(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)
No comments:
Post a Comment