If there is a politician I respect, it is Barack Obama. Not only due to the fact that he attained, in an honorable manner, the presidency of the most powerful nation in the world, but also because he has partially broken down the racial prejudice that still restlessly lingers in the deepest layers of white American society. As here one is dealing with a prejudice related to skin color (it is not the case, as in the example of anti-Semitism, of white against white), the reaction against a man of dark-colored skin has, in my opinion, an instinctive, even biological component, its eradication being slower and more difficult. Hence a need for the law to intervene, hastening integration and weakening, little by little, this mysterious instinctive repulsion.
The argument that cuts, by the roots, any moral justification for all kinds of racism is the following: nobody chooses their parents before being born. After being born, there is no way of changing such features as skin or eye color, height and level of intelligence. The most one can do is use the qualities with which you were born (and, depending on the case, certain defects...) in the best possible manner. Even if I think that, in statistical terms, races show slight differences - Negroes, for example, appear to have more aptitude in athletics, football, boxing and basketball - what is really important is the individual. In this way, a blonde Swede could be born an athlete, whereas a black African boy could detest sports, preferring to dedicate himself to mathematics or poetry. Nature is capricious and every member of the Ku Klux Klan needs to be aware that his or her “whiteness” is merely accidental.
What it is in Obama that distinguishes him from mediocre presidents is the knowledge that understanding one’s opponent, or even enemy, is of much greater value that the threat or use of force. With force, we are able to silence the hazard, but not eliminate it. To the contrary, we strengthen it. We encourage its secret maneuvers. We just do not know what is really going on.
When Obama formed his government, he invited several politicians and technicians who had served during the Bush administration, although may Democrats censured such choices; they were likely to be potential traitors. Obama, nevertheless, inspired by the precedent of Lincoln, had the courage to decide to the contrary. For two good reasons: politicians and technicians who formerly saw him as a foe, came to see him as a reasonable man, only interested in making the right decisions. Surrounded by people who served in previous governments, Obama will come to have a view of problems that is much closer to reality.
Forgive me for this long and unnecessary introduction, but it is necessary to warn this promising head of state not to allow himself to be contaminated by vestigial bellicose tendencies, as a result of the being in the company of a few possible residual “hawks”. In dealing with the problem of North Korea launching a long-range ballistic missile, Obama jeopardized his good policy of never threatening another country. If only due to the fact that threats should be fulfilled, or suffer the penalty of demoralization. However, prior to the missile launch, he promised a “severe and united response on the part of the international community” if Pyongyang went ahead with the launch (“O Estado de S. Paulo” newspaper - page A14, dated 3-4-09).
In fact, the missile was launched and no serious retaliatory measures could be taken, as it is only necessary for a veto on the part of any one of the five “big-shot” permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, in order to prevent a military or especially “severe” response against the transgressor. In this case, a dictator who is a little crazy and perhaps in possession of nuclear weapons, which complicates the strategy even more. Given that Kim Jong-il was already an example of mental imbalance, it is likely that his state of mind deteriorated even more following the stroke that he suffered last August.
With regard to the stance adopted by China and Russia, denying significant sanctions against Pyongyang, for the first time in my life I find a situation in which the power of veto could actually assist humanity. In fact, in this case, both military and economic measures would only aggravate the problem of nuclear proliferation. If there were aerial attacks against North Korea, it is absolutely certain that the dictator would retaliate which as much force as he could muster, with conventional weapons and perhaps even nuclear armaments. Despite the poverty in which its population lives, everyone knows that North Korea has a very large and well-equipped army. And there is no lack of bellicose insanity on the part of the current “Great Leader”. If he dies, one of his three sons (the bizarre “communist monarchy”) will continue the struggle, which will be bloody. Such a conflict would be much more explosive that that engaged in against Iraq - in all likelihood, with a certain degree of support on the part of China, a “technically” communist country. The USA and its allies would become involved in yet another war (the third), precisely at a very difficult moment for the global economy.
With regard to the imposition of severe commercial sanctions against Pyongyang, based on historical evidence, it can be shown that the deliberate impoverishment of a country governed by dictators only serves to prejudice the civilian population. The anonymous population will certainly go hungry. Children will become undernourished due to a lack of milk, although there will be no lack of this product, or even caviar, for the friends of the “leader”. Trade isolation only works when the country being attacked has a democratic government, or when the dictator is already weak and isolated. This is not the case in North Korea. Thus, in certain exceptional cases, the right of veto on the UN Security Council is really a blessing.
Obama, during a speech last Sunday in Prague, put forward a plan for “a world without nuclear weapons”. He proposed a reduction in the nuclear arsenal of both Russia and America. I have nothing against such a proposal, but Obama would do better proposing discussion of a significant, bold and definitive step for reorganizing the world, and not only in the economic sphere.
What kind of step could this be? First and foremost, amplifying the jurisdiction, competence and effectiveness of international justice, which is currently limited by the sacrosanct and often abusive sovereignty of each state. Second, equipping humanity with standards for the great and inevitable leap forward: a democratic world government (without the predominance of any single country), with the voluntary and progressive adhesion of its members. In a similar manner to creation of the UN, the European Union and, long before, in the 18th century, the voluntary (yes, voluntary) coalition of thirteen American colonies, united against England. The colonizing English, the “foreign enemy” at the time, was the driving force behind the union of such colonies, the very kernel of the powerful American state. There is an urgent need for a world government. At the present time, the “enemy” is both internal and external at the same time. It is global, given that the current economic crisis has not left any country untouched. In addition, we have two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan), with a risk of another two (North Korea and Iran), besides unending tribal killings in Africa.
Solely reducing the Russian and American nuclear arsenal of is not enough. If, in theory, all countries of the world have equal rights (it’s in the United Nations Charter), there is no logic in the “big shots” requiring that North Korea and Iran abstain from furthering their aims in the nuclear technology field, which could be destined for both military and peaceful purposes. Such countries, discriminated in this manner, can always ask, quite rightly: “Why is it that the USA, China, Israel, the United Kingdom, France, India and Pakistan can have nuclear weapons, and we cannot?! Isn’t this kind of prohibition an explicit confession of racism? Are we, perchance, inferior peoples, congenitally unbalanced, incapable of dealing with such advanced forms of energy?
Nuclear weapons are the direct fruit of fear. And fear, in turn, can give rise to domination. The intimidated party always yearns to bind the party that is alarming it. And the former does not wish to be bound. During the Second World War, it was fear of the Nazis that led the Allies to build the first atomic bomb. Hitler put pressure on his scientists to fabricate an extraordinary weapon that would make TNT look like fireworks. This very real Nazi threat motivated Einstein (a pacifist and adept in the subject of world government) to propose to president Franklin D. Roosevelt that research be accelerated for construction of the bomb before the Nazi dictator managed to attain the same goal. His notion was well founded.
Israel has atomic bombs and has never given its permission for a count to be made. It is free of inspections. It alleges fear of being “wiped off the map”, as one of its enemies in the Middle East once said. An idiotic metaphoric flight of fancy, but one that Israel has the right to take seriously. Despite the liberty that Israel enjoys in fabricating nuclear weapons, Iran, which still does not have the bomb, sees itself as threatened with bombardment because it does not allow UN inspectors to have total access to its nuclear installations, which could also be destined for peaceful purposes. Where is the logic in this difference in international treatment? The North Korean dictator could say the same thing, irrespective of whether or not he is half crazy. This inequality of rules will only disappear with the formation of a world government, with a Global Constitution, with effective worldwide justice that provides all nations with a sense of total security.
Why, one asks, does the USA not put forward a proposal to Russia for total destruction of their respective nuclear arsenals, and not Just reduction in the stock of warheads? Answer: because both the USA and Russia fear China. It’s generalized fear, mutual distrust, which functions as cement and justification for spending trillions of dollars on security via weapons. Would it not be more rational if a global democratic federation gave an absolute guarantee that there would be no further armed attacks by one country against another?
It seems strange that Obama - such an intellectualized politician and, above all, of good character - has still not mentioned the expression “global government or federation” in his speeches. As far as the term “global” is concerned, this only refers to financial control. Nevertheless, I presume that he has likely already thought about this broader hypothesis. He has only not dared to verbalize it because the government that preceded him alarmed the international community to such an extent (with supposed American supremacy) that use of the expression “world government” would undermine his prestige. Everyone would immediately think of Bush and “American dictatorship”. First, he needs to gain the confidence and calm the minds of all peoples, before daring to stir up a “hornets’ nest” that I am sure will produce much more honey that stings.
I’d like to make a bet. Before the end of his administration, Obama, feeling the ground to be firmer beneath his feet, will approach the topic with complete honesty and without any hidden “patriotic” intentions. As someone once said, our future homeland is Humanity - a perfectly attainable dream.
(8-4-09)
