Truth effects in the us justification of the wars on drugs and terror

Abstract

In this communication, we intend to discuss aspects of the North American interventionist policy. Based on authors such as Frédéric Gros, Michel Foucault, and Tzvetan Todorov, in particular, through the mobilization of concepts such as "power", "knowledge", "territory" and "truth", the statement is discussed, exploring the construction of the justification of the war, the spectacularization of history and politics (GREGOLIN, 2003), the politicization of the law, the foreigner as a synonym of barbarism. Having presented the research problem, a discussion is made on the relationship between discourse, politics, war, and truth. The objective is to show how the United States of America treats other nations, ranking places in terms of values in such a way that it separates territories between civilized and barbarians, leaving the solution to problems of violence to the exogenous subject. In other words, while Americans are civilized and competent, bearers of dignified values, such as honesty and civilization, foreigners are barbaric and incapable, thus naturalizing crime and savagery. The former has the mission of rescuing the latter from their anomalous condition. Scholars such as Todorov (2003, 2010), Gros (2009), Rodrigues (2004, 2012), and Amaral (2010) support our understanding of the "dangers" spread by the media about controversial regions due to conflicts between "savages" and "civilized", war on terror, narco-terrorism. We live in situations that we cannot call a state of authentic war or a state of pure peace, but a state of violence (GROS, 2009). The global political climate is one of latent conflict with occasional interventions in the name of planetary security. According to Herz (apud AMARAL, p.17), since the end of the Cold War, US security policy for Latin America, especially for the Brazil/Argentina/Paraguay triple border, has been based on the rhetoric of war and militarization of politics. The analysis of the conditions for the production of knowledge in its relations with the powers that be allows an enunciative analysis in the terms defended by Foucault, that is, historical (2009, p. 124).

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.56238/methofocusinterv1-002