News

The Slow and Necessary Path of Dialogue

Sponsors

Rosemarie Junge is the rector of the Universidad Santo Tomás in Temuco and president of the Aitue Foundation for Social and Cultural Development, who analyzes the various attempts at dialogue regarding the indigenous cultural conflict, the lack of political will, poverty, and violence in the La Araucanía region.

Numerous efforts and instances of dialogue have taken place regarding the intercultural conflict in La Araucanía. From a Special Commission for Indigenous Peoples (CEPI) in 1990, "Community Dialogues" during Eduardo Frei's government, to the Indigenous Constituent Process in 2016, and the proposal for a National Agreement for Development and Peace in La Araucanía in 2018—none managed to prevent violence from emerging as a valid mechanism of action for some and a reprehensible one for the majority.
In July 2021, a new attempt arose from the rectors of seven universities in the La Araucanía region, who proposed the Nansen Center for Peace and Dialogue, based in Norway, to act as an intermediary in a new dialogue. The Center accepted the invitation and is already applying its working methodology.
Revista Contratistas Forestales spoke with Rosemarie Junge Raby, rector of the Universidad Santo Tomás in Temuco, one of the driving forces behind this new dialogue alternative and also president of the Aitue Foundation, whose goal is the design and evaluation of indigenous public policies. Chilean-German, great-granddaughter and daughter of forestry entrepreneurs, she draws on her 20 years of experience in the region to analyze the critical situation in La Araucanía, its culture, the attempts at dialogue, and the sorrow over recent killings in the area.

Based on your experience and knowledge, what is the history of the Mapuche issue?

The origin of the problems we face in La Araucanía was well summarized by Monsignor Héctor Vargas in the introduction to the conclusions document of the Presidential Advisory Commission convened by President Michelle Bachelet, in which I participated: the State's neglect of this land and its people. This has generated deep feelings of pain, helplessness, abandonment, injustice, and resentment, leading to the situation we find ourselves in today.
There is much debate about when the Mapuche arrived in this territory. In the Commission, we reached a consensus: they predate the Chilean State and the arrival of the Spanish. There is evidence of dialogue processes through parliaments with the Spanish Crown, which always recognized them as a neighboring people. Bernardo O’Higgins reaffirmed this at the beginning of the Republic.
I try not to criticize eras I did not live through, but what the Chilean State later did was homogenize the country. This is understandable given the need to establish the Republic's foundations, but the cost was rendering indigenous peoples invisible, even though they were part of it.
There are two or three generations of Mapuche who were prohibited from speaking Mapudungun in school. Many families stopped speaking the language so their children could integrate into Chilean culture. Incredibly, Mapuche culture persisted within families for many years. The ideal would have been to act as they did with descendants of Germans, who were allowed to maintain their culture upon arrival. They were told: form your German schools, keep your churches, establish clinics and sports clubs—and my grandchildren, to this day, speak German, and we are bilingual and bicultural. All this with State support. For the Mapuche, it was the opposite.
I believe all governments have failed in their approach to relations and the public policies they have tried to implement.

Who should be engaged in dialogue within the Mapuche community?

We must speak with everyone; no one should be left out. From the Aitue Foundation, we propose a democratically elected Indigenous Peoples' Council. They would be the validated representatives, and dialogue can happen with them. This bill, along with the Ministry of Indigenous Peoples, is well advanced in the National Congress, but there seems to be no political will to finalize it.
The call is to all actors: the State, companies, communities, institutions, etc. Everyone has a responsibility and a role in this intercultural conflict. Given the magnitude of the problem, all societal actors are called to build peace across the board. We urgently need, as a country, an agreement that grants the region a future of peace and development.

What about the violence and resistance groups claiming responsibility for arson, attacks, and violent acts?

The rule of law is the government's duty. Violence is the effect of the problem, and we focus on the cause. If we don’t address the cause, we will never end the violence. But we have always strongly condemned violence. Those responsible must be pursued and punished.

How did the Nansen Center emerge as an alternative, and what are the expectations?

The rectors of the seven universities in La Araucanía issued a call last July about the urgency of dialogue as a State policy in the region. In this call, we acknowledged that finding solutions is a process and that dialogue can help rebuild broken trust and establish new trust where it is lacking. We are convinced that a dialogue process can be transformative. We believe we must address the region's structural and historical problems to achieve genuine change in the current situation.
To begin this process, we suggested that the Nansen Center for Peace and Dialogue facilitate it independently and neutrally, which they accepted. Dialogue is not mediation or negotiation. It serves to build trust and understand the root of problems. That’s why we are conducting workshops to learn the Nansen methodology for dialogue. This is the first step. We hope the future government has the political will to continue this long but hopeful process.

La Araucanía is the poorest region in Chile. How are violence and conflict related to this characteristic?

La Araucanía has long been Chile's poorest region due to several factors. For example, unlike Biobío with companies like CAP and ENAP, it did not industrialize last century. Since the 1990s, all governments have tried to create a development model aligned with their understanding of La Araucanía’s reality. With mixed results, these initiatives have failed to properly project our region, which, though impoverished, is rich in its people and unparalleled nature.
There is much rurality, and in recent years, due to violence, many companies are reluctant to invest here—that is also a fact.
With the ongoing decentralization changes in the country, we hope that in the coming years, the region can define and implement a model that brings peace and development for all who live here.

Do you agree with the approach initiated by Minister Moreno? Should that strategy continue, or should a new one be adopted?
 
You know what? The first step is building trust, and Minister Moreno was doing that—he took the time to speak with everyone, which fostered trust. It’s not about someone new taking over that trust. These are long processes, but there are gestures that can be made as dialogue progresses—for example, declaring Indigenous Peoples' Day a holiday.

The Mapuche people have been oppressed for years. Today, the victims are forestry contractors, farmers, and various productive sectors. Aren’t they the ones being ignored now?

We must condemn violence regardless of the victim. Victims should be at the center of our concern, not sidelined as they are today. We cannot tolerate violence; everyone must do their part to prevent attacks.

I want to commend and recognize the courage of forestry contractors, especially, who work in such a difficult area. I admire them and suffer with them whenever something happens. I know large forestry companies are also concerned—they are not indifferent.

It’s terrible that in La Araucanía, we are no longer shocked by deaths. We cannot normalize this. The basics for any society are the rule of law, living without fear, and in peace.

Would the new constitution contribute to a solution?

The fact that recognition and plurinationality are being discussed in the Convention is already progress. Reserved seats for indigenous representatives are a highly relevant milestone in indigenous policy, and we believe it’s the right path. Each of these elements helps us look to the future with optimism.

What are the Aitue Foundation’s expectations for the new political cycle?

We will continue supporting any effort to achieve peace in La Araucanía. We’ve taken many hits because something always happens, but the last thing we can lose is hope. We know dialogues take time—I may not even be alive when peace is achieved. But if other countries have done it, like Colombia, so can we. It will happen when there is political will. Someone must take on this challenge, even though it comes at a high political cost.