On page A18 of the “O Estado de S.Paulo” newspaper dated 25-9-11, there is a short text that can be considered an innovation to be followed — or amplified, if such a practice already exists — by all newspapers not exclusively destined for readers that are specialized in a particular area. The article is not concerned with narrating an event currently developing in international politics — the normal task of newspapers. It was written with the objective of enlightening readers with respect to a relevant topic which, in general, is not widely known to the public. The text to which I am referring is a “mini-lesson” in Public International Law.
Without including any brief pedagogical “help” — and the article in question was a clear example of this —, columns of printed news lose a lot of their usefulness. Of course, they are understood by professionals in the area — who are already familiar with the topic, probably more so than the author of the material — but the absence of a timely theoretical explanation makes the “non-initiated” steer clear of that page of the newspaper. An absence of such explanation is to the cultural detriment of ordinary citizens, who come to see the world in an incomplete or distorted manner. One day, such ill-informed citizens make their opinions known in petitions, become members of NGOs, form the majority in public opinion and vote in elections — getting it right less often, because they do not sufficiently understand how far-reaching their votes are. Only by chance is ignorance a good counselor.
This is very common in the field of Economics, principally when the topic concerns foreign exchange, the stock exchange, overseas trade and inflation. Many readers think: “I sometimes attempt to read such news and articles, although I frequently cannot understand the meaning of some technical terms. Please excuse my ignorance, but I am not going to read these articles with the help of an Economics dictionary. And even with a dictionary, I will likely continue to remain “in the dark”, as the author does not “come down to my level” to explain why a certain consequence — for example, valuation or devaluation of a given currency, for example, is the “inevitable” result of a particular event, as the author of the news or article gives one to understand, without providing a clear basis as to why he or she thinks in this way”. On television, this occurs in an even more evident manner. An example is the reporter who speaks with impressive “professional self-assuredness”, like a lecturing parrot, on a cause-and-effect relationship that he himself would not know how to explain in his own words. The cliché is elegant, but to me it seems like deception.
If the mission of the newspaper, any newspaper, is that of informing, and informing well — if it is that of falsifying the truth, may it soon go bankrupt — the omission of a quick and timely “technical” explanation results in a double prejudice: cultural (as I already mentioned) and commercial (for the newspaper). Its readers remain “excluded”, perplexed. Although curious, many come to avoid certain sections — or the whole newspaper — supposing that they will be incapable, as they would like, of forming their own opinion. Therefore, even from a business point of view — losing regular readers or occasional purchasers of copies — it would be advisable for newspapers to introduce short explanations when news reports involve topics in such specialized areas as Economics, Information Technology, Science, Law and International Relations. The editors of these specialized sections normally have sufficient awareness to judge whether or not such and such a technical term or relationship between phenomena needs a little “help” in order to ensure clear understanding on the part of the reader. When in doubt, it would be best to explain.
What is impressive and shows just how much the intellectual can be contaminated by universal vanity is that the parts that are most difficult to understand — “deep, mysterious and sophisticated’ — are really neither “deep” nor “mysterious”. They are only sophisticated. More an “affectation” than inherent complexity. If a professional feels some kind of understandable pleasure in being “inaccessible”— “After all, why did I study so much? I need to show off!” — it is necessary to remind him that his opinions and messages will only be of use if the listener or reader manages to adequately understand them. Nourishment, physical and mental, can only be assimilated after being chewed and digested by the acid of critical judgment. Even this should be mistrusted, given that a certain amount of deceit impregnates all activities. Without it, however, richness withers.
The article that led me to write these lines is undersigned by Bruna Ribeiro and is entitled “A state does not need the UN in order to exist”. As I had never heard or read anything by this columnist, I conducted a search on the internet in order to obtain some information about her. After some time — there are numerous homonyms —, I found that the Bruna in question is a very young, objective and active person. On 22-05-11, she interviewed Prof. Francisco Rezek, ex-chancellor and ex-judge of the International Court of Justice, for the “O Estado de S.Paulo” newspaper, and this interview comes with the following title: “The war on terror violates international law”. It should be read by all those interested in International Politics, given that political reality is frequently in conflict, in an open or disguised manner, with International Law. In all certainty, there is no Law more fickle, susceptible to dual interpretation of the facts, than International Law, where the raw reality of strength — political, diplomatic, economic and military — both uses and abuses in the elaboration of sophisms.
Aggressor governments never admit to be aggressors. Hitler never confessed to being an unprovoked invader. Every attack is a “just defense reaction”, “correction of a historical injustice” or defense against an imminent future attack, detected by the “intelligence service” — far too smart. Each “sovereignty”, being absolute — an authentic “vice” that is still not perceived as such — encourages the strong to abuse the weak, sometimes without any kind of sovereignty as they are not even States. Only “entities”. And “entities” do not enjoy sovereignty. Any protest, verbal or physical, made by the citizens of a fully-fledged State, or entity, is labeled as an insult or terrorism, requiring “exemplary punishment” that is much harsher than the damage incurred. Exaggerated punishment is dependent upon likely international impunity, nurtured by disinformation on the part of media organizations that are actually directed to mislead. Hence it is the desire of every country that values truth to have a press that is concerned with adequately enlightening the public. And, as I have already indicated, for this to occur, there is also a need to explain that which is published, when necessary. It is the case of the possibility, or impossibility, of the existence of a new State, even without its formal admission by the United Nations.
As Bruna Ribeiro’s article explained — perhaps with a few pedagogic suggestions on the part of Francisco Rezek —, a State does not need the UN in order to exist. It is one thing to actually exist; however, it is another to obtain legal recognition of its existence by an important international agency. In 1945, if the world had not created the United Nations, would current states not exist? Of course they would. Individuals whose birth has never been recorded at a registry office do not therefore cease to exist. Such people are not phantoms. They have their rights recognized in a court of law.
If I retain a caretaker to look after my ranch, and the birth of this caretaker has never been recorded at a registry office, such an omission does not mean that I am not obliged to pay his salary. An international example, purely theoretical: if member countries of the UN were to decide, even unanimously, to exclude China from its list of countries — due to its invasion of markets with low prices, or violation of human rights — would this State cease to exist? Of course not. It would become a somewhat “pariah” State, although it would continue to be a State, unless China itself renounces its status in a “sovereign” manner. And any other country would have the right to change its mind, always in a “sovereign” manner, and recognize China as a State, maintaining the same relations with it as those maintained with other member countries of the UN.
According to the information provided by Bruna Ribeiro, Taiwan is recognized by 22 countries. It will be difficult for this enormous island to gain recognition at UN level in the near future, given that China, with the power of veto, will not allow it, as it considers Taiwan to be part of continental China. Even though it is not a “registered” State, such a lack of “registration” does not prevent Taiwan from having an important role to play in industry, commerce, science and even international relations. In addition, the explicatory article in question informs us that Israel, although a full member of the UN, is not recognized by 22 States - obviously, for political reasons.
Elementary, isn’t it? However, in millions of minds the notion exists, albeit rather ill-founded, that without a bid on the part of Palestine for full UN membership, the Palestinian State will only “exist” if a prior agreement is reached with Israel, the country that has the greatest interest in the Arab population not being able to enjoy full member status. If, theoretically, Israel never agrees to a Palestinian State, would such a decision, based on force, merit universal approval?
It is therefore appropriate that many countries have now decided to recognize the existence of the Palestinian State, or whatever other name it may come to have. The fact that it does not have delimited borders — because its arch-enemy is opposed to this — results in serious administrative problems, although such problems do not diminish the existence of a people, with a common language, inhabiting a territory for centuries, however difficult their day-to-day lives may be. Israel, a member State of the UN, also does not have fixed borders on its eastern side. Given that, in 1948, the State of Israel dispensed with any need for the agreement of Arabs in the region in order to proclaim itself a State, there is nothing that prevents the Palestinians from doing the same thing.
Irrespective of the extent to which they bring problems, uncertain disputed boundaries cannot be allowed to prevail over the greater principle of the right of peoples to self-determination. If — another mere example —, a conflict were to arise between Mexico and the United States and the latter were to achieve the exclusion of Mexico at the UN — because it is unable to control illegal immigration and drug trafficking at the border — would a State called Mexico simply “disappear”?
It is paradoxical that the precise branch of Law that is most important for the future of humanity is the most ignored by the inhabitants of the planet, perhaps due to it being “something remote and rarely complied with”. Here one is dealing with a branch of Law that is apparently ignored (?!) even by those responsible, at the highest level, for the international relations of their countries. Iran is a case in question, as it could have withdrawn decades ago from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), — signed in 1968 by the government of the Shah of Persia, Mohamed Reza Pahlavi —, although it has not done so to date. Issue of an official document would suffice to confirm its withdrawal. The Israeli government makes great political use of this “bureaucratic” omission, stating that Iran does not “fulfill its international treaty obligations”. Given that Israel, shrewdly, has not even signed the treaty, it has been free to do whatever it so desires, building and storing nuclear weapons.
According to the aforementioned NPT, whoever has signed the treaty is able to withdraw from it as long as prior notice is given of ninety (90) days. In the withdrawal notice, it is sufficient for the signatory to the treaty to state that it wishes to withdraw for reasons of threats to its national security. And there is no lack of public threats, on the part of Israel, of bombing Iranian nuclear facilities.
Three months after withdrawing from the NPT, Iran would be free from inspections in the nuclear area. The development of its nuclear capabilities would not be infringing the terms of any treaty whatsoever. It should be noted that the five permanent members of the Security Council are nuclear powers, together with India, Pakistan and Israel. The Iranian omission of requesting its withdrawal from the NPT — as North Korea has already done — is something inexplicable. Could it be that Iran is apprehensive that its withdrawal, at the present time, would seem to be a confession that it intends to build nuclear weapons? It would be sufficient to state that this is not its intention. Following a request by Iran for withdrawal from the NPT, the USA and its allies would need to invent many legal artifices to justify the argument that “earlier, whoever signed could withdraw; now it is no longer possible to do so! They forget that which is explicitly written in the treaty!”
Am I, by chance, in favor of the increased risk of destruction of mankind, via nuclear conflict and radioactive contamination? Certainly not. I am only a realist who believes that fear can be used for both good and evil. I am of the same opinion as the Swede Alfred Nobel, when reasoning with a woman in favor of universal disarmament, when he said that “Perhaps my factories will put an end to war even sooner than your congresses. On the day when two army corps may mutually annihilate each other in a second, probably all civilized nations will recoil with horror and disband their troops” (initial page of the book “Human Smoke”, by Nicholson Baker).
Without mutual fears — of the same dimensions —, the aggressive beast man cannot resist the temptation of swaggering and dominating. Although a great speaker, it is a pity that Barack Obama has neither exceptional familiarity with the twin topics “world peace and order”, nor sufficient intellectual audacity to promote, at the UN, the possibility of the Israel-Palestine conflict being resolved by an international court. Without an external solution to this issue, the world will continue to be confronted by imminent catastrophe.
In closing, I would like to point out that International Law is ill-understood and, for this reason, newspapers should make an effort to educate their readers. Newspapers are also devastated by wars. How many newspapers existed in Germany when it signed its surrender in 1945? Perhaps a handful of journalists writing in the midst of the rubble.
(1º-10-2011)
Website: www.franciscopinheirorodrigues.com.br
Blog in English: http://francepiroenglish.blogspot.com/
Blog in Portuguese: http://francepiro.blogspot.com/
