(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.
Monday, March 16, 2009
“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.
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.
Crimes and sovereignty
I have highly illustrious precursors, including Kant, when I never tire of insisting that, to an ever greater extent, nations need to renounce large portions of their sovereignty in favor of a global democratic federation, in order that the world may be less chaotic, unjust and self-destructive (see pollution).
This is not “mere” idealism; utopian propensity; fanciful optimism (in the style of J. J. Rousseau, where man is born essentially good and subsequently corrupted by society); altruism and the like. Man is both good and evil, in varying proportions, according to genetic makeup, education (formal and informal), the cocktail of beatings and caresses received since childhood and assessment of the legal and social advantages or risks that surround his activities. If it is advantageous to be good, either here or in the afterlife, he is, even if basically not so. He dances according to the music being played. But that’s enough of generalizations; the reader has no time to waste.
When a law student, I was highly impressed by the fact that a foreign citizen, duly sentenced by the courts of his country, was able to move freely about Brazil, make a Brazilian woman pregnant, father a son and, as a result, free himself from the threat of extradition and completing his sentence. It seemed to me to be the easiest and most enjoyable preventive “habeas corpus” in the world. At liberty thanks to a gratuitous, illiterate, but for all that extremely effective, unqualified attorney, the respected “Mr. Spermatozoid”.
Ronald Biggs, an engaging Englishman, who took part in the multi-million pound Great Train Robbery of 1963, was one such case. After serving a few months of his prison sentence in the United Kingdom, he scaled the wall and fled to Australia. As he certainly did not feel safe in that country, which has strong ties with England, he ended up residing in Brazil, after becoming aware that several benevolent legal concessions exist here that are well-suited to his case. He became emotionally involved with a good-hearted nightclub dancer, made her pregnant and, as a result, guaranteed that he would be able to stay in the country. The British government sought his extradition, however, as Biggs’ son was his dependant (of course...), and no extradition treaty existed between the two countries (the old problem of sovereignties), the fugitive continued to live here for as long as he wanted. Free and (according the respective Wikipedia webpage) charging anyone who so desired sixty dollars to have lunch and a chat with a “celebrity”. According to information provided by the fugitive himself, his portion of the loot had been reduced to a minimal sum, as a result of attorney’s fees and other expenses related to his fight against returning to prison. Nevertheless, when his longing for his homeland became unsupportable, he returned to England and ended up being imprisoned. Now old, sick and debilitated, photos of him aroused compassion in those of a more sensitive disposition and inclined to pardon.
What is interesting here (someone needs to write an academic thesis on this sociological phenomenon) is that a large portion of society, principally Rio society, even adulated him, considering his personal appeal and audacity for having participated in a robbery the current value of which is equivalent to more than one hundred million reals. “Success”, in any of its forms - political, economic, sporting, artistic or “congenially criminal” - legitimizes any kind of act. In the First World, male cinema artists, in order to reinforce their reputation as “tough guys”, liked to be seen at shows and restaurants in the company of high-ranking members of the Mafia. The affectation of adding an air of shadowy danger to their status. This occurred in the case of Frank Sinatra, Alain Delon and other inflamers of female hearts. A fictional English politician, feeling that he was being more than a little blackmailed by the person who was speaking to him, mentioned, wishing to impress, that he had contacts “in high places”. To which the other replied, with assurance, that he also had contacts, but “in low places”. This is something far more intimidating, as evil can be inflicted with the power and speed of a lightning bolt, without any bureaucratic hindrances.
That which was mentioned regarding extradition only goes to show, in summary, that in the difficult harmonization of sovereignties, crime very often goes unpunished, or very nearly so. This, at least in theory, would not occur if there were a global federation or confederation, with worldwide jurisdiction.
Another example facilitating impunity lies in the setbacks faced by state prosecutors when they are overruled or delayed in their attempts to recover large amounts of money deposited abroad. Given that the money can be transferred to another bank or even another country in a matter of seconds, with a simple mouse click on a computer, the diligent prosecutor almost always arrives too late with his petition for freezing deposits made by those availing themselves of public money. While the prosecutor studies the banking legislation of the country where the money is to be found - wrestling with a language in which he is not fluent - and once again prepares a request for its return, the money in question has already been sent to another bank. And so everything starts all over again. Even the private creditor of a millionaire debtor, who has financial resources scattered all over the world, cannot manage to make demands or even subpoena the important debtor, making his credit – even if judged to be without further recourse to appeal – a very nice sum without any real significance.
Extraditions are subject to the influence of the international prestige of the countries involved. In the case of the Canadians who were arrested and sentenced for kidnapping a famous São Paulo businessman, the Canadian government managed to arrange that they be repatriated in order to serve their sentence in their own country, with probably benevolent consequences. If, however, a group of Brazilians were arrested, in Canada or the United States, after carrying out kidnappings, it is highly probable that the Brazilian government will not be able to extradite them. With Bush as president, it would certainly not be possible.
Even horrendous homicides end up being almost unpunished as result of this “excess” of sovereignty, with each country living in its own isolated world – pure political schizophrenia.
Look at the 1981 case of the Japanese Issei Sagawa, who, in Paris, killed and “raped” (in fact, he technically violated a corpse) an attractive female Dutch student, a colleague of his at Université Censier in the city. He did this because the Dutch girl (who assisted him with translations at the time, in his apartment), refused his advances full of passion and libido. Issei, who has the appearance of a somewhat developed dwarf with a large head (I’ve seen a photo of him), was 1.48 m tall and weighed 44 kilos, very much less than the Dutch girl. The girl, seeing him as only a colleague, ordered him to concentrate on the work they were doing. The Japanese got up, took a 0.22 caliber rifle out of a cupboard behind the girl, and shot her in the back of the neck. Following this, he had sex with the cadaver and then cut off the lips, nose, breasts and private parts, storing them in the freezer of his refrigerator for future consumption. And he actually ate a large part of this flesh prior to being arrested. He had this strange compulsion, associating the sex act with the act of eating. The case in question is briefly described in the book written by Canadian writer Max Haines, in Book V of his series entitled “True Crime Stories”. The story appears on page 121, in the chapter “Fantasies Turn to Cannibalism”. It’s a pity that this series has not been translated into Portuguese.
After cutting up the girl’s body, the accused placed these mortal remains in two suitcases, which he transported by taxi. He intended to throw their macabre contents into a nearby lake. In the street, on leaving the taxi, he noted that people were looking with mistrust at that small Japanese figure dragging two suitcases that were much too heavy for him. Startled, he abandoned the suitcases on the sidewalk, thinking that there was no evidence of him being linked to the homicide. The police only found him because, on reading the newspaper headlines, the taxi driver remembered this strange oriental man and took the initiative of informing the authorities.
Following the gathering of irrefutable evidence against him (found in his small apartment, principally in the refrigerator), Issei confessed to the crime but was considered to be crazy and not responsible for his actions, even though he was a cultured and intelligent man. He was fluent in German and French, present in France for his doctorate degree in Japanese influence on French literature. The judge determine that he be committed to a psychiatric institution.
Issei was the son of a rich Japanese industrialist. After spending three years in an asylum, his father managed to arrange for his extradition to Japan, under the condition that he remain confined in a sanatorium for the mentally sick. However, following 15 months of internment, he was discharged. The Japanese doctors concluded that he was normal. France could do nothing as each country has its own sovereignty. And, after all, what does being “crazy” really signify?
After his release (according to Max Haines), Issei Sagawa wrote several books on his favorite topic - cannibalism. It is likely that the victim’s family (whose name I will not mention here, out of respect for the suffering of others) does not have a very high opinion of either the seriousness of Psychiatry as a profession or those intimate with the pompous word “sovereignty”, generally pronounced in a solemn tone of voice.
On the other hand, the family of Issei likely thought that everyone deserves a second chance. After all, the Japanese guy spent four and a half in asylums for the mentally sick as someone “normal” according to the psychiatrists of his country. In all certainty, there will be those that think Issei became crazy as a result of unrequited love. Someone once said that “Man is the fire, woman the tow, and the Devil comes and fans the flames.”
(12-4-2006)
This is not “mere” idealism; utopian propensity; fanciful optimism (in the style of J. J. Rousseau, where man is born essentially good and subsequently corrupted by society); altruism and the like. Man is both good and evil, in varying proportions, according to genetic makeup, education (formal and informal), the cocktail of beatings and caresses received since childhood and assessment of the legal and social advantages or risks that surround his activities. If it is advantageous to be good, either here or in the afterlife, he is, even if basically not so. He dances according to the music being played. But that’s enough of generalizations; the reader has no time to waste.
When a law student, I was highly impressed by the fact that a foreign citizen, duly sentenced by the courts of his country, was able to move freely about Brazil, make a Brazilian woman pregnant, father a son and, as a result, free himself from the threat of extradition and completing his sentence. It seemed to me to be the easiest and most enjoyable preventive “habeas corpus” in the world. At liberty thanks to a gratuitous, illiterate, but for all that extremely effective, unqualified attorney, the respected “Mr. Spermatozoid”.
Ronald Biggs, an engaging Englishman, who took part in the multi-million pound Great Train Robbery of 1963, was one such case. After serving a few months of his prison sentence in the United Kingdom, he scaled the wall and fled to Australia. As he certainly did not feel safe in that country, which has strong ties with England, he ended up residing in Brazil, after becoming aware that several benevolent legal concessions exist here that are well-suited to his case. He became emotionally involved with a good-hearted nightclub dancer, made her pregnant and, as a result, guaranteed that he would be able to stay in the country. The British government sought his extradition, however, as Biggs’ son was his dependant (of course...), and no extradition treaty existed between the two countries (the old problem of sovereignties), the fugitive continued to live here for as long as he wanted. Free and (according the respective Wikipedia webpage) charging anyone who so desired sixty dollars to have lunch and a chat with a “celebrity”. According to information provided by the fugitive himself, his portion of the loot had been reduced to a minimal sum, as a result of attorney’s fees and other expenses related to his fight against returning to prison. Nevertheless, when his longing for his homeland became unsupportable, he returned to England and ended up being imprisoned. Now old, sick and debilitated, photos of him aroused compassion in those of a more sensitive disposition and inclined to pardon.
What is interesting here (someone needs to write an academic thesis on this sociological phenomenon) is that a large portion of society, principally Rio society, even adulated him, considering his personal appeal and audacity for having participated in a robbery the current value of which is equivalent to more than one hundred million reals. “Success”, in any of its forms - political, economic, sporting, artistic or “congenially criminal” - legitimizes any kind of act. In the First World, male cinema artists, in order to reinforce their reputation as “tough guys”, liked to be seen at shows and restaurants in the company of high-ranking members of the Mafia. The affectation of adding an air of shadowy danger to their status. This occurred in the case of Frank Sinatra, Alain Delon and other inflamers of female hearts. A fictional English politician, feeling that he was being more than a little blackmailed by the person who was speaking to him, mentioned, wishing to impress, that he had contacts “in high places”. To which the other replied, with assurance, that he also had contacts, but “in low places”. This is something far more intimidating, as evil can be inflicted with the power and speed of a lightning bolt, without any bureaucratic hindrances.
That which was mentioned regarding extradition only goes to show, in summary, that in the difficult harmonization of sovereignties, crime very often goes unpunished, or very nearly so. This, at least in theory, would not occur if there were a global federation or confederation, with worldwide jurisdiction.
Another example facilitating impunity lies in the setbacks faced by state prosecutors when they are overruled or delayed in their attempts to recover large amounts of money deposited abroad. Given that the money can be transferred to another bank or even another country in a matter of seconds, with a simple mouse click on a computer, the diligent prosecutor almost always arrives too late with his petition for freezing deposits made by those availing themselves of public money. While the prosecutor studies the banking legislation of the country where the money is to be found - wrestling with a language in which he is not fluent - and once again prepares a request for its return, the money in question has already been sent to another bank. And so everything starts all over again. Even the private creditor of a millionaire debtor, who has financial resources scattered all over the world, cannot manage to make demands or even subpoena the important debtor, making his credit – even if judged to be without further recourse to appeal – a very nice sum without any real significance.
Extraditions are subject to the influence of the international prestige of the countries involved. In the case of the Canadians who were arrested and sentenced for kidnapping a famous São Paulo businessman, the Canadian government managed to arrange that they be repatriated in order to serve their sentence in their own country, with probably benevolent consequences. If, however, a group of Brazilians were arrested, in Canada or the United States, after carrying out kidnappings, it is highly probable that the Brazilian government will not be able to extradite them. With Bush as president, it would certainly not be possible.
Even horrendous homicides end up being almost unpunished as result of this “excess” of sovereignty, with each country living in its own isolated world – pure political schizophrenia.
Look at the 1981 case of the Japanese Issei Sagawa, who, in Paris, killed and “raped” (in fact, he technically violated a corpse) an attractive female Dutch student, a colleague of his at Université Censier in the city. He did this because the Dutch girl (who assisted him with translations at the time, in his apartment), refused his advances full of passion and libido. Issei, who has the appearance of a somewhat developed dwarf with a large head (I’ve seen a photo of him), was 1.48 m tall and weighed 44 kilos, very much less than the Dutch girl. The girl, seeing him as only a colleague, ordered him to concentrate on the work they were doing. The Japanese got up, took a 0.22 caliber rifle out of a cupboard behind the girl, and shot her in the back of the neck. Following this, he had sex with the cadaver and then cut off the lips, nose, breasts and private parts, storing them in the freezer of his refrigerator for future consumption. And he actually ate a large part of this flesh prior to being arrested. He had this strange compulsion, associating the sex act with the act of eating. The case in question is briefly described in the book written by Canadian writer Max Haines, in Book V of his series entitled “True Crime Stories”. The story appears on page 121, in the chapter “Fantasies Turn to Cannibalism”. It’s a pity that this series has not been translated into Portuguese.
After cutting up the girl’s body, the accused placed these mortal remains in two suitcases, which he transported by taxi. He intended to throw their macabre contents into a nearby lake. In the street, on leaving the taxi, he noted that people were looking with mistrust at that small Japanese figure dragging two suitcases that were much too heavy for him. Startled, he abandoned the suitcases on the sidewalk, thinking that there was no evidence of him being linked to the homicide. The police only found him because, on reading the newspaper headlines, the taxi driver remembered this strange oriental man and took the initiative of informing the authorities.
Following the gathering of irrefutable evidence against him (found in his small apartment, principally in the refrigerator), Issei confessed to the crime but was considered to be crazy and not responsible for his actions, even though he was a cultured and intelligent man. He was fluent in German and French, present in France for his doctorate degree in Japanese influence on French literature. The judge determine that he be committed to a psychiatric institution.
Issei was the son of a rich Japanese industrialist. After spending three years in an asylum, his father managed to arrange for his extradition to Japan, under the condition that he remain confined in a sanatorium for the mentally sick. However, following 15 months of internment, he was discharged. The Japanese doctors concluded that he was normal. France could do nothing as each country has its own sovereignty. And, after all, what does being “crazy” really signify?
After his release (according to Max Haines), Issei Sagawa wrote several books on his favorite topic - cannibalism. It is likely that the victim’s family (whose name I will not mention here, out of respect for the suffering of others) does not have a very high opinion of either the seriousness of Psychiatry as a profession or those intimate with the pompous word “sovereignty”, generally pronounced in a solemn tone of voice.
On the other hand, the family of Issei likely thought that everyone deserves a second chance. After all, the Japanese guy spent four and a half in asylums for the mentally sick as someone “normal” according to the psychiatrists of his country. In all certainty, there will be those that think Issei became crazy as a result of unrequited love. Someone once said that “Man is the fire, woman the tow, and the Devil comes and fans the flames.”
(12-4-2006)
The Idealism of Oscar Niemeyer
(written in 01-29-08)
The left-wing monthly magazine “Caros Amigos”, which I have only just read, but dates from July 2006, published an extensive and intelligent interview with the famous architect Oscar Niemeyer, considered, almost unanimously, to be a genius in his profession. As everyone knows, Niemeyer is a communist who has never attempted to conceal his convictions. These convictions are vigorously and fearlessly defended (he is one of the few people with the courage to stand up for Stalin), it being impossible to doubt his sincerity. He says what he thinks. Besides this, he does not attempt to appear more than he really is, a very common weakness when people are interviewed. The understandable concern to shine, to appear more intelligent or cultivated than one really is, does not even pass through Niemeyer’s mind. Greater authenticity is impossible.
Precisely because he is intelligent, ordinary and sincere, that which he expressed in the interview can be considered as the epitome of the socialist set of ideas. And it is this set of ideas that we will examine in this article.
The socialist ideal, when really felt and held (as in the case of Niemeyer, Luis Carlos Prestes, Trotsky and innumerous others), does not have a definite “birthday” or point of origin. In all certainty, our cave-dwelling ancestors already differed amongst themselves in terms of human solidarity. Perhaps certain aged Neanderthals, already toothless at 38 years of age, weakened and incapable of hunting, ate better than their equivalents in the neighboring cave. Nuances of concept - “scientific socialism”, for example – may have dates (an event, a speech, a book, etc), but here we are dealing with an ideal in its widest, most spontaneous and – if we have the courage to use the word - most sentimental form.
The ordinary vision of brutal inequality, the humiliation of the poor and unemployed, has had considerable influence in nurturing socialism. It is impossible to deny the importance of compassion, a feeling that dispenses with theoretical education. Due to intellectual pride, the great theorizers of socialism strive to minimize this most “trivial” fundamental aspect of their doctrine. They deal with the subject in an abstract manner, like great social scientists. Almost geometricians, they use arguments that are sometimes difficult to follow, practically only accessible to professors of sociology and economics.
Happily, this is not the case with Niemeyer, still as coherent and lucid in his interview as he has been throughout his one hundred years of life. He really feels sorry for those who are poor and needy. And he makes this very clear. He despises capitalism, ardently desires its immediate extinction and is sympathetic to any government that intends to make its country fully socialist. If he read the interview, Hugo Chavez would likely have drawn strength from it.
Following this introduction, and recognizing the individual value of this great artist in reinforced concrete, there is a need for a few arguments in disagreement.
The weak point in socialist theory lies in the assumption that man is an essentially just, altruistic, benevolent and impartial being, showing solidarity with his fellow men. This is not what we find in the real world. Man is “essentially” the contrary of this list of virtues. He is still dominated by instinctive animal responses. A minimal part of his soul is concerned with solidarity with his fellow men. At least at the beginning of this century, what is evident is an anxiety to be or have (more “have” than “be”) more than one’s neighbor. Almost everyone aspires to “differentiated treatment”. Banks are well aware of this and classify their clients by number of stars (without showing any fear of offending their more modest account holders). Perhaps they are not worried about aggrieving their poorer clients because it is not they that choose the bank, it is their bosses. A small number of stars means more delays and fewer smiles, comfortable seats and cups of coffee. And if the bank, in an impetuous show of egalitarianism, came to treat all clients in the same manner, it is possible that it would subsequently lament this “excess democracy”, as it would lose some of its best clients.
It will be said that this vulgar “ardent desire for differentiation” is exclusively associated with capitalism - “this renegade regime” – and something nonexistent in socialism, it not being possible to say that such pride is inherent in human nature. However, this is not exactly true. Everyone knows that, prior to the fall of the European “communist world”, high-ranking employees of the communist party enjoyed privileges that were inaccessible to mere workers. The “nomenclature elite” had advantages that contradicted the intended equality preached by the regime. Such differentiation was denounced by writers who, for this reason, brought down the wrath of satellite governments on their heads. At the time when communism was at its height in the Soviet Union, bureaucrats pretended to piously believe in Marxist theories and the speeches of their leaders. When communism fell, there were almost no protests. “Ideological conversion” was immediate, providing evidence that the Marxist conviction demonstrated previously, over a number of years, was simply a desire for comfort and power, a wish to rise in the established hierarchy. To minds such as these, Karl Marx was only a ticket to commence their journey. In all certainty, the wives of these employees (generally more skeptical and realistic than their husbands) were well aware of such things and pushed them forward in this direction. They did not want to be inferior to their friends.
Given that man is still encumbered (for how much longer?) with the instinctive, animal and avaricious onus of intending to be something more than his neighbor - at least in terms of wealth and well being - it is not yet prudent to encourage ideas regarding the formation of wholly socialist or communist countries. Being far too elegant, the theoretical suit of clothes just would not fit the naked hunchback with dirty nails. Besides this, the creation of a communist state at the present time - in the style intended by a Hugo Chavez -would only lead to wars or arms races, in a world that is ever more tormented by fear.
It should not be forgotten that socialism, exactly because it is more concerned with the distribution of wealth than its creation, does not have the economic capacity to compete, in material terms, with the capitalist world. Countries that are uncompromisingly socialist are always poor. Winston Churchill once said that the inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
Wars are costly. They consume a great deal, and not only human blood. Modern technology, extremely sophisticated, requires an enormous amount of financial resources for the construction of aircraft that even dispense with the presence of a pilot. During the first war in Iraq, Iraqi tanks were easily hit by American fire. The Iraqis had no idea exactly where the rockets came from, in order to fire back at the enemy. Their technology was only sufficient for fighting the Iranians, not for confronting the United States. The USA, being technologically precautious, did not teach Saddam more than they believed that he needed to know. The marksmanship was not that of the American soldier, but a computer, which never missed its target. As a mere horrific hypothesis, should the Americans wish to annihilate Venezuela, they would be able to accomplish this in a few hours. They do not act in this way solely for political and economic considerations that it would take too long to go into here, and you the reader know them better than I. Mention is only made of this destructive potential in order to emphasize that, at the present time, making warlike threats against the capitalist world is an infantile procedure. If he is intelligent, Chavez should improve his manners, calming rather than challenging his main petroleum client. Precisely because capitalism has a side that is useful, forceful and advantageous for humanity. One just does not throw out such a great source of energy. And capitalism is exactly this: a social technique for the release of energy.
To those who tolerate the use of metaphors, I would like to take the liberty of saying that the energy released by capitalism has a certain similarity to the force liberated by the atom. Although the latter is minimal in size, it has in its interior a “disproportional” amount of energy which, if put to good use, could illuminate the whole planet if one so desired. Irrespective of whether it is nuclear or individual in nature, energy is equally capable of serving to the benefit or detriment of mankind. It only depends on who is responsible for handling it.
To the contrary of socialism, capitalism liberates the citizen - this small social “atom” - to invent and undertake whatever it is that he or she sees fit, as long as this does not cause any evident verifiable damage to the community. Besides this, in all races and populations, there is a small percentage of people with creative minds (or minds that are terribly persistent in their efforts) who, even when they egoistically only think of themselves and their families, end up constructing things and inventing techniques that, when successful, spur their countries forward with a vigorous impulse. As such discoveries and innovations would not result in any profits if they remained inactive, they end up being patented and transformed in realities that give rise to technological advances. Who invented the cell phone? I don’t know, but obviously the initial idea came from one individual or several people. If it were the case that such people had to wait for orders from the government - “invent this thing!” - progress would be very slow. The bureaucracy inherent in socialism (more concerned with avoiding a situation where some individuals become more wealthy than others), suffocates a large part of individual creativity or productivity.
Given that people vary a great deal in their physical, intellectual and moral attributes, a regime that imposes a particular philosophy (maintaining vigilance in order to ensure that all individuals remain “equal”) ends up placing the country in fetters. It is this that occurred with socialism in its pure state in the now-extinct Soviet Union.
Therefore, China appears to be taking the right path, with its hybrid system of permitting the harmonious coexistence of two regimes. China recognized that man - with all his defects associated with egoism - needs to be free in order to produce and generate wealth. Once wealth is created, a portion that is understood to be most suitable (levied in the form of taxes) is deducted in order to maintain the State. The same thing occurs in Scandinavian countries, which manage to mix both systems, without any ostentation. Care is taken of the citizen from the cradle to the grave, but they accept the game of capitalism. No difficulties are put in the way of creating companies. Besides this, the system functions in a manner that is so ideal that the rich avoid any ostentation. In such countries, it is considered “unseemly” and “vulgar” to display one’s wealth. It is an aspect that others have to discover. On the other hand, those who receive unemployment benefit (a considerable amount by our standards) feel ashamed of this situation, and do not show any intention of continuing to receive payment without working for any length of time.
Of course, as a human being, a capitalist can be immensely avaricious. Once a highway has been privatized, and if left without any government supervision, the capitalist would install a toll booth every two hundred meters. Someone once said that capitalism is good but one should not trust capitalists. In order to avoid this economic “greed”, there are regulatory agencies that function - or should function - as the “super-ego” of capitalism. The State will always have mechanisms in place in order to clip the wings of those businesspeople most prone to unwholesome ambition.
However, capitalism also has its negative side: it brutalizes man. It transforms him into a machine for making money. The world becomes an arena. Even an envied CEO may have sleepless nights, worrying about “producing results” and attaining targets. If such targets are not attained, he is simply cast aside, no importance being given to any good excuses that are put forward. There will always be others who have the ambition to occupy his position. Young women of lesser status are forced, either directly or indirectly, to lie a little (or a lot) on the telephone, when the product they are trying to sell is not of very high quality. Even sex becomes a commercial article, in newspapers, on the Internet and inside and outside companies. Those who are able should look after themselves, because life is short and female beauty endures for an even shorter period of time. “Who will guarantee that my old age is free of embarrassment?”
If all this is true of capitalism, it is also true of socialism, but with the aggravating factor of greater poverty.
If we really want a world that is less imperfect, an image comes to mind that adequately summarizes the path to be followed: humanity is a boat in which the motor is capitalist, but the helmsman has socialist tendencies. Only tendencies (not fanaticism), because if he turns the wheel too far to the left, the boat will come to navigate in circles. Once all the provisions have been consumed, the crew and passengers will feel pangs of hunger. The only reason they do not get to the stage of cannibalism is that, prior to this, the desperate passengers will toss the helmsman into the sea.
The left-wing monthly magazine “Caros Amigos”, which I have only just read, but dates from July 2006, published an extensive and intelligent interview with the famous architect Oscar Niemeyer, considered, almost unanimously, to be a genius in his profession. As everyone knows, Niemeyer is a communist who has never attempted to conceal his convictions. These convictions are vigorously and fearlessly defended (he is one of the few people with the courage to stand up for Stalin), it being impossible to doubt his sincerity. He says what he thinks. Besides this, he does not attempt to appear more than he really is, a very common weakness when people are interviewed. The understandable concern to shine, to appear more intelligent or cultivated than one really is, does not even pass through Niemeyer’s mind. Greater authenticity is impossible.
Precisely because he is intelligent, ordinary and sincere, that which he expressed in the interview can be considered as the epitome of the socialist set of ideas. And it is this set of ideas that we will examine in this article.
The socialist ideal, when really felt and held (as in the case of Niemeyer, Luis Carlos Prestes, Trotsky and innumerous others), does not have a definite “birthday” or point of origin. In all certainty, our cave-dwelling ancestors already differed amongst themselves in terms of human solidarity. Perhaps certain aged Neanderthals, already toothless at 38 years of age, weakened and incapable of hunting, ate better than their equivalents in the neighboring cave. Nuances of concept - “scientific socialism”, for example – may have dates (an event, a speech, a book, etc), but here we are dealing with an ideal in its widest, most spontaneous and – if we have the courage to use the word - most sentimental form.
The ordinary vision of brutal inequality, the humiliation of the poor and unemployed, has had considerable influence in nurturing socialism. It is impossible to deny the importance of compassion, a feeling that dispenses with theoretical education. Due to intellectual pride, the great theorizers of socialism strive to minimize this most “trivial” fundamental aspect of their doctrine. They deal with the subject in an abstract manner, like great social scientists. Almost geometricians, they use arguments that are sometimes difficult to follow, practically only accessible to professors of sociology and economics.
Happily, this is not the case with Niemeyer, still as coherent and lucid in his interview as he has been throughout his one hundred years of life. He really feels sorry for those who are poor and needy. And he makes this very clear. He despises capitalism, ardently desires its immediate extinction and is sympathetic to any government that intends to make its country fully socialist. If he read the interview, Hugo Chavez would likely have drawn strength from it.
Following this introduction, and recognizing the individual value of this great artist in reinforced concrete, there is a need for a few arguments in disagreement.
The weak point in socialist theory lies in the assumption that man is an essentially just, altruistic, benevolent and impartial being, showing solidarity with his fellow men. This is not what we find in the real world. Man is “essentially” the contrary of this list of virtues. He is still dominated by instinctive animal responses. A minimal part of his soul is concerned with solidarity with his fellow men. At least at the beginning of this century, what is evident is an anxiety to be or have (more “have” than “be”) more than one’s neighbor. Almost everyone aspires to “differentiated treatment”. Banks are well aware of this and classify their clients by number of stars (without showing any fear of offending their more modest account holders). Perhaps they are not worried about aggrieving their poorer clients because it is not they that choose the bank, it is their bosses. A small number of stars means more delays and fewer smiles, comfortable seats and cups of coffee. And if the bank, in an impetuous show of egalitarianism, came to treat all clients in the same manner, it is possible that it would subsequently lament this “excess democracy”, as it would lose some of its best clients.
It will be said that this vulgar “ardent desire for differentiation” is exclusively associated with capitalism - “this renegade regime” – and something nonexistent in socialism, it not being possible to say that such pride is inherent in human nature. However, this is not exactly true. Everyone knows that, prior to the fall of the European “communist world”, high-ranking employees of the communist party enjoyed privileges that were inaccessible to mere workers. The “nomenclature elite” had advantages that contradicted the intended equality preached by the regime. Such differentiation was denounced by writers who, for this reason, brought down the wrath of satellite governments on their heads. At the time when communism was at its height in the Soviet Union, bureaucrats pretended to piously believe in Marxist theories and the speeches of their leaders. When communism fell, there were almost no protests. “Ideological conversion” was immediate, providing evidence that the Marxist conviction demonstrated previously, over a number of years, was simply a desire for comfort and power, a wish to rise in the established hierarchy. To minds such as these, Karl Marx was only a ticket to commence their journey. In all certainty, the wives of these employees (generally more skeptical and realistic than their husbands) were well aware of such things and pushed them forward in this direction. They did not want to be inferior to their friends.
Given that man is still encumbered (for how much longer?) with the instinctive, animal and avaricious onus of intending to be something more than his neighbor - at least in terms of wealth and well being - it is not yet prudent to encourage ideas regarding the formation of wholly socialist or communist countries. Being far too elegant, the theoretical suit of clothes just would not fit the naked hunchback with dirty nails. Besides this, the creation of a communist state at the present time - in the style intended by a Hugo Chavez -would only lead to wars or arms races, in a world that is ever more tormented by fear.
It should not be forgotten that socialism, exactly because it is more concerned with the distribution of wealth than its creation, does not have the economic capacity to compete, in material terms, with the capitalist world. Countries that are uncompromisingly socialist are always poor. Winston Churchill once said that the inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
Wars are costly. They consume a great deal, and not only human blood. Modern technology, extremely sophisticated, requires an enormous amount of financial resources for the construction of aircraft that even dispense with the presence of a pilot. During the first war in Iraq, Iraqi tanks were easily hit by American fire. The Iraqis had no idea exactly where the rockets came from, in order to fire back at the enemy. Their technology was only sufficient for fighting the Iranians, not for confronting the United States. The USA, being technologically precautious, did not teach Saddam more than they believed that he needed to know. The marksmanship was not that of the American soldier, but a computer, which never missed its target. As a mere horrific hypothesis, should the Americans wish to annihilate Venezuela, they would be able to accomplish this in a few hours. They do not act in this way solely for political and economic considerations that it would take too long to go into here, and you the reader know them better than I. Mention is only made of this destructive potential in order to emphasize that, at the present time, making warlike threats against the capitalist world is an infantile procedure. If he is intelligent, Chavez should improve his manners, calming rather than challenging his main petroleum client. Precisely because capitalism has a side that is useful, forceful and advantageous for humanity. One just does not throw out such a great source of energy. And capitalism is exactly this: a social technique for the release of energy.
To those who tolerate the use of metaphors, I would like to take the liberty of saying that the energy released by capitalism has a certain similarity to the force liberated by the atom. Although the latter is minimal in size, it has in its interior a “disproportional” amount of energy which, if put to good use, could illuminate the whole planet if one so desired. Irrespective of whether it is nuclear or individual in nature, energy is equally capable of serving to the benefit or detriment of mankind. It only depends on who is responsible for handling it.
To the contrary of socialism, capitalism liberates the citizen - this small social “atom” - to invent and undertake whatever it is that he or she sees fit, as long as this does not cause any evident verifiable damage to the community. Besides this, in all races and populations, there is a small percentage of people with creative minds (or minds that are terribly persistent in their efforts) who, even when they egoistically only think of themselves and their families, end up constructing things and inventing techniques that, when successful, spur their countries forward with a vigorous impulse. As such discoveries and innovations would not result in any profits if they remained inactive, they end up being patented and transformed in realities that give rise to technological advances. Who invented the cell phone? I don’t know, but obviously the initial idea came from one individual or several people. If it were the case that such people had to wait for orders from the government - “invent this thing!” - progress would be very slow. The bureaucracy inherent in socialism (more concerned with avoiding a situation where some individuals become more wealthy than others), suffocates a large part of individual creativity or productivity.
Given that people vary a great deal in their physical, intellectual and moral attributes, a regime that imposes a particular philosophy (maintaining vigilance in order to ensure that all individuals remain “equal”) ends up placing the country in fetters. It is this that occurred with socialism in its pure state in the now-extinct Soviet Union.
Therefore, China appears to be taking the right path, with its hybrid system of permitting the harmonious coexistence of two regimes. China recognized that man - with all his defects associated with egoism - needs to be free in order to produce and generate wealth. Once wealth is created, a portion that is understood to be most suitable (levied in the form of taxes) is deducted in order to maintain the State. The same thing occurs in Scandinavian countries, which manage to mix both systems, without any ostentation. Care is taken of the citizen from the cradle to the grave, but they accept the game of capitalism. No difficulties are put in the way of creating companies. Besides this, the system functions in a manner that is so ideal that the rich avoid any ostentation. In such countries, it is considered “unseemly” and “vulgar” to display one’s wealth. It is an aspect that others have to discover. On the other hand, those who receive unemployment benefit (a considerable amount by our standards) feel ashamed of this situation, and do not show any intention of continuing to receive payment without working for any length of time.
Of course, as a human being, a capitalist can be immensely avaricious. Once a highway has been privatized, and if left without any government supervision, the capitalist would install a toll booth every two hundred meters. Someone once said that capitalism is good but one should not trust capitalists. In order to avoid this economic “greed”, there are regulatory agencies that function - or should function - as the “super-ego” of capitalism. The State will always have mechanisms in place in order to clip the wings of those businesspeople most prone to unwholesome ambition.
However, capitalism also has its negative side: it brutalizes man. It transforms him into a machine for making money. The world becomes an arena. Even an envied CEO may have sleepless nights, worrying about “producing results” and attaining targets. If such targets are not attained, he is simply cast aside, no importance being given to any good excuses that are put forward. There will always be others who have the ambition to occupy his position. Young women of lesser status are forced, either directly or indirectly, to lie a little (or a lot) on the telephone, when the product they are trying to sell is not of very high quality. Even sex becomes a commercial article, in newspapers, on the Internet and inside and outside companies. Those who are able should look after themselves, because life is short and female beauty endures for an even shorter period of time. “Who will guarantee that my old age is free of embarrassment?”
If all this is true of capitalism, it is also true of socialism, but with the aggravating factor of greater poverty.
If we really want a world that is less imperfect, an image comes to mind that adequately summarizes the path to be followed: humanity is a boat in which the motor is capitalist, but the helmsman has socialist tendencies. Only tendencies (not fanaticism), because if he turns the wheel too far to the left, the boat will come to navigate in circles. Once all the provisions have been consumed, the crew and passengers will feel pangs of hunger. The only reason they do not get to the stage of cannibalism is that, prior to this, the desperate passengers will toss the helmsman into the sea.
Gaza: retaliation in kind for the shoe-throwing incident?
(written in 12-30-08)
In Iraq, when the journalist threw his shoes at Bush (an act that left me feeling revolted by its grossness, after all, there are limits that cannot be overstepped when it comes to the manner in which a protest is made against politicians visiting a country), I could not help thinking that something very concrete and serious would likely happen as a consequence of such an affront. The days passed and I was surprised at the absence of any kind of reprisal on the part of the proud American nation, rightly offended by this humiliating symbolic gesture which, although specifically directed against its president, indirectly offended the self-respect of a powerful nation, not accustomed to be publicly scorned, as in the case of the shoe-throwing incident, followed by words considered to be especially offensive (“dog!”) in the Arab world.
At the end of his mandate, it would be politically very difficult for Bush to personally and officially impose a “chastisement” befitting this personal affront which, I repeat, was unwarranted. Then the Israeli attacks against Hamas occurred in Gaza, with hundreds of deaths. So I thought, perhaps with exaggerated mistrust, could the hand of Bush be involved here, giving support, or even encouraging the attack against buildings and anything else related to Hamas? Tenacious American investigative journalism will perhaps show us, a few months or even years from now, the existence of some kind of link, not only vaguely suspicious, between the “shoe-throwing incident” and the Israeli attacks in Gaza. Although the affront occurred in Iraq and not in the area that is currently under attack, there is evident identification (in the eyes of Bush) between the assailant journalist and the political tendencies of Hamas, a mortal enemy of the American government.
I hope (in all sincerity, although this may be hard to believe) that even the most “inquisitive” journalists are unable to find this kind of connection between one thing and another, which would only aggravate the far from satisfactory biography of an American politician who, deep down (very deep down), only desired the “best” for his country, although in not a very intelligent manner.
As I have already mentioned in previous articles, Bush is (or rather, was, given that he no longer has any kind of future) a politician who is the victim of his own weak judgment and character. A consequence of nepotism in the political arena. If he were not the son of an ex-president, he would not have risen as far as he did. If he blatantly lied prior to invading Iraq, he did it “in good faith”, as a “good courageous patriot” (justifying his actions in this way), with a view to reducing the alarming need for oil of his country. It seems funny that everyone is against nepotism, but not in the political field, which is exactly where it can be the most damaging, as decisions made by the “nepot” affect millions. Political parties anxiously seek surnames of substance, the sons of great politicians (giving little importance to their individual characteristics), as they know how much reverential awe for “blue blood” continues to be present in the “bones” of the electorate. And, in the case of Bush, the wish to demonstrate his worth to his father ended up aggravating his poor judgment, due to the military and economic might of his country. In summary, Bush occupied a position that far exceeded his natural potential. It is to be hoped that this serves as an attenuating circumstance in the judgment of History.
While on the subject of lack of judgment, I have always been intrigued (age makes me ever more mistrusting) regarding the immense stupidity (the term is crude but pertinent) of Hamas in continuing to fire its rockets against Israel. With almost no significant consequences. If I am not mistaken, there was only one Jewish fatality in recent attacks, prior to the aerial retaliation. An Egyptian authority was also surprised at this absurd strategy of firing rockets that almost always serve to cause alarm. Repeating an Egyptian proverb, he said that “if you can’t kill the dog, don’t keep pulling its tail”.
If there have not been any significant bellicose benefits for Hamas (i.e., the death of many Jews), such rockets have been of enormous benefit to the Israeli government, providing it with justification (real or apparent, or a mixture of both) for full-scale attacks against the Palestinians. To date, it is said that there are around three hundred dead and seven hundred wounded as a result of Israeli attacks involving the use of aircraft and helicopters armed with missiles. Repeating myself: for one Israeli death, three hundred Palestinian deaths, together with seven hundred wounded. Only an enormous lack of discernment could justify this strategy adopted by Hamas.
It should be remembered that, in a situation of armed conflict, discussions that are of real importance (for example, peace in Palestine, with the creation of a Palestinian State) remain at a standstill. And the longer such discussions remain at a standstill, the better it is for those “hard line” “falcon” Israeli politicians who favor the expansionism necessary for building a great Jewish nation. With Hamas rockets causing a nuisance (more to the ears than anything else), more enlightened Israeli politicians, the “doves”, lose support.
Returning to the subject of mistrust (great scientific discoveries arose from the “mistrust” of more speculative human spirits regarding what might “lie behind” observable phenomena), such a hypothesis may be absurd, but could it be that Mossad is subtly encouraging the foolish Hamas policy of insisting to launch rockets that cause little damage to the enemy but delay a peace agreement. If I were a member of the Israeli intelligence service, if I lived with deep-seated hatred of the Palestinians, and if I considered the good of my country above any kind of ethical consideration (something that I do not do, if only because one day the farce will be exposed), the idea could pass though my mind of subtly infiltrating a few Mossad agents into the Hamas organization, with a view to always keeping the wound of hatred open - expressed in the form of rockets. Such repressed hatred would facilitate the conviction of Hamas that a “virile” attitude would not be that of dialogue, “lowering one’s head” and “obeying the infidel dog”, but rather one of “chastising” or at least “disconcerting” the Israelis “who drove us from our land”.
I do not know how deep investigative journalism is able to dig in Israel. Perhaps any such investigation, or the disclosure of what has been found, is minimal, given that the country in question feels a constant sense of disquiet, surrounded as it is by hostile nations. Any revelation of recondite underhand policy, such as that mentioned above, would not only be headline material, but would also threaten the actual survival of a country that still runs a certain degree of risk (albeit remote) of “disappearing from the map”, if denied the external support that it has been receiving to date. It is different, for example, from the exposure of an ugly secret in the government of the USA. There, a president may even find himself obliged to renounce his post. However, his renouncement would not affect the existence of his country. In the case of Israel, a large scale political scandal would have immense consequences. Any journalist who exposes an underhand move, such as the aforementioned infiltration for dishonest purposes, would really be acting as a traitor to the young nation. In the event that Mossad subtly encouraged, in one way or another, the Palestinian rocket attacks, such underhand dealings may only be exposed to the light of day several decades from now. And by historians, not journalists.
Well, I will end here. It is my ardent wish and desire that my speculations have no basis. Perhaps I have been watching too many spy films. I hope that Bush has not even moved a finger in the sense of suggesting an Israeli attack as retaliation in kind for the shoe-throwing incident during which he demonstrated such unexpected agility. It may be that many comment jokingly on the incident, saying that both the aggressor and the victim likely trained hard together, practicing the throwing technique used and the rapid evasive response. I also hope that those launching rockets in Gaza are only “foolish” on their own account, without the influence of the astute Israeli intelligence service - a model of effectiveness, capable of thinking the unthinkable.
Anyway, I will be paying close attention to the media. I find it strange that, to date, no mention has been made in the media of the tenebrous hypothesis that I put forward, in my infinite incredulity.
In Iraq, when the journalist threw his shoes at Bush (an act that left me feeling revolted by its grossness, after all, there are limits that cannot be overstepped when it comes to the manner in which a protest is made against politicians visiting a country), I could not help thinking that something very concrete and serious would likely happen as a consequence of such an affront. The days passed and I was surprised at the absence of any kind of reprisal on the part of the proud American nation, rightly offended by this humiliating symbolic gesture which, although specifically directed against its president, indirectly offended the self-respect of a powerful nation, not accustomed to be publicly scorned, as in the case of the shoe-throwing incident, followed by words considered to be especially offensive (“dog!”) in the Arab world.
At the end of his mandate, it would be politically very difficult for Bush to personally and officially impose a “chastisement” befitting this personal affront which, I repeat, was unwarranted. Then the Israeli attacks against Hamas occurred in Gaza, with hundreds of deaths. So I thought, perhaps with exaggerated mistrust, could the hand of Bush be involved here, giving support, or even encouraging the attack against buildings and anything else related to Hamas? Tenacious American investigative journalism will perhaps show us, a few months or even years from now, the existence of some kind of link, not only vaguely suspicious, between the “shoe-throwing incident” and the Israeli attacks in Gaza. Although the affront occurred in Iraq and not in the area that is currently under attack, there is evident identification (in the eyes of Bush) between the assailant journalist and the political tendencies of Hamas, a mortal enemy of the American government.
I hope (in all sincerity, although this may be hard to believe) that even the most “inquisitive” journalists are unable to find this kind of connection between one thing and another, which would only aggravate the far from satisfactory biography of an American politician who, deep down (very deep down), only desired the “best” for his country, although in not a very intelligent manner.
As I have already mentioned in previous articles, Bush is (or rather, was, given that he no longer has any kind of future) a politician who is the victim of his own weak judgment and character. A consequence of nepotism in the political arena. If he were not the son of an ex-president, he would not have risen as far as he did. If he blatantly lied prior to invading Iraq, he did it “in good faith”, as a “good courageous patriot” (justifying his actions in this way), with a view to reducing the alarming need for oil of his country. It seems funny that everyone is against nepotism, but not in the political field, which is exactly where it can be the most damaging, as decisions made by the “nepot” affect millions. Political parties anxiously seek surnames of substance, the sons of great politicians (giving little importance to their individual characteristics), as they know how much reverential awe for “blue blood” continues to be present in the “bones” of the electorate. And, in the case of Bush, the wish to demonstrate his worth to his father ended up aggravating his poor judgment, due to the military and economic might of his country. In summary, Bush occupied a position that far exceeded his natural potential. It is to be hoped that this serves as an attenuating circumstance in the judgment of History.
While on the subject of lack of judgment, I have always been intrigued (age makes me ever more mistrusting) regarding the immense stupidity (the term is crude but pertinent) of Hamas in continuing to fire its rockets against Israel. With almost no significant consequences. If I am not mistaken, there was only one Jewish fatality in recent attacks, prior to the aerial retaliation. An Egyptian authority was also surprised at this absurd strategy of firing rockets that almost always serve to cause alarm. Repeating an Egyptian proverb, he said that “if you can’t kill the dog, don’t keep pulling its tail”.
If there have not been any significant bellicose benefits for Hamas (i.e., the death of many Jews), such rockets have been of enormous benefit to the Israeli government, providing it with justification (real or apparent, or a mixture of both) for full-scale attacks against the Palestinians. To date, it is said that there are around three hundred dead and seven hundred wounded as a result of Israeli attacks involving the use of aircraft and helicopters armed with missiles. Repeating myself: for one Israeli death, three hundred Palestinian deaths, together with seven hundred wounded. Only an enormous lack of discernment could justify this strategy adopted by Hamas.
It should be remembered that, in a situation of armed conflict, discussions that are of real importance (for example, peace in Palestine, with the creation of a Palestinian State) remain at a standstill. And the longer such discussions remain at a standstill, the better it is for those “hard line” “falcon” Israeli politicians who favor the expansionism necessary for building a great Jewish nation. With Hamas rockets causing a nuisance (more to the ears than anything else), more enlightened Israeli politicians, the “doves”, lose support.
Returning to the subject of mistrust (great scientific discoveries arose from the “mistrust” of more speculative human spirits regarding what might “lie behind” observable phenomena), such a hypothesis may be absurd, but could it be that Mossad is subtly encouraging the foolish Hamas policy of insisting to launch rockets that cause little damage to the enemy but delay a peace agreement. If I were a member of the Israeli intelligence service, if I lived with deep-seated hatred of the Palestinians, and if I considered the good of my country above any kind of ethical consideration (something that I do not do, if only because one day the farce will be exposed), the idea could pass though my mind of subtly infiltrating a few Mossad agents into the Hamas organization, with a view to always keeping the wound of hatred open - expressed in the form of rockets. Such repressed hatred would facilitate the conviction of Hamas that a “virile” attitude would not be that of dialogue, “lowering one’s head” and “obeying the infidel dog”, but rather one of “chastising” or at least “disconcerting” the Israelis “who drove us from our land”.
I do not know how deep investigative journalism is able to dig in Israel. Perhaps any such investigation, or the disclosure of what has been found, is minimal, given that the country in question feels a constant sense of disquiet, surrounded as it is by hostile nations. Any revelation of recondite underhand policy, such as that mentioned above, would not only be headline material, but would also threaten the actual survival of a country that still runs a certain degree of risk (albeit remote) of “disappearing from the map”, if denied the external support that it has been receiving to date. It is different, for example, from the exposure of an ugly secret in the government of the USA. There, a president may even find himself obliged to renounce his post. However, his renouncement would not affect the existence of his country. In the case of Israel, a large scale political scandal would have immense consequences. Any journalist who exposes an underhand move, such as the aforementioned infiltration for dishonest purposes, would really be acting as a traitor to the young nation. In the event that Mossad subtly encouraged, in one way or another, the Palestinian rocket attacks, such underhand dealings may only be exposed to the light of day several decades from now. And by historians, not journalists.
Well, I will end here. It is my ardent wish and desire that my speculations have no basis. Perhaps I have been watching too many spy films. I hope that Bush has not even moved a finger in the sense of suggesting an Israeli attack as retaliation in kind for the shoe-throwing incident during which he demonstrated such unexpected agility. It may be that many comment jokingly on the incident, saying that both the aggressor and the victim likely trained hard together, practicing the throwing technique used and the rapid evasive response. I also hope that those launching rockets in Gaza are only “foolish” on their own account, without the influence of the astute Israeli intelligence service - a model of effectiveness, capable of thinking the unthinkable.
Anyway, I will be paying close attention to the media. I find it strange that, to date, no mention has been made in the media of the tenebrous hypothesis that I put forward, in my infinite incredulity.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Israeli Aggression in Gaza
(written in 6-1-09)
Human ingenuity is such that it is possible to extract some kind of benefit from the worst kind of poison. A single drop of snake venom is currently worth more than the equivalent amount of gold. As far as I know, the few existing breeders of the most dangerous species of snakes prosper as a result of their activities. They supply and export the precious liquid to laboratories producing antiophidic serums. It is a pity that human venom (much more lethal, as it is produced in the brain rather than the mouth) has not yet been fully industrialized. But we should not despair - the venomous and disproportional aggression in the Gaza Strip could still be a significant driving force (without the invader actually being aware of it) for development of a conflict resolution technique. An Evil that will be transformed into Good.
Showing, even unnecessarily, that Good may lie sleeping, latently, in Evil (although the opposite could also be true), we come to the sad scenario that is unfolding in the Gaza Strip.
There is no doubt that the Israeli attack is unjust, given its enormously disproportional nature. For each dead Israeli soldier, one hundred Palestinians become transformed into cadavers, without counting two hundred or more wounded. A Massacre. The invading tanks - the adjective is unnecessary, given that the Palestinians only have tanks for washing clothes; even though these are made unusable due to a shortage of water, cut off by the aggressors - are so thoroughly armored that is almost impossible to kill the soldiers that are inside them. Thus the incursion is practically a cowardly Israeli “jaunt”, a “picnic”, as already labeled in the media.
Alleged justification for the massacre lies in the fact that the Palestinians have been firing rockets which, although causing alarm, have not killed or even injured many Israelis in areas closest to the frontier.
When the Palestinian Authority (the moderate political wing, to the contrary of Hamas) governed the area in question, it did not manage to prevent the most hot-headed individuals (or those strangely induced to hot-headedness...) from firing rockets against Israel. Such missiles are of limited range and make more noise than physical injury. This is because it is practically impossible for any government (without exception, including Israel) to prevent certain individuals in the country concerned from practicing acts of violence. If, in all societies, there are crimes and violations of legal standards, irrespective of the existence of a police force, why “blame” the Palestinian Authority for not managing to ensure that all Palestinians abstain from harassing Israel? The Palestinian Authority would have no means of maintaining groups of soldiers, every one hundred meters, with the mission of apprehending or killing whoever is making preparations to fire rockets. Israeli politicians, possibly interested in territorial expansion, have pretended not to understand the difficulty faced by the Palestinian Authority in guaranteeing the total passivity of its citizens.
A few days ago, newspapers published articles stating that dozens or hundreds of Jews were refusing to abandon their land in settlements in Palestinian areas, irrespective of the express orders of the Israeli government. By the same standard, how, then, could the Israeli government recriminate against the Palestinian Authority because it has not been able to prevent a few citizens from acting on their own account, when Israel is also unable to ensure the total compliance of its subjects with respect to the issue of orders to abandon settlements? Israel managed to enforce removal (I do not know whether it was complete) because, in this case, the task is easier: settlements are fixed in one place - a rather different scenario from that involving the ever-changing points used for firing Palestinian rockets.
When Hamas, via elections in Gaza, took the place of the Palestinian authority, it concluded (and perhaps rightly so) - after a reasonable wait for a definitive agreement - that Israel was only interested in gaining time. So it lost its patience, turning a blind eye to such missiles, or even encouraging them, although fully aware that their purpose was psychological (infusing fear) rather than that of causing enemy casualties. Apparently, at least, the objective of Israel was that of simply avoiding, in a disguised manner, the finalization of an agreement out of which a Palestinian State would emerge with full legal status - this is the real fear of Israel. Fear, because a formalized Palestinian State would have the necessary means to cause inconvenience to Israel in international courts.
Irrespective of whether the above arguments are well-founded or ill-founded, critics will disagree, their opposite opinions varying according to the Jewish or Arab surnames of the individuals concerned, the “bare” fact being that peace in Palestine will only come to exist through the international community. More specifically, the legal area. Not the Security Council (in its current configuration), which acts with an impressive degree of undisguised cynicism in authorizing the power of veto of any of its five permanent members - the “big shots” that place themselves above such notions as Good and Evil.
In the Security Council, the power of veto of a country can solely signify a guarantee of impunity regarding its acts of violence, practiced directly or by an allied country. In legal terms, the country with the power of veto is able to commit atrocities and, when the planet rises up in indignation, demanding some kind of collective forceful response against it, the simple phrase “I disagree!” is sufficient to prevent any kind of more concrete measures against the holder of the veto or the country that it is protecting, which also tends to abuse the military and political power of the protector.
The power of veto is a vestigial legal absurdity that still remains in the imponent but not highly respected United Nations Organization. Not respected, precisely due to the existence of the power of veto in the Security Council. Sooner or later, the world will wake up to this current absurdity, no longer tolerating the veto of an individual country, when one is dealing with topics of such importance as international security. It is my hope that Barack Obama, a man of apparently great integrity, sensitivity and moral courage, will bring pressure to bear on his own country, with a view to changing the UN Charter regarding this item. At least denying the power of veto, and that of voting, in the Security Council when an accusation of abuse is directed against a particular country. For example, if China were accused of abuse (on its own part or that or a country clearly under its protection), it becomes a “suspect” and is “prevented” from voting and, even more importantly, exercising its power of veto. A basic standard in any kind of trial. Defendants, throughout the world, cannot cast their vote when it is they themselves that are being judged. The Security Council “judges” intervention proposals. If there were no power of veto in the Security Council, Israel would certainly not be currently practicing violent acts in Gaza.
Perhaps with the Gaza massacre, which could evolve into something worse - the “Jewish Iraq”, the world, including a large portion of the more lucid minds in America, may arrive at the conclusion - at last! - that peace in Palestine will only be able to come from an external source, i.e., the global community. Not from those involved in this insoluble war, blinded by hatred and capable of the most refined political “chicanery” in order to upset the conclusion of negotiations. This is because part of the Israeli government cannot imagine a division of Jerusalem on any account. In addition, this government fraction, clearly “falcon” in outlook, cultivates the inadmissible desire of creating a great Jewish nation, “evaporating” the presence of Palestinians, who are only seen as an irritating “thorn in its side”.
As far as many Palestinians are concerned (the most accustomed to war), they cannot “swallow” the fact that their land was invaded by people who left it almost two thousand years ago (expelled without any blame on the part of the Palestinians) and only managed to return, with the superior status of a State because the international community sympathized with the victims of the Holocaust unleashed by Hitler. Although opposed to the idea, the Palestinians would have accepted the return of the Jews, if in lesser numbers. However, it was not this that occurred. The number of people returning from the second diaspora was unlimited. The British, who governed Palestine as a protectorate, did everything they could to prevent such a massive return, but the Zionists did not accept any quantitative restrictions and recurred to terrorism. Menachem Begin was a terrorist, fighting against the British, during this period. In the same way that the Jews would not currently accept the label of being ex-terrorists (as they have already achieved what they desired), today, the Palestinians of Hamas only consider themselves to be “patriots”, much in the same way that the Jews considered themselves when they exploded bombs against the British.
Considering all this, it is almost unbelievable that the presidents and prime ministers of civilized nations still have the vain hope of attaining a peace agreement that is draughted and fulfilled by enemies tormented by decades of bitter memories, with the establishment of two sovereign States in Palestine. “Living together in harmony?” Maybe, but only with significant initial external pressure. It is up to the international community to go one step beyond this, making advances in the perfection of international rules in such a manner that it is possible to transfer this already ailing outstanding issue to a reliable international agency (prima facie, the most suitable would be the International Court of Justice, based in The Hague) which, in an impartial manner, would hear the interested parties and establish the most judicious possible solution. In my opinion, any solution (even that originating from an impartial court) will not be easily accepted - as in the case with any court decision, however just it may be. Nevertheless, it would be better for a solution to come from an external source (in all certainty, establishing monetary compensation for those that have been expelled from their homes, if this be the case), rather than waiting for the enemy populations to drown in blood and destruction, perhaps for successive generations. And even worse: involving other neighboring or even distant countries. Perhaps with nuclear repercussions. Sooner or later, atomic weapons will be more accessible to countries, it not being currently understood or accepted that, due to elitism, some countries can have such weapons, whereas others (considered to be “inferior”) cannot.
On December 15th 2008, Newsweek magazine printed an article on page 22 by Denis MacShane entitled “Europe’s Jewish Problem”, showing that phantasmagorical winds of anti-Semitism were blowing through Europe, even before the current massacre in Gaza. Serious surveys undertaken by the Pew Institute show that, in Germany, the number of Germans who have an unfavorable view of the Jews has risen from 20% (2004) to 25% (date of the survey). In France, in four years, this unfavorable view of Jews has increased from 11% to 20%. In Spain, 21% of the population had a negative view of Jews in 2005, whereas now (prior to the invasion of Gaza), for every two Spaniards, one has antipathy for the Jews. In England, generally a highly open and tolerant country, those with a negative view of Jews has remained at 9%, although this percentage is already affected by isolated facts, such as the need for young Jews to return to schools, in north London, on private buses, bearing in mind the attacks they have been subject to on public buses. Even in Poland, where the Jews were persecuted in an especially virulent manner, the number of people with unfavorable opinions regarding Jews rose from 27% (in 2004) to 36% (date of the survey, but prior to the incursion into Gaza).
About a month and a half ago, I read in a newspaper or on the Internet (making no note of the location, as I did not know that I would be subsequently writing on the subject) that in a cinema in a certain country, a portion of the audience showed its noisy approval, clapping hands and shouting, the part of the film in which scenes appeared of concentration camps at the time of Nazism. Instead of the due respectful silence that usually accompanies a vision of piled corpses and living human skeletons behind the barbed wire, part of the audience showed its noisy approval of these scenes of horror. Shouldn’t this distorted psychological “climate” be studied by the Israeli government?
If a survey were conducted today, after Gaza (with an abundance of photos of dead or wounded Palestinian children), it is possible to foresee a high degree of worldwide hostility against the Jewish people. Add to this there mere “unfavorable view” prevalent in Europe + the deep-seated hatred of the neighboring Arab world + a probable decrease in sympathy on the part of the future Obama government and the actual American (non-Jewish) people, and the result of the equation is a clear warning that responsibility for resolution of the Palestinian conflict must be placed in the hands of the international community (forgetting the Security Council in its current form). Nobody is able to be a good judge when the proceedings involve their own case.
At the beginning of the last century, the British wanted to offer the Zionist Movement a large area in Uganda, on a plateau with a climate very similar to that found in the Mediterranean, in order to serve as a Jewish homeland. This offer was refused by the Zionist commission that visited the area because there were many wild animals in the region, as well people of the Masai tribe. Besides all this, there was the issue of religion, which specifically required a return to Jerusalem. The problem is that (as stubborn Physics insists) two bodies cannot occupy the same place in space. “Someone” has to leave, for better or worse, and the “survival of the fittest” prevails. A primitive and ignorant way of conducting oneself in the world.
This is the origin of the tragedy. And, in this case, if those involved are unable to think with sufficient clarity (arteries half-blocked with the fatty deposits of hatred), the international community is still able to do so - for the time being.
Returning once again to the topic of “venom” that can become beneficial, perhaps the massacre in Gaza will come to drive or give an impulse to the infinitely more intelligent practice of removing any responsibility for resolution of their problems from the hands of those wrestling with others with eyes clouded by hatred. “Their” problems - only in certain terms - considering that globalization is no longer solely commercial in nature.
(06-01-09)
Human ingenuity is such that it is possible to extract some kind of benefit from the worst kind of poison. A single drop of snake venom is currently worth more than the equivalent amount of gold. As far as I know, the few existing breeders of the most dangerous species of snakes prosper as a result of their activities. They supply and export the precious liquid to laboratories producing antiophidic serums. It is a pity that human venom (much more lethal, as it is produced in the brain rather than the mouth) has not yet been fully industrialized. But we should not despair - the venomous and disproportional aggression in the Gaza Strip could still be a significant driving force (without the invader actually being aware of it) for development of a conflict resolution technique. An Evil that will be transformed into Good.
Showing, even unnecessarily, that Good may lie sleeping, latently, in Evil (although the opposite could also be true), we come to the sad scenario that is unfolding in the Gaza Strip.
There is no doubt that the Israeli attack is unjust, given its enormously disproportional nature. For each dead Israeli soldier, one hundred Palestinians become transformed into cadavers, without counting two hundred or more wounded. A Massacre. The invading tanks - the adjective is unnecessary, given that the Palestinians only have tanks for washing clothes; even though these are made unusable due to a shortage of water, cut off by the aggressors - are so thoroughly armored that is almost impossible to kill the soldiers that are inside them. Thus the incursion is practically a cowardly Israeli “jaunt”, a “picnic”, as already labeled in the media.
Alleged justification for the massacre lies in the fact that the Palestinians have been firing rockets which, although causing alarm, have not killed or even injured many Israelis in areas closest to the frontier.
When the Palestinian Authority (the moderate political wing, to the contrary of Hamas) governed the area in question, it did not manage to prevent the most hot-headed individuals (or those strangely induced to hot-headedness...) from firing rockets against Israel. Such missiles are of limited range and make more noise than physical injury. This is because it is practically impossible for any government (without exception, including Israel) to prevent certain individuals in the country concerned from practicing acts of violence. If, in all societies, there are crimes and violations of legal standards, irrespective of the existence of a police force, why “blame” the Palestinian Authority for not managing to ensure that all Palestinians abstain from harassing Israel? The Palestinian Authority would have no means of maintaining groups of soldiers, every one hundred meters, with the mission of apprehending or killing whoever is making preparations to fire rockets. Israeli politicians, possibly interested in territorial expansion, have pretended not to understand the difficulty faced by the Palestinian Authority in guaranteeing the total passivity of its citizens.
A few days ago, newspapers published articles stating that dozens or hundreds of Jews were refusing to abandon their land in settlements in Palestinian areas, irrespective of the express orders of the Israeli government. By the same standard, how, then, could the Israeli government recriminate against the Palestinian Authority because it has not been able to prevent a few citizens from acting on their own account, when Israel is also unable to ensure the total compliance of its subjects with respect to the issue of orders to abandon settlements? Israel managed to enforce removal (I do not know whether it was complete) because, in this case, the task is easier: settlements are fixed in one place - a rather different scenario from that involving the ever-changing points used for firing Palestinian rockets.
When Hamas, via elections in Gaza, took the place of the Palestinian authority, it concluded (and perhaps rightly so) - after a reasonable wait for a definitive agreement - that Israel was only interested in gaining time. So it lost its patience, turning a blind eye to such missiles, or even encouraging them, although fully aware that their purpose was psychological (infusing fear) rather than that of causing enemy casualties. Apparently, at least, the objective of Israel was that of simply avoiding, in a disguised manner, the finalization of an agreement out of which a Palestinian State would emerge with full legal status - this is the real fear of Israel. Fear, because a formalized Palestinian State would have the necessary means to cause inconvenience to Israel in international courts.
Irrespective of whether the above arguments are well-founded or ill-founded, critics will disagree, their opposite opinions varying according to the Jewish or Arab surnames of the individuals concerned, the “bare” fact being that peace in Palestine will only come to exist through the international community. More specifically, the legal area. Not the Security Council (in its current configuration), which acts with an impressive degree of undisguised cynicism in authorizing the power of veto of any of its five permanent members - the “big shots” that place themselves above such notions as Good and Evil.
In the Security Council, the power of veto of a country can solely signify a guarantee of impunity regarding its acts of violence, practiced directly or by an allied country. In legal terms, the country with the power of veto is able to commit atrocities and, when the planet rises up in indignation, demanding some kind of collective forceful response against it, the simple phrase “I disagree!” is sufficient to prevent any kind of more concrete measures against the holder of the veto or the country that it is protecting, which also tends to abuse the military and political power of the protector.
The power of veto is a vestigial legal absurdity that still remains in the imponent but not highly respected United Nations Organization. Not respected, precisely due to the existence of the power of veto in the Security Council. Sooner or later, the world will wake up to this current absurdity, no longer tolerating the veto of an individual country, when one is dealing with topics of such importance as international security. It is my hope that Barack Obama, a man of apparently great integrity, sensitivity and moral courage, will bring pressure to bear on his own country, with a view to changing the UN Charter regarding this item. At least denying the power of veto, and that of voting, in the Security Council when an accusation of abuse is directed against a particular country. For example, if China were accused of abuse (on its own part or that or a country clearly under its protection), it becomes a “suspect” and is “prevented” from voting and, even more importantly, exercising its power of veto. A basic standard in any kind of trial. Defendants, throughout the world, cannot cast their vote when it is they themselves that are being judged. The Security Council “judges” intervention proposals. If there were no power of veto in the Security Council, Israel would certainly not be currently practicing violent acts in Gaza.
Perhaps with the Gaza massacre, which could evolve into something worse - the “Jewish Iraq”, the world, including a large portion of the more lucid minds in America, may arrive at the conclusion - at last! - that peace in Palestine will only be able to come from an external source, i.e., the global community. Not from those involved in this insoluble war, blinded by hatred and capable of the most refined political “chicanery” in order to upset the conclusion of negotiations. This is because part of the Israeli government cannot imagine a division of Jerusalem on any account. In addition, this government fraction, clearly “falcon” in outlook, cultivates the inadmissible desire of creating a great Jewish nation, “evaporating” the presence of Palestinians, who are only seen as an irritating “thorn in its side”.
As far as many Palestinians are concerned (the most accustomed to war), they cannot “swallow” the fact that their land was invaded by people who left it almost two thousand years ago (expelled without any blame on the part of the Palestinians) and only managed to return, with the superior status of a State because the international community sympathized with the victims of the Holocaust unleashed by Hitler. Although opposed to the idea, the Palestinians would have accepted the return of the Jews, if in lesser numbers. However, it was not this that occurred. The number of people returning from the second diaspora was unlimited. The British, who governed Palestine as a protectorate, did everything they could to prevent such a massive return, but the Zionists did not accept any quantitative restrictions and recurred to terrorism. Menachem Begin was a terrorist, fighting against the British, during this period. In the same way that the Jews would not currently accept the label of being ex-terrorists (as they have already achieved what they desired), today, the Palestinians of Hamas only consider themselves to be “patriots”, much in the same way that the Jews considered themselves when they exploded bombs against the British.
Considering all this, it is almost unbelievable that the presidents and prime ministers of civilized nations still have the vain hope of attaining a peace agreement that is draughted and fulfilled by enemies tormented by decades of bitter memories, with the establishment of two sovereign States in Palestine. “Living together in harmony?” Maybe, but only with significant initial external pressure. It is up to the international community to go one step beyond this, making advances in the perfection of international rules in such a manner that it is possible to transfer this already ailing outstanding issue to a reliable international agency (prima facie, the most suitable would be the International Court of Justice, based in The Hague) which, in an impartial manner, would hear the interested parties and establish the most judicious possible solution. In my opinion, any solution (even that originating from an impartial court) will not be easily accepted - as in the case with any court decision, however just it may be. Nevertheless, it would be better for a solution to come from an external source (in all certainty, establishing monetary compensation for those that have been expelled from their homes, if this be the case), rather than waiting for the enemy populations to drown in blood and destruction, perhaps for successive generations. And even worse: involving other neighboring or even distant countries. Perhaps with nuclear repercussions. Sooner or later, atomic weapons will be more accessible to countries, it not being currently understood or accepted that, due to elitism, some countries can have such weapons, whereas others (considered to be “inferior”) cannot.
On December 15th 2008, Newsweek magazine printed an article on page 22 by Denis MacShane entitled “Europe’s Jewish Problem”, showing that phantasmagorical winds of anti-Semitism were blowing through Europe, even before the current massacre in Gaza. Serious surveys undertaken by the Pew Institute show that, in Germany, the number of Germans who have an unfavorable view of the Jews has risen from 20% (2004) to 25% (date of the survey). In France, in four years, this unfavorable view of Jews has increased from 11% to 20%. In Spain, 21% of the population had a negative view of Jews in 2005, whereas now (prior to the invasion of Gaza), for every two Spaniards, one has antipathy for the Jews. In England, generally a highly open and tolerant country, those with a negative view of Jews has remained at 9%, although this percentage is already affected by isolated facts, such as the need for young Jews to return to schools, in north London, on private buses, bearing in mind the attacks they have been subject to on public buses. Even in Poland, where the Jews were persecuted in an especially virulent manner, the number of people with unfavorable opinions regarding Jews rose from 27% (in 2004) to 36% (date of the survey, but prior to the incursion into Gaza).
About a month and a half ago, I read in a newspaper or on the Internet (making no note of the location, as I did not know that I would be subsequently writing on the subject) that in a cinema in a certain country, a portion of the audience showed its noisy approval, clapping hands and shouting, the part of the film in which scenes appeared of concentration camps at the time of Nazism. Instead of the due respectful silence that usually accompanies a vision of piled corpses and living human skeletons behind the barbed wire, part of the audience showed its noisy approval of these scenes of horror. Shouldn’t this distorted psychological “climate” be studied by the Israeli government?
If a survey were conducted today, after Gaza (with an abundance of photos of dead or wounded Palestinian children), it is possible to foresee a high degree of worldwide hostility against the Jewish people. Add to this there mere “unfavorable view” prevalent in Europe + the deep-seated hatred of the neighboring Arab world + a probable decrease in sympathy on the part of the future Obama government and the actual American (non-Jewish) people, and the result of the equation is a clear warning that responsibility for resolution of the Palestinian conflict must be placed in the hands of the international community (forgetting the Security Council in its current form). Nobody is able to be a good judge when the proceedings involve their own case.
At the beginning of the last century, the British wanted to offer the Zionist Movement a large area in Uganda, on a plateau with a climate very similar to that found in the Mediterranean, in order to serve as a Jewish homeland. This offer was refused by the Zionist commission that visited the area because there were many wild animals in the region, as well people of the Masai tribe. Besides all this, there was the issue of religion, which specifically required a return to Jerusalem. The problem is that (as stubborn Physics insists) two bodies cannot occupy the same place in space. “Someone” has to leave, for better or worse, and the “survival of the fittest” prevails. A primitive and ignorant way of conducting oneself in the world.
This is the origin of the tragedy. And, in this case, if those involved are unable to think with sufficient clarity (arteries half-blocked with the fatty deposits of hatred), the international community is still able to do so - for the time being.
Returning once again to the topic of “venom” that can become beneficial, perhaps the massacre in Gaza will come to drive or give an impulse to the infinitely more intelligent practice of removing any responsibility for resolution of their problems from the hands of those wrestling with others with eyes clouded by hatred. “Their” problems - only in certain terms - considering that globalization is no longer solely commercial in nature.
(06-01-09)
David Grossman, Israeli writer
A possible precursor?
I have repeatedly criticized the stance adopted by the Israeli government with regard to its Arab neighbors.
In my writings, I have stressed the prepotent policy of certain Israeli leaders. Most notably, Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu, who appear to have unrestricted confidence in the effectiveness of brute force as a means of “resolving” (a mere illusion) the problem of sharing (?) space with the Palestinian population. I reflected on the fact that the Palestinians also consider themselves to be the victims of past events (the Jewish “exodus/return”), for which they were not themselves responsible. Notably, a “return” that did not take into account, even to the slightest extent, the fact that “hyper-adverse possession” had occurred of land abandoned at the time of the so-called “second diaspora”. Centuries after the expulsion of the Jews and led by the Zionist movement, they managed to convince worldwide public opinion that they had, as a people, a right to a “homeland”. For both historic and religious reasons, in their opinion, this homeland would have to be Palestine. The suffering experienced by Jews during the Holocaust gave them a right to obtain a “safe haven” where they would not be subject to successive rounds of humiliation and persecution, such as those that occurred in the past.
All this was absolutely correct, or tolerable, although it would have been better if the Zionists had accepted other areas, offered by the British - Uganda, for example, with an amenable climate for those accustomed to living in Europe. However, the offer was apparently rejected on religious grounds rather than other reasons (proximity of lions and Zulus).
What was wrong, at least from a quantitative point of view, in sizing the choice of a “definitive homeland”, was that of brushing aside, ignoring, the normal reaction of a people, the Palestinian people, that were expelled from an area that they had occupied for a number of centuries. If this problem had been confronted in a prompt and responsible manner by the international community, prior to the mass immigration of Jews, with the offer of reasonable compensation for displaced Palestinians, establishing a definitive frontier for the occupation of each people, the world would not have witnessed so many deaths and so much suffering, generating a disquiet that currently torments populations both near and far from the area in question. It is likely that the events of September 11th 2001 would not have occurred, or other violent terrorist acts, which now hang, no longer like “swords of Damocles” over our heads, but in the form of powerful explosives capable of flattening whole city blocks.
As our planet, without exaggeration, seems to be a political madhouse (in fact, it is much worse, because no patient in any psychiatric hospital has the “sovereign right” to live out his or her derangement), the outlook will continue to be gloomy as long as there is not at least an international court that is not only able to pass rulings on conflicts between countries and peoples, but also enforce compliance with its decisions, irrespective of whether or not the party that is in disagreement with the ruling is actually willing to comply. This is something that does not occur in the case of the current UN International Court of Justice, as the effectiveness of its rulings are dependent upon the “good will” (that’s a good one….) of the litigants concerned. A mere Homeric judicial perfume, discarded centuries ago by all countries when they rule on conflicts within their own frontiers. If all States (without exception) know that, on an internal level, it is useless to expect conciliation between enemies with opposing interests and that there is a need for an impartial third party to resolve the issue, why is it that in all conflicts between States, especially those of a more serious nature, with thousands of dead, problems are resolved by the imposition of political, diplomatic, economic or military might. Always force, or the threat of its use.
Given that everything in life may have some kind of use (even snake venom is currently used in the preparation of medicaments that “thin” the blood), our vague hope is that the “Israel – Lebanon – Hamas – Hezbollah” tragedy becomes transformed into the first really judicial, not solely diplomatic, “case” to be decided by a “third party”, a Court with powers of jurisdiction conferred on it by the international community. It is this court that would not only apply the standards of International Public Law, but also criteria of equal justice and the general principles of law, thus making it possible to award indemnifications and compensatory damages to those parties that lose territory as a result of a court ruling. There will be no lack of especially impartial and cultured judges, designated by the international community, capable of establishing a fair solution for the complex problem. Obviously, prudence would recommend that none of the judges be of Arab or Jewish origin, or even remotely identified with the interests of the two peoples involved.
All this, however, has already been repeated ad nauseam on this site, but it is worthwhile repeating because, paradoxically, the truth, exactly when it is all too obvious, needs to be repeated if it is to be driven into the hard human skull.
So why is mention made of David Grossman in the title of this article?
Grossman is an Israeli pacifist writer who was unknown to me until yesterday. By mere chance, while browsing the Internet, I came across the transcript of a speech he made beside the grave of a much-loved son who was killed in the recent invasion of Lebanon. The young man commanded a tank that was destroyed in an explosion. With total credibility, his father’s speech describes the good character of his son, who was about twenty years old. And, with immense moral courage, the speech warns his people of the prospect of a dark future arising from the increased level of hate of Arabs who lost hundreds of relatives and properties as a result of the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah. The prospect is indeed worrying, as the international community itself did not look kindly on the exaggerated reaction to the kidnappings - even the “mainstay of support” weakened. And George W. Bush will not always be in power, despite his best efforts to this end, putting fear into the electorate.
What impressed me in David Grossman’s words – revealing his moral singularity – was the absence of hatred for the Hezbollah combatants who killed his son. A young man who, according to his father, was always ready to help his fellow men (commanding a tank does not invalidate the moral qualities of its crew, obliged to defend the interests of their country). In his speech, David managed to have an overview of things, not only from the right perspective but, more specifically, that of a lucid and courageous pacifist.
“Valiant” caricaturists and semi-illiterate individuals usually describe pacifists as fearful fat or thin figures, holding flowers, averse to any kind of friction, ready to forgive because they are incapable of fighting. But this is not the case as far as David Grossman is concerned. The speech he gave required courage under present conditions.
While on the subject of courage, there follows a suggestion that will only reach the eyes or ears of David Grossman with some difficulty, even if this article, originally written in Portuguese, is translated into English and read by the editorial staff of an Israeli newspaper.
This is the suggestion: Why doesn’t Grossman head a movement (in Israel, at the UN and in the USA) with the objective of strengthening the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (the International Court of Justice), in such a way that it is attributed with the powers necessary for making a ruling - and enforcing this ruling – regarding the “Palestinian issue”? A ruling that establishes the fairest possible frontier and resolves other outstanding points of disagreement (i.e., whether or not Jerusalem is to be partitioned, walls, etc). A ruling that is not only limited to international legal rules – a thankless area this one, full of omissions..., but allows for the application of equal justice with compensatory indemnifications.
Should Grossman manage to achieve this objective, mankind would not forget him. He would perhaps deserve, if not the Nobel Prize in Literature (I have not yet read a book of his authorship), at least the Peace Prize. With this, the invasion of Lebanon would ultimately have been of some kind of use, creating a milestone in the evolution of mankind.
Coming from a Jew, such an initiative would make a far greater impression than a similar proposal coming from a Palestinian, as Israel possesses immensely superior military strength. There is not presumed to be fear on the part of the strongest. In addition, it would be the initiative of an Israeli with the authority of someone who has lost a son in the war, whose mind has not been poisoned by a thirst for vengeance. The world would start to return to normal. It would be the great judicial precedent, the inaugural step, bringing about the partial reformation of the UN. Henceforth, rulings would come to be made on conflicts between states and populations by impartial judges. Not in the manner that occurs at present, with predominance of the force mustered by the parties involved or whoever is backing them. And so, finally, the voice of justice and reason prevails rather than that of cannons. Don’t thousands of past and future dead deserve such an attempt?
There are really decisive moments in History. The crisis involving Russian missiles bound for Cuba in 1962 was one such moment. The tearing down of the Berlin Wall was another. Even a book can spark a change that has been brewing for decades. Something like cutting out a tumor. The novel “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” speeded up the abolition of slavery in the United States. Qualitative leaps forward only occur when there is a psychic and moral electricity in the air that favors a more audacious step. It is the case of the invasion of Lebanon and the odor of human blood in the Palestinian air.
With his acceptance by the Jewish people, Grossman can take this initial step. His son’s spirit would smile, concluding that he did not die in vain.
I have repeatedly criticized the stance adopted by the Israeli government with regard to its Arab neighbors.
In my writings, I have stressed the prepotent policy of certain Israeli leaders. Most notably, Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu, who appear to have unrestricted confidence in the effectiveness of brute force as a means of “resolving” (a mere illusion) the problem of sharing (?) space with the Palestinian population. I reflected on the fact that the Palestinians also consider themselves to be the victims of past events (the Jewish “exodus/return”), for which they were not themselves responsible. Notably, a “return” that did not take into account, even to the slightest extent, the fact that “hyper-adverse possession” had occurred of land abandoned at the time of the so-called “second diaspora”. Centuries after the expulsion of the Jews and led by the Zionist movement, they managed to convince worldwide public opinion that they had, as a people, a right to a “homeland”. For both historic and religious reasons, in their opinion, this homeland would have to be Palestine. The suffering experienced by Jews during the Holocaust gave them a right to obtain a “safe haven” where they would not be subject to successive rounds of humiliation and persecution, such as those that occurred in the past.
All this was absolutely correct, or tolerable, although it would have been better if the Zionists had accepted other areas, offered by the British - Uganda, for example, with an amenable climate for those accustomed to living in Europe. However, the offer was apparently rejected on religious grounds rather than other reasons (proximity of lions and Zulus).
What was wrong, at least from a quantitative point of view, in sizing the choice of a “definitive homeland”, was that of brushing aside, ignoring, the normal reaction of a people, the Palestinian people, that were expelled from an area that they had occupied for a number of centuries. If this problem had been confronted in a prompt and responsible manner by the international community, prior to the mass immigration of Jews, with the offer of reasonable compensation for displaced Palestinians, establishing a definitive frontier for the occupation of each people, the world would not have witnessed so many deaths and so much suffering, generating a disquiet that currently torments populations both near and far from the area in question. It is likely that the events of September 11th 2001 would not have occurred, or other violent terrorist acts, which now hang, no longer like “swords of Damocles” over our heads, but in the form of powerful explosives capable of flattening whole city blocks.
As our planet, without exaggeration, seems to be a political madhouse (in fact, it is much worse, because no patient in any psychiatric hospital has the “sovereign right” to live out his or her derangement), the outlook will continue to be gloomy as long as there is not at least an international court that is not only able to pass rulings on conflicts between countries and peoples, but also enforce compliance with its decisions, irrespective of whether or not the party that is in disagreement with the ruling is actually willing to comply. This is something that does not occur in the case of the current UN International Court of Justice, as the effectiveness of its rulings are dependent upon the “good will” (that’s a good one….) of the litigants concerned. A mere Homeric judicial perfume, discarded centuries ago by all countries when they rule on conflicts within their own frontiers. If all States (without exception) know that, on an internal level, it is useless to expect conciliation between enemies with opposing interests and that there is a need for an impartial third party to resolve the issue, why is it that in all conflicts between States, especially those of a more serious nature, with thousands of dead, problems are resolved by the imposition of political, diplomatic, economic or military might. Always force, or the threat of its use.
Given that everything in life may have some kind of use (even snake venom is currently used in the preparation of medicaments that “thin” the blood), our vague hope is that the “Israel – Lebanon – Hamas – Hezbollah” tragedy becomes transformed into the first really judicial, not solely diplomatic, “case” to be decided by a “third party”, a Court with powers of jurisdiction conferred on it by the international community. It is this court that would not only apply the standards of International Public Law, but also criteria of equal justice and the general principles of law, thus making it possible to award indemnifications and compensatory damages to those parties that lose territory as a result of a court ruling. There will be no lack of especially impartial and cultured judges, designated by the international community, capable of establishing a fair solution for the complex problem. Obviously, prudence would recommend that none of the judges be of Arab or Jewish origin, or even remotely identified with the interests of the two peoples involved.
All this, however, has already been repeated ad nauseam on this site, but it is worthwhile repeating because, paradoxically, the truth, exactly when it is all too obvious, needs to be repeated if it is to be driven into the hard human skull.
So why is mention made of David Grossman in the title of this article?
Grossman is an Israeli pacifist writer who was unknown to me until yesterday. By mere chance, while browsing the Internet, I came across the transcript of a speech he made beside the grave of a much-loved son who was killed in the recent invasion of Lebanon. The young man commanded a tank that was destroyed in an explosion. With total credibility, his father’s speech describes the good character of his son, who was about twenty years old. And, with immense moral courage, the speech warns his people of the prospect of a dark future arising from the increased level of hate of Arabs who lost hundreds of relatives and properties as a result of the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah. The prospect is indeed worrying, as the international community itself did not look kindly on the exaggerated reaction to the kidnappings - even the “mainstay of support” weakened. And George W. Bush will not always be in power, despite his best efforts to this end, putting fear into the electorate.
What impressed me in David Grossman’s words – revealing his moral singularity – was the absence of hatred for the Hezbollah combatants who killed his son. A young man who, according to his father, was always ready to help his fellow men (commanding a tank does not invalidate the moral qualities of its crew, obliged to defend the interests of their country). In his speech, David managed to have an overview of things, not only from the right perspective but, more specifically, that of a lucid and courageous pacifist.
“Valiant” caricaturists and semi-illiterate individuals usually describe pacifists as fearful fat or thin figures, holding flowers, averse to any kind of friction, ready to forgive because they are incapable of fighting. But this is not the case as far as David Grossman is concerned. The speech he gave required courage under present conditions.
While on the subject of courage, there follows a suggestion that will only reach the eyes or ears of David Grossman with some difficulty, even if this article, originally written in Portuguese, is translated into English and read by the editorial staff of an Israeli newspaper.
This is the suggestion: Why doesn’t Grossman head a movement (in Israel, at the UN and in the USA) with the objective of strengthening the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (the International Court of Justice), in such a way that it is attributed with the powers necessary for making a ruling - and enforcing this ruling – regarding the “Palestinian issue”? A ruling that establishes the fairest possible frontier and resolves other outstanding points of disagreement (i.e., whether or not Jerusalem is to be partitioned, walls, etc). A ruling that is not only limited to international legal rules – a thankless area this one, full of omissions..., but allows for the application of equal justice with compensatory indemnifications.
Should Grossman manage to achieve this objective, mankind would not forget him. He would perhaps deserve, if not the Nobel Prize in Literature (I have not yet read a book of his authorship), at least the Peace Prize. With this, the invasion of Lebanon would ultimately have been of some kind of use, creating a milestone in the evolution of mankind.
Coming from a Jew, such an initiative would make a far greater impression than a similar proposal coming from a Palestinian, as Israel possesses immensely superior military strength. There is not presumed to be fear on the part of the strongest. In addition, it would be the initiative of an Israeli with the authority of someone who has lost a son in the war, whose mind has not been poisoned by a thirst for vengeance. The world would start to return to normal. It would be the great judicial precedent, the inaugural step, bringing about the partial reformation of the UN. Henceforth, rulings would come to be made on conflicts between states and populations by impartial judges. Not in the manner that occurs at present, with predominance of the force mustered by the parties involved or whoever is backing them. And so, finally, the voice of justice and reason prevails rather than that of cannons. Don’t thousands of past and future dead deserve such an attempt?
There are really decisive moments in History. The crisis involving Russian missiles bound for Cuba in 1962 was one such moment. The tearing down of the Berlin Wall was another. Even a book can spark a change that has been brewing for decades. Something like cutting out a tumor. The novel “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” speeded up the abolition of slavery in the United States. Qualitative leaps forward only occur when there is a psychic and moral electricity in the air that favors a more audacious step. It is the case of the invasion of Lebanon and the odor of human blood in the Palestinian air.
With his acceptance by the Jewish people, Grossman can take this initial step. His son’s spirit would smile, concluding that he did not die in vain.
Crimes and sovereignty
(written in 12-4-06)
I have highly illustrious precursors, including Kant, when I never tire of insisting that, to an ever greater extent, nations need to renounce large portions of their sovereignty in favor of a global democratic federation, in order that the world may be less chaotic, unjust and self-destructive (see pollution).
This is not “mere” idealism; utopian propensity; fanciful optimism (in the style of J. J. Rousseau, where man is born essentially good and subsequently corrupted by society); altruism and the like. Man is both good and evil, in varying proportions, according to genetic makeup, education (formal and informal), the cocktail of beatings and caresses received since childhood and assessment of the legal and social advantages or risks that surround his activities. If it is advantageous to be good, either here or in the afterlife, he is, even if basically not so. He dances according to the music being played. But that’s enough of generalizations; the reader has no time to waste.
When a law student, I was highly impressed by the fact that a foreign citizen, duly sentenced by the courts of his country, was able to move freely about Brazil, make a Brazilian woman pregnant, father a son and, as a result, free himself from the threat of extradition and completing his sentence. It seemed to me to be the easiest and most enjoyable preventive “habeas corpus” in the world. At liberty thanks to a gratuitous, illiterate, but for all that extremely effective, unqualified attorney, the respected “Mr. Spermatozoid”.
Ronald Biggs, an engaging Englishman, who took part in the multi-million pound Great Train Robbery of 1963, was one such case. After serving a few months of his prison sentence in the United Kingdom, he scaled the wall and fled to Australia. As he certainly did not feel safe in that country, which has strong ties with England, he ended up residing in Brazil, after becoming aware that several benevolent legal concessions exist here that are well-suited to his case. He became emotionally involved with a good-hearted nightclub dancer, made her pregnant and, as a result, guaranteed that he would be able to stay in the country. The British government sought his extradition, however, as Biggs’ son was his dependant (of course...), and no extradition treaty existed between the two countries (the old problem of sovereignties), the fugitive continued to live here for as long as he wanted. Free and (according the respective Wikipedia webpage) charging anyone who so desired sixty dollars to have lunch and a chat with a “celebrity”. According to information provided by the fugitive himself, his portion of the loot had been reduced to a minimal sum, as a result of attorney’s fees and other expenses related to his fight against returning to prison. Nevertheless, when his longing for his homeland became unsupportable, he returned to England and ended up being imprisoned. Now old, sick and debilitated, photos of him aroused compassion in those of a more sensitive disposition and inclined to pardon.
What is interesting here (someone needs to write an academic thesis on this sociological phenomenon) is that a large portion of society, principally Rio society, even adulated him, considering his personal appeal and audacity for having participated in a robbery the current value of which is equivalent to more than one hundred million reals. “Success”, in any of its forms - political, economic, sporting, artistic or “congenially criminal” - legitimizes any kind of act. In the First World, male cinema artists, in order to reinforce their reputation as “tough guys”, liked to be seen at shows and restaurants in the company of high-ranking members of the Mafia. The affectation of adding an air of shadowy danger to their status. This occurred in the case of Frank Sinatra, Alain Delon and other inflamers of female hearts. A fictional English politician, feeling that he was being more than a little blackmailed by the person who was speaking to him, mentioned, wishing to impress, that he had contacts “in high places”. To which the other replied, with assurance, that he also had contacts, but “in low places”. This is something far more intimidating, as evil can be inflicted with the power and speed of a lightning bolt, without any bureaucratic hindrances.
That which was mentioned regarding extradition only goes to show, in summary, that in the difficult harmonization of sovereignties, crime very often goes unpunished, or very nearly so. This, at least in theory, would not occur if there were a global federation or confederation, with worldwide jurisdiction.
Another example facilitating impunity lies in the setbacks faced by state prosecutors when they are overruled or delayed in their attempts to recover large amounts of money deposited abroad. Given that the money can be transferred to another bank or even another country in a matter of seconds, with a simple mouse click on a computer, the diligent prosecutor almost always arrives too late with his petition for freezing deposits made by those availing themselves of public money. While the prosecutor studies the banking legislation of the country where the money is to be found - wrestling with a language in which he is not fluent - and once again prepares a request for its return, the money in question has already been sent to another bank. And so everything starts all over again. Even the private creditor of a millionaire debtor, who has financial resources scattered all over the world, cannot manage to make demands or even subpoena the important debtor, making his credit – even if judged to be without further recourse to appeal – a very nice sum without any real significance.
Extraditions are subject to the influence of the international prestige of the countries involved. In the case of the Canadians who were arrested and sentenced for kidnapping a famous São Paulo businessman, the Canadian government managed to arrange that they be repatriated in order to serve their sentence in their own country, with probably benevolent consequences. If, however, a group of Brazilians were arrested, in Canada or the United States, after carrying out kidnappings, it is highly probable that the Brazilian government will not be able to extradite them. With Bush as president, it would certainly not be possible.
Even horrendous homicides end up being almost unpunished as result of this “excess” of sovereignty, with each country living in its own isolated world – pure political schizophrenia.
Look at the 1981 case of the Japanese Issei Sagawa, who, in Paris, killed and “raped” (in fact, he technically violated a corpse) an attractive female Dutch student, a colleague of his at Université Censier in the city. He did this because the Dutch girl (who assisted him with translations at the time, in his apartment), refused his advances full of passion and libido. Issei, who has the appearance of a somewhat developed dwarf with a large head (I’ve seen a photo of him), was 1.48 m tall and weighed 44 kilos, very much less than the Dutch girl. The girl, seeing him as only a colleague, ordered him to concentrate on the work they were doing. The Japanese got up, took a 0.22 caliber rifle out of a cupboard behind the girl, and shot her in the back of the neck. Following this, he had sex with the cadaver and then cut off the lips, nose, breasts and private parts, storing them in the freezer of his refrigerator for future consumption. And he actually ate a large part of this flesh prior to being arrested. He had this strange compulsion, associating the sex act with the act of eating. The case in question is briefly described in the book written by Canadian writer Max Haines, in Book V of his series entitled “True Crime Stories”. The story appears on page 121, in the chapter “Fantasies Turn to Cannibalism”. It’s a pity that this series has not been translated into Portuguese.
After cutting up the girl’s body, the accused placed these mortal remains in two suitcases, which he transported by taxi. He intended to throw their macabre contents into a nearby lake. In the street, on leaving the taxi, he noted that people were looking with mistrust at that small Japanese figure dragging two suitcases that were much too heavy for him. Startled, he abandoned the suitcases on the sidewalk, thinking that there was no evidence of him being linked to the homicide. The police only found him because, on reading the newspaper headlines, the taxi driver remembered this strange oriental man and took the initiative of informing the authorities.
Following the gathering of irrefutable evidence against him (found in his small apartment, principally in the refrigerator), Issei confessed to the crime but was considered to be crazy and not responsible for his actions, even though he was a cultured and intelligent man. He was fluent in German and French, present in France for his doctorate degree in Japanese influence on French literature. The judge determine that he be committed to a psychiatric institution.
Issei was the son of a rich Japanese industrialist. After spending three years in an asylum, his father managed to arrange for his extradition to Japan, under the condition that he remain confined in a sanatorium for the mentally sick. However, following 15 months of internment, he was discharged. The Japanese doctors concluded that he was normal. France could do nothing as each country has its own sovereignty. And, after all, what does being “crazy” really signify?
After his release (according to Max Haines), Issei Sagawa wrote several books on his favorite topic - cannibalism. It is likely that the victim’s family (whose name I will not mention here, out of respect for the suffering of others) does not have a very high opinion of either the seriousness of Psychiatry as a profession or those intimate with the pompous word “sovereignty”, generally pronounced in a solemn tone of voice.
On the other hand, the family of Issei likely thought that everyone deserves a second chance. After all, the Japanese guy spent four and a half in asylums for the mentally sick as someone “normal” according to the psychiatrists of his country. In all certainty, there will be those that think Issei became crazy as a result of unrequited love. Someone once said that “Man is the fire, woman the tow, and the Devil comes and fans the flames.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)