The deputy from Amarillos was one of 16 lawmakers summoned by President Gabriel Boric to a meeting held in Cerro Castillo on Tuesday night. On the verge of voting for the renewal of a new state of emergency in the Chamber of Deputies, he says that “this is a government that has two souls” and “a group that puts the brakes on security measures, that is permanently suppress”. And condemns that “radical groups are linked to the government.”
Do you think the government wants to spend four years with the army in La Araucania?
-I believe, and I hope I am wrong, that the government is going to abolish the military in La Araucania. It is a government that has two souls, that is, objective. There is a group that puts a handbrake on security measures, which is permanently depressing. Besides, the government knows, especially the youth of the government know, that they have many years to do politics and they have clientelism that they have to support. They are fundamentally groups that are not meant to order or protect and therefore have to give a signal.
Bearing in mind that a year ago the government announced a limited constitutional state of exception, there are MPs who say it doesn’t work. Do you agree with that criticism?
-No, the state of exception is not limited, it is the same as President Pinera, even he has advanced and reformed compared to the state of exception of the previous government because we should not forget that we not only did things Reformed not for defense, but for the protection of the people. What happens is that when the exception situation started suggesting it was going to be limited, deep down it was prudent and it was a very bad sign.
Another criticism is that the armed forces cannot act when the Carabineros are not with them.
This is because the state of emergency cannot be otherwise. A state of siege would be impractical because, first of all, we do not have the army to be able to effectively create a state of siege over the whole area because we would have to have troops in all the communes, on all the highways, on all the roads. all roads. And besides, if that happened, we would have to stop the country because basically all vehicles that go south or north after a certain time, that pass through La Araucania, would have to stop because there would be a curfew.
My colleagues, in the sense, act in a democratic way, not in a very serious way and in this you don’t have to play who is the toughest because the army is easier to shoot and they also have an opinion on this, internal You obviously have to ask them.
So would you not agree with the idea of some of the delegates proposing to set a state of siege?
—that they explain to me how they’re going to do it, technically how they’re going to do it, that they’re responsible. How will they implement it? Because the question is whether they bear responsibility because it is easier to say ‘in some areas it is not so’. No, it just doesn’t work in some areas: it’s in the regions, it’s in the cities. I believe that the comrades who raised this issue also have a political responsibility.
They told me that the government is not going to end the violence in the area. Why do you think so?
-I believe that the government will improve the implementation, it may involve some additional police officers, but the truth is that from an ideological point of view, the government is a sector of the government, not the one they belong to, for an ideological issue Don’t want to move against violence because basically there are going to be clashes and when clashes happen there can be loss of human life. We do not want this, but what the state cannot do is to kneel before violent groups against terrorism, and that is what it is doing today.
Some time ago you told me that there were links between government officials Cam
-Exactly, and that’s what happened last year with consultants like Seremi de Salud, who were quickly dismissed from their jobs. He was one of the founders of CAM and has other positions that the government will have to review to see what ties the authorities have with respect to radical groups in La Araucania.
It is a government that is afraid to move forward in the Araucania region. He is afraid of going against radical groups because I believe radical groups are connected to the government, they are connected through government officials.
And that they work in the government?
There are people who are working in the government who are without a doubt affiliated with more radical groups.
Is there any evidence for this?
But clearly yes. Last year, a press consultant was one of the founders of CAM.