Jean Jaurès used to say that violence was a weakness. To say the truth one could well add that violence is indeed not only a sign or weakness, but that it also add the will to getaway from reason. The events in Peru are a god example: there we saw, with all too known tragic results, the confrontation between two sorts of violence. On one side, the so called "revolutionary " violence of the MRTA, pretending to draw the world’s attention with "heroic" actions; on the other side we saw the institutional violence so vividly expressed through TV by Fujimori and of which the aim is rather to trick the Peruvian people. The new thing about this situation is not the fact of holding hostages as such in order to negotiate political objectives; nor is it to execute a commando rescue operation to free those hostages, something that we have already seen elsewhere in the past, with success in Entebbe and as a failure with the US Embassy in Iran. What is really new is the use made off it as a means of propaganda through the new electronic communications networks. Both the members of the Tupac Amaru as the Peruvian government--and the world press-- took advantage of the situation to stress on their views in an interactive debate that had one of its most evident expressions in the world wide web.

Now then, what turned out being an apparent success will not necessarily turn into a future outstanding achievement. Fujimori won against a group of confounded kids who definitely did not have a historic perspective, even less an adequate understanding of the implacable social reality of globalization. Fujimori has now become the hero for many who think of violence as the only way to remedy the torts of an ever more unbearable social reality. Some questions come to our mind, however: will the death of the guerrilla members put an end to the guerrilla movement? ; will the use of violence wipe out any new bursts of violence? There are many who believe so, who think that this episode has been a deadly blow to subversion. They are convinced that a strong hand is the solution to all problems. It is part of a way of education based on the concept that the only way to learn is the hard way, that it is better to strike a hard blow instead of inflicting a series of scratches. They all contend that it is by the use of force, intimidation and fear how one may maintain a minimum level of social cohesion.

Violence begets more violence. There is no way for society to prosper within a climate of anxiety in which desperate acts of terror are followed by the physical annihilation of those who caused the terror. We must learn, in Latin America, the meaning of living under democracy, of abiding to the law and this has the same value for Tyrians and Trojans. It is not possible to enter he twenty first century’s society with such a level of social primitiveness. The French revolution, the terror of Stalin. that of Pol Pot and of Hitler and Pinochet were samples in time of this inability to build social order based on reason and justice.

Public international opinion plays an important role in trying to stop these violent actions so denigrating of human condition. It is a pity, however, that silence has joined on many occasons the most difficults moments of a crisis and the voices of protest are only heard once the harm has been done. On this respect, one should point out the ambivalent attitude of Amnesty International during the Peruvian crisis, when it kept utterly silent as to the hostages’ sort and now shows excessive concern as tho where the guerrilla members were buried.

Lasting social changes requires consensus; they must be built with the patience and tenacity of those who wish to do it with the tools of dialogue, This does not implies --it is obvious-- that the majority must give up when faced with the bursts of the minority and bear quietly with the violence that the latter uses against it. Yet it must pay attention to these social sirens of panic in order to prepare life conditions lowering the risk of outbursts of violence as a way of social expression. This may be achieved only by reducing social inequality by means of better and more efficient education. A better informed and educated people has better opportunities to reach its vital objectives without having to resort to violence and despair as the only way to draw attention.