When I was a pre-college student I seriously considered following a diplomatic career. Naively enough, I saw myself in international congresses, getting out of shiny black limousines, carrying briefcases full of important and mysterious documents... In addition to those attractive features, there was also the highly illusory perspective of comfortable overseas trips – travelling by airplane, at that time, was a luxury that only a few could afford. I could live in London, Paris, Amsterdam, Washington, Stockholm, Brussels — a privileged route, ironically known in the diplomatic rounds as the “Elizabeth Arden circuit” — and other cities filled with beautiful blue-eyed Valkyries who would look at me with romantic admiration and welcome me, considering attractive my qualifications as a diplomat and the perspective of having a life full of free tourism and dollars as a diplomat´s wife.
Besides, there was the cultural side: quickly learning new languages; “drinking” from ancient cultures, straight from their sources; reading extensively, without fear of being mistaken as a tramp; dealing with extremely refined and educated people, who would never resort to shouting and insulting in order to express their opinions - which would always be sincere and respectful to the International Law.
In summation, at roughly 17 I imagined diplomacy as a kind of elegant tourism, well-paid, highly intellectualized and submitted to the fair and perfect International Law, working like a Swiss clock in its maximum precision.
However, my “diplomatic illusions” have gradually been rectified. In the last few years, after retiring as a Court of Appeals judge in Brazil, I´ve been lividly following international politics through newspapers, magazines and the internet. Notably, I have been reading between the lines spoken and written by politicians and commentators. As a consequence, I have been gradually noticing that the old and primitive “Mrs. Strength”, along with her faithful companion – “the persistent and elaborate lie” –, still rule the world. They take for granted that readers are mostly uninformed and not so clever; that they are gullible and easily manipulated, only thinking through the crutches of “clichés”. If a small number of voters are not deceived, it doesn´t matter, because these are the minority. “What really matters...” — and what comforts the media owners who are only interested in money—“... are the statistics, the climb or fall in the opinion polls. After all, isn´t democracy based on the majority? And how are majorities formed? With money, advertising and skillful writers who have decided to turn our brains into slot machines”.
My amazement has been growing, appalled by the cynicism of the public announcements made by representatives from some strong governments, who aren´t even trying to disguise their position as defenders of the undefendable. The mere force - political, economical and military —, grounded on interests, is what still prevails in international politics, which causes many distortions. In important decisions, the stronger powers firstly ask the weaker ones to vote in such and such resolution from the UN´s Security Council. If there is any resistance from the weaker ones, the request becomes an order. Otherwise (i.e., if they don´t vote accordingly), they will suffer the consequences - not necessarily military consequences (although those remain implicit, since “all options are still on the table”, an arrogant sentence exhaustively repeated by featherless parrots). The threat of financial non-cooperation may scare some countries even more than the threat of pointing canons towards desperate leaders with a lack of resources. Barack Obama´s current psychological version — that he needs financial support to his reelection plans – doesn´t hesitate to “act firmly” when this means improved chances of a new term.
A few weeks ago, it was revealed that NATO airplanes had bombed the palace where Libyan dictator Khadafi lives, with hopes of killing him. Khadafi, incidentally, wasn´t there. However, one of his sons, along with two grandsons and a few servants, died in the attack. In view of that, the angry part of the population who supports him attacked embassies of western countries which support the rebel movement with weapons, planes and military assistance. As Khadafi didn´t reprimand by force the invaders of those embassies, the same governments which previously had tried to assassinate him felt injured and now intend to sue the dictator in the international courts – solemnly invoking the international right of protection held by the embassies – as well as other retaliations against the “arrogance” of the dictator who escaped from the bombs thrown against him by mere chance. It really requires a great dose of cynicism to expose legal indignation against your intended murder victim.
There is no doubt that Muamar Khadafi is a primitive dictator who doesn´t even bother with appearances anymore. He has refused to vacate his “job” as president because he doesn´t formally see himself as “president” – this position doesn´t even exist in Libya nowadays. Libya doesn´t even have a constitution . It is power, pure and simple. Notwithstanding, there is no certainty on whether the majority of the Libyan population disapproves of his permanence in the position. Oddly enough, it is even possible that a fair public opinion poll, done by trustworthy Western entities, would show that the majority of the population is against an expulsion of Khadafi by force.
It is certain that thousands of opponents manifested on the streets with the intent of deposing him. These thousands – millions, even – may in fact represent a minority. Therefore, respecting the current principle of sovereignty – through which each country decides its own fate — there is no way to consider as legitimate the Western support to the taking down of a governor by force, whether he is a dictator or not - especially through a murder attempt.
Under a legal view, as long as there is no universal Law – or, say, a World Federative Government —, stating that henceforth it is no longer up to the citizens to decide on their own about who should govern them, any action which allows for countries to collaborate with weapons and other resources to depose or assassinate dictators, as unpleasant as they might be, is an insult to international lawfulness. It is up to the people alone to take action against its dictator. And especially considering that any “external collaboration” may very well be in fact covering up a hidden interest – for instance, if the insurgence happens in an oil-filled country.
Let us remind ourselves that Pinochet was a self-confessed dictator and that the “powers that be” never tried to depose him, even in face of his despise to Chileans´ human rights (not to mention the rights of any socialism activist which dared to set foot in Chile). Stalin was a dictator who had the support of the great majority of Russians at his time, notably while resisting the attempted Nazi invasion. Back to Khadafi, the argument that he should be eliminated by NATO because he commits crimes against humanity when he butchers those who try to get rid of him must be put at the margin of the international law, considering the current – even if old-fashioned – concept of sovereignty. It is a fact that this concept must be modified, restricted even, when it is carried out in an uncivil manner. However, this modification must be done in the clear, through serious discussion at the UN, formally regulating the subject – and not through subterfuges which are convenient under a political or economical perspective.
I have absolutely no sympathy at all to the unpleasant and political figure of Khadafi. I would never be sad if he ever suffered a heart attack. I am merely trying to put under attention the need for coherence in international politics.
Another example of mental dishonesty in international politics and its practice is well demonstrated in the long-running conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.
For a long time, Israel has created subterfuges for not setting with the Palestinians the borders which would separate both populations, Jews and Arabs, and consequently granting the latter the status of Nation. Without such status, Palestinians are unable to claim anything against eventual abuses from Israel, including territorial ones, because, as we are all well aware of, only proper Nations are capable of proposing anything at the International Court of Justice. The main argument used by Israel to justify not following the peace talks is the fact that the Palestinians are divided into two hostile factions: the “Fatah” in the West Bank and the “Hamas” at the Gaza Strip. Israeli governors argue that “It is not possible to talk to the Palestinians because we can never know who in fact represents them, whether it is Fatah or Hamas”.
At last the Palestinians decided to be sensible and reached an agreement a short time ago, ending the double representation of the Arabs. And what was Israel´s reaction? A fake “indignation”, since Hamas is still hostile to Israel´s own existence - a hostility which is relatively common in the international community, but without annihilating consequences. More calamitous than two Nations separated by a border is for the current conflict to keep going on with isolated Islamic acts of terrorism followed by Israeli retaliation through air attacks, which kill even more that the suicidal explosions.
France, England and Germany were reciprocally hostile to one another for centuries in the past. None of them vanished and nowadays they cohabit wonderfully. The thing is that even if Hamas eventually says that it has abandoned the demagogical rhetoric of “sweeping Israel off the map” — a monumental stupidity, since Israel is incredibly powerful and has the American support— such a declaration from the Arabs would be rejected by Israel with the argument of being a false affirmation. And therefore, being false, deserving of some bombing. To crown Israel´s prepotency, the unbelievable Minister of Foreign Relations, Avigdor Lieberman, has announced the blocking of eight hundred million dollars in taxes which the country annually transfers to the Palestinian Authority. In summation, Avigdor is retaining money which does not belong to the Nation he represents. He wants to massacre through poverty people who have been persecuted and humiliated for too long. The question any sensible person would ask is “how long will the people of Israel — wise people, who have always valued “the Book”, who are morally neither better nor worse than any other people—, tolerate being run by politicians who have absolutely no discernment at all and who stimulate the world´s growing animosity against their own people?
What do the Palestinian refugees think nowadays - people who have been expelled from their homes and have to live in refugee camps? And what will their sons, grandsons and grand grandsons feel? Will they ever think of going back, filled with love in their hearts?
This is where I stop, considering that going further would lead to infinite unfolding.
(June 5th, 2011)
