The conflicts we are witnessing in the world reveal the inability to find solutions and minimum agreements to solve the problems of our societies, both at the national and international level.

We see two wars that have a profound impact on the international community. Both stem from conflicts that have failed to be resolved at the diplomatic negotiating tables and are causing death, destruction and irreparable losses. War, as Clausewitz asserts, is “the continuation of politics by other means,” so the politics of terrorism, the use of force, and fratricidal struggle are ways in which groups of people prevent the achievement of an agreement on governance. There are currently more than sixty conflicts on almost all continents, all of which can be resolved through negotiation mechanisms.

For many, conflict is not only desired, but encouraged as a way of life. The saying “a turbulent river, the fishermen win” proves to be one of the most accurate expressions, as it evokes a form of chaos caused by groups interested in destabilizing and generating conflict. It is unfortunate that many citizens, with the best intentions, fall into the game of these rivalries, often in childish attitudes that unnecessarily aggravate the situation.

Social networks have become a battlefield of curses and fake news and diatribes of all kinds, which, hidden under anonymity, want to generate a greater social and political conflict. Today, the uncontrolled use of social networks that incite hatred and violence is one of the great global concerns.

One can witness with anxiety the use of force to achieve goals that are temporary, because violence does not bring solutions that will last over time. Again we see the use or threat of use of force as a mechanism for imposing a solution.

For a country like Ecuador, peace with Peru meant a great sacrifice. We have just marked another anniversary of the signing of the peace accords. This is not a reason for rejoicing, but for deep reflection on the country’s inability to reach agreements that would unite it in the defense of its territorial heritage. The impossibility of reaching an agreement doomed the country.

The mentality of the village chiefs, which dominates the Ecuadorian scene, inhibits the realization of the nation’s manifest destinies and causes its decomposition, which could lead to its dissolution.

The national political future is no stranger to the fact that there are differences, but what is required is that they be analyzed, argued and viewed from the perspective of a common goal, which is the well-being of Ecuadorians as a whole.

Immersed in a world that is increasingly polarized, whose global systems are broken and have no vision of humanism, Ecuadorians are fighting sterile and even childish struggles. (OR)