of this event. I want to make clear that I know little about drug trafficking. And that the closest thing I think I know is related to coca consumption, centuries before cocaine was isolated and both producing and consuming countries were involved in a series of the most absurd and cruel war. A sequence that started in the 19 th century when, what today we would call an international coalition at that time presided by Europe invaded China so that it would authorize the legal trade of opium; many years before prohibitions invaded the Christian and Muslim worlds; and even before the existence of ridiculous legislations as that in Peru, which allowed having coca crops at 2,000 meters above sea level, but not at 1,999. Evidently, coca has little to do with cocaine. As a Peruvian anthropologist used to say, it is just like comparing a donkey with a jet plane. More to the point, cocaine is not the active component of interest for the coca consumer; instead he seeks another stimulating substance called egnonina. Coca is no cause of addiction, although it might become a habit. My comfort is that the history of coca might be an example of the effects that prohibitions and stereotypes have, and might also give us some lights in the understanding of the complex world of drug trafficking. Hence, I decided to make a short reference to coca. We know that Central Andean recollecting hunters probably tamed the bush more than 5,000 years ago. Contrary to what is usually thought, hunters are experts in the taming of plants, and, centuries before agriculture appeared, they tamed those plants that gave them pleasure; among them were coca, tobacco, yopo, and many others. This plant has been known in the territory that now is Colombia, since approximately 2,000 years ago. Archeological researches from the University of Pittsburg and the Universidad de los Andes in the Alto Magdalena found coca pollen belonging to the period when the famous monticules and statues there started to take shape. Evidence found in other places is later than the former. Within Quimbayan gold * Dean of the Social Sciences Faculty, Universidad de los Andes. 8

9 9 work, there are poporos connected to the chewing of leaves between years 500 and 600 A.D. In Nariño, small pottery figures whose bulky cheeks point out the chewing of coca were shaped during that same period. Years later, tools related to the use of coca were found in connection to Muisca mummies, and other figures also suggest that consumption began at the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta around the year 1000 A.D. Although meager, archeological contexts indicate that the use of coca was not popular. It was limited to a few people, especially men, who held important positions within their societies. The information presented by writers suggests that this was the situation when the Spaniards arrived. Even inside the Inca Empire, the privilege of chewing coca, or at least one of its varieties, seems to have been regulated by the political control at Cuzco. In other words, coca had a strong relation to political prestige; it was what anthropologists call a luxury good. Right after the Conquest, coca s history began to change. The first description, written by Vespucio in 1504, did not seem too humiliating: the explorer limited to note that chewing coca was a bad habit, although not diabolic. By 1540, Cieza de León stated that he considered it a vice, yet he was not excessively hard with the leaf. Even so, coca held an acceptable position as part of the philosophy present during the first years of the Conquest period. Meanwhile, in its Medical History of 1544, Nicolás Monardes praised it, just as Juan Martínez affirmed, in 1560, that God had created coca because he considered it was necessary for natives. Nothing within creation could be considered evil by nature, and coca leaf was not to be the exception. The Spaniards started consuming coca as well. Barbers recommended it to soothe tooth pain, and Dominicans as well as Franciscans consumed it frequently in Peru, Ecuador, and southern Colombia. It seems to be that, in Nariño, nuns were eager users. But so much happiness could not last for long. Early in time, others also considered that coca leaf could be used as a communication channel between natives and the Devil. In 1551, the Ecclesiastic Council at Lima concluded that coca was no creation of God, but rather of the Devil, and as a consequence it had to be completely eradicated. From that moment on, and throughout the Colony, the Church made numerous efforts to eradicate the use of the plant. However, the simultaneous result was exactly the contrary. Documents of only a few years after the Conquest suggest that the use of the plant did not diminish, but 9

10 10 rather increased. Two examples illustrate the former: early chronicles record that at the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, where today chewing coca is almost synonymous with being native, consumption was limited to few people. As a matter of fact, it was only in the 18 th century that the use became a general habit. Yet, at that time there were already records to support that the Spaniards were the ones who most cultivated coca, and benefited from its trade. They owned crops at Villanueva, which were destined to satisfy the needs of natives at La Guajira, who traded coca for pearls. Moreover, it was also the Spaniards who transported coca into the Sierra looking to trade it with the natives. Another example is that of Muisca territory. Jiménez de Quesada, its conqueror, describes how natives chewed coca as part of special ceremonies, just as the first documents suggest that owning a poporo and a mochila (rucksack) full of coca leaves was one of the most precious goods caciques and religious specialists could own. Only 50 years after the Conquest, writers mention the fact that Muisca males consumed coca all day long, especially during hard working days. The reason: business profits were too high and, regardless of the Church s position, the Spaniards had decided to ask for a coca tribute and use it to pay their workers. Jiménez de Quesada himself took control of one of the villages known for coca production. One year later encomenderos had gathered enough coca in a single year as to buy almost 2,000 Muisca blankets. They received a coca tribute, which was also used to help the workers alleviate their hunger and appease their fatigue. Priests and landowners at the southern part of the country continued profiting from the coca business until the mid 20 th century. No prohibition stopped the use of coca. Social pressures to avoid looking like a native moved the consumption to almost a total extinction within the Muisca territory, while at the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta the need of looking as a native preserved its use; even if it was not the same as that existing before the Conquest. Right at Potosi, the first native generation born after the Conquest gave itself into the use of coca; yet the next one preferred wine. During the 18 th century strong defenders of coca consumption in the form of tea, as were Jose Celestino Mutis and father Julián, failed in their desire of competing against Chinese or Indian tea, or even against coffee. I repeat: coca and cocaine are two completely different things. Any comparison of their nature is anodyne. However, it is clear that there are social parallels. Just as it 10

11 11 happened one hundred years ago, economic forces stimulate the business and, at the same time, ideologies try to extinguish it without achieving their goal. The situation is even worse precisely because of consumption types invented in Europe during the 19 th century, which are more harmful than any indigenous use. And nobody would dare to compare the current European, North American, or Latin American junkie to the native shaman. What's more, I do not want to establish explicit analogies on those who, today, just as the 16 th century encomenderos, favor commerce, nor on those who, just as the Ecclesiastic Council of Lima, justify repressive ideology. Even less do I want to point out who the victims are, because I believe it is too obvious. However, what I do want to state today to the current audience, is that today s cruel war will probably bring the same results brought by the prosecution of coca, but with a much higher cost. There is even an additional challenge in controlling a much more harmful addiction by means of strategies different from repression, which never was coca s case. It is time that I leave you with those who are experts on the subject. I want to congratulate CESO for this event, especially Álvaro Camacho and Francisco Zarur. All the same, I want to welcome our prestigious national and international guests. Thank you. 11

12 12 PROLOGUE Álvaro Camacho Guizado * It has been a great pleasure and honor for me to serve as host, on behalf of the Observatorio de las Relaciones entre Europa y América Latina OBREAL and the Centro de Estudios Socioculturales e Internacionales CESO to this Forum-Seminar, Narcotráfico: las relaciones entre Europa, América Latina y Estados Unidos, which took place at the Universidad de los Andes in October 24 th -26 th, To my knowledge, it is the first time that analysts from these three parts of the world have gotten together to exchange thoughts, points of view and political proposals on such a crucial subject for our contemporary world. Not without effort, we have gathered together on this occasion experts that lead the way in terms of their scientific and analytical capabilities. Our speakers are the world authorities on this subject, and to have you amongst us is a real privilege. From your arguments we have been able to build alternative and, of course, more effective views to help us with the study of the national and international policies on production, distribution, and consumption of illicit drugs. I want to highlight the fact that the speakers have made a big effort to present their analyses to us in a clear and concise way; moreover, they have given us suggestions and recommendations aiming at overcoming some of the short-sightedness and simplicity with which this problem has been examined. I want to start with one of the recommendations Ethan Nadelmann has given us. His first suggestion is that we open up the debate, that we abandon the fanatically charged perspectives and the prejudices, prejudices that have originated in erroneous definitions of the problem and that have been translated into policies that have only worsened the problem and turned the possible solutions into something much more complex. Both Ethan Nadelmann and Peter Reuter agree in thinking that policies that focus on penalizing and criminalizing production and consumption not only have not succeeded in reducing the problems but, on the contrary, have increased them. With respect to the latter, even though there is a certain amount of cutback in consumption in the United States, the * CESO Director, Universidad de los Andes. 12

13 13 policies have not changed and are still having doubtful effects. They both agree that it is necessary to assert that, even though the unregulated, illegal or clandestine forms of consumption cause harm, the prohibitionist policies (which Nadelmann ascribes to fanatic points of view) and their effects on delinquency, penitentiary overfilling, judicial congestion, the deviation of public resources, the extraordinary incomes of criminal organizations, corruption and the building of social stigmas that target mainly the social groups that are on the lowest part of the social pyramid, carry worse traumatic consequences. Furthermore, these same prohibitionist policies hinder the development of the public health policies destined to reduce the damage produced to the drug users by the awful conditions in which the consumption takes place, thus creating a very destructive association between illicit drugs and much more serious contagious diseases like hepatitis and AIDS. In addition, Peter Reuter recognizes that the policies of the United States have not been able to reduce drug supply in a significant way. And, in the United States, this may be due, according to Francisco Thoumi, to the belief by the authors and sympathizers of the radical prohibitionist policies, that the consumption problem can be condensed into a few deviant behaviors that they must fix. For Thoumi, US society has undergone noticeable social and cultural changes during the last few years: patterns of settlement have increased urban segregation, and city centers have become inhabited by a low income population that does not adjust to the traditional whiteprotestant stereotype; profound changes in family structure that have come out of the increase in female employment and that translate into a declining child care; school calendars that do not take into account our time demands; the isolation produced by the new suburban settlement, in which familial units reduce the extent of their relationships with other members of society; all of them constitute changes at the base of the new social realities of this country; social realities that include the habitual intake of dangerous substances. Taking into account these facts, very different policies to what is now in use should be designed. In a very explicit manner, Coletta Youngers has emphasized a description and analysis of the dimensions that United States policy towards Colombia has taken: for her, the main point of this policy is the consolidating militarization process. Alexandra Guáqueta also rigorously documents this statement. This process is based mainly on the 13

14 14 fact that for some time now in the United States the drug problem has been defined as a national security problem. This definition, which is today supported by the war on terrorism, has lead to the privileging of military and violent actions over other possible options. In turn, this approach contrasts with the policies aimed at local marihuana producers and synthetic drugs, which have more harmful effects on users. In his recommendations, Reuter calls them softer alternatives. For Youngers, these kinds of policies have had very damaging effects on Latin American countries sovereignty and on human rights conditions; they have prompted the deterioration of civil liberties, stimulated corruption in the authorities, increased the suffering of the poorest, affected Colombia s relations with its neighbors, and, especially, worsened Colombia s war. And both Youngers and Reuter remind us of something we experience every day: the fact that our country is only important to the United States in terms of its status as a cocaine and heroin exporter. But we, Colombians, are not alone in this war against drugs: Luis Astorga tells us that if in Colombia things are not getting better, in México things are not good either. In fact, United States prohibitionist policy has had deadly effects in his country. Currently, with help from Mexican authorities, the United States has been stimulating a growing militarization. Despite the author s claims that drug dealers have no intentions of fighting with the government, which means that they do not aim at becoming political actors, the idea that México is Colombianizing is growing popular in that country. Astorga asks himself if, on the contrary, United States is Colombianizing its public relationships towards Mexico. That there are other alternatives, and that we Colombians could expect not to be victims from the combination of drug traffic and those punitive policies, could be inferred from the descriptions and analyses presented to us by Sandro Calvani, Georges Estievenart and Alain Labrousse. Calvani, representative for Colombia from the UNDOC, recognizes that the crop substitution policy has had some success in Colombia, although the reduction of traditional growing areas has been offset by the increase of new crops. And he presents us a new alternative policy, which we should consider much more attentively. In fact, for the United Nations it is imperative that we work on aspects like alternative development, based on 14

15 15 creating suitably productive infrastructure with technology transfers, the consolidation of communitarian commerce channels, the liberation of areas for conservation and reforestation, and suitable training for forest management. All this complemented by the strengthening of human and social capital. Georges Estievenart and Alain Labrousse have profound knowledge of another dimension of world policies: I am referring to those that are trying to find a place in Europe. Both authors agree about the problems in building a united and effective policy. National dispersal, the defense of sovereignty and decisions from every European Union member, and the fact that there is not, according to Labrousse, a unifying and responsible center that could put them into practice, has rendered it difficult to fix those policies. Nevertheless, there are certain points of agreement, which constitute landmarks for each of the countries: I am pointing to the common necessity to reduce consumption and, therefore, health damage, to increase the number of successfully treated addicts, to decrease the availability of illicit drugs and crimes related to them, and to combat money laundering. Today, the agreed Strategy for 2010 is valid; and although it is less drastic than the preceding ones, with the aim to make it more compatible with the different national laws, it emphasizes consumption and health damage reduction through prevention, treatment, rehabilitation and social reintegration. This is, of course, a more realistic and democratic policy, directed to the wellbeing of the citizens. And, thinking of Latin America, that policy has been consolidated in the so-called Action Plan of Panama, which was set up on April 8 th and 9 th, 1999, and whose pillars are: shared responsibility, an integrated, equilibrated and participative focus, sustainable development and, above all, conformity with international law, which refers to respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, non-interference with internal affairs and the promotion of human rights. In short, what Panama approved was to have more coordination, information and experience exchange, in order to improve our capabilities to face the problem. Basically, it proposed some measures that Colombia should adopt, like promoting cooperation by the development of a Regional Observatory, coordinating the controlled delivery process and supporting the non-governmental cooperation organizations. The Action Plan is a synthesis that relates to the necessity of helping each other to increase research, information and evaluation on these topics. 15

16 16 In addition, it is clear that the increasing European involvement in Colombia, particularly in what concerns the search for solutions to the armed conflict, has not stopped creating frictions with United States policy on the subject. Labrousse and Guáqueta highlight this. Plan Colombia and human rights becoming a political issue are, for example, matters that create tension between the two poles. For us, Colombians, this forum-seminar is a golden opportunity. If there is a country in this region that has suffered the illicit drug problem in its worst dimensions, it is Colombia. Here, we haven t even had the basis of a legitimating discourse on coca production, as has been outlined in Bolivia and Perú. Here, the income deriving from the growing and the commerce of coca has not benefited some peasant masses, as has happened at some point in our neighboring countries. On the contrary, we have had to suffer the concentration of drug-related income in three major organizations, whose actions emphatically contribute to destroying the essential traits in the building of a nation: I am referring to the drug dealing groups and the illegal armed apparatus that threaten or defend the government, and that do it by means of disproportionate and ferocious use of force, corruption, and violence. Everyone knows that cocaine and heroin have become the main fuel of our war: they not only contribute to strengthen armed force capabilities, to threaten and destroy human lives and physical infrastructure, but the enormous amounts of resources have also been essential in the crumbling of the guerrilla s political and social justice platform. It has transformed the insurgent armed organizations way of life. This process is documented by Ricardo Vargas in his text. And, on the other side of the political spectrum, it has promoted the generalizing of violence, corruption, the expansion of illicit crops, and the stripping and theft of traditional owners. Both sides of the armed conflict have contributed in a decisive way to the destruction of entire peasant communities. It is not without reason that Calvani informs us that 0.4% of landowners (15,273) own 61.2% of the land (47,147,680 hectares): much of which is divided into areas of more than 500 hectares. And, 97% of landowners (3.5 millions) own 24.2% (18,646,473 hectares) of the land. In the past 10 years concentration has increased and now drug traffickers control more or less 4.4 million hectares of land that is generally underused. But drug trafficking has not only created the monster that for convenience sake we have called paramilitarism, in its criminal dealings, it has also been a factor in transforming 16

17 17 huge portions of our urban youth into cannon fodder: be it sicarios, be it their victims. In some of our cities being young and poor is a stigma that today frequently leads to death. We condense all that is evil and destructive in drug dealing. Wouldn t it be good if we could, for example, decidedly adopt Ethan Nadelmann s proposal with respect to prioritizing efforts in terms of harm reduction, a concept which, taking into account the fact that neither the use nor the prohibition of drugs will disappear in the near future, this author defines as an strategic effort to reduce their negative consequences. We really do need that kind of a policy: we not only experience damage in terms of threats to our institutions, destruction of justice, corruption and violence; we also experience it in terms of consumption: as it happens with other national products, we also export high quality cocaine and heroin, that is to say, with high purity levels, and we keep an equivalent to the very-low-quality coffee beans destined for local consumption: we keep a sort of cocapasilla, the so called basuco, that has demonstrated its terrible effects on consumers: if our visitors take a tour around Bogotá they will be able to see how basuco, to which other ingredients of the same poor quality are added, turn human beings into subjects on the edge of destruction. We do need, then, international cooperation, but in a very different way to what we have had until now. I do not want to be falsely optimistic, but would it be good if we followed Nadelmann s advice: according to him, in Latin America, we already have the moral basis and the critical mass to induce changes in the dominant policy in the region, and to learn from other countries that have adopted more reasonable policies than the carrot and the stick. Clearly, we must heed Reuters advice, when he tells us that we should not expect a lot as long as we are only spending one quarter of one percent of the GDP, and less than 2.5 percent of government expenses on the war against crime; that it is also necessary that we concentrate on soft development alternatives: that we expand government s control throughout the whole territory, that we keep on strengthening our Armed Forces, but with less emphasis on the punitive and more on ways to stimulate social and economic development; and that we do not promote corrupt institutions. All of them are, needless to say, necessary measures, although, due to its bureaucratic character and to the fact that the fight against supply is politically more tempting, it is improbable that the United States 17

18 18 Congress will change its policies. As said by the author, for better or worse, Colombia should expect more of the same. Estievenart s suggestions are also tempting and challenging, when he suggests that OBREAL organize a group of experts from Latin America and Europe who would make an effort to strengthen ties with respect to research, assessment, and programming of national and worldwide strategies; a group that organizes annual meetings to discuss the main themes, conducts studies and draws recommendations so that its results are shared and that knowledge about the topic increased. It is an imposing task, but one about which we must think seriously and for which we must find people ready to work. Ladies and gentleman: no more of my impertinence. The only thing left for me is to sincerely thank all the people that have made possible this event: the European Commission, for its generous funding and support, Ramón Torrent and his team at the Universidad de Barcelona, for their work in making OBREAL function effectively in all respects. Ramón has been a constant supporter and a leader for this and other OBREAL activities. I also want to thank our speakers, not only for their intellectual and academic contributions, but because with their great helpfulness they contributed to ease the organization of this event. At a more domestic level, I would like to thank Ricardo Calderón and Semana magazine, for taking part in the organization and the communication of the results of the lectures and debates. I would also like giving my gratitude to Álvaro Sierra and the newspaper El Tiempo and to Fidel Cano and the newspaper El Espectador for allowing me to publicize the forum and share its significance. And I should explicitly mention my debt in terms of gratitude to the Universidad de los Andes, from the Rector Carlos Angulo and the Vice-Rectors of Studies and Administration, to the Faculty of Social Sciences and its Dean Carl Langebaek; not only for the support they have given us, but because, once more, they have proven than heterodox thinking is welcome in this institution. And still, at a more personal level I want to highlight the dedication, enthusiasm, and efforts of Lina Mendoza; without her eager participation we would not be here today. Pacho Zarur, my colleage, knows that I thank him every day. Heidy Casas has been the closest thing to a heroine: with enviable stoicism, she has tackled all the problems, delays, 18

19 19 bad moments and even worse moods that naturally come out when one gets itself into such a mess. She has had the help of Neison Palacios and Mauricio Salinas, whom I also need to thank. Lina was also responsible for the significant translation work, and I thank Guillermo Díez for his proofreading. 19

20 20 THE VIEW FROM THE UNITED NATIONS 20