La Dra.
Triscritti es una profesional con gran y larga experiencia trabajando para
organizaciones multinacionales que además cuenta con impecables credenciales
académicas.
Lamentablemente, toda esa experiencia y
capacidad no esta al servicio de la objetividad sino, parece ser, esta al
servicio, suponemos remunerado, de ciertas causas y/o ideologías que disfrazan
sus propósitos utilizando mercenarios académicos para dar credibilidad a su
mensaje.
A la
abierta manipulación conceptual contenida en el articulo antes mencionado se
suma otro trabajo que es igualmente un ejemplo de manipulación al comparar la gestión
de la minera Barrick en Quiruvilca y la de Newmont/Yanacocha en Cajamarca.
Ello, con el claro objetivo de "satanizar" a la segunda haciendo
creer que ambas comparten la misma realidad poblacional, social, económica,
política y ecológica y a partir de ello resaltar las bondades de la gestión empresarial
de la primera con el caos que enfrenta la gestión de la segunda.
Toda
esta manipulación conceptual tiene como propósito reivindicar
subliminalmente las posiciones
extremistas y acciones criminales de ciertos grupos de oposición minera en
Cajamarca.
Yo no
soy un abanderado de la minería y no trabajo ni tengo interés alguno vinculado
a la minería. Mas aun, no soy ingenuo y estoy perfectamente consciente de los
excesos y abusos cometidos por las empresas mineras en el Perú. También soy
consciente de las estrategias políticas de una serie de grupos extremistas -
"Felipillos ideológicos" - que buscan causar inestabilidad y caos en
el país.
No
obstante ello, no estoy dispuesto a tolerar pasivamente insinuaciones y
manipulaciones tendenciosas que buscan distorsionar la realidad para favorecer
posiciones y/o intereses ideológicos extranjeros camuflados de iniciativas de
cooperación.
Mas
aun, no estoy dispuesto a callar cuando se pretende matar de hambre a mi pueblo
para satisfacer aspiraciones ecologistas que no practican en sus países quienes
defienden esas posiciones en el mío.
Es por
ello que me sentí en la obligación de dejar constancia de mi indignación
escribiendo el siguiente comentario en la pagina donde se publico el articulo
antes mencionado. Comentario que no aparece en la publicación porque todavía no
ha sido aprobado por el moderador de comentarios pero que, aunque en ingles,
puede leerse a continuación.
Continuacion ...
One needs only to read the title of her article to understand that she is not interested in seriously commenting and/or exposing whatever tensions are being generated by the mining activity in Peru but instead wants to shape events to fit and support her catchy title and look good to a sector of the bleachers that likes to call themselves progressive.
No Dr. Triscritti; “Social Protest”, anti-mining or for any other reason, is not a criminal offense in Peru and as a matter of fact it is a right guaranteed by the constitution and regulated by law.
What is a criminal offense in Peru is rioting and blockades that force schools and businesses to close doors in fear with absolute disregard to students and regular citizen rights; blockades that do not allow food to reach the markets and allow it to rot in trucks endangering the economic welfare of merchants and the well being of regular citizens who are not in agreement with the protests; blockades that put the health of patients in jeopardy and certainly the criminal offenses committed by the so called “enforcers” that go around menacing and attacking people and businesses if they do not join the blockade.
The insinuation that such flagrant illegal practices are justified because they are for a good cause is not only antidemocratic but indeed far from progressive.
Your insinuation that a clear attempt to govern by “Ochlocracy” disguised as popular protest is a valid democratic and progressive practice with total disregard to the right of those who are not in agreement is shameful; particularly for a scholar.
Mining has pros and cons and it might very well be that it has far more cons than pros and further that citizens in Peru are right at opposing mining activity.
Peru though is a constitutional republican democracy and not a “popular democracy”, which you seem to be fond about and that has been and continues to be the system of choice of every dictatorship and totalitarian government in the world.
The Peruvian constitution grants “individual freedoms” to it’s people. Individual freedoms that have boundaries set by the right of other people to the same freedoms. You are not allowed therefore to step over other people freedoms even if your cause is just and popular. Doing so is illegal and hence constitutes criminal behavior.
The Machiavellian insinuation that people have the right to abuse the rights of others under the excuse that their cause is righteous and/or for the good of everyone as well as the intellectually self serving comment that the Peruvian government should consent to it and ignore those whose individual rights and freedoms are being abused is cheap, to say the least.
Yes, the government should pursue dialogue instead of confrontation and yes, people have the right to express their dissent but no one has the right to abuse the rights of others and the government has the obligation to protect, however it deems necessary, those who are victims of abuse and criminal behavior.
Peru is not a model democracy and there is much work to be done in order accomplish the dream of a fair and free society for all but it certainly is not worse than so called developed democracies tainted by corporatism and run away corruption.
We are a work in progress and have many limitations but we certainly do not need comments and/or advice from ideological mercenaries disguised as independent scholars.
http://www.extractivismo.com/documentos/Guia_comunitaria_07-06-09.pdf