What is the Lasallista Forum and what are its objectives?

We want the Lasallista Forum to be a space that propitiates the possibility of generating thought: thinking is not just about having ideas, it is a matter of thinking of the possibility of reflecting on oneself, but this thinking about oneself is also about thinking about our present moment, what we want to project, what we have been, what we say, what we do. The university wants to educate people to think.

We perceive this service as being associated with the attitude of the Christian Catholic church ministry. And yet, whilst the university is confessional, lasallista and Christian, it is at service to wider society in general and is open to plurality and multiple discourses and backgrounds, and in this sense we can say that it is more open to society in general than being ecumenical.

And this year we have begun our third gathering, which is entitled Prospective Visions of the Bicentenary. This is a special period of bicentenary celebrations in Latin America and this is the bicentenary of independence. However, this year we have tried to integrate different university faculties and change the dynamic by inviting the public and Colombia as a whole to come in and be part of it.

We must look at the bicentenary, not only in terms of what has happened, but also in terms of where we are now and with the intention of thinking about what we would like to build.

Point X the Letter of Peace addressed to the UN indicates “the right we all have to think, [and] express ourselves … freely”. Is our right to think and express ourselves freely an absolute right, or are there some places where it is not conceived as such?

It is a right that implies the possibility of freedom, which may be exercised by subjects. In this sense I do believe that laws or options in many spaces do restrict subjects from exercising this right, and that more than a right it is a freedom that individuals must earn. They are freedoms that the subject deserves, and it is not so much a question of need, but more that there must be a possibility of fulfilling the different subjectivities.

In this sense I do think that this freedom is restricted in some spaces, the freedom of expression and the possibility of freely building thoughts, within the framework of social regulation that we as subjects exist within.

In Columbia this has happened continuously in certain political, educational and social spaces, and yes, even in religious spaces. I think there is the continuing possibility that subjects have to build and govern themselves.

Perhaps it should be the people who demand these rights…

Exactly. But people also need to create the possibility for this to happen, because sometimes it is not just the government who influences this situation, it is also about the every day practices of subjects. Sometimes fascism is not just institutional, sometimes fascism is practiced by individuals too, creating mini fascisms that do not allow our freedom of expression, ideological freedoms, freedom within the home, and the possibility of building all the many different forms of social participation.

Official discourse allows freedom, however these little fascisms that do not permit freedoms often take a stronghold in small institutions, closed institutions.

When this happens free practice is not enough, we also have to free subjects so as to create the possibility of their freedom.

What are the chances of creating a peace and reconciliation process between Colombia and Ecuador?

I was in Ecuador a few days ago, and the problem exists more between the directors of the two countries than between the citizens. I found people very welcoming and was well treated, but the paperwork necessary to leave Colombia and enter Ecuador is complicated. Some time ago I was on the border and I remember feeling a level of tension then, but I would say that more than needing to create reconciliation between Ecuador and Columbia, the situation has been caused through governmental discourse in both countries.

Columbia perpetrated a territorial violation in Ecuador and while Columbia does not recognise this it is very difficult to enter into a process of reconciliation. In order to reconcile the situation people must recognize when they have done something wrong.

The expression “Forgive and Forget” has been used a lot in Columbia, particularly in reference to problems with the FARC (Columbian Revolutionary Armed Forces) and the paramilitary. There was a process of forgiving and forgetting. However, forgiving does not mean forgetting. This leads to demands being made by people, and you have to see that people may forgive, but forgetting is totally different, and in fact human nature makes it virtually impossible.

And what is going on in Columbia now?

Reconciliation has not taken place in Colombia and it is very unlikely that it will do so under current circumstances. Reconciliation is only possible through open dialogue and when both sides listen to each other and can hear what the other party is saying without imposing a position on them.

The logic of reconciliation in Columbia is not a kind of logic that is necessarily about rationality. It is more about the possibility of discovering feelings, or an ethic that enables subjects to understand each other. And I believe that we still have a lot of work to do in order to reach reconciliation, because it is a question of discovering that above and beyond supporting the paramilitary, the guerrillas or the state, they are human subjects that have constituted themselves as such in order to arrive at this process and that their material condition has led them to take on their position. And so, we cannot begin to discuss democracy, or democratic security as it has been called, if first of all secure social and economical conditions cannot be offered.

The war has also been good business for Columbia; it has helped sustain the economy, foreign intervention and a governmental policy that has kept the same government in power for the last 8 years.