Peace in Araucanía: Observations on its interpretation and proposal

Abstract

This article is a theoretical analysis of the interpretation and proposal offered by Peace in Araucanía, a movement created by farmers and truck drivers who have suffered violence in the so-called Mapuche conflict, due to conflicts regarding the legal ownership of certain property.
The current property owners say they are not participants in the conflict,
but rather victims of the endless dispute between the government and the
Mapuche communities. The organization explains that a small Mapuche
minority commits terrorist acts in the region of Araucanía and that the state
has not been able to apply the appropriate sanctions. However, the members of the movement do not identify a historical reason for this situation, giving instead a racialized explanation of the violence in the conflict, rather than including themselves as participants. In this paper, we discuss the concept of peace, based on discussions between Johan Galtung and Kenneth E. Boulding. We also examine Peace in Araucanía’s discourse, studying it in relation to theoretical concepts mentioned within its dialogue. The findings suggest that the movement should offer a minimalist peace proposal, focused on the concept of negative peace, without seeking a final settlement and, thereby, invalidating the Mapuche’s demand.