Ahmadinejad and the global nuclear issue

There was agitation in the media with the brief stay of the president of Iran in Brazil. Obviously, the national and international Jewish community did everything (it has its political reasons) to pressure the Brazilian government to avoid this meeting. In all likelihood, the main intention of the visit, days before, of the polite and persuasive Israeli president, Shimon Peres, had been to attempt to cancel reception of the Iranian. He did not succeed - in this respect, our government was correct - because if it had given in to such pressure, it would be relinquishing its own sovereignty with respect to something of use that it still possesses, namely: the right to maintain contact with any country whatsoever, without having to request permission from the visitor’s enemies. It is only countries that are totally defenseless and without strong allies that allow, when coerced - fearful of stifling commercial or even military reprimands - other countries to exercise control over their foreign contacts, even at the level of ordinary conversation.

In this article, I will not be making an analysis of what is currently the best interpretation of sacrosanct “sovereignty”, which can not only be useful and beneficial, but also damaging to good international relations. It is even damaging to the actual countries that make abusive use of it. Drunken with euphoria, irresponsible, demented or ignorant governors, hypnotized by the abstract notion that “they can do anything because they are sovereign” (imagining themselves to be “kings”), forget that their folly generates consequences that are not solely internal, given the fact of globalization. This, however, will be left for another occasion. The topic of this article is the nuclear issue, seen as a global problem and not only associated with Iran and North Korea. Sooner or later, will be tempted (like Adam in the Bible) to take a bite of the forbidden fruit of nuclear knowledge for some kind of purpose. If the approach adopted in this article causes uneasiness or even repulsion, the blame is not mine but that of the current global reality, which should never be ignored like, unfortunately, any and all reality.

Paradoxically, the “nuclear threat” has been and still will be of enormous use for our planet to make advances, globally, in terms of security, justice and effectiveness. Without it, and its two “camouflaged allies” - environmental pollution and the irresponsibility of large American banks - our future would be more depressing. Analogously, snake venom, at the right dose and scientifically manipulated, saves lives. And not only the lives of those bitten by snakes; it “thins the blood” according to scientists. Somewhat intimidated, as long as George W. Bush did not see, on television, the floods in the south of his country and the roofs of houses ripped off by the force of hurricanes, he was not convinced that Mother Nature does not tolerate effrontery.

With the recent global economic crisis, leaving millions of workers unemployed, various leaders (for example, Gordon Brown) concluded that large banks cannot act in an irresponsible manner, confidant in future government support, inevitable for maintaining public confidence in the banking system. This is because avarice, in any sector, is only concerned with the present; however, “someone” - in this case the State (not necessarily socialist)) - has to be concerned with the future. It is fear of the atomic bomb, together with fears regarding global warming and financial anarchy - with unemployment and protectionism - that will force humanity to think seriously of setting up a world federation, or an equivalent entity, in which all nations feel themselves to be adequately protected against the ambitions of other countries. Currently, this situation does not exist. It’s “every man for himself”. All nations arm themselves, in the best possible manner, because no system exists that provides them all with real security. And this generalized lack of confidence represents an outlay of trillions of dollars - wasted wealth, diverted from being used for more useful purposes.

Due to the simple fear of their use, nuclear weapons could prevent long-lasting and no less deadly conventional wars. Despite the fact that the global atomic arsenal is estimated in thousands of nuclear warheads, only two bombs have been dropped in wartime to date: in Japan in 1945. Other bombs exploded, but in tests, without any victims. Fear is a negative and wretched feeling; however, at the right moment, it can save millions of lives. Throughout the world, Criminal Law has been aware of this for centuries. Rather than offer advice, it threatens punishment. The same can be said for the Highway Code. Authorities in the health area conduct their anti-smoking campaigns invoking a fear of cancer and pulmonary emphysema.

During the “very hot” time of the Cold War, with Stalin demonstrating ambitions of dominating as much of Europe as possible, the only reason that there was not a war between the Soviet Union and the USA (despite no lack of tension) was due to the fact that, if such a conflict occurred, it would not be conventional. Both sides would suffer devastation capable of incinerating and sterilizing their own countries. There would be no victors. The wars in Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia were prolonged because the combatants knew that nuclear weapons would not be used, bearing in mind the possibility of fearsome retaliation. At the time, the USA did not accept the suggestions of “hawks”, including General Douglas MacArthur, who favored the use of a few atomic bombs in Vietnam. It was not fear of aircraft, tanks, machine guns and bayonets that avoided a Third World War. It was a vision of a “mushroom cloud” that forcibly led to mutual and indigestible tolerance. “Small” fears cannot hold back our warmongering impulses. Only “gigantic” fears activate mechanisms of necessary restraint.

In conventional wars, princes, presidents and generals, as well as their families, are practically free from personal physical danger. It is for this reason that the history of mankind has been so “rich” in wars. In nuclear wars, fear is democratized. Even if they find refuge in shelters, those in power (who send out young people to fight for them) will be poisoned by radiation if they leave their lairs. And they cannot remain in them indefinitely. Hence the paradoxical use, favoring peace, of the feeling that the “other side” is also in possession of nuclear arms. All valor has its limits.

We insist in demonstrating the use of and even the need for fear, in order for mankind to be, at least, more “cooperative”.

What is it that originally explains, in part, the creation of the most powerful nation on the planet, the USA? The fear of thirteen American colonies of losing the war of independence. Alone and in isolation, these colonies were aware that they would not be able to free themselves from British domination. United, they would perhaps achieve their goal, as in fact occurred. Ultimately, fear of probable defeat led the colonies to unite, although they had to renounce several of the privileges of so-called sovereignty (for example, in foreign policy), which would have to be unique. In international politics, it is an undeniable fact that only interest and fear force countries to become united and behave in a civilized manner. In addition, the more nations are united, the better the global security climate. When one speaks of “interest”, this is implicitly understood to be a form of fear, the dread of “losing” something.

Like a parenthesis, the then American president, Harry S. Truman, has been the object of much censure to date with respect to his decision to drop two atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima e Nagasaki, on August 6th and 9th 1945. Nevertheless, if such extremely deadly weapons had not been used, it is likely that the Japanese empire would have continued fighting to the end, given the fact that it was the military, not civilians, who decided at the time regarding surrender or continuation of the war. When the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan did not surrender. It was not convinced that the war was lost. It was necessary for a second bomb, three days later, together with the American threat (via radio) that it was in possession of other weapons of the same type, which - according to historians - was not true.

According to the web-based encyclopedia known as “Wikipedia”, the day after the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, President Truman issued a radio warning that he could repeat the crushing castigation used on the previous day. What was the response of the Japanese high command? They stated that the warning was “allied propaganda”. On this topic, the then United States Secretary of Defense, Henry L. Stimson, afterwards explained that “the two atomic bombs which we had dropped were the only ones we had ready, and our rate of production at the time was very small”.
The Japanese people have always been extremely proud and combative (was it not they who invented the kamikaze?) and it is more than likely that, if it were not for fear of the successive dropping of atomic bombs, the Japanese would have continued fighting for may months, even finally to the point of hand-to-hand combat in the streets of Japan, after devastating American bombing had reduced the main cities to rubble. At the time, Japanese patriotism would not accept surrender unless drowned in blood - its own and that of Americans. Even today, in Japan, the descendents of samurai enjoy a high degree of social prestige. As far as I know, even greater than that of the status of the most important captains of industry. Brazilians living in Japan and practicing the “vale tudo” variety of martial arts are surprised, when walking through the streets, by the prestige that they enjoy, simply due to the fact that they are professional fighters.
Atomic weapons are undeniably a tragedy; however, without them, there would be even more bloodshed, with millions dying not in a few minutes, but daily or over a period of months or years. They are useful precisely for the psychological effect of “prohibition of use’. This should be taking into account when the one examines the stance adopted by North Korea and Iran, who can always ask, based on the assumption of equal rights: “Why is it only us that do not have the right to not be fearful of countries that are already in possession of atomic weapons?” North Korea has already been a signatory of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It ended up withdrawing in 2003, as the actual treaty permits, as long as three month’s notice is given of intention to withdraw. Furthermore, according to the treaty, it is sufficient to allege that withdrawal is in the “supreme interest of the country”, according to its own criteria and not those of other signatories of the treaty. This treaty is not considered to be a model of legal precision regarding the rights of countries that adhere to it or withdraw. If North Korea withdrew from the treaty, in accordance with its terms, why has it subsequently been subjected to threats due to the fact of possessing nuclear weapons? Israel has not even signed the treaty, implies that it has the atomic bomb and has never been bothered as a result of this. It is impossible for many to understand such inequality of treatment, if one supposes that all countries should have the same rights. It is simply a question of international coercion, not of legal or political prevention against one State or another.
According to the same treaty, Iran could also withdraw from this commitment, escaping the stigma of a treaty breaker; however, it is foreseeable that, even if it withdrew, it would continue to be pressured, this being a peculiar characteristic of our imperfect international system, which tends to make decisions based on political convenience rather than legal precepts.
Ahmadinejad is unreserved in his use of words and it is this that is his main problem. A few years ago, he made two big mistakes that he likely regretted but does not have the courage to admit, in order not to show “weakness”. The first of these was to completely deny the Holocaust, without giving any further explanation. The second was to say that Israel, a country with around seven or eight million inhabitants, should be “wiped off the map” - something that is evidently inconceivable and impracticable. As a result of these statements, he became the involuntary worst enemy of his own country, given that he legitimized the attempt of its greatest adversary (Israel) to obtain the sympathy of the international community and act with extreme aggressiveness against the Palestinians.
With regard to the Holocaust, if Ahmadinejad had limited himself to casting doubt on the number of Jews really exterminated, his opinion - although accused of being “churlish” by the Israelis - he would have been much less repudiated. It would be a tolerable, theoretical, historical, quantitative, statistical doubt, subject to the meticulous scrutiny of those historians more concerned with precision, or seeking notoriety. I think that the strange decision taken by the European Parliament of “criminalizing negation of the Holocaust” would not reach the point of prohibiting examination of the topic. Even if, eventually, there is found to be a smaller number of victims, use of such a forceful term as “Holocaust” would not be inappropriate to describe the extermination of a significant proportion. At least hundreds of thousands or even a few million lost their lives as a result of such persecution.
If Ahmadinejad were a better strategist, or perceptive, or at least prudent, He would currently say the following in front of the microphones:
“I have always been against the creation of the State of Israel in Palestine, occupied for almost twenty centuries by Palestinian Arabs, who were not those originally responsible for expulsion of the Jews. Sooner or later, considering its volume such a “return” would inevitably result in the unjust expulsion of local populations, as in fact occurred. However, I currently recognize that Israel has become a consummated historical, political and geographic fact that should be accepted, as long as such acceptance is accompanied by political and economic compensation as justice for those expelled”.
“This - Justice! - will henceforth be our foreign political struggle, without violence, presuming that the major powers act with a minimum of honesty and spirit of equality. When I denied the Holocaust, I was referring to the possible occurrence of quantitative exaggeration in its evaluation, as a mere topic of historical interest. With regard to doubts concerning our intention to use nuclear energy, for peaceful or military purposes, I can confirm that our intentions are peaceful; however, we also have the right to be fearful of the aggressiveness of neighboring or distant countries that are politically aligned with our greatest enemy, which does not hide the fact that it is in possession of nuclear weapons, but does not allow its facilities to be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The obligations concerned have to be the same”.
“Finally, we do not accept the recent proposal of sending our nuclear fuel for treatment in Russia, then France, before being eventually returned to Iran, given that there are no firm guarantees that, if such shipment occurs, our uranium will not end up being retained in these countries for some kind of reason or pretext. In the event that this occurs, we would have our hands tied, prevented from mastering nuclear technology that is necessary because petroleum resources are finite and we do not have sufficient hydrographic resources. From what we have seen to date, the policy adopted by states is not reliable and international justice, despite the good intentions of its judges, still does not have statutes capable of treating, on an equal basis, all nations and peoples that do not yet have the status of a State. If our “legal failing” is that of not complying with the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it will be easy for us to resolve such a failing by simply stating that we have withdrawn from it, as permitted by its article X. Anyway, we still have the right to equal treatment of all nations, without the current privileges. This is our stance. The Security Council should provide us with a reply”.
With the evaporation of any legal basis for international sanctions, given that the 1968 treaty can no longer be considered to have been violated by Iran, I am wondering where the Security Council would find legal justification for the announced sanctions.

(30-11-09)






_______________________________________________________

Grave diggers of Capitalism

According to newspapers, the managing director of IIF – Institute of International Finances, which represents world’s major banks, during an interview held on September, 14, 2009, declared to be against a “fixed limit” of indebtedness, enforced by government, for banks. He suggested this limit to be variable, depending on assets risks, according to the subjective opinion of bankers themselves, which implies on difficulty or no alertness. To acclaim his “advanced” or “ultra comfortable” opinion that banks cannot have any governmental really limiting control, concluded giving a crowning touch on contributor’s shoulders, saying “not being desirable to use moralist behavior to approach the payment problem” of bank top executives. It is really audacious on nowadays circumstances.
In other words, according to him, “no moralist behavior” because “war is war”, “ the squeaky wheel gets the grease”, “finance is a subject for real males”, “ without competence one cannot settle”.
What happens is that, when things go wrong and boat begins to sink, those fearless supporters of the slogan “only a competent person can survive”, they are not ashamed of crying, run to government’s “mother lap”, asking for a help of trillions of dollars. This money at the end will come from idiot contributors’ patrimony. But, not as could be right, from the patrimony of those hasty executives, not so “competent” as demonstrated, and who enriched with the generous bonuses self given before the facts demonstrated that they were right on loan policy.
Why did they have the courage to risk? Because they knew that if something would get wrong, government could not deny the “safeguarding” loans and donations. On the contrary, it would happen a collapse with unimaginable consequences, demoralizing banking system and, consequently, all the rest of American economy, reflecting internationally. Authentic blackmailing, with chances of succeeding, as really happened.
However, after reaching the top of tidal wave, loaded, “risk” supporters (in theory), they attack once more, arrogantly, pleading that government does not have to be concerned with this story of risks of bank loans and bonus immediately paid to executives. That’s why the mentioned speech of the managing director of the Institute of International Finance is understandable, because each representative from any group feels the necessity of “call to his side or to himself” for his peers benefit. The problem is that, in the case of being analyzed, financial power behind IIF is so, that many heads, in the political and media areas, will hurry, as is happening, to launch doubts to the public about the necessity of imposing limits and responsibilities to the handling of money deposits on banks which cannot allow the luxury of “bankrupting”. They know that medium reader has not much time, or sometimes even cultural conditions, to distinguish with absolute certainty right from wrong.
This article’s title talks about “grave digger”. Could be an exaggeration? Let’s see.
Socialism supports the wonderful ideal of promoting solidarity, enlarged planning, and equality among human beings. The problem is that behind the theoretical and sincere intention of most idealists, some of them murdered by tough realistic ones, also existing, perhaps mixed with the equalitarian ideal, the purest selfishness and power sickness of the “boss”, Stalin, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez, etc. and their minor partners in their power enjoyment. This group, due to an impressing “coincidence” “do not leave the sugary”, sorry for the expression, used only because of its force. When strong opposition exists, brutal repression becomes almost inevitable against those who think differently and oppose to the lifetime staying of the “leader”.
The one that is occupying the “democratic throne” knows that if he would leave power and stay in the country could be assassinated. The dictator of the left, or even the one of the right, concludes that there is no “healthy” back path. The eagerness for revenge observes him at each corner. Maintain himself as lifetime dictator becomes, after some years on office, kind of legitimate body self-defense.
The basic failure of “real Socialism” is in restraining citizens’ creativity which all together, summing up individual intelligences, can see better and farther than a bunch of autocrats. Even if among these exist brilliant minds, they suffocate some own ideas, pretty good ones…, because they fear to arise the jealousy of the “big boss”. He will not approve the contrast between his mediocrity and the special intelligence of some subordinates who can ambition his place.
In summary, only a really democratic Socialism, but responsible, with free initiative stimulus, will allow future generations the union of entrepreneurs creativity anxious for some security or protection that saturates all citizens souls. They want the State to take care of them from birth to death, since they work well and obey the laws enforced from their representatives. I do not feel anything wrong on it. Wrong is the State ignoring the necessity of security in unemployment, old age and illness for all hand or intellectual laborers.
With Capitalism, the spontaneous individual creativity even originated at mean greed, or wished of having and being better than the neighbor, meets a favorable field to generate richness which can benefit all, even if this benefit is not in the beginning plans of the “selfish”. The general benefit, though unintentional is a useful collateral effect that justifies the maintenance of Capitalist system. This happens because generates jobs and taxes. But, the legislation must impose limits to human being’s greed, a powerful psychological force, ubiquitous and useful, since being watched or maintained under the limits, as happens with all forces being of any type. If it would not be controlled, apparently, as the IIF intends, it is feared and demoralized. That’s why, the word “grave digger” was used.
By the way, one of the smartest inventions of Capitalism was the creation of the “corporate entity”, namely corporation, a legal fiction at the same time useful and “smart” as it allows the intelligent and balanced entrepreneur to earn unlimitedly when his company has earnings and to loose in a moderate way when there are losses, unless the stockholder would be very careless investing all his money in stocks of the only company which did not work.
When a corporation goes bankrupt, bankrupt is the company, the partnership, the abstract entity, not flesh and blood. The stockholders never become “bankrupt”. Only the bankrupt entity’s properties, when something remains, are seized and sold, for the profit of creditors. The alert, precautious stockholder when previews that the company is going to bankruptcy sells his stocks and does not loose or loose less. Anyhow, his personal status is not affected by the bankruptcy. When the company has earnings, these earnings totally go to stockholders, of course, discounting the taxes that everybody has to pay, rich or poor. In the case of large banks which gave origin to the present situation, one might ask, it was by chance examined if CEOs were much affected by bankruptcy in terms of patrimony?
Such elementary notions, well-known by the reader, are remembered here to stress that judicial world already allows this great privilege of allowing unlimited earnings when the corporation has no problems or minimum losses, or even none, at the moment of business liquidation. And now they want the growth of the irresponsible bonuses?
Ralph Byron Perry, a famous American philosopher, dead in 1957, president of the American Association of Philosophy and Pulitzer prize holder for Biographies and Autobiographies, objectively defined where is the legitimacy for moral support to Capitalism. He said in other words that the fundamental idea of modern Capitalism is not only on the individual right of owning and enjoying what he earned, but on the thesis that exercising this right benefits everybody.
In the case of bankers who rushed to receive high bonuses, before their policies correctness were verified, there were not of general benefit. And now, they want us to allow them to once again go ahead. Another crisis like this and Socialism will feel recovered from the economical failure of the Soviet Union. Therefore, the “grave diggers” of the title, is a relevant qualification. Unless they prove, in a great trial, not necessarily judiciary, that they were victims of fate, an apparently impossible mission. A good criterion to know if there were acting in bad faith or frivolously when verifying this little detail: when crisis became clear, top executives, who earned the bonuses, lost money at the bank they administrated? If they lost plenty, they have acted on good faith. If they would not have lost anything or very little, they deserved to receive an economical punishment.
However, it is not all lost defending, when brightly, Capitalism. The German magazine “Der Spiegel” published an interview with Dominique Strauss-Kahn, managing director of , IMF, that appeared in the “O Estado de São Paulo” newspaper on September15, 2009, B3, where the experienced economist contests Goldman Sachs executive director’s arguments after the crisis. The banker would have said that the “crisis” was inevitable; a “perfect storm” there weren’t any ways to protect from it. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, an expert on the topic, disagreed: “It is a mistaken metaphor. Human society is not a force of Nature. The financial crisis was a catastrophic event, but an event created by human action. The lesson which all of us must learn is that even an economy needs some kind of regulation, on the contrary, its functioning is compromised”.
As can be seen, the opinion of some grave diggers of the system itself can be neutralized by bright minds that can, in this case an obstinacy of Nature, be at any place, even in the polemic International Monetary Fund so many times in the past, attacked by us, Brazilians.
09/18/2009

Wouldn’t the equivalent of a Brazilian “Sorbonne” be useful?

(Word 2003)



Our esteemed President Lula intends to acquire 36 Rafale fighter aircraft, 4 submarines, the hull (how?!) of a nuclear submarine and 50 helicopters, besides other associated items. By all accounts, total spending amounts to 12 billion euros. For the time being. Costs to be paid by future governments. Just what is happening with Brazil?

In all certainty, many Brazilians - or even foreigners - feel perplexed, asking themselves what is the possible explanation of such bellicose concern (far from modest) when there are so many non-military and urgent needs that have not yet been addressed. Could it be that this is the inevitable result of some kind of “thinking big”? Is it to protect us when the “pre-salt” is closer to becoming concrete wealth from which it is possible to reap benefits?

It is difficult to reply with certainty, given that I lack specialized information in this field. For a long time, the Brazilian armed forces - which need to be valued as they are really comprised of people who are capacitated, patriotic and underpaid - have been insisting on the need for modernizing our means of defense, currently almost reduced to scrap. If the defenseless and ill-policed Amazon region were not enough, a black goldmine - the pre-salt - has now appeared on the horizon. This something new that will result in our country being seen in a new light, as in the case of other countries with significant oil reserves. If Iran, Iraq and Libya were only rich in rocks and sand, with no oil, they would not have appeared in international news with the same polemic intensity.

In summary, we should give a vote of confidence in the common sense of our Armed Forces and the President of the Republic regarding the need for so much spending on defense. If in doubt, pro-government. There being, as promised, effective technology transfer, our engineers and technicians will learn - in practice and not just from books - how to penetrate the complicated secrets of a technology that has always been too distant from developing countries. Besides this, jobs will be created. Our country appears to be taking its first steps towards becoming a great power. Let it be so; however, it is to be hoped that Brazil continues to maintain it current pacifist aura.

A possible undesirable side effect of the acquisition of these modern arms - in such quantity - is that of providing an incentive for an arms race in South America. In fact, this has already been initiated by Hugo Chaves, with a treasury full of oil money and constantly worried about a non-existent or remote real American threat. In addition, some more competitive Argentines will certainly come to put pressure on the government in Buenos Aires in order to not be left behind, also purchasing aircraft and submarines. Those who, in theory, may come to suffer indirectly from this policy are the poorest sectors of both countries, in the event that the jobs created do not compensate for such high spending.

With a view to compensating for this apparent “warlike spirit” of our president (only apparent, as Lula is patient, does not lose his temper easily and is a diplomat by temperament), I would like to take the liberty of suggesting to Your Excellency, or the next president, whoever he or she may be, an idea which would not involve such significant expense and would neutralize the somewhat bellicose aspect of the acquisition in progress (although no contract has as yet been signed). Once transformed into reality, this “idea” would give a great deal of impetus to establishing the presence of Brazil on the international stage, in a rare combination of events so favorable to my country.

I refer to the creation of a kind of Brazilian “Sorbonne”, so to speak. With another name, of course. An International Relations and Law study center that would not only be a “first” in the Southern Hemisphere, but which could have an “edge” over its equivalents in the Northern Hemisphere (Sorbonne, Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard and wherever there are similar study centers). For example, in Tokyo there is a center that prepares young people for working at the UN - something that we do not have here in South America.

What would this “edge” be? A greater emphasis on well-founded studies and suggestions for remediating, to the greatest possible extent, current deficiencies in international justice and the actual United Nations Organization.

In respectable circles, there are thoughts, and not only at the present time, of reforming the UN. Perhaps a contingent of “new blood” - not actual blood, spilt in battles and terrorism - composed of Brazilians and South-Americans - can help to convince the world that current Public International Law has already become a little outdated and, for this reason, needs to be rejuvenated. There is no lack of examples of this lack of modernization of international norms: uncontrolled immigration of the destitute from Africa and Eastern Europe, forcing the European Union to close borders, giving rise to racism of economic origin; Jews and Palestinians who cannot manage to come to an agreement, meaning that an international decision is desirable - “coming from outside”. It should be remembered that, as a Palestinian State does not exist, they cannot bring proceedings against Israel at the International Court of Justice. This court, which unites the world’s best judicial minds, has its hands tied, as its judges cannot alter its statutes, established based on political criteria by the UN. In addition, it would not look good, morally, if its magistrates, after being nominated, came to claim greater decision making powers.

This evident international legal inadequacy encourages, for example, some bad Israeli politicians (the good ones, being more discerning, have not yet managed to attain positions of power) to create obstacles in peace negotiations with the Palestinians, tolerating amplification of settlements. Besides this, even if a Palestinian State does come to be created, proceedings can only be brought against countries at the International Court if they have agreed to this. Knowing that they are not in the right, they obviously do not agree. How, in legal terms, is something so grotesque still permissible in a century so advanced in learning?

Another issue that is evidence of a need for changes in the existing model of international justice is that regarding the current prohibition of advances in nuclear knowledge in the case of certain states, whereas others are not subject to any restrictions. The USA, France, England, Russia, China, India and Pakistan openly admit to possessing nuclear arms and could, in all certainty, augment their destructive power. In the case of Israel, everyone knows that it is in possession of nuclear arms, but the Israelis do not confirm or deny this and they do not allow inspectors to enter the country to investigate the situation. It is simply inferred that Israel is in possession of “the bomb”, allegedly as a means of protecting itself from Arab resentment. It is clearly stated that, if the western world does not act against Iran, Israel will conduct the necessary aerial attacks, according to its own particular understanding of the situation. And it is easy to imagine what could result from “preventive strikes”, without the prior authorization of international justice.

The Security Council demands that North Korea and Iran not only be prohibited from manufacturing atomic weapons, but also that they open up their nuclear facilities to international agency inspections, in order to accompany the way in which the technology used is evolving, and with a view to ensuring that they do not manufacture - now or ever - “elementary” atomic bombs which, much more advanced, can be stockpiled in their hundreds or thousands in the arsenals of great powers. Such countries, quite rightly, feel that they are the victims of a double standard. They think: “It is only us that do not have the right to fear the possibility of aggression?” Because the principal underlying reason or excuse for possession of nuclear weapons lies in the need for defense.

Kenneth Waltz, a highly respected “neorealist” professor at the University of Columbia, USA, says that “the world exists in a perpetual state of international anarchy”. Without a “central enforcer”, means that states must act in a way that ensures their security above all, or else risk falling behind. “This is a fundamental fact of political life faced by democracies and dictatorships alike: except in rare cases, they cannot count on the good will of others to help them, so they must always be ready to fend for themselves”. In summary, in the case of the Iranians and North Koreans, it is difficult to understand why they are prohibited to do what others, who are stronger, do without any kind of hesitancy. If nuclear proliferation is unadvisable, which it obviously is, it becomes necessary to create international mechanisms that provide absolute security for weaker countries, even though they may make a verbal show of force. Such total security still does not exist and is something that needs to be thought about. Perhaps in greater depth at the possible Brazilian “Sorbonne”.

This article would become too long if one continued to expose all the weak points of our international regulation. To give another example, the World Trade Organization cannot manage to prevent the USA and France from protecting their farmers. Commercial “reprisals” (or what other name they may have) could be taken, but everything requires a lot of time, in a highly changeable market. For its part, accepting a denouncement, the International Criminal Court ordered that the president of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, be apprehended in view of an accusation of several massacres. However, it is unlikely that such an order will be fulfilled, given that he has the support of neighboring countries. If, eventually, the ICC authorizes a “commando” operation (perhaps not established in the Court statute) in order to kidnap the accused, it is difficult to foresee what would happen afterwards, with a possible terrorist “reprisal” by his followers. The current impasse will likely end up in cancellation of the arrest order, with a view to preserving the prestige of an institution that could still come to represent an immense and effective advance in global criminal justice. Another case: Cesare Battisti is currently a thorn in the side of the Brazilian justice system. There is a subjective margin for completely opposite interpretations.

The “edge” over its equivalents of the Brazilian “Sorbonne” suggested above, would be that of studying, in greater depth, possible and necessary modifications regarding international justice, obviously without neglecting the usual curriculum of subjects studied at the University of Paris and other centers. This “home-grown Sorbonne” (so to speak) will not have any political connotation of the “leftist” kind or opposition to currently existing universities established for the same purpose. It will be just one more university teaching International Law and Relations, although the first, as I have already said, in the Southern Hemisphere.

Another, practical, objective of the Brazilian “Sorbonne” would be that of allowing not only Brazilians, but also other South Americans (especially the sons and daughters of more modest families) to acquire preparation, without having to live in more distant countries, that enables them to work at the UN headquarters, its agencies and in various international agencies.

Some will say that several Brazilian universities have professors of International Law who are versed in, for example, North American Law as well as or even better than many attorneys in that country, the same occurring with respect to International Law.

This cannot be denied. However, such professors, or attorneys, are knowledgeable in International Law in Portuguese. This makes a difference, as Portuguese is not the language officially used at the UN. When and if it does become the official language, it will be less necessary to have an understanding of new languages. In Spanish-speaking countries, there are moves with respect to also making Spanish an official language at UN level. If the most competent monolingual Brazilian professor in International Law wishes to orally defend the interests of a client at international courts, he will have to delegate his mandate to a foreign colleague who speaks English or French fluently.

In the case of those who wish to work at the International Red Cross, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, UN Headquarters, etc, it is not enough to present oneself with in-depth knowledge - solely in Portuguese - of the necessary topics.

Hence the need for the suggested Brazilian “Sorbonne” to also hold its classes in English and/or French. Besides this, ordinary “tourist-level” English is not sufficient to work abroad in really important centers.

Some may say: “If the language is so necessary, it would be easier and more practical for the father of the student to send his son or daughter to study in Europe or the USA”. It may be practical, but it is not always easy in economic terms. More wealthy families already do this, and are likely to continue, given that it is possible to learn the language more quickly. However, more modest families cannot give themselves the luxury of this option, due to a scarcity of financial resources. Private universities are costly and there are the problems of accommodation and sundry expenses. Promising talents lose the opportunity of projecting the image of Brazil abroad, for reasons associated with a lack of family resources.

The Brazilian “Sorbonne” could invite several foreign lecturers of particular prestige in order to give classes, which would be recorded and made into DVDs (with payment of copyright fees) and subsequently used to accustom the “ear” of students to understanding that which they perhaps already know in Portuguese. Perhaps it would be advantageous to first attend the class in Portuguese “live”, given by Brazilian lecturers, and then listen to the “English or French version” of the same topic, with the lecturer present to “pause” the DVD when necessary in order to explain, in Portuguese, anything that has not been well understood.

As this article is only an exemplification of what the Brazilian “Sorbonne” could come to be, I will not go further into the matter.

Let’s see whether the government, or some educational entrepreneur of greater vision, reacts to this suggestion, which could not be outlined in greater detail for reasons of space.

(21-9-09)

Was there misconduct on the part of banks that gave rise to the crisis?

Something that intrigues me, in times such as ours - when “hunting down the offender” is almost an obsession, even extending to topics of minimal importance - is the apparent indifference shown by the global media with regard to ascertaining, at the end of the day, whether or not offenses were committed or there was misconduct on the part of the CEOs that caused the enormous financial crisis which, to date, is afflicting not only the USA but also the whole planet. The only reason that the world did not “go bankrupt” was that trillions of dollars were injected into the expiring global economy.

Few pondered the mere hypothesis of examining and eventually punishing, in financial terms, the unscrupulous conduct (by all accounts) of directors of the various American banks that gave rise to the crisis.

There is a certain degree of international moral “legitimacy” in requiring the investigation of facts with such large-scale repercussions - also with a view to ensuring that they do not come to be repeated. If the judicial legitimacy of those prejudiced is idealistic -given that we do not yet have a “global federation” - there is, at least, a great deal of international curiosity concerning what happened at the time when home ownership loans were made to people who were unlikely to be able to repay them. If there was a lack of scruples (as I believe was the case) on the part of some bank CEOs, the consequences of their lucrative folly - they received their recompense before the crisis erupted - are not being borne solely by their fellow American citizens.

The whole world is suffering as a result of probable lack of financial scruples. It’s a chain reaction, a domino effect. Mere investors who lost a lot, but not everything, are suffering in both pocket and spirit. However, those suffering to a much greater degree are workers and entrepreneurs throughout the whole world who lost their jobs or are on the verge of bankruptcy due to stagnation of the economy of the great northern giant. The wagons helplessly follow the path taken by the locomotive in an ever-more unified world. Unemployment breaks down self-esteem, with organic and even conjugal consequences, without even mentioning the pure and simple despair that hunger brings. The “smartness” shown by the directors of important American banks that gave rise to the crisis should be examined with all theoretical and practical impartiality and rigor. At court level, where the right of defense is assured, the evidence of experts is heard, and a financial sentence would have practical effects. The “blah blah blah” of the media, with lightweight conjectures, is no enough.

From what it is possible to read to date, such a requirement does not seem to have been taken very seriously. It is to be hoped that such an omission is only apparent - a question of priority. Of course, before chasing after the assailant who stabbed the victim, it is necessary to assist him, as he is bleeding on the ground. The American government “only” spent a few trillion dollars in order to contain the crisis. It is to be hoped that, once more pressing aid has been provided, the government spends an infinitely smaller fraction of this amount on legal expenses in order to “clear up the matter”.

If the CEOs are innocent, they will be content with a verdict. If they are not... Anyway, there will be a universal educative effect, as millions of people would accompany a trial of such extensive scope. Free classes, live, on the double-dealing essence of the world of high finance. It would be good for the whole world to acquire more in-depth knowledge of the morals - or lack of morals - existing in this area as, in this way, everyone will have a better idea of where to invest their hard-earned money, saved for their old age.

As the American man of letters Scott Fitzgerald said, “rich people aren’t like us”. It is true, but assailants are also different. It is to be hoped that the executives in question are not on a level with the latter. This will eventually be proved with the formal judgment of specific banking conduct in question. Good for the CEOs who, arriving in heaven after death, will be able to show Saint Peter a copy of the verdict that absolved them. It is likely that not even the guardian of the gates of heaven is absolutely certain whether or not he should bar the charming and persuasive individuals with collars and ties, capable of persuading him to make a few investments. Saintly souls generally have no understanding of finances.

It is common for specialists to highlight, quite rightly, that the American government had no alternative but to bail out the large banking institutions that caused the whole vast problem, irrespective of the losses involved. Without the bail out, the breakdown of the banking system would have resulted in chaos. A social convulsion - all hell would be let loose on the planet, not only in the USA, but here, there and everywhere. As a consequence of the imprudence of giant banking institutions, large, medium and small companies would go to the wall if the American government did not inject trillions of dollars in a mega-bailout.

It is possible to speculate that, at the time of peak profits (via bonuses and other advantages) the following type of dialogue could occur between such executives: - “Between ourselves, David, don’t you think that we are taking too many risks? I’m concerned. We are getting richer all the time, but one day the bubble will burst...”. - “You worry too much, John. “Bubble will burst”, bah... What bubble? Ours? Never! I didn’t invest the money that I earned by honest (sic) means in real estate. There is a big wide world out there. Do you think that the government is going to let the banks go bankrupt, leading to a collapse of the whole economy? If it did, the government itself would also collapse! Trust in what I am saying! A government bail-out will happen, there is no other option. Checkmate for our mediocre politicians! High finance has always been an area in which normal strict moral rules do not prevail. Economics is not an exact science. If the worst occurs, we could always argue that to err is only human. Just between us, the actual judges who come to judge the case don’t understand much about finance and will be left in doubt. And “in dubio pro reo”, the accused enjoys the benefit of the doubt. As far as legal experts are concerned, we will be able to influence them or invalidate their conclusions with our own experts, chosen perhaps from winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics. “Relax, pal!” How about it, are we going to play golf on Sunday?”

It is both common and understandable that governments find themselves to be obliged to meet absurd illegal requirements, in all forms of criminality. If a group of common bandits is surrounded when robbing a bank, or anywhere else for that matter, and threatens to kill innocent people if their demands are not met, the police usually concede. A vehicle is provided and, if necessary, even money and a plane. However, once the hostages have been released, a violent and tenacious pursuit is initiated in order to arrest the criminals and apprehend the robbery or ransom money.

In the banking area and perhaps others - I have no knowledge of all the possible developments involved - it is to be hoped that the American government proceeds in much the same way as it is accustomed to proceed in the case of ordinary “kidnappers”.

I have immense confidence in the character of Barack Obama and believe that he will not fail to contemplate (once the eye of the hurricane has passed) a need for in-depth investigation of the human errors that led to the crash of the American “hyper-jumbo”, which did not set the whole planet aflame simply because trillions of dollars were spent on fire extinguishers. If convinced of bad faith, those prosecuting the “barons” will certainly request that their assets be frozen, or, more fairly, a good part of such assets. “Just in case”, because if the legal process takes too long, such ill-gotten profits will evaporate.

If there is proof of bad faith, it is a case for saying that these people are demoralizing the actual capitalist system. Capitalism is a system that has advantages over its rival socialism, due to the fact that it is more in line with human nature, which is preponderantly egoistic, ambitious and driven by envy - an ugly but powerful source of motivation. The undeniable fact is that capitalism generates wealth, companies, jobs and even culture. It is only that unleashed, without reins, it becomes astutely ferocious and cannibalistic in nature. Without the counterweight of ethics and without fear of being held to accounts, the irresponsible executives inadvertently became canvassers for Bin Laden and other inflammatory “reformers” throughout the world.

Think about this, honest Obama, and let us wait and see.

(05-8-09)

Congratulations, Gordon Brown!

On sitting down to write these lines, I feel myself to be thirty percent sad and seventy percent happy. The percentage of sadness is due to the fact that Gordon Brown, the prime minister of the United Kingdom, has anticipated “my idea” (or at least its verbalization, as many people here in Brazil and in the rest of the world have already intuitively deduced this) that global solutions are necessary for global ills. From this starting point, world government is just another step forward. At least, initially, as a topic of conversation.

My percentage of happiness comes from knowing that the prime minister of an important country was fully aware that the response to the current crisis must be global. His article ends stating that (...) “as America stands at its own dawn of hope, so let that hope be fulfilled through a pact with the wider world to lead and shape the 21st century as the century of a truly global society”.

This statement fits like a glove for those who believe that it is necessary to start, right now, and in an amicable manner, to talk about how to set up a democratic world government. Pardon me for saying so, but no society exists, irrespective of whether or not it is global, that does not have an equivalent government.

In an item published in O Estado de S. Paulo newspaper (B4, Economia) this morning (03-03-09), when I was preparing to write my article, I read that Gordon Brown stated that, in order to resolve the current global economic crisis, there is a need for a global “new deal”. It was precisely about this topic that I was going to write. Everyone, including me, likes to imagine “discovering the wheel” and, in the case in question, Gordon Brown first externalized that verbal synthesis which summarizes an idea that is not yet usually “made concrete” in a phrase. Whether we like it or not, peoples “think” using ready-made clichés and phrases. If the phrase were non-existent, perhaps the thing that it represents would not exist. Man thinks much more with words than ideas. If such terms as “infinite”, “subconscious”, “incongruence” did not exist, how many hundreds of words would we have to use in order to express something close to these nouns? In the language used by deaf people, hand movements certainly exist with such meanings; however, it is my belief that these gestures can only be perfectly understood by those with impaired hearing who are already familiar with these concepts.

Returning to the global “new deal”, what I was going to say, prior to glancing at the newspaper, is that with irreversible globalization (fruit of the internet and the intense exchange of information, goods and services between all countries) a “new deal number two”, if only North American, would not even resolve American difficulties, to the contrary of that which occurred in the case of the policy of Franklin D. Roosevelt. At the time of his government (he was elected four times) in the 1930s, the USA was politically isolated, this being something that no longer occurs. The Americans became exaggerated consumers and the whole world needs these rich buyers. When they show signs of a shrinking economy, everyone suffers, including those who live in the USA.

I think that, as far as economics is concerned, the majority of historians agree that Franklin Roosevelt was a pragmatist. Taking over responsibility for government at one of the worst moments in the history of his country, he was in urgent need of solutions, not theories. After hearing proposals put forward by the best minds that surrounded him, he decided whether to take this or that way forward. A “solutionatic” instead of a “problematic” approach. If it was unsuccessful (the outcome of certain issues is dependent upon the passage of time), he took a change in direction, without any kind of ideological trauma. Economics is a science (humm...) highly impregnated with philosophy and psychology. Whoever reads books and articles on economics, even if only in part, is astounded by the high degree of subjectivism that impregnates a branch of knowledge that could only be called “science” with a good stretch of the imagination. Unless one excludes predictability, one of the essential attributes of all sciences. If economics is a science, it is so to a lesser extent, although useful as some of its few truths have withstood the passage of time. What demoralizes the science is its object of study, its greedy guinea pig: the laboratory rat, or rather, man.

What was the brilliant intuition behind the “new deal”? The idea that, in times of economic crisis, it is better to do something - construct something useful - than to just sit at home, depressed and inutile, ruminating on the unhappiness of being unemployed or the lack of outlook for your business. As a result, Roosevelt resolved to do something - to build, investing heavily in public works. In doing this, he provided millions with employment and developed an infrastructure that, once the difficulties had passed, made the country much richer and more powerful. I do not know whether this generated inflation; however, it is certainly true that if a government, any government, prints money but, at the same time, increases the gross domestic product, sooner or later, such an increase neutralizes the inflationary effect of the printed money. Inflation is caused by excessive money supply in relation to economic growth. If the economy grows in the same proportion as money supply, then the equilibrium continues. There is no inflation. It is this, for example, that Brazil promises to do: construct and repair highways, amplify ports and airports, build railroads, reservoirs, sewage networks, schools, etc. If Brazil had ports that functioned in an effective manner, would this detail not be of benefit to the country when the global crisis passes? In summary, it is better to use one’s hands for doing useful work, rather than biting one’s nails. Work, it should be emphasized, does not mean employment in government jobs in which there is no work in the strict sense of the term.

Even in dictatorial regimes, full or almost full employment works wonders in the economic area. Hitler, a dictator who was somewhat ignorant (his oratory style, shouting and yelling, excited and hypnotized rather than provoking rational thought) managed to pull Germany out of economic depression. Thanks to large-scale investment by the state. It is only necessary to mention that, in 1933, there were 6,000,000 unemployed. In 1939, this number had dropped to 300,000 - a considerable reduction.

Some scholars of the German “economic miracle”, unnecessarily concerned with possible praise of a morally abominable figure, attempt to invalidate this highly satisfactory economic result alleging that, from the year of 1933, women were no longer counted as unemployed. Besides this, after 1935, Jews lost the status of citizens and were not included as such in statistics. It is also mentioned that there was an increase in the number of individuals called up to join the armed forces - all this to explain that the so-called German “miracle” cannot be even partially be attributed to Hitler.

In fact, it seems obvious that Germany, starting off with hyperinflation, came to be a great power in 1939. Not due to any merit on the part of Hitler himself, but the basic idea that any country, in order to grow, needs to produce goods, either through private sector initiative or governmental resolve. Although they represent opposing political philosophies, the United States and Nazi Germany freed themselves from depression and unemployment by adhering to the same recipe: “building things”. Something like an unemployed bricklayer who, in order to occupy himself, resolves to build rooms in his back yard. With the passage of time, this “hobby” could come to be a source of income, through the renting of sleeping quarters.

The significant difference between Roosevelt and Hitler lay in the “kind of things” they did during the depression. Hitler’s Germany directed its productive energy into the arms industry, as its plans included pitiless and unscrupulous expansion of “vital space”. Once armed to the teeth, what was Germany to do with so much power? It could only be declaring wars, invading neighboring countries and making them slaves. Submarines, tanks, battleships and fighter planes do not serve for tourism purposes.

On the other hand, the United States devoted its energies to building other “things”, using its resources in infrastructure improvements. There was only heavy investment in the arms industry at a much later date, following the attack on Pearl Harbor. After the USA came into the war against the Axis powers, this well-founded and peaceful infrastructure, created as the “new deal”, made it possible to produce the bombers that filled the skies of Germany, for hours and hours, during a single mission. A devastating show of force. Would all this have been possible without the “new deal”?

Coming back to the article by Gordon Brown, the whole text focuses on recognizing that, without a global response (and not only on the part of the USA), the world will not be able to extricate itself very quickly from the mess that it has got into. His own words, taken at random, show reveal the main focus of his article: “... while we can do a great deal nationally, we can do even more working together internationally”; “A new set of challenges faces the whole world, which summons forth the need for a partnership of purpose that must involve the whole world. Rebuilding global financial stability is a global challenge that needs global solutions”; “That is why President Obama and I will discuss this week a global new deal”; “I see this global new deal as an agreement that every continent injects resources into its economy”. And so on. Even specifically mentioning the country of Obama, who will be making a brief visit to England, his opinion explicitly implies that all countries with some degree of wealth should continue to work and produce without only thinking of internal problems, most notably those concerning market reserves.

However, the current global crisis may yet help countries to understand something that is still seen as a utopia and, as such, highly debatable. Man is a paradox in the field of ideas: intelligent in examining details, but slow-witted in managing the whole. Only this, even more than malice, explains the existence of so much suffering throughout the world.

(03-03-09)

What should be done with Kim Jong Il? Nothing.

The ambitious, intelligent and persuasive global arms industry should be extremely excited with the challenges or “follies” (what else to call them?) of Kim Jong Il, the North-Korean dictator.

In abstract terms, the client adored by the arms industry is fear. Without it, there would be generalized insolvency in the cannon industry. Even worse than General Motors. On the other hand, the client respected in flesh and blood is any head of state or government sufficiently unscrupulous or courageous in resolving the problems of their country (principally those of an economic nature) by avoiding them through emotional saber-rattling.

This is exactly the case of Kim Jong Il, the son of another dictator and likely the father of a third. This will only not happen if his son refuses the post. If this occurs, another family member will probably be proclaimed “king”. A strange case of royalty, of blue blood (or, in this instance, yellow) in a type of regime whose very essence (communism) resides in the closest kind of identification between leaders and led. Given that, in North Korea, there is no free press or free elections, the masses - lean, but not by choice - support the orders handed down by their irrevocable “father”, without further analysis.

Considering that there is not even a shadow of democracy in North Korea and that its future (and that of the whole region) depends on just one man, and this depends on that which occurs in his mind, the best solution regarding the Korean nuclear threat lies in patiently awaiting a biological decision to be made. In the case in question, concerning his health. After he is gone, we will see what needs to be done. Attack North Korea? Only if the country attacks first, and in a concrete manner. This means without even considering so-called “preventive attacks’, which would have extremely serious consequences in terms of destruction, deaths and radioactive contamination.

Given that world government, or some semblance of such government, does not yet exist (this is something that needs to be changed as a matter of urgency), with powers, accepted by all countries, of immediate intervention for “confiscation” or “extraction” (as in the case of a rotten tooth) of dictators who are putting various other countries at risk, and even those who are under their domination (as in the case of Robert Mugabe, in Zimbabwe), the wisest solution is not to encourage the warmongering of a head of state who may not be in full control of his mental faculties for physical (stroke) or psychological reasons.

In the 1930s, if Hitler (after arming Germany with the largest war machine ever seen - externalizing his intention to dominate the world) had been “extracted” from power by a democratic world government, we would not have had the widespread slaughter that was the Second World War. Not even its consequence, the so-called “Cold War”, which nearly became transformed into an atomically “hot” war in 1962, at the time of the Cuban missile crisis. This did not result in nuclear conflict solely because Nikita Khrushchev, a simple-minded man (on one occasion, in the middle of a UN session, he removed a shoe and began hammering it on the table, demanding attention), but a man of great vision, had the good sense and moral courage to make an about-turn, ordering the return of ships that were transporting nuclear missiles destined for Cuba.

In fact, this gesture of courageous prudence, which saved humanity from a war that was likely to be nuclear, did not save the prestige of Khrushchev within the Soviet Union. Russian generals thought that he was “soft” in dealing with the incident. Instead of being thankful for not being incinerated, the star-studded and medal-bedecked generals criticized the retreat. They did not understand the reach of this heroic gesture precisely because it was not “heroic”, i.e., accompanied by the beat of drums. As a result, Khrushchev lost his hold on power in his country. With the return of the missiles, international headlines remained fully focused on John Kennedy. This is just another example that “taking a hard-line standpoint” is of “greater value” to the masses than acting in an intelligent and discerning manner. Being fully aware of this, dictators generally rely on shows of force - and it is the people who end up being hurt. Just as in the case of the Falklands, a small-scale war destined to distract attention from the problems that afflicted Argentina at the time.

Any kind of military measures - “other options” - against Kim Jong Il, with a view to bringing his nuclear activities to a halt or destroying them would be counterproductive. Such military measures are unthinkable, given that North Korea has a numerous and powerful army. In addition, in an extreme situation, it could launch missiles with nuclear warheads. That would lead to chaos. There is no guarantee that the country would be flattened before pressing the launch buttons. Even if this occurred, following a sudden and precise attack by the USA, such a preventive attack would be an act of cowardice against a population that cannot be blamed for the foolishness of its head of government, the “master” and architect of public opinion. In a land where there is no freedom of the press, few think differently from their leader.

Besides this, “hard-line economic sanctions” also do not function, as they augment the poverty of countries governed by dictators if such leaders are, rightly or wrongly, supported by the populace. It is only the poorest sectors of society that suffer. There will be no lack of food and other indispensible goods on the table of those in government and their supporters. And when hunger is a threat, there is an increase in the proportion of “friends of the ruler”, whose interest is that of getting enough to eat, this being a primary drive embedded in all living beings. A lack of food in the stomach can have immense persuasive force.

However, an irrefutable argument that reinforces popular support for Kim Jong Il has a factual basis: there is currently unequal treatment among countries. The UN Security Council requires that North Korea interrupt its nuclear program destined for arms production. The problem is that, for this to occur, it would have to maintain inspectors within its nuclear facilities, constantly checking whether the activities in question are solely being developed for peaceful purposes. This is very irritating for the country being inspected.

I doubt (a normal reaction) that Israel would allow international inspectors, with Arab surnames, to scrutinize its nuclear installations. However, the five permanent members of the aforementioned Security Council (USA, United Kingdom, Russia, China and France) are free to have as many nuclear arms as they wish. Together, they could destroy the Earth many times over. Besides the five permanent members, India, Pakistan and Israel also have their nuclear arsenals, without any opposition on the part of the Security Council. What is the conclusion drawn by the North Koreans (the same applies in the case of Iranians) as a result of this evident inequality? Are the North Koreans in some way “inferior” or congenitally imbalanced? In theory, is it not the case that all countries have equal rights?

An article entitled “Que tal a velha diplomacia?” (Bush’s Best Example), by Norman Dombey, Emeritus Professor of Theoretical Physics at Sussex University, Great Britain, published in “The Guardian” and reproduced, in Portuguese, in the “O Estado de S. Paulo” newspaper on 31-5-09, in the supplement entitled “Aliás”, J5, specifies the breaking of several promises made by the George W. Bush government to Kim Jong Il, resulting in retaliation on the part of the dictator. The aggressiveness ingrained in Bush by the well known “hawks” that surrounded him made a significant contribution to the exaggerated reactions of the North Korean president, someone already exaggerated in nature. He concluded that it was no longer possible to trust the Americans. Thence the conclusion drawn by the aforementioned author of the article that the Obama administration “blundered into sanctions and threats”. For reasons of space, it is not possible to transcribe all the arguments put forward in the article, but these can be read in the publication in question. Well worth the effort.

Another article, in the same Brazilian newspaper, dated June 1st 2009, on page A12 (this time by Seumas Milne, previously published in “The Guardian”), under the title of “Hipocrisia estimula proliferação” (Hypocrisy encourages proliferation), also draws conclusions regarding hypocrisy and double standards in the international field, allowing some countries to fabricate nuclear weapons and prohibiting others. In other words, the permanent members of the UN Security Council and a few “allies” (Israel, India and Pakistan) have the “right to have fear”. On the other hand, North Korea and Iran have no such right. How is it possible to explain this inequality, without “shame”, in a world that reaffirms the existence of something that does not exist, i.e., equality? The explanation lies in the title of the aforementioned article: “Hypocrisy”.

Nuclear weapons states are generally more respected than those not attributed with equal powers. This is a factor that also motivates Kim Jong Il. Given that the USA invaded Iraq, based solely on “mistrust” (in fact, just another pretext) regarding the existence of weapons of mass destruction, and Bush broke agreements and confronted the UN, Kim considered it safer to emphasize, through a loud-speaker, that his country was really in possession of nuclear power, albeit incipient. Apparently, Kim is afraid and knows that enemies of countries with nuclear arsenals think more carefully before attacking.

Clearly, the more widespread nuclear proliferation, the greater the danger for all mankind. Proliferation should be avoided at all costs, but nota t the cost of a war that could become nuclear. It would be a case of contradicting purposes.

Innumerous more prudent countries are not bothered, diplomatically, by this inequality. For example, Sweden, which already has the technology necessary for construction of atomic weapons, has explicitly decided not to construct them. Perhaps knowing that, as it stands, the country will not become the target of mistrust and hostilities. Brazil, which could construct such arms within a few years, has also preferred to follow a more peaceful path, if only due to the fact that it does not feel threatened. If atomic energy were to be developed for military rather than peaceful purposes, such a move would likely lead to rivalry on the part of Argentina. On the other hand, North Korea and Iran could argue that they indeed consider themselves to be in potential imminent danger, if they continue to be “weaker” than their neighbors. Hence the union of fear and arrogance and, in the case of Iran, the need to impress the electorate.

Summing up: what should be done in order to resolve the current impasse? The reply to this question seems simple: Obama and his allies work, diplomatically, with a view to gaining the confidence of North Korea, Iran and Israel, with the urgent signing of a treaty guaranteeing that none of these three countries will be attacked, unless they are considered to be evident aggressors by a majority decision by the UN Security Council, without any right to veto in this case. A treaty without conditions and without inspections of any nature whatsoever.

In the meantime, considering the current state of the world, there is no way of impeding nuclear proliferation, the fruit of fear and/or arrogance. Nevertheless, with the exception of some kind of insanity, no country, of whatever kind, is going to want to initiate a nuclear war, which would also end up incinerating the actual aggressor. Once such a treaty has been signed by Obama, North Korea would have more confidence in “pieces of paper”. In all certainty, the new American president would not be subject to demoralization, for example, coming to be known as an “international trickster” or even a “sluggard”.

With peace ensured, albeit in a provisory manner, the world will be at leisure to deal with other matters. Such “other matters” will have to include the establishment of a new world order, more effective than that which currently exists. The immediate total abolition of nuclear arms is an illusion. The USA is fearful of the growing power of China, and vice-versa. Israel is fearful of Iran, and vice-versa. Even if all countries were to sign a treaty eliminating their nuclear arsenals, there would be no guarantee that a few warheads would not remain hidden, “just in case”. However, a new world order, which definitively resolves the matter, is a topic that cannot be dealt with here.

(2-6-09)

Racism, Obama and World Government

If there is a politician I respect, it is Barack Obama. Not only due to the fact that he attained, in an honorable manner, the presidency of the most powerful nation in the world, but also because he has partially broken down the racial prejudice that still restlessly lingers in the deepest layers of white American society. As here one is dealing with a prejudice related to skin color (it is not the case, as in the example of anti-Semitism, of white against white), the reaction against a man of dark-colored skin has, in my opinion, an instinctive, even biological component, its eradication being slower and more difficult. Hence a need for the law to intervene, hastening integration and weakening, little by little, this mysterious instinctive repulsion.

The argument that cuts, by the roots, any moral justification for all kinds of racism is the following: nobody chooses their parents before being born. After being born, there is no way of changing such features as skin or eye color, height and level of intelligence. The most one can do is use the qualities with which you were born (and, depending on the case, certain defects...) in the best possible manner. Even if I think that, in statistical terms, races show slight differences - Negroes, for example, appear to have more aptitude in athletics, football, boxing and basketball - what is really important is the individual. In this way, a blonde Swede could be born an athlete, whereas a black African boy could detest sports, preferring to dedicate himself to mathematics or poetry. Nature is capricious and every member of the Ku Klux Klan needs to be aware that his or her “whiteness” is merely accidental.

What it is in Obama that distinguishes him from mediocre presidents is the knowledge that understanding one’s opponent, or even enemy, is of much greater value that the threat or use of force. With force, we are able to silence the hazard, but not eliminate it. To the contrary, we strengthen it. We encourage its secret maneuvers. We just do not know what is really going on.

When Obama formed his government, he invited several politicians and technicians who had served during the Bush administration, although may Democrats censured such choices; they were likely to be potential traitors. Obama, nevertheless, inspired by the precedent of Lincoln, had the courage to decide to the contrary. For two good reasons: politicians and technicians who formerly saw him as a foe, came to see him as a reasonable man, only interested in making the right decisions. Surrounded by people who served in previous governments, Obama will come to have a view of problems that is much closer to reality.

Forgive me for this long and unnecessary introduction, but it is necessary to warn this promising head of state not to allow himself to be contaminated by vestigial bellicose tendencies, as a result of the being in the company of a few possible residual “hawks”. In dealing with the problem of North Korea launching a long-range ballistic missile, Obama jeopardized his good policy of never threatening another country. If only due to the fact that threats should be fulfilled, or suffer the penalty of demoralization. However, prior to the missile launch, he promised a “severe and united response on the part of the international community” if Pyongyang went ahead with the launch (“O Estado de S. Paulo” newspaper - page A14, dated 3-4-09).

In fact, the missile was launched and no serious retaliatory measures could be taken, as it is only necessary for a veto on the part of any one of the five “big-shot” permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, in order to prevent a military or especially “severe” response against the transgressor. In this case, a dictator who is a little crazy and perhaps in possession of nuclear weapons, which complicates the strategy even more. Given that Kim Jong-il was already an example of mental imbalance, it is likely that his state of mind deteriorated even more following the stroke that he suffered last August.

With regard to the stance adopted by China and Russia, denying significant sanctions against Pyongyang, for the first time in my life I find a situation in which the power of veto could actually assist humanity. In fact, in this case, both military and economic measures would only aggravate the problem of nuclear proliferation. If there were aerial attacks against North Korea, it is absolutely certain that the dictator would retaliate which as much force as he could muster, with conventional weapons and perhaps even nuclear armaments. Despite the poverty in which its population lives, everyone knows that North Korea has a very large and well-equipped army. And there is no lack of bellicose insanity on the part of the current “Great Leader”. If he dies, one of his three sons (the bizarre “communist monarchy”) will continue the struggle, which will be bloody. Such a conflict would be much more explosive that that engaged in against Iraq - in all likelihood, with a certain degree of support on the part of China, a “technically” communist country. The USA and its allies would become involved in yet another war (the third), precisely at a very difficult moment for the global economy.

With regard to the imposition of severe commercial sanctions against Pyongyang, based on historical evidence, it can be shown that the deliberate impoverishment of a country governed by dictators only serves to prejudice the civilian population. The anonymous population will certainly go hungry. Children will become undernourished due to a lack of milk, although there will be no lack of this product, or even caviar, for the friends of the “leader”. Trade isolation only works when the country being attacked has a democratic government, or when the dictator is already weak and isolated. This is not the case in North Korea. Thus, in certain exceptional cases, the right of veto on the UN Security Council is really a blessing.

Obama, during a speech last Sunday in Prague, put forward a plan for “a world without nuclear weapons”. He proposed a reduction in the nuclear arsenal of both Russia and America. I have nothing against such a proposal, but Obama would do better proposing discussion of a significant, bold and definitive step for reorganizing the world, and not only in the economic sphere.

What kind of step could this be? First and foremost, amplifying the jurisdiction, competence and effectiveness of international justice, which is currently limited by the sacrosanct and often abusive sovereignty of each state. Second, equipping humanity with standards for the great and inevitable leap forward: a democratic world government (without the predominance of any single country), with the voluntary and progressive adhesion of its members. In a similar manner to creation of the UN, the European Union and, long before, in the 18th century, the voluntary (yes, voluntary) coalition of thirteen American colonies, united against England. The colonizing English, the “foreign enemy” at the time, was the driving force behind the union of such colonies, the very kernel of the powerful American state. There is an urgent need for a world government. At the present time, the “enemy” is both internal and external at the same time. It is global, given that the current economic crisis has not left any country untouched. In addition, we have two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan), with a risk of another two (North Korea and Iran), besides unending tribal killings in Africa.

Solely reducing the Russian and American nuclear arsenal of is not enough. If, in theory, all countries of the world have equal rights (it’s in the United Nations Charter), there is no logic in the “big shots” requiring that North Korea and Iran abstain from furthering their aims in the nuclear technology field, which could be destined for both military and peaceful purposes. Such countries, discriminated in this manner, can always ask, quite rightly: “Why is it that the USA, China, Israel, the United Kingdom, France, India and Pakistan can have nuclear weapons, and we cannot?! Isn’t this kind of prohibition an explicit confession of racism? Are we, perchance, inferior peoples, congenitally unbalanced, incapable of dealing with such advanced forms of energy?

Nuclear weapons are the direct fruit of fear. And fear, in turn, can give rise to domination. The intimidated party always yearns to bind the party that is alarming it. And the former does not wish to be bound. During the Second World War, it was fear of the Nazis that led the Allies to build the first atomic bomb. Hitler put pressure on his scientists to fabricate an extraordinary weapon that would make TNT look like fireworks. This very real Nazi threat motivated Einstein (a pacifist and adept in the subject of world government) to propose to president Franklin D. Roosevelt that research be accelerated for construction of the bomb before the Nazi dictator managed to attain the same goal. His notion was well founded.

Israel has atomic bombs and has never given its permission for a count to be made. It is free of inspections. It alleges fear of being “wiped off the map”, as one of its enemies in the Middle East once said. An idiotic metaphoric flight of fancy, but one that Israel has the right to take seriously. Despite the liberty that Israel enjoys in fabricating nuclear weapons, Iran, which still does not have the bomb, sees itself as threatened with bombardment because it does not allow UN inspectors to have total access to its nuclear installations, which could also be destined for peaceful purposes. Where is the logic in this difference in international treatment? The North Korean dictator could say the same thing, irrespective of whether or not he is half crazy. This inequality of rules will only disappear with the formation of a world government, with a Global Constitution, with effective worldwide justice that provides all nations with a sense of total security.

Why, one asks, does the USA not put forward a proposal to Russia for total destruction of their respective nuclear arsenals, and not Just reduction in the stock of warheads? Answer: because both the USA and Russia fear China. It’s generalized fear, mutual distrust, which functions as cement and justification for spending trillions of dollars on security via weapons. Would it not be more rational if a global democratic federation gave an absolute guarantee that there would be no further armed attacks by one country against another?

It seems strange that Obama - such an intellectualized politician and, above all, of good character - has still not mentioned the expression “global government or federation” in his speeches. As far as the term “global” is concerned, this only refers to financial control. Nevertheless, I presume that he has likely already thought about this broader hypothesis. He has only not dared to verbalize it because the government that preceded him alarmed the international community to such an extent (with supposed American supremacy) that use of the expression “world government” would undermine his prestige. Everyone would immediately think of Bush and “American dictatorship”. First, he needs to gain the confidence and calm the minds of all peoples, before daring to stir up a “hornets’ nest” that I am sure will produce much more honey that stings.

I’d like to make a bet. Before the end of his administration, Obama, feeling the ground to be firmer beneath his feet, will approach the topic with complete honesty and without any hidden “patriotic” intentions. As someone once said, our future homeland is Humanity - a perfectly attainable dream.

(8-4-09)

Radovan Karadzic and the trouble he is going to cause ...

(written in 11-10-08)

The aforementioned Serbian psychiatrist, under the guise of a poet, a politician giving rise to significant local repercussions, a bearded fugitive and, finally, a defendant at the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia, will certainly bring about substantial changes in the procedural rules of the Court that is judging him. Why?

Because he has invoked the right to put forward his own defense, which is permitted by the current standards adopted by the Court in question. After him (it would cause a bad impression to remove permission for self-defense after initially granting it), it is quite foreseeable that the International Criminal Court will no longer allow defendants to personally put forward their own defense, unless they have specific abilities, as in the case of ex-attorneys, judges or prosecutors. Experience gained with the judgment of Slobodan Milosevic should have already taught us that temperamental and extroverted politicians never lose the opportunity of transforming a show of defense into a platform for themselves. Did they ever imagine a Fidel Castro putting forward his own defense? If in speeches, not defending himself, he can continue for five hours, how long would it take if he were speaking in his own defense?

In these cases, defendants, not having any kind of specific professional education, make abuse of the excuse or “right” of ignoring the most elementary procedural rules. At any moment, they provoke incidents and arguments with those present in the courtroom, even (or principally) the judge who is presiding over the proceedings. The magistrate, having no means of restraining the jaw and tongue of the irreverent defendant (concerned about demonstrating exemption and tolerance regarding the judicial ignorance of the defendant), ends up being at an apparent disadvantage, due to the difference in tone of voice. He becomes transformed into someone who is being accused, due to the fact that he only patiently explains - while the defendant only attacks. People of limited education think: “The judge is at a disadvantage ...”

In all likelihood, every legal professional has already had the unsavory experience of arguing with people who are ignorant and furious, either justly or unjustly. They cannot understand the need for rules for everything: for making accusations, for defending and for passing judgment. The accused has nothing to lose, but the magistrate does have something to lose. This is what occurred in the case of Saddam Hussein, when he was judged by a special court in his own country. Assuming that he had nothing to lose, as he would be hanged anyway, Saddam said what he wanted, whenever he wanted, also raising his voice. At a certain point in the proceedings, the principal judge, a highly educated Kurd (accustomed to other environments), requested that he be removed from the case. Saddam, when questioned at the beginning of his interrogation (in line with standard procedures) regarding his name, replied, almost shouting, more or less in the following manner: “You know perfectly well what my name is!!! I am the president of Iraq!”, and it was in this insolent tone of voice that he continued in the “bullfight”. All the time, he said exactly what he wanted. After all, he was “authorized” to turn the court into a circus, because he has the excuse of not having any judicial education. He did not even recognize the jurisdiction of the court - the same occurring with Milosevic and Karadzic.

En passant, many internationalists say that the Bush government was against the judgment of Saddam by an international court (as occurred with the Nazis, in Nuremberg), because the United Nations (and its courts) no longer permit the death penalty. Such a prohibition was non-existent when the Nazis were judged. Accusing and judging Saddam at an Iraqi court, it would be possible to hang him, as events actually turned out. As far as the Americans were concerned, it would be easier to pacify Iraq with Saddam silent, in his grave, rather than speaking or agitating the whole time, even in a prison. As a result, in strict terms, although violating accepted international justice (a president was condemned by a court set up by occupation forces), the Americans were “strategically correct”. Imagine what Iraq would be like today with a live Saddam, adding fuel to the hostilities. The annual body count would be even higher.

Another alteration that will likely occur to the procedural norms of the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia (following judgment of Radovan Karadzic) will be a reduction in the permitted number of witnesses, for both the prosecution and defense. An enormous number of witnesses bring about an elevated degree of sluggishness, it being highly likely that the defendant will die while he or she is being tried. This is what happened in the case of Slobodan Milosevic, who was imprisoned for around eight years and died prior to judgment. The defendants in such judgments are generally individuals of advanced years and the emotional strains of a court case certainly do not contribute to their longevity. Heat attacks function like an “avenger”, killing without passing judgment. If death occurs, the case is closed, which makes it possible for followers of the deceased to argue that their leader would prove his innocence, if the trial had come to its intended conclusion. For reasons of doubt, delay in the trial ends up benefitting recollection of those who should be remembered as individuals to be condemned.

In the first fortnight of April 2008, I spent two weeks in Holland, in the city of The Hague. I visited several international courts and, thanks to the generous letter of introduction of a person of outstanding legal knowledge in the international field, Minister Francisco Rezek, I managed to obtain two highly valued interviews, filmed for DVD. In order to make the most of my stay in the so-called “Low Countries” (they really are low, at a level below that of the North Sea - hence the canals, windmills and clogs ...), I attended part of a trial at the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia - the same one that will judge Radovan Karadzic.

I arrived at around 09:00 hrs, a few minutes late. Through a window (probably armored glass), I was able to accompany the questioning of a prosecution witness who, luckily for everyone, spoke English, dispensing with any need for an interpreter. In the area where I was accompanying the proceedings, there was also a television screen showing who was asking the questions and who was replying, with perfect sound. The interrogating attorney was an Englishman (as far as I know, more than half the attorneys working in the international field are English), with the traditional wig that has no intention of hiding the fact that it is a wig. It is more of an ornament than a wig, conceived, logically, I suppose, in order to disguise baldness. As its use became customary, it is even placed on the thickest heads of hair, although, as chance would have it, this was not the case of the attorney who was putting forward the questions.

The attorney in question (astute but extremely delicate in his choice of words and tone of voice) broke down and minutely examined each statement made by the witness, even those that were the simplest and clearest, in striving to identify any insecurity or imprecision. At certain times, a young woman on the prosecution team (in my opinion, surprisingly young to be there ...) made a technical objection, addressed to the three judges that comprised the bench. The chairman of the tribunal decided on the objection and the English defense attorney proceeded with his endless questions, seemingly striving to find the smallest breach. His patient and persistent voice was capable of penetrating solid rock.

Suddenly, the chairman of the tribunal, with all courtesy (certainly controlling himself), asked the defense attorney how much time he had planned to dedicate to questioning that particular witness. When the Englishman said, almost smiling, that he intended to spend another five hours, I could take no more and left. That was enough for the patience of a poor Brazilian. The court suspended the session, scheduling a return for so-many minutes later. I did not return - if solely for the reason that my “listening skills” are not as good as they might be.

I do not know how many more witnesses would be heard. As there are normally several dozen, I imagine how it is highly likely that successive defendants in trials involving genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity will give up their souls to the Creator (or the Devil) before being sentenced.

Besides being a psychiatrist, Karadzic is a practicing poet. Add to this the fact that he has outspoken ideas regarding construction of Greater Serbia. A mixture of such wordy ingredients can only result in lengthy dissertations (with or without temporal pertinence) regarding his real or imaginary mission of defending Bosnian Serbs, “purifying” the region. In addition, he will be automatically forgiven for the lack of appropriateness and measure in his interventions “because, after all, I am not a student of Law”. As he said at the beginning, he does not even recognize the legitimacy of the Court, defending himself, according to his own words, as he would defend himself from a natural phenomenon - a hurricane or earthquake, for example. He will therefore be free to transform the Court into a radio station, TV channel and electoral platform. With the advantage, furthermore, of mixing politics with poetry and psychiatry - the ancient science of the crazy. It is the judges who will go crazy, attempting to maintain order in the Court. I hope I am mistaken.

It may be said that the fact that Karadzic has no legal education is irrelevant, because if he had, he would also be able to take advantage of the confusion and procrastination. In an even more competent manner.

It may be a paradox but, in this case, judicial ignorance helps in delaying the sentencing of the defendant who is known to be guilty. The attorney, judge or prosecutor who is defending himself does not wish to appear ridiculous, making declarations at the wrong time and in an erroneous manner. A sense of shame holds him back. His education and self-respect repel the idea of talking nonsense in court, even more so when being seen on television. He at least hopes that History will describe him as an intelligent man. On the other hand, the layman who defends himself (thinking, more importantly, about the “audience”) is just not concerned with procedural rules, with the excuse of considering himself as “not part of the legal profession”. Throughout the world, more tolerant judges know, from their own experience, that petitions written by ignorant individuals give rise to many more problems than those prepared by competent professionals. At least one knows exactly what they are contesting.

In conclusion, the self-defense of Karadzic will at least have one merit: it will cause repercussions at the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia, inducing it to implement procedural modifications that allow for just sentencing but without excessive delay. If the defendant wishes to defend himself personally, he should only do so during the closing allegations, once all the evidence has been gathered, when the defendant can say exactly what he wants, before sentencing.

“Neopatriotism”, Bush and Obama

(written in 10-11-08)

At one particular time or another, somebody creates a new term. If it is a good idea, it “takes on”. It becomes incorporated into the language. It takes its place in dictionaries and enriches and harmonizes communication. The new word is even useful for saving energy from the point of view of muscle use. It saves the diaphragm, tongue, lips and even arm movements - principally if the vigorous speaker is Italian - if you will pardon my pleonasm. It is popular belief - not yet scientifically proven simply because nobody has shown an interest in the task - that these passionate Europeans and their descendents gesticulate to a greater degree than peoples of other races. In all certainty, more than those of restrained Japanese, English and Nordic origin.

I have long concerned myself with the idea that humanity is in need of a new form of communication; or, even better, a new brain. Yes, a new brain, already with billions of extra neurons at birth, for if it were not so, however much the individual studies, he or she will not be able to accompany the vertiginous advance of human knowledge. Man, even if cultured, is currently badly informed - because he is incapable of assimilating, analyzing and synthesizing the huge mass of news and knowledge that cannot find space in the thin layer (between one and four millimeters) of the cortex. As a consequence, he will make erroneous or only partially correct judgments regarding almost everything: about himself and about others; in choosing leaders, in elections; about which legislation is most suitable from the point of view of general interest; what really is “general interest” (an extremely difficult distinction); the exercise of a profession; choice of a spouse or equivalent; diet, etc, etc.

There are those that predict that, with the passing of time (I have already touched on this subject in another article), the computer, very much quicker and more rational than human beings, will take over the reins of power, it only being necessary for its artificial “intelligence” to advance to the point of self-awareness for this to actually happen. At the present time, such an idea may seem to be exaggeration or science fiction, but it is a real possibility in the scientific field. Furthermore, going beyond this, it may be that future scientists will be able add corresponding Ethics to artificial intelligence, to a degree that is greater than that which we currently exhibit, inherent in living beings. Perhaps it will not be necessary for scientists to program such Ethics, as this is not the enemy of rationality - just the opposite. There is no reason to presume that, once artificial intelligence has been created, this will not spontaneously “segregate” a purer form of ethics, free of contamination by such instinctive, glandular influences as envy, carnal jealousy, thirst for vengeance and the like. Following the creation of complete artificial intelligence, it will only remain for information technology scientists to take the precaution of keeping a button within reach that will deactivate the supercomputers in the event that they intend to initiate a “great rebellion”. Nevertheless, autonomously intelligent computers will serve as lucid coordinators of think tanks, thinking at a velocity that is one thousand times greater than that achieved by their slow-witted flesh and blood colleagues.

Considering that the aforementioned advance will only occur many decades or centuries in the future, dependent as it is on advances in the genetic engineering field or the well-intentioned handling of stem cells, we remain, for the time being, with the question of “neologisms”, these synthesizers of new ideas.

Patriotism is a highly valued word. It expresses an idea that is already associated with an emotion. It suggests altruism, self-sacrifice for one’s country. When Samuel Johnson, the great English essayist and lexicographer, said that patriotism may be the “the last refuge of a scoundrel”, he was attacking the scoundrel, the blasphemer; not patriotism itself, this being a word that, when pronounced, deserves a certain aura of respect.

However, the world has turned many times. It has become ever-more unified and globalized. That which happens in one country has repercussions on others. The last American presidential election appeared to be a global election, with people from all continents giving voice to their “vote” in favor of the candidate who most “represents” them, in a manner of speaking. In view of its power, a well-led United States of America means greater potential happiness for all other countries. One more sign that, without even noticing, we are moving in the direction of a global (obviously democratic) federation. When the USA errs, it is not only North-Americans that suffer.

The old patriotism - that which only takes the advantages of its own country into account - is already outdated, even pernicious. In the medium or long term, it backfires. Hence the almost euphoria shown by young people and idealists throughout the world following the victory of Barack Obama, who promises to engage in dialogue even with those considered to be “evil”. One should not forget that, almost without exception, those considered to be “evil” sincerely imagine themselves to be “good”. For example, does the terrorist walking to his death wearing an explosive-laden vest imagine himself to be a bandit? Enmity may originate from an invincible feeling of being wronged. Only intense and frank dialogue, with necessary and fair concessions, can remove the detonator that will cause the explosion, killing in a non-selective manner.

As far as I am concerned, Obama represents “neopatriotism”. Instead of simply “crushing” those who look at us with hatred, also try to understand the origin of this hatred. Who knows, maybe there is some kind of valid reason for so much resentment. If there is, we acknowledge our mistake. We concede to that which should be conceded. Only if there is no injustice underlying the animosity, if terrorism is simply the fruit of despotism, bad faith or gangsterism, will it be appropriate to use force, even devastating force. “Neopatriotism” does not mean weakness or passivity. It only means awareness that the world is ever more unified, whether we like it or not. It is an immense social organism which, in a similar manner to biological organisms, will only be able to grow successfully when all its individual parts interact in harmony. And the United Nations Organization has still not attained this degree of scope. It needs to do this as soon as possible. The current global financial crisis has provided proof of such a need. Otherwise, without a conscience to orientate or re-orientate the so-called “invisible hand” of market economies, or the roguish “imbecilic hand” of certain financial “wise-guys”, we will have ungoverned economic growth, oppression, revolt and conflicts. Cancer enjoys total independence in its growth; it is an excellent example of an unrestrained being, but not even for this reason is it a model for humanity. When uncontrolled, it ends up in a coffin. It kills its host, but it also dies.

George W. Bush and his Vice President, Cheney, represent to old style of patriotism (maybe even well-intentioned). In his prayers, before going to sleep, W. Bush probably asks himself, in his conversations with God: “Lord, where did I go wrong? Did I act wrongly when, thinking of the well being of the American people (who I hold so dear), I altered or “forced” the “truth” regarding the cause and effect relationship between September 11th and Saddam Hussein? In truth, I lied, but with unswerving patriotic intent. What is so reprehensible in this? What statesman, at any time or in any country, has not lied, to a greater of lesser degree, in order to benefit the interests of his country? If I lied to my own people, it is because I could not openly say that I was lying. I could not make one address to those outside my country and another to those inside it. It would be an aberration, contradictory. I acted like a good attorney, who can even lie in benefit of his client. After all, with the invasion, which did not exactly have the desired outcome, I gave the Middle East a good “shaking up”. The modernization of Iraq will infect the whole neighborhood. I brought down a cruel tyrant and, at the same time, tried to benefit my country, disconcertingly dependent upon Middle Eastern oil. Is there something wrong with being a patriot, diminishing this lack of security? If Osama Bin Laden had not encouraged Iraqi resistance, I might have been considered the statesman of the century. I ran a risk and paid the price. “Sorry, but I do not feel that I am to blame...”

It is highly likely that he still thinks like this. The victim of an outdated viewpoint, of being mistaken: he is not aware that everything in this world has evolved, including the concept of patriotism. The planet is moving towards a single world, although he just cannot see it.

Walter Cronkite, the famous American journalist and an advocate of world government, when referring to those who considered such an idea to be utopian and “impractical”, retorted: “what is so “practical” about war?” The problem is that, in order to prevent wars, it is necessary to give a new meaning to patriotism.