WAR ON COCA OR PEACE WITH COCA?
[ Completo ] [ Complet ] |
Nobody doubts the fact that the
current juncture is dramatic. We live in
a period where public health justifies −in the eyes of the Imperial Power−
systematic police repression, more than one military invasion, and,
paradoxically, the use pesticides which are highly dangerous for innumerable organisms.
A wide sequel of biological, sociological and ideological wars threaten freedom
and self-determination, leading to movements of total rejection (such as the
one called "Fuck the USA"), even in countries with a tradition of
moderation such as, in this case, Switzerland.
But behind these current issues, lies
a process of using natural resources whose history does not merely date back to
the beginning of the current cocaine cycle in the 1970s or to the historical
error which resulted from the prohibition of certain drugs and plants at the
beginning of the 20th century. The anthropocentric focus −that other
species in this planet only exist to satisfy human needs− is prior to economic liberalism, to the
emergence of modern capitalism, and to the European conquest of the Americas.
We can converge on the fact that man's tyranny over other forms of life dates
back to ancient times, even if not always shared by all human societies and
contrary to the perception of the world held by many American indigenous
peoples.
The view of the societies described by
the Brazilian anthropologists Eduardo Viveiros de Castro as “perspectivism” and
“multinaturalism” implies a planet inhabited by multiple species each one
conceiving itself as a subject; each one endowed with an autonomous
intelligence; each one appreciating the world from a perspective which differs
from that of the rest.
Here the categories and dichotomies so
valued in the West −nature and culture, animality and humanity, determinism
and free will− become confused. From a multinatural viewpoint, we can perceive
the War on Drugs not only as an imperialist venture, or barely as a witchcraft
projection of the evil within substances of plants which are innocent in
themselves. We can see it for what it
truly is: the desire to lead the world to what an adviser of former President
Reagan once called without the least qualm “species extinction”, defending said
objective in the specific case of the Coca as something desirable for public
order and human health. I wonder how the
Coca’s intelligence −not to mention that of the poppy, the cannabis, yagé
or ayahuasca, peyote and wachuma, mushrooms, huilca, yekuana and of many other
plants− how the intelligence of this plant –our cocamama− views man’s mad rush to
exterminate it.
It surely sees that the problem we have
with her is essentially due to a lack of clear understanding on our part
regarding the knowledge needed to take advantage of her virtues and benefits in
an appropriate and respectful manner and establish a democratic relationship
among species thus extending our concept of the political beyond the Homo Sapiens. The Coca might also see that we deny plants and
animals the capability of intention assigned to those considered subjects; that
we have forever condemned plants to the condition of mere objects of our
consumption models. Lastly, it probably sees that our confusion arises from our
fear of losing our utilitarian security in a world where everything is turned
into something to be marketed; and, above all, as of the terror of going beyond
and into the recognition of nonhuman subjectivity to attain a perception of
psychoactive plants as true “masters”. The fear enclosed in the Plan Colombia
is essentially this: that the Coca has by far more to teach us than all of
Washington think-tanks put together.