Francisco Cesar Pinheiro Rodrigues

Politically incorrect conclusions extracted from Kadhafi´s death

2011-11-11T14:56:00.000-02:00

Mohammad Gadhafi was undoubtedly an unpleasant despot — there are a few tyrants who are “nice” — , vengeful, not in the least enlightened. When I was a kid, in my History classes, I used to find the expression “enlightened despot” very funny. Full of whims, Gadhafi always gave a lot of work to the ceremonial and security services of the First World countries which he visited as an official guest. He demanded to sleep in tents, outdoors, even in cities like Rome, New York and Paris. He was not afraid to affront the representatives from the world´s biggest powers or the CEOs from very rich Western oil companies – even though he was fully conscious that money is power. And power gets everything it wants when it has, by itself, the privilege to mold the public opinion at will. Gadhafi dared – some say – to tear the United Nations Charter in half in the middle of the UN´s General Assembly. Notwithstanding the theatrics of such an act, he had his reasons, considering such Letter was not conceived to impose governing styles. It was made to force equally every nation, weak or strong, to respect the others, without interfering in their internal affairs.

As informed by the media, Gadhafi kept billions of dollars abroad, in accounts from the Libyan Central Bank and other governmental institutions. As his decisions could not be contested by anybody, the money deposited in such accounts could be – in theory – withdrawn by Gadhafi himself for his or his family´s personal use. On the other hand, as those accounts were under the name of governmental institutions, this fact ended up being beneficial to Libya, which was able to keep the money reserves deposited abroad. Had the money been deposited in banks located inside Libya, such wealth would have already been stolen during the many months of intense and confuse conflict.

As mere intuition from an amateur psychologist, I risk “diagnosing” — future biographers might say whether I am right or wrong — that Gadhafi took anphetamins, a kind of drug which, when used without restrictions, may cause a “persecution complex” once the initial euphoria fades away. In his case, by the way, the paranoia was highly recommendable because it kept him in constant alert against a plethora of enemies who wanted his place. Having taken hold of power illegally in 1969 at the age of 27, he knew he could only count on force and intimidation because it was through such components of the political fight — in a country with little alphabetizing — that he became Libya´s “strong man”. He achieved such status in September of 1969 through a “coup d’etat”. Leading a group of military officials, he took power while the king, Idris — the first and only Libyan king —, was away from the country. Idris, a religious monarch with a fragile health, was taken in by Egypt after his deposition, and lived in that country – apparently very comfortably – until he passed away in 1983. There was no drop of blood in the 1969 “coup”.

Notwithstanding his numerous bad qualities — not even the Devil himself is perfect in his evilness—, Gadhafi benefitted the Libyan people when, right after becoming the country´s “owner”, he demanded a higher share for the country in the profits derived from the oil extracted by the powerful Western companies as a counterpart for them to be able to continue operating in his land. He knew the companies had no other choice than to accept that condition, as it ended up happening – it would have been an economical suicide to abandon the profitable investment they had already done. And his boldness started being imitated in the other countries of the Middle East which were equally rich in oil and gas, which partly explains why Gadhafi was so hated by the rich countries from the West.

With the Arab nations unified in such interests – i.e., oil – the price of the barrel started increasing, which caused consternation among the Western countries which were, up to that point, used to giving Libya and the other Middle East countries only the crumbles of their profits. Such raises in prices seemed to the West as an authentic extortion, taking advantage of a source of energy which was impossible to replace. They swore that one day Gadhafi would pay for such stimulation to “blackmail”.

And he finally paid in October 20, 2011, even though it was stealthily through the hands of others: Libya´s own people, revolting against years of tyranny. To save the appearances it was necessary that the Libyan rebels, and not NATO, did the “dirty work”. It is important to notice that NATO pilots, aware or assuming that Gadhafi was in the car convoy which was fleeing the city, did not bomb nor shot the vehicles — as they had been constantly doing before — in order to avoid the risk of killing the dictator. The order to the pilots — or the flight controllers for that matter – was probably something like the following: “Just stop him from escaping! Do not kill him! Once the convoy is stopped, it will be reached by the rebels who will surely kill him, something much more practical than a public trial – after all, who knows what he would have said as his defense in a trial? If NATO planes kill him directly, we will be violating the Geneva Convention. That would be an act of war. And in this war it is a crime to kill an enemy who has surrendered. Legally, we are not “at war”, we are only favoring one of the sides, protecting Libyan population”. And so it happened. The rebels got hold of Gadhafi, lynched him and killed him. It would have sounded really bad, legally and politically, if foreign powers, NATO members, had killed a chief of state in his own country. Such a maneuver has a very popular metaphor: “pull the sardine with the cat´s hand” (or simply use someone else´s hand to do what you want to be done).

Analyzing the subject through an International Law angle, it is important to state that the United Nations Charter does not authorize the assassination of Chiefs of State on behalf of other States, be it under their own name or through military organizations such as NATO. And what happened in Libya was exactly the use of what is forbidden: foreign air force shooting and bombing the military forces of a country which was surrounded and was not accused of aggression. Gadhafi had attacked neither the US, nor the UK, nor France. An article written by a specialist in the subject, Roberto Godoy, published in “O Estado de S. Paulo” from last October 21, pg A-24, reveals that NATO was providing cover for the advancement of the rebels, “assured by intense and daily air bombings from the 180 airplanes provided by an international coalition”.

If this does not represent a disrespect to the free determination of the people, a clear act of war, there is no way to know what is a war. In order to be characterized as such, an aggression doesn´t have to be made with troops marching on land. If that was the case, strong nations would be able to throw nuclear bombs to crush any country without being accused of aggression. A single plane could do the “job”, much more devastatingly than millions of soldiers on foot. And in Libya there were tens of planes attacking the governmental forces. It is too much innocence, or else interpretative malice, to say that the presence of foot soldiers is indispensable to characterize the use of force under an International Law perspective. The use of air force is decisive to win wars nowadays. There was, in the Libyan case, a powerful and lethal interference from other countries, NATO members, to depose a governor. And this is without mentioning the presence, on land, of tens of foreign advisors guiding the rebels on how to articulate the attacks against the tyrant – as well as the supply of weapons.

About tyrannies, International Law has not reached yet the point of allowing countries to invade others in order to remove governors which they deem as tyrants, with reason or not. If the people are sovereign, as doctrine says, they can support a dictator which seems beneficial to them, even fairer than paper democracies. It is certain that democracy, in theory, is better than a dictatorship, but that does not authorize nations or coalitions to invade countries in order to remove non-democratic governors.

Someone could say that NATO interfered with the aerial attacks for a noble reason, defending human rights, because the dictator had been killing rebels, his own citizens — who, it is fair to say, were also willing to spank and kill the tyrant.

If the argument of “nobility” is worth anything in theory, let´s imagine the following scenario: suppose a million Americans meet in front of the White House, in Washington D.C., protesting against Barack Obama´s economical policies. Over-excited, the rioters threaten to invade the gardens of the White House. The police intervenes with tear gas and rubber bullets. Two rioters die and the even angrier crowd tries to enter the building. The police starts shooting real bullets. Then there is a massacre. If the conflict spreads to other cities, we can ask: would China, for example, have the “humanitarian” right to give aerial support to the “massacred population”, bombing the White House and the Pentagon? Wouldn´t this hypothetical Chinese attitude be a distortion on the “human rights protection”? Economical and diplomatic sanctions are acceptable under the international human rights perspective, but intense bombings mean a clear bellicose interference in other countries´ internal affairs, which is something forbidden – at least in theory. Therefore, Gadhafi had his rights when he allegedly tore the United Nations Charter in half.

A detail to which public opinion must remain alert in the future – in order to find out the real motivations behind the bellicose aerial support against Gadhafi — is whether the new Libyan government will owe money to the NATO countries or not. I reckon that the “oil factor” is at the top of the reasons for the aerial invasion and the lynching —“ by proxy”— of the tyrant.

Here´s an important question: will, by any chance, the new Libyan government have to pay for the weapons received from the Americans, French and British? Will NATO´s expenses with airplanes, bombs, ammunition and military assistance on land be reimbursed? If that occurs – which would be extremely cynical — the hidden intentions for the aerial and tactical support to the rebels will be proved: oil! And with Libya´s finances as unorganized as they currently are after months of anarchy, the country will probably only be able to pay such debts with oil drilling grants. In addition to oil, what other way would Libya have to pay the debt? It is still unknown whether Libyan´s deposited money abroad would be enough to pay for the expenses incurred by the NATO countries.

Chinese companies (as well as companies from other non-NATO countries) also drill the Libyan oil. Will they be able to resume their operations in Libya when the country is under a new government – or will only the USA, France and the UK be able to handle Libyan oil? This detail is very important to verify if the fall of Gadhafi was motivated only by the defense of the human rights or if there are any “oily” political ambitions behind it.

Murder – whether it is direct or by Power-of-Attorney – still impregnate international politics, a practice that was imagined to be “out-of-fashion”. On the other hand, Gadhafi´s assassination is an alert for tyrants that they are no longer able to defend themselves with the old day´s efficiency.

The exercise of power is pleasant. And when power is absolute — as in Kadhafi´s case — it is extremely pleasant. Which explains why every governor — even presidents of Western democracies — wants to remain in power till he dies. And sometimes even after that, through a son or other successor, which proves that the “monarchy gene” still impregnates the human genetic code.

Every governor would like to be the founder of an infinite dynasty. “Never for the love of power, of course. I love my people when they praise me!” It is very rare for a president not to want to return to power. Even Barack Obama himself wants to keep his job for as long as the law allows him to, which explains his sudden change of mentality regarding international situations. In a matter of weeks he changed from a “pigeon” into a “falcon”. If the electors want more toughness, let´s be “really tough”, “otherwise I might lose the election”. Putin left when it was impossible for him to continue in power, but his intention is to get it back as soon as he can. The same is true in the whole planet. And tyrants have no longer the luxury of leaving, because the chances of being murdered are really high. That is one of the reasons why democracy - even when corrupted – are superior to dictatorships. In the latter, whoever gets to a power position doesn´t want and can´t leave, at a risk of death. In democracies, no one wants to leave, but at least they can do that.

To the Libyans, in a long term, Gadhafi´s demise was beneficial, but things will get worse before improving, for months or even years. People of normal sensibility did not enjoy the brutality in which the fall of the tyrant happened. It would have been better if his demise had happened in a more civilized way. In a court of Law, he might have revealed more interesting things, scaring other Chiefs of State.

This article´s considerations also have the aim to suggest that readers in general are fully aware of the clever maneuvers of international politics, which deems itself smarter than it really is.

(October 23, 2011)

Timely Initiative of a Newspaper

2011-10-09T23:05:00.002-03:00

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/

Justice for the Palestinians at the UN

2011-09-21T15:20:00.002-03:00

On the upcoming Friday (Sept. 23), Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority (AP), is going to present at the General Assembly a formal request for the acknowledgement of his people as a member of the United Nations (UN).

The majority of the international public opinion is more than favorable to such a modest request, even aware of the certain veto which will be exercised by the United States and perhaps also by some other countries which are shamelessly submissive to the whims of the American huge economical, technological and military power – as much as this power has recently been going through a demoralizing outbreak of amnesia when it comes to the genial moral values cultivated by the Founding Fathers of the USA.

Among such forgotten values is the respect to the right of self-determination of the people. Or, by chance, can´t the Palestinians be considered as a “people”? Would the Palestinians merely be – as their enemies want – a primitive mass of sub-human individuals, ergo without rights? A band of savages, bandits or “pariahs”, without even the right to speak and vote in an organization which supposedly “represents” the planet? What kind of distorted representation is this? The UN currently has 193 countries, some of which have minimal populations, smaller than the number of Palestinians who have been banned from their homeland and have to live by the grace of others in precarious tents or shelters in neighboring countries. What is their “crime”, which could justify such Arabic Diaspora? None. They have just been there for centuries.

Any consultation to a website such as the Wikipedia will show that many of the members of the UN have a lowermost population, a reduced area and absolutely no influence in international geopolitics. We have nothing against the possibility for such countries to be heard and to be able to vote at the General Assembly, since every situation of injustice suffered by any number of people deserves a means to be expressed and discussed in an international entity. What is difficult to understand – and therein lies the legitimacy of AP´s intension — is how people who have been banned from a territory which they had occupied for more than two thousand years (and therefore arousing angry and merciless feelings of sympathy and vengeance from people such as Osama Bin Laden) — cannot have access to a legal international channel such as the UN to complain against treatment deemed to be unfair. No people can indefinitely tolerate the progressive occupation of its land and the expulsion of thousands of families.

Let us compare the populations of the following members of the UN: Andorra (71.822 inhabitants in 2007); Antigua and Barbuda (86.754 inhabitants in 2010); Bahamas (323.000 in 2005); Bahrain (791.000 in 2009); Belize (372.000 in 2010); Brunei (381.371 in 2009); Cabo Verde (499.796 in 2008), Granada (90.343 in 2008); not to mention numerous others micro-states. Why this scarce right to express and vote shall remain inaccessible to the Palestinians, who have lived for decades in a situation of submission, restriction to the right to come and go, poverty and banishment?

This systematic discrimination and “inferiorization” creates an atmosphere that breeds a deep resentment, which can consequently be easily expressed through acts of terrorism - terrorism that is unmistakenably sincere in its motivation, considering that nobody immolates or “explodes” himself for banal reasons. It is necessary to remember that the Israeli people have also had their “outlaw phase”, admittedly terrorist in the first half of the 20th century — the Irgun organization, which in April, 1946, blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem —, when the British opposed the excessive arrival of Jewish people in the Holy Land. The British forecast then the inevitable increase in the conflicts — already in place at that time — and such drama continues and is aggravated with the illegal settlements. As long as the conflict between Arabs and Israelis is not solved, the world will remain “contaminated”, in the anti-chamber of a global conflict. The risk of the “atomic spice”— i.e., Iran — was added to the soup of hatred which boils and can overflow and burn even areas which are far from the Palestine, considering the importance of the oil which is extracted from neighboring countries – rumors are already in place regarding the gas and oil sources which are dormant off shore, deep within the Mediterranean Sea.

Let us examine now the Jewish´s reasons. They also have endured a secular drama of persecutions – however, once they reached the Promised Land, such persecution ended, and now that they have the superior status of “Israeli”, they have forgotten what it means to be humiliated, to live with no rights, “under the knife”, impoverished by force and turned into second-class citizens – such as what happens now to the Palestinians. It is not uncommon, in the history of mankind, for the persecuted to become the persecutor.

It is only natural that the long-suffering Jews dreamt, for centuries, of having their own nation. And that is exactly what was granted to them after the Second World War ended, thankfully in great part to the indignation caused by the Holocaust. Hitler, with his implacable anti-Semitism, is also responsible for the conflict in the Middle East. Had there not been his policy of persecution and banishment, the European Jews would have remained where they were, climbing the social ladder in the areas of finance, arts and so forth. It is necessary to remember that the Arabs did not agree with the creation of the Israeli State. But their opinion was not even asked. Israel did not result from a direct “negotiation” between the Jews and the Palestinian Arabs, so much so that once the Israeli State was created in 1948, a war between Israel and the Arabic world started almost immediately – a war which Israel, being better prepared and armed by the USA, got the better of. With victory, arrogance flourished. And as a current atomic power, Israel does not admit, under any circumstance, the possibility for another country in the region — such as Iran — to have access to technology which might one day allow the construction of an atomic weapon (about this subject, please read the words of the creator of the Nobel Prize in the end of this article).

It is therefore incoherent the current Israeli intention to demand that the creation of a Palestinian State only happens as a result of “direct negotiation”, since such negotiation did not occur at the time of the creation of the Israeli State. Regardless of any agreement with the Arabs, a new Nation was created, nation which is currently the best armed of the Middle East, not only regarding atomic weaponry, but also conventional ones.

Benjamin Netanyahu´s demand for a new and eternal return to the “negotiation table” is nothing more than a strategy to gain time, allowing for the amplification of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Any person who has followed for years the advancements (fictitious and scarce) and retreats (constant) of the peace negotiations knows that as long as Netanyahu remains in power, the “negotiations” will not reach any solution. And that is exactly what this politician wants, a man whose greatest ambition is to be remembered in the future as the creator of “The Great Israel”, built through low and abject tactics, through the tactics of “pushing with the belly”, of procrastination. The longer it takes, the better the relative position of Israel in an eventual division of the territories is, because Israel is building thousands of houses while the Palestinians have barely the resources to survive.

Israel has not been lucky enough to put in a position of power a man of a superior mind, in the likes of Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Gandhi or Frank D. Roosevelt. Netanyahu is a patriot in the most primitive sense of the word. Clever, insistent, unpreoccupied with the truth, he is untrustworthy when it comes to speaking about anything related to the Palestine. He is a typical example of a “mad lawyer”, which means that he is capable of any fallacy to favor his own client – in his case Israel —, even if this means to throw the Palestinian elders, children and youth in a hopeless misery. Elementary human rights are denied to the Palestinians.

As I have already said, the ancient yearning of the Jewish people spread all over Central and Eastern Europe is perfectly understandable. With Hitler´s rise to power, even the Jews who accepted a racial “assimilation”, with a loss of cultural identity, were rejected in their pretension. Hitler, a pathological maniac, prohibited the marriage between Germans (the “pure breed”) and Jews. He did everything he could to fanatically “clean” Germany and the countries he invaded, all of them dominated by a race which he considered inferior both physically and morally – which is one of the biggest scientific nonsenses of all times. He even oriented his secret service to discreetly stimulate the Zionism, which had the ultimate purpose of creating a Jewish nation – what he actually wanted was to get rid of all of them, once and for all. When persuasion was exhausted, he decided to implement the “final solution”. Many countries, even though publicly repudiating the Jewish suffering under the Nazi regime, refused to accept the migration of Jewish people to their territories. Hence, the understandable search, by the Jews, for an area which could become their own State. There was no conscious intent to harm the Palestinian Arabs who lived there, but who could have prevented and stopped the continuous arrival of people of the same race and belief searching for a better life?

Deep down, the worst current political problem lies in the answer to a simple dilemma: the Jewish people deserved to have a “home”, but the chosen house was too small, was already inhabited and did not have space for two big families. Only through some modification in the traditional concept of sovereignty it would be possible to accommodate two large families in the same place. It is necessary, however, for help to come from the outside, i.e., from the international community. Fortunately, there is still room in the planet to accommodate a few Israelis and Palestinians. Africa, for example, is enormous. The planet has already paid enough for the lack of boldness in the improvement of the concept of sovereignty. The UN, or any other tribunal/court created by it, has plenty of conditions and is much more able to solve, without bias, this ancient conflict than the two parties involved, parties which have already been poisoned by resentment and desires of vengeance. Every civilized country has already found out, throughout history, that when neighbors get in an argument and are unable to reach an understanding, the solution is to appeal to a superior stance, which can listen to both parties´ arguments and decide, sovereignly – and the party which loses the matter must abide by the decision, whether wanting or not. No country can impose its sovereignty by crushing by force or intimidation its neighbor’s own sovereignty.

Barack Obama has already said he will veto the acknowledgement of the Palestinian State because only the two parties involved are able to reach a permanent solution. Why does he say so, despite the persistent failure of all previous negotiations? Because he needs the lobbying, money and the vote of the Jews in his next presidential election. Deep down inside, he antagonizes Netanyahu haughtiness, ever the arrogant, responding with resounding “No´s!” to Obama´s requests to contain the occupation of the West Bank.

The arrogance of the Israeli Prime Minister comes from the certainty that Obama prefers to be elected for a second term than to be fair to a small defenseless people who has been humiliated for years. On the other hand, here is what Obama probably thinks but doesn´t say: “I will give in now to Netanyahu´s interests but, when I am re-elected, I will put him in his right place. It is the only possible action for the moment. Besides, if the Republican Party, with the Jewish lobby, wins the election, the Palestinians will be in a much worse situation. I need to act like a patient chess player. But obviously I can never publicly reveal what I really think.” This must be Obama´s plan. If not, we will witness the decadence of a man who is intelligent but does not have the necessary moral fiber to face people who are more determined than himself.

The ideal thing in the upcoming Sept. 23rd would be for the Palestinian Authority, the USA or the European Union, in an outburst of lucidity, to suggest, discuss and finally allow for the UN to approve the creation of an international court to solve the Palestinian issue. Such court, “ad hoc” — or even the already existing International Court of Justice — would define the borders of both states and determine compensations when it was not feasible to strictly follow the 1967 delimitations. It would then create the Palestinian State where the Gaza Strip is territorially linked to the West Bank and solve the issue of the return of the banished Palestinians. Only then we would at last find peace and a huge reduction in terrorism. Such court should advisably not have as members any judge who is from an Arabic or Jewish descent, for obvious reasons.

It is also necessary for the UN to correct another impressive absurd: the refusal of jurisdiction. Whoever wants to be “part of the club”, the UN, must accept its rules and judgment. The ones who will not accept such terms should simply get out. It is appalling that in the 21st century it is still possible for an accused party to refuse being judged and that the UN respects such a refusal.

Nicholson Baker, author of the book “Human Smoke”, mentions, in the first page of his work, that Alfred Nobel, manufacturer of explosives, was talking to his friend, Baroness Bertha von Suttner (author of “Lay Down Your Arms” and co-founder of the European Pacifist Movement) after she had just participated in the World Peace Conference in Bern. It was August of 1892. Here is what he said:

“Maybe my factories will end wars before your congresses. In the day when two Armies are capable of mutually annihilating themselves, it is possible that every civilized nation retreat in horror and dismantle their troops”.

This measured opinion comes in favor of the argument that no country in the Middle East should have the privilege of conventional, atomic and diplomatic power. Excessive force induces its bearer to see the weak as defenseless insects. Hence the need to concede something substantial to the Palestinians when their president speaks at the General Assembly next Friday. A minimum of personality is demanded from the ambassadors of all voting countries who, even being sympathetic to the Palestinians, are unable to obey their own conscience. Remember that, Nigeria.

(September 19th, 2011)

Website: www.franciscopinheirorodrigues.com.br
Blog in English: http://francepiroenglish.blogspot.com/
Blog in Portuguese: http://francepiro.blogspot.com/

Kadhafi´s warrant of arrest and the Rome Statute

2011-07-23T16:13:00.002-03:00

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has asked all countries for the imprisonment of Muamar Kadhafi, accusing him of crimes against humanity. With all due respect, either the Court should alter its procedural rules or its prestige will keep suffering consecutive and undeserved disturbances. The first time such a thing happened was when the Court issued a (still unfulfilled) warrant of arrest against Sudan´s President, Omar Bashir, who is still, until this date, freely travelling around every country he chooses without being bothered at all – in fact, he has just been welcomed with all honors by the Chinese President on June 28, 2011. The same thing might very well happen with Kadhafi.

But where is, as far as I understand, the fragile point of the current procedural system of the International Criminal Court? It rests in the possibility – an obligation even, as better detailed ahead – of arresting chiefs of state without a previous trial. In other words, first the Court arrests and only afterwards it tries the accused. This goes in opposition to the general legal tendency, which tries to prevent long imprisonments before the accused has a proper trial. If the accused is an older person and dies in prison before proven guilty – which is not unlikely, considering trials can last many years due to a great number of witnesses, exhaustively detailed defenses and so forth – his political followers (who are always there, somewhere) might very well say, whether it is the truth or not, that the deceased was just a martyr, a victim of a judicial system stained by political bias.

In Brazil, for example, dominant legislation and jurisprudence (both of which are in clear need of some changes for being too soft) determine that the accused is only considered guilty of a crime when the sentence is no longer subject to an appeal – only then he can be properly arrested. A preventive arrest is only tolerated as a guarantee that a convicting sentence will be fulfilled when the accused has neither a proper residence nor the means to live, or when there is serious evidence (?!) that he might escape once he is aware of his conviction. Even the most severe Brazilian jurists – who are very concerned about white collar crimes – suggest the lawmakers that a convict should only be put under arrest during the trials which are ulterior to a first or second sentence. One or two properly examined convicting sentences are on their own a strong evidence that the accused is indeed guilty. As for the ICC in the cases of Bashir and Kadhafi, it is requiring the arrest of chiefs of state without any previous conviction.

Article 63 of the Rome Statute determines that “1 - The accused must be present during his trial”. In there lies the explanation for the inconvenient paralysation of the most important lawsuits, stimulating a global aura of inefficiency in a Court which is very necessary to lessen the impunity of powerful criminals who have not been properly punished in their own nations. This good purpose – i.e., to punish those who deserve to be punished – needs to be adapted to the reality.

And which reality is that? The reality in which chiefs of state who are involved in bloody battles – by either killing or defending themselves abusively, or even both – will never voluntarily attend the International Criminal Court. And the ICC will find practical difficulty to arrest the accused because the country where he is – his own country or any other where he might be visiting — does not authorize the arrest, using the principle of sovereignty as an excuse. Even if the accused eventually feels compelled to attend, if only to improbably justify himself, he will never dare to put his freedom at risk. After all, he knows that in the Court there will be an entrance gate, but not an exit one. His victims, almost always individually unknown to him – will have already been heard. The Court will be influenced – if not vexed – since the beginning by the barbarian reports it will have heard, without which the process wouldn´t even have started. It is important to note that in this initial phase the accused´s witnesses are not heard (unless I am mistaken).

The instructing judge will almost certainly determine the arrest of the accused which has attended the trial either before or after its deposition, as a guarantee that he will be present at the final stage – the trial itself. At the latter, as already mentioned, he “must be present” (art. 63). Every chief of state in the position of “accused” will be under the (not always wrong) impression that behind all the legal framework there is a political interest – which there always in, in varied degrees. When the political or religious violence starts, brutal attacks from both sides are almost a certainty. In addition to that, not every barbaric act committed in vast and deflagrated regions derive from an order issued by the chief of state, whether he is a tyrant or not. Sadistic subordinates also enjoy any opportunity they have to give in to their tendencies.

As I have already mentioned in a previous article, Kadhafi is no model governor. He is a despot, and very far from being an enlightened one. And rumor has it that he has millions of dollars in some off-shore bank accounts - a probable burden to his country. The only thing that is left to know – in order to legally support or not the revolted people – is the level of spontaneous support which he has from the total population. It is even possible theoretically – theoretically – that he has more followers than enemies, and if such is the case, NATO would be legally wrong for not respecting the currently in force principle of sovereignty, a concept which, although agonizing — because it leads to manifest abuses —, still appears in the legal manuals as a rule to be respected.

To recap everything, it is necessary that the Rome Statute goes through modifications as follows: when subpoenaed — or its equivalent act — the accused shall be invited to attend. If such a thing doesn´t happen, the lawsuit against him shall move on until the end, with or without the declaration of preventive arrest, which would happen under the discretion of the Court. Even when absent, his lawyers would proceed with his defense. If the Court should want to hear his verbal explanations – to “attest” his sincerity – he might be interrogated from a distance, in front of a television or computer monitor. Nowadays there are plenty of technological devices easily available to study the “body language” of the person who is being interrogated, even thousands of kilometers away. Questions and answers might be followed live all over the planet, lending transparence to the process. Should the Court insist on having him physically present, it would have to give him an absolute guarantee that he would not be arrested should he agree to attend the deposition. However, it is very unlikely that the accused would believe such a promise.

Once the conviction is determined, only then a legitimate “hunt for the criminal” can start. Perhaps, in the future, even with the use of “commands”, something like what happened with Adolfo Eichmann, caught in Argentina by the Mossad. It would then be an arrest with much more global acceptance — after all, the ICC aims for global justice — because there would at least have been a public trial with all defense mechanisms available to the accused.

Such a new system would be much better that having a really important criminal case being stopped because the accused is absent – which is what happens nowadays. And we have to admit that the presence of the accused is not that important for the trial of a case. After all, most of the times the accused lies for his own benefit. Not to mention that his lawyers, who are more experienced than him, know better what is best to be revealed and what is best to be left unsaid.

There are certain procedural rigors which, as a paradox, for being too threatening, end up collaborating with impunity. Such is the case under analysis: since it is not possible to preventively arrest the powerful accused, the latter can brag about not being tried and enjoying a presumption of innocence.

I am unsure whether the aforementioned arguments ignore any legal or philosophical detail which would justify the current system, which, at the end of the day, involuntarily favors great criminals. Should there be any strong argument in favor of the current system, it is necessary for public and legal opinion to make it known. Even if it is to examine it and verify if it is based on common sense – this spice which should never be absent from the judicial activity. Especially in the international trials which have a political and/or religious component, where the notions of right and wrong are poisoned by pre-conceptions learned from childhood. Besides, the UN´s Security Council is not a temple for religious people whose only concern is to save souls. And that´s where the request to arrest the rude and arrogant Kadhafi stemmed from.

May the present article serve at least to provoke a reexamination of a procedural detail which is very important to the prestige and the well-functioning of a Court which was established with the best of intents.

(July 1st, 2011)

The international judicial anarchy and a few confessions

2011-07-15T18:21:00.002-03:00

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)

“Conspiracy theory” or “genius of the crime”?

2011-06-10T16:34:00.002-03:00

After reading a short while ago an article written by the honest and intelligent French journalist Gilles Lapouge and published in a São Paulo newspaper, I can´t resist but to give my opinion about the exhaustedly discussed “Dominique Strauss-Kahn case”, even if for a third time. At this point everybody has already read “ad nauseam” about the “sexual rampage” which came over the then director of the International Monetary Fund and probable future President of France, who, showing a highly improbable stupidity, yielded to an uncontrollable sexual desire and attacked barenaked the hotel housekeeper who had just gotten into his room for its regular tidying up. The episode happened in New York City. The housekeeper managed to escape from the room “in panic” – perhaps truly in panic — and reported what had happened to the hotel employees. Strauss-Kahn afterwards left the hotel and went to the airport to return to France, according to the plane tickets which had been bought a few days earlier.

The too much repeated facts don´t need to be recalled one more time. However, a weird detail must: the alleged “rapist” apparently phoned the hotel from the JFK airport and, in a too-naive-to-be-true way for a criminal, asked a hotel employee to check whether he had left his cell phone in his room. Why didn´t he simply abandon his cell phone? Why so much affection for an object, especially considering he had just committed a crime? The employee, thus being alerted to the whereabouts of the “white-haired monster”, immediately warned the police, which then proceeded to arrest the “fugitive”, not without resorting to a James Bond-worthy operation at the exact moment when the airplane was about to take off. Handcuffed and arrested, the “old perv” awaited in silence for his fate.

Such silence, suggesting guilt, only now seems understandable to me, if the most recent theory about what really happened in that terrible hotel room proves to be true, which seems very likely. This last version - according to which DSK thought that the Guinea-born housekeeper was a call-girl he had previously hired and that was why he “attacked” her without needing to resort to any seduction techniques – was brought to my attention by the aforementioned Gilles Lapouge article, who cited it en passant as another example of the current trend of making up “conspiracy theories”.

Gilles Lapouge is a righteous and clever journalist. His writings can even be considered addictive, in the good sense of the word, meaning that one who reads him once will have the need to always read him. “Cocaine for the spirit”, the same as can be said about some Brazilian essayists such as Arnaldo Jabor, whom I read every single Tuesday not only for the brightness of his style but also for his almost fervorous braveness of always saying what he thinks. We often think exactly like him but not often enough have the courage to say so, for self-indulgence or fear; unfortunately the biggest truths are usually unpleasant and/or dangerous and we avoid to express them on fear of a lawsuit, of having to pay judicial expenses or compensation for moral damages; sometimes even of jail – or worse, fear of being the victim of an “unknown assailant” who might came to us in the back of an unlicensed motorcycle and send us to the grave without ever being found again.

Conspiracy theories abound all over the media, especially the internet. The web offers easy and free space for anyone, even the most ignorant and stupid. Nutcases of all kinds try to prove that the world is going to end in such and such year. If such year comes and nothing happens, “no problem” – an explanation for the failure of the prophecy is promptly given, whatever they may be: excerpts from the Bible or other sacred scriptures, combinations of celestial bodies, mysterious groups of conspirators who intend to rule the Word, extraterrestrials and everything else which inhabits the most insane imaginations – or smart ones, when they manage to be profitable.

In the Strauss-Kahn case, nevertheless, there are serious reasons for speculating, and this latest version seems to fit perfectly with what really happened. Of course there is still a possibility, however remote and grotesque it may be, that the great economist and politician has really suffered from a temporary fit of stupidity generated by an exceeding amount of hormones which prevented his neurons from working.

What then is the explanation which would deserve, for its evil ingenuity, a “Swindle Award” (in opposition to the Nobel Award) if the latest theory of what happened in that infamous hotel room proves to be true?

This is certainly what happened: DSK´s most tenacious and motivated enemy, fully aware of his womanizing past, realized that this would be the way to defeat him, first because of the credibility issues and mainly because it is always very difficult to prove what happened between two people in a closed environment. Placing the case in the USA was a special bonus, since the American justice usually has a propensity to deal such “sexual cases” involving important people with a puritan rigor. The United States are for sure a country in which coexist both the maximum of sexual freedom – in the media, in the movies - and the extreme puritanism when it comes to judging famous people and big headlines.

But on with the explanation. Pressed by his sexual needs, DSK ordered through his cell phone the services of a call-girl. Perhaps to avoid suspicion, he asked the girl to wear housekeeper clothes. When she walked into the room, DSK was already waiting for her, naked, exactly as the real housekeeper said. Thinking she was the call-girl he had previously ordered, he acted without any embarrassment – any resistance the girl presented was thought of by him to be simply part of the game (the sexual game). The housekeeper, unaware of any schemes, got scared and reacted accordingly, fleeing the room and reporting the incident to other employees. The plan was foolproof: the housekeeper would even pass any lie-detecting devices, since she was indeed telling the truth, after all the sudden “attack” by a naked man had really occurred. Physical and chemical evidence of the sexual encounter would also be present in the clothes, as reported by the media (according to which “organic fluids belonging to DSK were found in the housekeeper´s collar”).

The question is: why did DSK remain silent when he was arrested, without rushing to explain that he advanced towards the girl because he believed her to be a hired call-girl? The answer is: such declaration would disavow his political reputation. To a married man, and a man of his position, it wouldn´t “go well” to admit to having resorted to the services of a prostitute, especially in the USA. And that is also why he insisted on retrieving his cell phone. After all, he used his cell phone to order the girl and not the hotel phone, which might be tapped – cell phone calls are easier to be erased.

If things went on like this, we would have a perfect crime of slandering against a very important man - in a way, almost a “coup d’état” in advance, considering that it might prevent the election of a future president.

I dare to have an idea of the kind of people who would be able to devise such a conniving plan. I just prefer not to name them for fear of being unfair. Knowing that sooner or later DSK would concede to his hormones before returning to France, the still nameless “criminal mastermind” could very well even be monitoring the man´s phone calls – whatever spying devices might allow him or her to do that. When picking the call to the prostitute, he or she could very well have warned DSK that the girl would be in his room in such a time and dressed as a housekeeper. This would only be the mousetrap – the cheese would be the sexual appetite. Every time I read about new medicine offering invigorating effects to older men through the ingestion of pills, I imagine how many marital, political and financial problems are implicit at the medicine’s directions.

The reader might start wondering whether anyone would go to such levels of subtlety in order to devise such a scheme. “It would be too diabolical!” They would, dear reader, if there was enough time to think about it and if the reward was sufficiently stimulating. Never doubt the power of money as a propeller to imagination.

If I could act as a lawyer in the United States I wouldn´t hesitate to offer my legal services for free to DSK and humbly be part of his defense team. I am still not convinced that he simply fell prey to his hormones.

(May 30th, 2011)

The “theatrics” of Netanyahu: smart but deceiving

2011-06-02T11:36:00.001-03:00

Yesterday I watched on television Benjamin Netanyahu´s speech at the American Congress – which was witnessed by congressmen and senators from both main political parties. Barack Obama was away on a trip overseas; luck – or else divine providence – kept him away, because then he avoided the other´s many daring indirect jabs, which were all unanswerable since it is not common practice in such circumstances for a foreign speaker to be interrupted by the representative from the welcoming country.

The “theatre” even seemed rehearsed, although probably not because Netanyahu is a master in the art of sophism as only a few others are. The American congressmen – generally ill-informed about foreign politics and personally uninterested in the growth of Israel — never ceased to applaud and express admiration in a “muscular” enthusiasm – getting up, sitting down, up, down – as if hypnotized by every sentence professed by the foreign leader. It is hard to believe that such an exhaustive gymnastics of arms and legs shaking had not been previously suggested by the event planners. The few ones who did not seem to be happy listening to that hesitated before finally joining the general applause. The reader knows how these things are, after all, everybody has been through such things – in a ceremony, when most of the people are clapping and standing up, we feel almost forced to do the same, in order not to look dissonant.

Now why such criticism directed to the Israeli Premier? Any prejudice against the Jewish people? Not at all, regarding the latter. There are some extraordinary Jews, as there are in all races. However, I have some reservations – and strong ones – against Netanyahu, an astute leader who is tremendously selfish, who is not a good friend of the truth and who is short-sighted when it comes to proposing right and lasting solutions. Propositions which would truly solve the problems of his people and their Semite blood-related people — the Palestines. These ones, for no blame of their own, ended up being punished two thousand years after the violence perpetrated by the Roman Empire who expelled the Jews from Palestine. The expelled ones returned there in the Twentieth Century and, while in need of a proper space to grow and develop, “had no other solution” than to banish the local Arabs. In a paradox, the Jewish Diaspora, despite the undeniable suffering which followed it, brought some benefits to the Jews: the opening of new horizons, the learning of new languages, the dominance of finances, the training and emphasis on tenacity. Had there been no Diaspora, the Jewish people would have remained in the Palestinian territory, raising goats, planting olive trees and living basically as the local Arabs did before the creation of the State of Israel

The Israeli Premier is so obsessed with selfishly favoring his own country – and as a consequence getting more and more electoral prestige – that he forgets the injustices he practices. Einstein — a model Jew, morally and intellectually speaking — used to say that in situations of disagreement we need to always put ourselves in the other´s place, to try to understand the other´s reasons. This is something that Netanyahu never did and never will do because it is not in his nature. And this will be paid in the future by his own people. The moral capital of the Holocaust is being plundered by the successive withdrawals made by politicians who only think of their personal gain, and not in their own people.

Cunning is a rudimentary form of intelligence because most of the times it just deceives or procrastinates. It doesn´t solve, it patches. It doesn´t deactivate “bombs” originated from resentment with reason. The bomb, in a figurative sense – or proper sense, as is the case of the Middle East – will explode some time afterwards. In order for it not to explode it will have to be drenched in blood. The wick connected to the dynamite might be long, but one day it will eventually reach its end.

And which wick is this, in the present case? The understandable Palestine hatred, which spreads to the rest of the Arab world, a hatred accumulated for decades and derived from the excessive occupation of land, ill-treatment, bureaucratic abuse, barriers and the expulsion of Arabic communities which had been there for more than two thousand years.

Netanyahu seems never to have heard of “usucaption”, a legal term which recognizes that when a property is abandoned for a given time its property rights go to the individual who is occupying it. In Internacional Law, as far as I know – which is not much, in this specific subject — it seems not to exist the aforementioned “usucaption” with strict rules; however, an analogy of situations with what occurs on a private level is already an indication that the return of the Jews to the Palestine two thousand years ago was a political mistake which might result in the burning of the world, even leading to a Third World War. It just turns out that this mistake has been consolidated. There is no way to go back in time. There isn´t even a way to think of a Second Holocaust, even though we are already witnessing its bastard puppy, a “mini-holocaust”, a “lighter version”, whose victims are Palestinian refugees.

Israel nowadays has eight million inhabitants. Not as a mere coincidence, the number of Palestinian refugees which were expelled from their homes and who now live in tents and precarious shelters in neighboring countries, anxious to return home, is also close to eight million. Two bodies can´t occupy the same place at the same time. Hence, the need for the weakest one to “get the hell out without complaining to the bishop!”, as Netanyahu suggests.

The “Bishop”, in this case, would be the International Court of Justice, which can´t be accessed by the Palestinians because only constituted states have such a right. And for that end they would need help from Israel itself, which has every political reason not to help them to achieve such a legal status. “Why should we torment ourselves with Palestinian demands at the International Court of Justice”?

Persecuted people of any race, traumatized by bad memories (European ones in this case), are easy prey to politicians who stimulate fear and doubt, transforming former persecuted into new persecutors. The demagogical promise – made by Hamas and the Iranian president – to “sweep Israel from the map” is a clear silliness conceived to please voters who are exasperated by the Israeli impunity. Not even the most ardent enemy of the State of Israel, when lucid, believes in this imaginary broom, even if Iran indeed builds its nuclear weapons. Iran, in case it does an insane attack, would be incinerated in the same day – or the next, at most. If Israel has the right to manufacture atomic weapons, using as an excuse the fear for its own destruction, similar excuses and rights can be attributed to Iran, aware of Israel´s “hunger for land”.

Israel is the most powerful country of the Middle East in terms of conventional weaponry. As for nuclear ones, it is the only country which has the right to own them. And it doesn´t have to allow inspections from the International Atomic Energy Agency because it never signed the “non-proliferation agreement”. Even with so many privileges, Israel still feels “offended” – or else falsely afraid – by – or for – the eventuality that Iran one day produces nuclear weapons. For this reason, it threateningly demands that Iran renounces its advancements in the practical knowledge of nuclear energy, regardless of whether it is for peaceful or military purposes. And this coming from a country which is capable of building not only nuclear plants but also, at least in theory, bombs. It insists – as if it were its divine right – to “be the boss”, irrestrictly, through a monopoly which can lead to abuses. And to Netanyahu, the enlightened sovereign, it really doesn´t matter that Iran subsists mainly through oil, which is a limitation and which eventually will cease naturally or for ecological reasons. And then, where will Iran obtain the energy it needs, especially with land which is not suitable for agriculture? Why does only Israel have the right to be feared in the whole region? Can´t it, at least in theory, abuse such power? It is important here to remember that absolute power might absolutely corrupt.

Another evidence of Netanyahu´s impressive dominance tendency is the demand for Hamas not to participate in any way on the future negotiations regarding the creation of a Palestinian state. If both Palestinian factions, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, decide to unite, it is none of Israel´s business. It would be the same thing if, in a negotiation between Argentina and Brazil, the former demanded that no politician from PT, PSDB or PMDB (three of the main Brazilian political parties) ever participated in the negotiations. Deep down, such maneuvers aim mainly on creating excuses and difficulties, to delay the fixation of frontiers while the Jewish settlements are expanded in the West Bank.

To Netanyahu, “terrorism” is a label which can only be used for others. He forgets that terrorism can happen in any country where its inhabitants feel oppressed by outsiders and the problem cannot be solved with good manners or though a legal way. If – incredibly hypothetically speaking – Chinese troops invaded the USA, hundreds of Americans – the fierce, most temperamental ones – would probably resort to terrorist acts against the invaders. The Jews themselves had their “proud” terrorist phase when in the 1940´s they were prevented by the British to create an Israeli state in the Palestine.

Osama bin Laden was a really reproachable terrorist by killing innocents. He was incredibly stupid with the 9/11 event, turning the whole civilized world against his cause. His hatred against America derived mainly from the USA´s unconditional support to Israel. Had there been no such support, probably there never would have been a 9/11. Whoever has the trouble to research and read on the internet a collection of speeches made by the terrorist - “Bin Laden quotes” or “quotations” – will have no doubt about how much the Palestinian situation was important in motivating the 2001 attacks. Had there been peace in that region, even if not entirely ideal, probably the Twin Towers would still be standing.

On July 22nd, 1946, “Hotel King David”, located in Jerusalem, was exploded, causing the death of 91 people — 28 British, 41 Arabs, 17 Jews (which were there by mistake) and 5 people from other nationalities – as well as hundreds of wounded ones. Taking responsibility for such terrorist act was a Jewish movement known as Irgun Zvai Leumi, made up by those who insisted on creating the Israeli state. Why that hotel? Because that was where most of the British governmental employees lived in the Palestine. At that time it was the British who managed that region, as determined by the predecessor of the United Nations.

This well-known historical fact has often been “forgotten” in Netanyahu´s speeches through the years. Netanyahu has even mentioned that terrorism is an intrinsically criminal act, as if there had never been a Jewish terrorist act. For him, only the Arab terrorism is wrong. And as much as he apparently is uninterested in History, he knew of such fact because he was present, along with other politicians from the right, at a commemorative event for the 60th anniversary of the terrorist act which destroyed the hotel, a seven-floored building. According to Wikipedia, in this celebratory event a commemorative plaque was put on, recognizing the merits of the Jewish terrorist organization. This is only one of the reasons why I don´t believe in a word said by this citizen who, unfortunately for the Jewish people, should have a different profession. He would certainly be a great real estate agent, stock broker or sales manager, considering his persuasive powers.

Terrorism — when motivated by an authentic hatred and not financial greed — is the reaction of the more hot-tempered against situations of injustice. Among the wronged ones, some are more prudent (e.g., Mahmoud Abbas), others are more aggressive (e.g., the Hamas leaders). There is no way to prevent this variation of moods. And it is useless to try to eliminate terrorism for good without touching the deep cause with originated it. Netanyahu says that Israel is a democracy and that human rights are protected there. Israel is in fact a democracy, but such rights have been denied to many Palestinians. They had to flee to avoid persecution. Millions of them can attest to that.

The only true solution to the Palestinian conflict would be for the international community to step forward in a daring and fair move, altering the Charter of the United Nations and creating a committee of notables – the more notable the better – who, after listening to both parties, would establish the frontiers of both states. After all, a judicial decision does not have the obligation to please both parties. To foolishly demand that “both parties sit down and reach an agreement” is to play Netanyahu´s game, who, deep down, wants to be remembered by future generations as a kind of prophet who turned a tiny state into a huge nation.

When you see in the map how far the Gaza Strip is from the West Bank, it is predictable that such detail might bring even more problems than the ones usually talked about publicly. There is no rhyme nor reason to the creation of a Palestinian State divided into two distant areas. Only fresh and experienced minds who have no personal relation to the subject – international judges with no Arab or Jewish origin – might be able to solve the problem, which is something that is never mentioned. We can never forget the utter intransigence and stubbornness of both religions which, even sharing the same and unique god, will never reach an agreement.

Are the expelled Palestinians unable to return to the Israeli State – as its future borders – because the return would result in an inevitable uproar? May this be taken into consideration by the future arbiters, should it be true. Experienced international judges will know how to compensate this non-return with reasonable concessions. It is patent that the West Bank shall not be separated from the Gaza Strip and without access to the sea.

Such propositions are mere suggestions, perhaps mistaken when put on a map. The essential thing is to point out that the “cool head” in the international judges will be much wiser than the “boiling head” of Jews and Palestinians, incapable of dismantling the gravest current danger to the world peace. When the Palestinians are calmed, the so-called “Islamic Terror” will eventually disappear.

The International Law is pretty elegant. Its profound specialists – not my case, by the way, since I am merely an admirer - lack, however, the audacity to try some “innovation” in the documents which regulate the powers of international justice. Without a solution “from the outside” and mandatory, the planet might find itself in another global conflict. No one can safely predict what might result from the Arab upheaval. If everybody sympathizes with the Palestinians, the already hot atmosphere will only boil. And all because nobody who understands the subject bothers to think of a renovation at the United Nations, especially in the area of International Justice.

May God have mercy on the Middle East. Because the Devil won´t. Think about this, Netanyahu. You can still revert your reputation among the Arabs. Who knows if one day the Arabs might even applaud you. Everyone deserves a second chance.

(May 24th, 2011)

Everything points to a false accusation against Strauss-Kahn

2011-06-02T11:32:00.001-03:00

Brazilian newspaper “O Estado de S. Paulo”, on its May 15th, 2011 issue, page A20, tells us of the alleged sexual abuse, of which I insistently do not believe, committed by Dominique Strauss-Kahn, director of the International Monetary Fund and Nicolas Sarkozy´s strongest adversary in the upcoming 2012 French presidential election. I am not deeming the newspaper as a liar, after all the brilliant politician, jurist and economist was in fact arrested by American authorities in New York City while already inside an Air France airplane which was going to take him to Paris. The imprisonment, only minutes before take-off, of such a renowned person – a setup, in my opinion – indeed happened, it was a fact, which therefore justifies the aforementioned newspaper news report. The newspaper, however, does not question the truth of the rape accusation.

According to the victim — or “alleged” victim, a 32-year-old hotel housekeeper –, as she entered the hotel room in order to perform a routine cleanup, Strauss-Kahn left the bathroom naked and attempted to sexually abuse her, unsuccessfully, though, since she was able to disentangle herself from his hold, despite of enduring some “minor injuries”. The housekeeper then warned the hotel employees of what had happened and they called the police, which did not hesitate to arrest the politician moments before his airplane took off.

Only an incredibly high level of drunkenness – something which has not been mentioned so far – or an unbelievable mental imbalance or block would explain such an abnormal behavior coming from a potential President of France, harmful not only to himself but also to the Socialist Party, to which he belongs. With his power and wealth, it is inconceivable that the economist would, on his normal state, “attack” a stranger, in the same manner in which an illiterate pervert would, without predicting her reaction. New York is the antithesis of a nunnery; on the contrary, its harem of attractive call-girls is available through a mere phone call. A “professional” would be more than willing to satisfy the amorous desires of any “client” with complete and utter discretion, without even paying attention to who the client was – after all, such professionals, as in any part of the world, never request an ID.

It is important to emphasize that he was not “caught in the act”, i.e., “flagrante delicto”. Should there not be a secret intention to publicly vilify him – “preventing an attempted aerial escape”, as some local headlines described it - , the regular procedure of the police would be to hear the alleged victim, verify her authenticity and honesty – even through the use of a lie detector – and, once convinced of the veracity of the accusation, only then proceed with the arrest of the “pervert politician”. However, an atmosphere of a 007 movie thriller was probably a necessary factor in the probable setup.

The use of politics and justice for shady purposes is far from being a rare practice both in political rivalry and corporate competition. And this is what the present case seems to be. The French right wing, notably Sarkozy, wants to win the next election at all costs. A scandal such as this one changes everything. It is possible that a “noble-minded enemy of the left” has, on an “impulse of creativity”, devised a scheme to harm the most dangerous adversary of the current French president, making up a particularly advantageous story to demoralize the rival.

Advantageous because it combines two characteristics: first, in rape accusations – either performed or attempted -, the American people have a tendency to always take the victim´s side (alleged or not). A tearful and humiliated face instantly condemns any alleged abuser, automatically inverting the burden of proof – “the accused is the one who needs to prove his/her innocence”. Which is a difficult task, considering there are no witnesses, images or recordings. In the case of politicians, even when there is no evidence of the attemped rape and the accused is consequently acquitted, the nature of the accusation and the repeated exposure of the case by the media are enough to cast a shadow on the accused, making him/her consequently lose any elections he/she might be involved.

The second advantage of this kind of accusation is that it also benefits the alleged victims, assuring them an almost certain impunity: the case often ends without a definitive conclusion about what really happened inside the closed room. For a few hundreds of thousands of dollars it is easy to find a brave and improvised “artist” to serve as a victim, who may even want to get a million dollars, an insignificant amount considering what it means, directly or indirectly, to be the president of a country from the First World. As for the “light injuries”, this is something very easy to simulate.

I write these suspicious lines because I remember what happened in the USA before the election of President John F. Kennedy. The father of the American politician who reached the Presidency was an incredibly smart, active and daring businessman. Before focusing his abilities in electing his son to the highest position of the USA (and of the world), he was a businessman working in show business. He had, however, a rival – a Greek man, as far as I can remember – who was constantly beating him in that activity. Resentful, he hired a clever and ambitious teenager to simulate an attempted rape. The girl managed to arrange a meeting with the Greek, in his office, pretending to look for an opportunity as an artist. After a few moments she went towards the man, pulled his shirt, dismantled his hair, tore her own dress and fled the Office “in panic”, screaming and announcing she had been the victim of a sexual crime. The astonished Greek went after her, claiming innocence, but since his own clothes were disheveled and the girl emotionally insisted on the accusation, he was immediately arrested. A jury convicted him severely and his lawyers had a lot of work to acquit him in the appeal.

This story is described in a book about real crimes which I read many years ago, written by an American or Canadian author - perhaps a Canadian author named Max Haines in a series called “True Crime Stories”. I don´t recall the exact volume of the series but I am sure I have a copy in my personal collection, among the more than 6.000 books I keep unorganizedly ( “a man is the only animal who buys more books than he is capable of reading”). Should anyone raise any doubt regarding such report, I am sure I would be able to locate it, even though it has now only a historical interest. By the way, it is interesting to mention that the same author says that the aforementioned girl, “the victim”, years later, on her deathbed, confessed that the alleged sexual attack had indeed been simulated in exchange for money.

Now, it is Mr. Strauss-Khan´s place to defend himself firmly and intelligently, if indeed he has been slandered – which seems to me to be the case. Since there are plenty of months left to the election, there will be sufficient time for the lawsuit to end and for an investigative work take place, which, if properly exposed by the media demonstrating the evidence of the setup, might make the electorate progressively understand what really went on, i.e., an odious setup. Therefore, if this really is a setup perpetrated by Sarkozy´s allies, it might very well backfire, compulsorily “retiring” the always daring and imaginative President. It would be the French Watergate.

After writing the present article yesterday, today I read on the same newspaper that the housekeeper in question has been described as “a serious and competent professional who has never been involved in any problems at work”, and that has put a small shadow of a doubt in my mind. Not an absolute doubt, however, because if this whole case is indeed a setup, the female piece of the scheme could never be a woman with no morals and/or a questionable past, something which would take away all credibility of the scheme. In other words, the woman in question needed to have a good reputation in order to make the scheme believable.

If, however, it is proved in court that this has been indeed a case of an outburst of insanity from such a well-versed and sensible man, then I will concede and acknowledge my mistake. I will ask the honorable housekeeper for forgiveness, for questioning her version of the story, apparently in contrast to most of the people who have studied and have a lot to lose when they exceed the limits. I will then recognize the wisdom of the famous philosopher who once said: “Man is fire. Woman is flax. The devil comes and blows on them”.

My suspicion is that the “blow” is no more than a devilish breath with the smell of Rochefort cheese extracted from lambs and with a spicy taste.

Only a “dark spirit”, with its evil power, would be able to destroy, in one single blow and in two minutes, an incredible career carefully built during decades.

Will it be necessary, in the Western world, to castrate all politicians, so that they avoid making monumental mistakes?

(May 15th, 2011)

WikiLeaks

2010-12-22T19:00:00.001-02:00

The disclosure of cables and other records of American embassies, revealing what high-ranking employees really thought about foreign leaders and secret intentions and “agreements” between countries, was one of the most important events of the decade. In the long term, weighing up the pros and cons, diplomacy took a step - or rather, has been given a push - forwards rather than backwards. The less falsity there is in communications between governments, the better. Truth - not just “philosophically” speaking - improves human relationships more than lies. And governments are human products, although sometimes they could be considered by-products.

It is not for nothing that the founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, is being “hunted” by the law, whatever the official reason. An attempt is always made to find a way of characterizing someone who reveals the inner workings of governments as “bold-faced and meddlesome”. However, it should be emphasized that, in this mega-leak, the USA was only the “unlucky party”, the “fall guy”, even though it acts in much the same way as other countries. All embassies throughout the world proceed in the manner revealed by the current “scandal”. Please, let us not be hypocritical.

The freedom to harshly criticize was encouraged by the presumption made to date - although no longer... - that the sincerity of remarks would be protected, in an absolute manner, by general and diplomatic confidentiality. Many things are going to change in diplomatic routines. If possible, let us hope that the mentality behind the routines also changes. It should also be remembered that the person who failed to maintain the required secrecy was not Julian Assange, but an intelligence analyst, a soldier named Bradley Manning, working for the Americans. Assange simply acted as a journalist who discloses information.

The strange accusation brought against Assange - of rape or sexual molestation - seems to have been “arranged”, specifically selected. In a court of law, it is especially adequate if one intends to demoralize someone, given that the word of the victim - or alleged victim - is generally sufficient in rape cases. Nobody believes a denial on the part of the accused, unless there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary, which is difficult to obtain. Much to the contrary of that which occurs on hearing the victim’s testimony, especially if she weeps or seems visibly shaken. Such crimes normally occur without the presence of witnesses, a highly favorable circumstance for the prosecution. Slight localized signs of violence can be mechanically improvised prior to examination by medical experts. If, in this case, it is eventually found that such sexual crimes actually occurred - I repeat once again that they seem to me to be unlikely - I will acknowledge my mistake. It can be considered that, even if the defendant is absolved, for reasons of doubt, he is branded with demoralization for the rest of his life. It sticks to him and everything he has already done or comes to do in the future.

Obviously, there is an unfair “bad side” to dissemination of the frank opinions of American ambassadors. However, such unfairness, as I have already mentioned, lies in the exclusive nature of the disclosure. The United States of America was the only country subject to an “X-ray” of sincerity, a “truth serum”. Its entrails were exposed for public viewing. And no intestine exists, be it in the animal or governmental kingdom, which is free of unpleasant odors. If, following such “American” revelations, other countries also come to see their own frank remarks exposed, in general, such remarks are not something similar to judicial sentences that are final and binding. They are not irrefutable “scientific truths”. They are merely personal opinions expressed by ambassadors, with every right to the subjectivity inherent in all human beings. In all certainty, in the embassies of many countries, there are opinions that are highly aggressive - perhaps even with obscenities -, bringing into doubt the paternity of certain especially hated American politicians.

Another “bad” aspect of the revelations in question was that of its lack of consideration, without prior notice, for the abstract and universal value of privacy. Given that personal privacy is considered to be a fundamental human right - allowing people to say, reservedly and sincerely, what they think and feel, at home, in a bar or at the office - it is also the right of “legal entities”, in this case the State - and its extension, embassies and those who work there - to say what they think and feel. Embassies exist in order to represent a country and gather information about what is happening locally. If it were not so, what purpose would they serve? Vladimir Putin is furious at what has come to pass, but he needs to recognize that the same kind of behavior that occurred at the American embassy in Moscow also occurs at Russian embassies spread throughout the world.

By the way, I am suitably impressed by the way in which practically all the criticism or unfavorable views of foreign governments that appear in WikiLeaks coincide, to a large extent, with that which well-informed people already think worldwide. There is only frankness, not bad faith. This is a positive aspect for North-American diplomacy. I did not see any evidence of lies or deliberately false intelligence transmitted to Washington. Of course, the opinions and information in question are related to American interests; however, it could it not be otherwise, as this is only to be expected at the embassy of any country. Ambassadors are representatives of their respective countries, not a centralized world government.

Now let us have a look at the “good” side of the leak promoted by WikiLeaks.

Firstly, there has been an edifying “shake up” in the age-old untrusting world of diplomacy, with isolation and necessary hypocrisy in relationships between nations. All countries, infected, like a disease, with the already rather decadent concept of absolute sovereignty - not even slightly interested in the well being of other nations - have been and still are obliged to solely think of their own particular interests, especially in the security area. “Who will take care of us, if we are attacked? We have to protect our secrets and, even more importantly, know the secrets of our neighbors, because we do not live in a world of angels. Our spies are our guardian angels, even when, in extreme cases, they poison and kill adversaries. We kill one or two discreetly, but we save thousands of our compatriots”.

However, it is a fact that such state interests as wealth and security no longer seem to be so “particular”, given the interdependence between nations. Each new international aversion - arising from a disclosed harsh personal criticism - represents a tremendous loss, in both political and economic terms. Nations perceive, to an ever greater extent, that they are not alone. They are dependent upon other nations. There is a need to keep one’s tongue in check. The injured party could change its policy, with dire consequences, if the detrimental opinion appears in the media; if it does not appear, it is of no importance, that’s normal. An indignant Vladimir Putin already made this very clear, when he read what American diplomats thought about him.

The international motto, almost unquestioned until recently, is “every man for himself!” However, as globalization has arrived in such areas as business, information, culture and travel - bringing different peoples ever closer together - , it will also end up worming its way into diplomacy, the traditional focus of secret conversations. Almost always, such conversations cannot be published, given that, if known, they would perhaps be used in an undesirable manner by other countries, all of which are potential enemies.

Instinctively, the world has come to show an ever greater aversion to “secrets”. It seems to be thought that “if something is hidden, there is likely to be something wrong”. There is a desire to know what is going on behind the scenes. Perhaps this explains the wide degree of acceptance, on the part of the public, of so-called “reality shows”, for example, “Big Brother” and the like - which I detest, even without having being able to watch an entire episode of any of them. Today, the world has become tired of “official truths”, presumed to be false. There is a yearning for the “real truth” in all sectors. And this is wholesome. The fewer untruths the better, in a world full of lies disseminated on television and radio, in the press, at the cinema, on the internet, in amorous relations and even conversations between friends. Each lie is a distortion of reality. Added together, they draw a false picture of the world in which we live. How can we vote adequately if our opinions are based on false data? Once the current shock of diplomatic unease has passed, the world will probably become a little more ethical. For reasons of apprehension rather than virtuousness.

Even if embassies henceforth take detailed precautions in order to preserve their secrets, there will always be the danger, albeit remote, of the occurrence of “leaks”. An anonymous embassy employee could - for reasons of technical fault, vanity, greed or idealism - open up a Pandora’s Box of vexatious state secrets. It is not solely the ambassador who uses embassy files and computers. For this reason, there is a need to control that which is spoken and written, as well as the actual spirit of foreign policy because “walls have ears” and the media especially loves indiscreet truths. Henceforth, the usual defamation and “conspiracies” will be less present in the world of diplomacy. Not, as I have already said, because diplomats are going to be transformed into saints, but because if secret plans are disclosed, the ambassadors themselves will have to hurriedly flee the countries, escaping from curses or bullets. And, at this point, I would like to consider another aspect - begging your pardon beforehand - that has made a great impression on me.

This “aspect” is the notion that a democratic world government - inevitably less burdened by hostile secrets, due to the fact that it is less compartmentalized - is much more appropriate for humanity than the current system of isolated “sovereignties”, closed off in small groups, hiding their intentions. The current manner of thinking is as follows: “In my yard, or should I say my country, I do and undo as I see fit. And I do not reveal what I intend to do. I use the whip or a carrot, according to whim, and nobody from outside can interfere, because the highly expansive concept of sovereignty protects me, although I am unable to protect my people from myself. By the way, why am I saying this if I am the people!?”

We currently acknowledge that the contentment or discontent of a nation lies in its fortune or misfortune in having a good or bad government. The current leaders of Zimbabwe, North Korea, Venezuela, Iran and Israel are obvious examples of the danger of acceptance of sovereignty without a degree of moderation. In the event that a Third World War occurs, one of the principal causes will lie in the current rigidity of the concept of sovereignty. With the practically inevitable spread of nuclear weapons, how is it possible to prevent a “crazy patriot” from provoking a conflict - perhaps radioactive - that will end up in world war? Will it be necessary to follow the usual international routine of first waiting for the predictable death of millions of soldiers and civilians and then, following defeat of the “crazy patriot”, punishing him? At the present time, he lives protected by the untouchable mantle of sovereignty.

If the planet were to receive a few legal “finishing touches” and become transformed into global democratic federation, there would be no room or climate for current rivalries of the kind that are enhanced by mistrust between states. For example, in the Brazilian federation, each state - São Paulo, Rio, Ceará, etc - does not need to spy on other states. There is no need to maintain embassies in all states that comprise the federation. It is only necessary to take care of internal security, without needing an army, air force and navy (when topographically the case). Dispensing with all this civilian and military apparatus means immense cost savings. In addition, as there is no generalized mistrust between states of the same federation, there is no information war. Any disagreements that occur between states are resolved at the National Congress. The same occurs in the case of the North-American federation. There, poor states are not in the least apprehensive about being attacked by rich neighboring states. In addition, as there are no embassies, there is no reason to be concerned about “leaks”.

Begging your pardon for the somewhat egoistic inclusion of the topic “world government”, ill-disguised advertising of an idea that is seldom given great importance, it can be concluded that, in the long term, WikiLeaks has shown more merits than defects as a result of the incident: it has “aired” rooms that have long remained closed. It is to be hoped that offended statesmen examine their consciences, conduct a sincere self-assessment and carry on with their lives, consoled by the notion that nobody is perfect. May Silvio Berlusconi continue to conduct himself, in his private life, as he always has done, and may the same thing happen in the case of others who have been criticized in the international arena.

I am not an admirer of Hillary Clinton, but there is no need for her to resign from her post solely due to the “leak” of a practice that has been employed universally. And I repeat: the American diplomats transmitted their sincere impressions, without exaggeration. They spoke according to what they observed. It would be even worse if they had lied to their own government, distorting American foreign policy.

(6-12-2010)

There is nothing to fear in the aging of the world population

2010-11-15T10:47:00.001-02:00

In the national and international media, it is ever more frequently possible to read and hear of the “danger” that threatens the future of humanity in the form of a progressive increase in numbers of the elderly and low birth rates in developed countries. In compensation, as far as developing countries or those obviously underdeveloped are concerned, there is, for the time being, even an excessive rate of production of babies, although this tends to decrease as such countries improve their standard of living. The modern woman wants to work, achieve something and earn her own money. Above all, she does not want to be dependent upon the fickle male heart which, even with a ring on the finger, could, from one moment to another, “go crazy”, seeking sex, or should I say romantic love, at a new address.

When this occurs, the ensuing drama is both humiliating and upsetting for the woman who solely depended on her husband - or companion - in order to subsist: there is a need to file a lawsuit for maintenance, for the woman and any children; discuss division of assets arising from the annulled union; fight for custody of children and suffer stressful friction related to visiting rights; and assume financial commitments for the actual judicial dispute, etc. And, adding insult to injury, the ex-husband may become unemployed, escaping the threat of prison, sometimes the only effective manner of ensuring that the “poor wretch” fulfills a legal and moral obligation.

Thinking about all this, the rather mistrustful woman - and every woman is mistrustful, as it is a necessary requirement of her arduous office - believes it to be more prudent to work outside the home. However, the children should be left with whom? Child minders are not always patient and, furthermore, do not work for nothing. Considering all this, the young woman clearly sees that it makes more sense to have one or two children, thus conciliating her career, self-esteem, the reasonable - although not excellent - function of a working mother and a worry-free retirement. Or a “nest egg”, the acquirement of which only depends on her; not a “third party”, her husband. During the period spent living together, the husband may be found to be a blessing from heaven or a “curse from hell”, only time will tell. And the man also thinks in the same way with respect to the woman who, little by little, reveals her faults. Norman Mailer once said “As a novelist with an insatiable curiosity about people, I've discovered that you don't know a damn thing about a woman until you meet her in court”. Sometimes, stubbornness regarding child custody issues can be explained by the mere desire to antagonize.

In other words, as I mentioned previously, the current abundant supply of babies, originating from underdeveloped and developing countries, will decrease to the extent that women become economically liberated and global poverty disappears, as desired (at least apparently) of all world leaders. This is good, in the medium and long term, considering the problem from a global point of view. It is appropriate that a large number of children are not born, principally if they cannot be assured of a healthy and comfortable place in the world. Poverty leads to physical and moral suffering, humiliation, desperation, ignorance, violent criminality, terrorism, physical and moral deformities and even poor leaders, given that the most astute, when candidates, know how to seduce the desperate with promises.

The world population needs to decrease. If not decrease, then at least remain stable. Universal increases in wealth and information - inevitable, unless there is a global catastrophe - will lead to a significant increase in worldwide individual consumption, with increased pollution, water shortages and all the problems of material progress when coupled with overpopulation. One day, Africa, currently a symbol of destitution, will have hundreds of millions of automobiles, refrigerators, air conditioning units and other comforts that are useful but generate pollution. When the proportion between automobiles and people in China and India reaches the current American level, humanity will perceive that the population of the world has surpassed acceptable limits.

In this context, it is worthwhile to consider the usefulness of the aged: they do not reproduce, but they consume. Goods and services, the source of employment for those who are younger. Consumption that generates tax revenues that are going to help to pay their pensions and the unemployment benefits of the young. If - just for the sake of argument, I’m not in a hurry -, all the elderly died today, millions of young and mature people would be unemployed, without a job. They would not be able occupy positions in sectors with young clients or customers, because such sectors already have high rates of unemployment.

It could be argued that it is “not fair” that young people have to “sacrifice themselves” - keep dreaming -, working hard to maintain millions of idle old people who live to an ever greater age and are ever more knowledgeable in techniques that delay death. In fact, there will be no “sacrifice” on the part of the young, given that the human species is “condemned” to progressive relative inoccupation, in all age groups. The result of automation, mechanization and information technology.

At the present time, unemployment is an inevitable reality, if the forty-hour working week is maintained. In the event that there is no universal agreement forcing all countries to reduce the number of hours worked per week - if possible, in an equal manner -, unemployment will continue to afflict all countries. The reason for this is that machines and computers do the work of millions of factory and office workers. To an ever greater extent, governments and companies use fewer human arms and brains. So-called “electronic intelligence” increases in efficiency, driving man to the realm of keyboards and buttons, dispensing with man himself.

In an extremely competitive world, it is understandable that, as far as all employers are concerned, the ideal situation involves having the minimum possible number of employees. “If my competitor manages to produce the same as me, in terms of quantity and quality, with fewer employees, he destroys me or swallows me up!” This is clear to everyone. Instead of the purchaser receiving a bank payment slip at home, via internet - dispensing with the services of the postman -, he only receives an e-mail with the payment slip as an attachment, which he himself will complete after printing. Following this, he goes to a bank or electronic telling machine and - once again, without any contact with employees, using only a card - pays the necessary amount via the reading of magnetic data stored on the card.

The actual machines have been made “literate”, using a red linear “eye”. If you need cash, you also have no need to come into contact with any kind of living breathing being: you can withdraw the banknotes using a machine. If necessary, via the telephone of a public service - or even a private service, depending on the case -, you can enter into a “dialogue” with a machine, using your fingertips, pressing “options 1, 2, 3”, etc. If you speak erroneously, or with a lack of clarity, “madam machine”, an educated and impassive “lady”, will say that she did not understand your reply, asking the exasperated caller to reply in a clear manner to that which he has been asked. Furthermore, if the caller says that his topic of interest is not included in the available “options”, the machine will pretend to be deaf, given that, after all, it was not constructed to converse with ignoramuses.

In the future, teachers, in the form of physical people, will only be necessary for the purposes of learning to read and write and a few initial years of school attendance. After this, people will learn by themselves, reading books and texts on the internet, CDs and DVDs. Reading and listening. Learning, by the way, with the cream of the teaching profession, chosen to record their classes. Why would the adult student waste time in traffic, grabbing something to eat in the street, when he could learn at home, in front of the television, while preparing a meal or eating popcorn? Attend a university - only if the intention is to flirt or chat with friends. In addition, generally speaking, the student who is apparently a “dimwit”, if adequately tutored in study techniques - in fact, a great deal of supposed “dimwittedness” could be avoided, or bypassed, through the use of techniques suited to each student - will have no need of a teacher.

It will also be possible to progressively dispense with attorneys. The injustices affecting a large number of people will be - and are already being - corrected through public lawsuits instigated by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, or with new laws - something that is already occurring -, correcting the faults of previous legislation. At the present time, how many duly qualified attorneys effectively work practicing law as their only profession? And how many thousands are unable to exercise this profession because they cannot pass the difficult examinations of the Brazilian Bar Association? The “Binding Precedents” of Higher Courts - necessary in order to reduce the plethora of protracted appeals - also dispense with any need for attorneys. The prevention of lawsuits, if it benefits society, as it in fact does benefit society, empties the offices of those practicing law. In medicine, the rate of unemployment is lower, given that, “fortunately”, human beings are a perishable objects. In addition, the older they are, the more perishable they become. A precious source of employment.

In France, when young people - not only workers - revolted against a two-year increase in the minimum retirement age (from sixty to sixty-two), the explanation partly lies in the desire to obtain some kind of employment. And when immigrants, feeling rejected, are alarmed at growing prejudice among local residents, the explanation is obvious: they too are alarmed at the gloomy prospect of an absence of jobs. As far as employers are concerned, the illegal immigrant is more lucrative than a worker born in the country.

The obvious conclusions of this article are as follows: unemployment is not the fault of “x” or “y” government. The “enemy” of employment, little perceived intellectually, is called Progress. In the fields of science and technology. And destroying computers and machines would not be an intelligent move. They work for us, without requiring a salary, vacations and other benefits. Once this is perceived, there is a need for universal legislation that substantially reduces the number of hours worked per week as a means of neutralizing unemployment. As far as I recollect, France attempted to be a pioneer in this respect, but ended up being prejudiced because its products became more expensive than those produced by countries that did not grant such a benefit to their workers.

Good intentions, in a globally commercialized world, only “function” if all countries, or the majority of them, act in the same manner. “Wake up, world leaders! Unite for universal reduction of the number of hours worked per week”. It is not a question of giving esteem, in abstract terms, to the value of work, but providing jobs for all those who wish to work.

And stop accusing the elderly, as they are still very useful, with their rheumatism, high blood pressure, eccentricities and purchases at pharmacies. I repeat: the young are not “sacrificing” themselves in the current situation. They are being benefitted. Most of them do not work wielding a pitchfork, piling bales and sweating under the hot sun. They work with telephones, computers and personal contacts - not a wholly disagreeable state of affairs, as the opposite sex is also a part of the world of trade and industry.

(5-11-2010)

Faith, Politics, Science: prickly liaisons

2010-10-19T08:18:00.001-02:00

Traditional wisdom recommends that one should not discuss, compare, prognosticate and much less criticize - this would be the horror of horrors! - such topics as religion, politics and even football. Principally religion, a veritable minefield in which it is possible to lose more than one’s legs... -, suitable for the formation of legions showing outrage against any kind of minimal critical remark - “Be careful what you say, brother!”

Despite the risk, how is it possible to deny the immense influence of religious beliefs on the life of entire peoples? How many millions have already died and are yet to perish - perhaps incinerated by nuclear weapons -, not by natural causes, but as a closely associated or remote consequence of philosophies or proselytisms arising from texts perceived as scared? In the as yet insoluble Arab-Jewish conflict in Palestine, there is more than a little latent religious content in this impasse. One of the parties involved, or both - objections shift around like the sands of the desert, blown by politicians - believe that the sanctity of Jerusalem cannot be divided and humanity has not yet advanced sufficiently to impose an “external” ruling, made by an international court of justice, as would be both logical and natural when two parties are unable to reach an agreement.

For thousands of years, mental clouds charged with electricity have hung over the heads of humans magnetized by supposedly logical and moral religious convictions, suggesting that the “enemies of our faith, for reasons of being absurdly ‘wrong’, should be excluded from the roll of the living”. Such elimination would only involve “moral prophylaxis”. For those obsessed in this way, it would be a sin, a crime and cowardice to come to terms with the “error” and its consequent “evil”.

From the outset, I am removing football from the scope of this text concerning dominating passions, this being a sport that, to my perplexity, is capable of leading individuals - well-balanced in all other respects - to tears, heart attacks, the ecstasy of victory, incendiary vandalism, skull fractures and even homicide. All this, amazingly, when the team of the exuberant supporter loses, wins or even draws; in joy or sadness, it does not matter which. The gluttonous “devil”, in the guise of a ball, does not choose situations. He only wants to crazily cackle with laughter, with a delirious gaze, using human blows and kicks, preferably in the midst of cars in flames, his natural habitat. This is further proof that so-called civilized man has not managed to free himself from his more ancestral instincts, including the desire to be admired for acts of violence.

With regard to religions, always impregnated with strong emotions - although of a different nature, being theoretically focused on good rather than evil - there are those that are more and less serene. More and less concerned with the financial returns of preaching. A concern that is based - sometimes to an exaggerated extent - on the practical need for cash in order to spread beliefs that will resolve all the health, financial and even love problems of their followers.

Leaving aside sporadic individual cases of abuse by those spreading the faith - most adherents are sincere and well-intentioned -, it is an undeniable fact that, for thousands of years, man has felt the need for an infinitely intelligent, ubiquitous, powerful, generous, understanding, just and instantly accessible protector - via prayer -, without the well-known bureaucratic middlemen that torment those that ask somebody, a government or company for something. Whoever has faith converses directly with their god, without risk of phone tapping and demands as to whether they have done their homework.

From this viewpoint, of spiritual support, faith is irreplaceable, regardless of its authentic correspondence with scientific reality. Self-help that comforts us and provides something of extremely great value: hope. How is it possible, one may ask, to pitilessly wrench the only piece of wood from the grasp of the desperate shipwreck victim that prevents him from drowning in his own anguish? How is it possible to tell the father of the child with cancer, the mature unemployed professional, or the elderly person with the initial symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease, that it is better to put aside all illusions and face harsh reality: the death of the child, permanent unemployment and the insanity of the old person? Furthermore, don’t forget that all religions worthy of the name are stamped with a moral code that has been or still is useful to humanity.

As the great Brazilian jurist Rui Barbosa once said, the criminal code deals with public crimes, whereas religion takes care of private crimes. I presume that, on average, the Italian Mafioso - with some remnant of the Christianity infused into his soul when a child - is less perverse than the Russian gangster, or Japanese Yakuza member, raised from the cradle with strictly materialistic views. The mortally wounded Mafioso, lying in a pool of blood and feeling his life ebbing away, likely fears some kind of final judgment. Perhaps he even prays. Professional Russian and Japanese convicts, convinced that they are nothing more than organized flesh and blood, are only sorry that they will not continue to live.

Sincerely religious people, as long as they are peaceful and tolerant - if they were not so, they would be more likely to be soldiers, guerrillas or terrorists - should not, ever, be intellectually attacked or despised for being as such, even when there is an ingenuous basis for their faith. The reason for this is that an authentic believer, even if illiterate, reveals - simply by believing in God - , something morally precious: the spirit of justice. — “How is it possible”, the authentic believer asks himself, “for there to not be a God, when it can be seen that some evil and deceitful people go through life solely taking advantage and abusing, whereas millions of others only suffer, carrying the crosses of poverty, ignorance, disease, misfortune and injustices of all kinds? It would be unjust, ‘illogical’, for there not to be a final judgment, with punishment or reward, according to the past of each individual”. He is revolted by the mere possibility that both the good and the bad have the same appalling end: nothingness!

Confronted by arguments of this type, agnostics reply that logic, science and harsh reality have nothing to do with aspirations of justice. Technically, I agree. Facts are facts; however, compassion - elephants have been filmed making hopeless and desperate efforts to free a female with a leg accidentally caught in a suspended tire - is an immensely useful quality for the preservation and spiritual comfort of the human race. As somebody once said, a starving person does not need to know about the scientific phenomenon of digestion in order to satisfy his hunger. The ordinary person is much more interested in happiness - his own and that of his family -, than an in-depth knowledge of science, accessible to a microscopic minority. According to yesterday’s newspaper (“Estadão, page A17), the BBC in London stated that, in 2009, 32,000 people committed suicide in Japan. And the level of culture of the Japanese is one of the highest. If there is no error in the aforementioned number, we tacitly accept that it represents too many people tortured by a lack of perspective. A higher level of general and scientific culture did not save them from voluntary death.

Currently, certain North-American authors make a great deal of effort to demonstrate that God does not exist. From a logical point of view, their argument is irresistible. In fact, as they say, religions are not exactly “chosen” by their followers. They are received from parents. It is not mere coincidence that, in Christian countries, children become Christian adults, the same occurring in the case of Jews and Muslims. Another significant argument put forward by atheists is that of criticizing those who say that they have been “saved by a miracle” in a disaster that killed dozens or even hundreds of people. Such critics consider that an impartial God would not have any reason for such favoritism and could even prevent the disaster. Furthermore, the same authors argue that if there were an impartial God - and an unjust God would really negate the idea of a deity - there would not be so many harmful diseases and organisms. They ask: what is the benefit to man - God’s masterpiece - of verminoses, leprosy, tuberculosis, parasites, mental debility, physical deformities, insanity and deficiencies in general?

I am saying all this solely as a criticism of the somewhat aggressive “tone” of atheist preaching. In the same “manner” as indoctrination. There is no need for haste in convincing millions of people that they simply praying to themselves. I would not feel morally good if I were capable of convincing - principally an elderly person - that he cannot expect anything after death. Let him change his opinion, when and if he so desires. The reason for this is that proud Science cannot boast that it only brings certainties. Commonplace phenomena still have no explanation: for example, why do bodies attract one another instead of repelling? That which is still unknown to us is a thousand times greater than that which is already known. Only the future will tell. Ten years ago, did anyone talk about “dark matter” in the universe?

With a certain frequency, scientific opinions established as incontestable or auspicious are replaced by others of opposite meaning. The “Big Bang” hypothesis still does not appear to me to be convincing. Who knows, cosmologists will soon be telling us that perhaps there was no kind of “initial explosion” at all; that the universe only “heaving”, like a tired lung, with heavenly bodies getting closer and further away from one another. Despite this, attempts to search for truth should be encouraged, without any political or religious interference, given that the more man gets to know the environment in which he lives - including himself -, the principal actor in the tragicomedy -, the better he will overcome the obstacles that limit and torment him. If, at certain times, Science comes up against Faith on the same narrow sidewalk, it is Faith that should cede the right of way, not the opposite. Although painful in doctrinal terms, such a gesture on the part of Faith will certainly benefit the human condition. It will allow for improvement of religion itself, in that part where it is best: its acceptance of truth. All living beings - and religions are also “living” in a certain sense - need to evolve in order to not perish. I am sorry to say, rightly or wrongly, that the decline of certain religions in attracting new followers is due to the erroneous “wisdom” of doctrinal rigidity. If the entire universe is in a constant process of change, why would religions be the only exception?

Almost coming to an end, I risk saying, as an ordinary “amateur philosopher”, that over the next few decades science will thoroughly investigate the innate spontaneous “intelligence” built into all living things; irrespective of whether or not they have a brain. Such “diffuse” intelligence - probably not bestowed by any kind of supernatural power, as it is completely amoral, explains the anatomical and functional perfection of all life, including the AIDS virus, pathogenic bacteria, venomous scorpions, spiders and snakes, blood-sucking bats, mammals in general and even poisonous plants. With no brain, plants know what they are doing when they bend towards a ray of sunlight that is passing nearby. Biologists say that plants weep when they are cut down. In my opinion, apparently, such intelligence does not originate from a god; it is simply the consequence of the growing complexity of all living things, a promising field of research for biologists. However, if somebody says that this diffuse intelligence is God himself, I have nothing against such an assertion. It is a question of nomenclature.

It is my understanding that religions - much like science, politics and the rest -, if manipulated by fanatical minds, can suffer enormous blunders and downfalls, as in the case of the American pastor who intended to burn 200 copies of the Qur’an on September 11th. Fortunately, he quickly gave up the idea, under pressure brought to bear by the American government. He blundered, but avoided a downfall. The incident reminds me of an amusing fictional story, which I am reproducing here in order to calm any agitation of the spirit of those readers extremely sensitive to debates on religion.

During his discourse, a preacher, fervent but with little sense - something rare in the real world -said that everything that exists on the face of the earth is perfect, because the Creator would not accept any kind of imperfection in His work. At this moment, a voice at the back of the room protested in an indignant tone. It was a man with a spinal deformity who, argumentative, stood up, turned to display his profile and asked the preacher: — “Are you sure? What do you think of my hunchback?”

The speaker replied, without hesitation: - “What are you complaining about? Congratulations! I have never seen such a perfect hunchback as yours!”

Being serious once again, this article can be summarized in the following words: each one of us should do that which brings about greater inner satisfaction. Believing or not believing. Tolerate contrary beliefs. Who knows, you might think in the same way if you were in the place of the other person, with a past and a genetic makeup different from your own. In addition, if you were a highly cultured atheist, you would not be annoyed by the supposed “illusions” of believers. Illusions are also useful, if they are not aggressive. All the arts are nothing more than illusions and nobody has ever thought of eliminating them because they are essentially “fantasies”. These also have their rights, if they benefit mankind in some way. Only defend the right of Science to continue in its search for the elusive truth, although sometimes Science also blunders.

(10-9-2010)

L´ indomptable courage

2010-09-19T16:41:00.002-03:00

Ce n'est pas le titre d´un film de western...

Il est, parfois peut-être admis, dans des sites sérieux et spécialisés en Droit et Rapports Internationaux — surtout si on est en vacances —, d’échapper un peu à ses thémes spécifiques.Surtout lorsque l´auteur décrit comment certains êtres humains, parfaitement moyens, ont supplanté, dans la vie réelle, avec un singulier sang-froid, la peur, la douleur et l´handicape. Comme l'homme appartient à une espèce unique, imprévisible, mais potentiellement vaillante, — lorsqu’elle est correctement motivée — davantage que “sapiens”, ne variant que dans le format et la couleur de la peau, ce sera utile de connaître quelques exemples de fermeté qui stimulent, pour émulation, notre fibre morale lorsque des « malheurs” et des accidents sérieux nous arrivent. Étant donné la vague courante de “dépression”, que je considère plutôt un sentiment d´impuissance pour affronter un monde trop complexe qu`une maladie — justifiable... — Il est peut-être stimulant de vérifier chez certains gens comment ils réagissent dans des situations innatendues de désespoir. Leur réaction est une preuve de nos réserves de force, endormies, mais capables de sauter du lit, attentives, mais tranquilles lorsqu´elles sont éveillées par le son de la trompette du danger. Et je dis cela sans aucune intention de copier un genre littéraire (des livre sur l´aide de soi même) que je considère utile seulement dans trois finalités: consoler les misérables, encourager les découragés et recompenser financièrement ceux qui font des efforts professionels appliqués aux lettres. Ceux-ci, enfin, et tant mieux ! ils peuvent se débarrasser de la presque obligation d´être vulgaires pour attirer les lecteurs. L'aide de soi, au moins, a cela de bien: c'est pudique et regarde soit vers le haut, soit au dedans de soi-même.

Dans de très brefs récits, mentionnons trois cas. Le premier s'est passé en Afrique, ayant comme victime une fille blanche américaine que s'y trouvait parcequ´elle était la nounou des enfants d'un scientifique également américain qui vivait avec sa famille en dehors de la zone urbaine. L'esprit d'aventure de cette jeune fille dont je ne me souviens plus le nom, mais qui a elle même raconté son odyssée dans le magazine “Seleções” (Digest Readers) prouve qu'il existe encore des jeunes motivés par des choses bien au-dessus de l'argent, le sexe et le confort. La fille en question, n´étant pas très pauvre — pour ce dont je me rappelle — elle pourrait limiter ses ambitions à la joie du confort de vivre dans un pays riche, “se marier bien” ou lutter pour une carrière. Mais non, elle a préféré connaître “de près” la vie pénible de l´Afrique noire, avec tous les risques decoulants de cette décision.

Dans une fin d´après-midi, la jeune-fille qui avait à peu près 20 ans, a voulu se rafraîchir, en tenue appropriée, dans une petite rivière proche de la maison où elle travaillait. Elle a fait cela accompagnée des deux enfants dont elle s´occupait, et d'un jeune homme qui travaillait, lui aussi, pour le scientifique. D'après les résidents locaux, la rivière n'offrait pas de risques quant à la présence de crocodiles, au contraire d´autres cours d’eau plus éloignés. Faisant confiance à cette rassurante « jurisprudence crocodilienne », elle s´est baignée pendant que les enfants jouaient dans les rivages.

Après quelques plongeons, sans trop s´éloigner de la rive, tout en faisant attention aux enfants, elle s'est mise debout, avec l'eau à la hauteur de la taille. Quand elle a essoré ses longs cheveux pour les libérer de l'excès d'eau, elle s´est rendue compte que quelque chose la touchait légèrement au coude. Cependant, avant même de pouvoir savoir qu´est-ce qui la touchait, elle a senti les mâchoires d'un énorme crocodile se fermer sur son bras. La bête a essayé de la traîner dans la partie la plus profonde de la rivière, en suivant le comportement habituel de noyer la proie avant de la dévorer. Elle y a résisté en essayant de sortir de l´eau en traînant son agresseur pendant que, en criant « crocodile ! » elle prévenait le jeune homme. Lui, cependant, le dos tourné, sûr qu'il n'y avait pas de crocodiles dans la région, a crû que c´était une blague, et sans se retourner vers elle lui a même dit de ne pas jouer avec ça pour ne pas faire peur aux enfants.

Pendant qu'il pensait cela, le crocodile a commencé à tourner vigoureusement sur lui-même comme il le fait habituellement, deux ou trois fois, sur le point d´arracher le bras de sa proie. Sentant qu´elle était incapable d´empêcher cette violente bousculade — parce que si elle continuait, elle aurait pû perdre son membre —, elle s´est laissée entraîner passivement dans la rotation. Si vite que dans les brefs pauses, prise de vertige, submergée, lorsqu´elle ouvrait les yeux elle ne savait pas où était la surface de l´eau qui lui permettrait de respirer. Tout ce qu´elle savait c´est qu´elle était dans l´eau, parce qu'elle y voyait des bulles d'air qui montaient.

Avec cette agitation le jeune homme s´est rendu compte et a essayé de l´aider, sans savoir comment. Il a essayé d'attraper la queue du reptile, avec l'intention de le tirer vers la plage, mais il a bien vu qu'il n'avait pas assez de forces pour cela. Il a essayé d'introduire ses pouces dans les yeux de la bête, mais il a constaté que ce serait inutile, parce que c'était équivalent— l´a-t-il expliqué après — à mettre les doigts dans un pneu de voiture, telle la dure consistance des deux ou trois paupières. Pour terminer, le saurien, avec un nouveau tour, a fini par arracher le bras, qu´il avait dans sa machoire. La courageuse jeune fille a vu son ennemi se déplacer lentement, la tête levée de façon à pouvoir avaler entiérement son goûter américain.

La victime a reçu les secours d´urgence. On lui a appliqué un garot dans ce qui est resté de son bras après l'amputation. Ammené en hélicoptère à l´hôpital, elle a réussi à survivre. Après, qu’elle se soit rétablie, les journalistes lui ont demandé ce qui lui était passé par la tête lorsqu´elle s´est vue attaquer. Elle a répondu rapidement qu`elle s´était inquiétée de la sécurité des enfants et elle ne pouvait pas accepter de venir de si loin pour mourir en Afrique, dans l'estomac d'un crocodile. Elle serait prête à se battre jusqu'au bout. Dans le magazine il y a sa photo. toute calme, je ne me souviens pas si elle sourit. Elle porte un pullover et on y peut voir l’absence d'un bras. Et, plus impressionnant: elle a promis de revenir en Afrique pour continuer ce qu'elle faisait, en se disant fascinée par ce continent imprévisible et tragique. Il n'y a certainement eu aucun mérite de sa part. Elle n´a évidemment pas choisi d´être attaquée par un crocodile qui n’avait rien à faire dans ces environs. Son mérite est dans le calme et la tenacité pour ne pas perdre son bras, malgré que cela soit arrivé.

Un autre cas d'héroïsme dans la lutte pour survivre s´est passé aussi avec un américain — sauf erreur de ma part, ayant aussi environ vingt ans —, il a décidé d'explorer tout seul le Grand Canyon. À un certain moment, il s´est approché du bord de l'abîme pour voir combien il était profond. Ayant peur de tomber, il s´est agrippé à une énorme pierre arrondie, sur le bord, mais la pierre, de façon inattendue, s´est détachée et bloqué son bras. Après des heures ou des jours — je raconte de mémoire — essayant sans succès de se libérer le bras, il s´est vu face à un choix très douloureux: où bien il s´ amputerait le bras, sans anesthésie, en utilisant un couteau, ou bien il mourrait de soif et de faim, parce qu´il était trop distant de la civilisation. Connaisseur de la région, il savait que ce serait unitile de crier. Après avoir beaucoup réflechit, souffrant depuis deux ou trois jours, déjà sans espoir d'un coup de chance, _ l´apparition de quelqu´un au hasard — il a conclu qu´il ne pouvait pas attendre davantage. Ses force le quittaient. En ce moment il a choisi la vie, à n´importe quel prix. Il a commencé l'opération grotesque, chirurgien improvisé, avec une seule main.

Il a raconté plus tard, que se couper le bras a été, évidemment, très douloureux, mais rien n´est comparable à la douleur, infiniment plus grande, de couper un grand nerf qui passe par le bras. Impossible de trouver des mots pour décrire le moment où le couteau a dû sectionner ce nerf. Ses cris, j´imagine, ont dû terrifiés même les scorpions du désert. Mais il a réussi. Il a laissé son bras dans la jonction des pierres et il a utilisé la ceinture comme garot dans ce qui est resté. Il a marché, avec les forces qui lui restaient, jusqu`à une autoroute éloignée. Il est intéressant de remarquer que quelques mois plus tard, rétabli, il disait qu'il continuerait à pratiquer son sport favori.

Finalement, je rapporte quelque chose de beaucoup plus dramatique, qui se passe maintenant au Brésil, si je me souviens bien, à Goiás, raconté par la victime, elle même, à un de mes ami, opticien à l'intérieur de l'Etat de São Paulo. Cet ami, un jour, se trouvant dans son magasin, a été abordé par un homme au visage très bizarre, je ne trouve pas d’autres mots pour le décrire. Cet étranger au visage déformé lui a susurré, d´une voix difficile à comprendre, s'il le reconnaissait. Mon ami a dit non. Le visiteur lui a expliqué qu'il avait été son client il y a quelque temps. Et il a raconté son drame que maintenant je transmets au lecteur par son simple témoignage oral. Impossible de réjoindre ce citoyen pour avoir davantage de détails à raconter dans cet article, parce qu'il est parti vivre dans un autre Etat, et je ne connais pas son adresse. Et ce n’est pas à moi d’embaucher un détective seulement pour enrichir le présent texte avec des détails.

Voilà ce que s´est passé: Il conduisait sa voiture, une nouvelle voiture, très chère, dans une autoroute, lorsqu´il a été obligé de s´arrêter, pour faire le plein ou autre chose. C´est alors qu´il a été attaqué par des bandits armés, interessés certainement par sa nouvelle belle voiture. Dépouillé de ses biens et attaché à un arbre, il croyait que son cauchemard serait bientôt fini parce que les bandits emportaient son argent et tout ce qu’il avait avant de partir.

Alors qu’ils partaient du local, un des bandits pris d’un doute « Que va t’on faire de lui ? Il va nous reconnaître et nous dénoncer ». C’est alors que l’un d’eux , certainement un assassin, résolva rapidement le problème : il a détaché la victime de l’arbre pour la coucher parterre, l’a réattachée et a pointé son calibre 12 sur sa face. La victime s’est naturellememt recroquevillée. A ce momemt il y eu un coup de feu. De toute façon la victime a eu de la chance que le tire soit parti de si près. Parce qu’ainsi il n’ y a pas eu assez de distance pour que les plombs se dispersent et le tuent sur le coup.

La charge de plombs a pratiquement arraché la maxillaire de ce malheureux voyageur, elle a enlevé une bonne partie de ses dents, lui a tranché la langue, et lui a percé la voûte du palais et l'a laissé sourd d'une oreille. Malgré cela il n'est pas mort. Il a fait approximativement trente operations — je ne me rappelle pas le nombre exact. Une particularité tragique, mais quelque chose de comique, était que quand la victime buvait une bonne partie du liquide lui sortait des oreilles. Cela ne jaillissait pas, comme dans les sources de jardin, c'était juste suintant. Cela a duré longtemps alors que le trou de la voûte du palais n'était pas fermée par une chirurgie, une de plus. L'explication est dans l'anatomie de la tête, dans la communication des conduits qui relient le nez, la bouche et les oreilles. La langue, progressivememt, du être recomposée, suite à grand nombre d'interventions. Néanmoins, ses paroles étaient sifflantes, entravant la compréhension.

Laissez-nous continuer. Les fripouilles sont parties, en pensant que la victime était morte, suite à ces riffles de plomb. Cette déduction trompeuse l'a sauvé. Quelque temps après un chauffeur routier qui passait plus tard, a arrêté le camion pour soulager sa vessie derrière un buisson. En faisant ceci, il a observé quelque chose d'étrange. Quelque chose, a gémi et a remué un peu. Curieux, il s’est approché et il a vu la scène de la victime avec la tête entière enflée, son visage déchiré et beaucoup de sang coagulé. Il a cherché d'autres gens, la police a été appelée et, a vérifié les documents, sa famille a été informée, en prenant toutes les mesures imaginables.

Transporté, paraît-il, par hélicoptère à São Paulo, pour être opéré dans un hôpital bien équipé, la victime, dans l'ambulance, dans l'Avenue Paulista, a commencé à suffoquer. Sa tête, très enflée, et le sang coagulé l'empêchant de respirer. Sentant qu'il mourrait en suffoquant, et ne pouvant pas articuler les mots, il a balbutié quelque chose proche de “... bouchon de Bic...”, il a pointé le stylo de l'infirmière, ou de l’auxiliaire médical qu'il a vu dans la poche de la blouse. Il a aimé ceci parce qu'il savait que s'il n'avait pas de trachéotomie sa mort serait certaine, parce que l'hôpital était encore distant. Ceci fait: l'infirmière a utilisé le bouchon de Bic pour faire un trou en dessous de la pomme d'Adam. Sans anesthésie. Le citoyen a pû respirer.

Pour moi, ce citoyen est un héros anonyme. Je ne sais pas si j'aurais le courage de, me sentant suffoquer, demander cette improvisation douloureuse de me voir percer la trachée par un bouchon de stylo. Et son courage a aussi été révélé, après des douzaines de chirurgies, par sa façon d’envisager le monde. Il a raconté, chez l’opticien, que c'était déjà si bon qu'il ait dompté des chevaux farouches, probablement pour le sport. Il était très heureux en mariage parce que sa fidèle épouse n'avait pas éte importunée par son changement d’apparence, après tant de chirurgies. Il a supporté avec élégance la routine découragée de douzaines d'opérations et, comme il dit, “il s’en est bien sorti.”

Ce citoyen devrait être cherché par Fernando Morais, notre grand biographe. Son odyssée – qu’il n'a pas cherché mais qu’il a supporté courageusement —, mériterait un petit livre. Au moins comme un exemple de patience, d’insistance de vivre et d’optimisme. Je sais qu’il n'est pas devenu un homme triste et amer. Il a prouvé que ténacité et joie peuvent aller ensemble.

(16-7-08)

Crimes et souveraineté

2010-09-19T16:32:00.001-03:00

Maintenant, je ne suis plus timide — j'ai des prédécesseurs très illustres, tel que Kant — pour insister sur les besoins des nations qui, de plus en plus abandonent une part de leur souveraineté au profit d´une fédération démocratique mondiale afin que le monde soit moins chaotique, moins injuste et moins auto-destructeur (voir la pollution).
Il ne s'agit pas d´un simple idéalisme en regard à l'Utopie, optimisme imaginatif (selon la pensée de J. J. Rousseau lorsqu´il dit que « l'homme naît essentiellement bon et devient perverti par la société), altruisme et choses similaires. L'homme est bon et mauvais, selon des proportions variées, d'après son heritage génétique, son éducation — formelle ou informelle - avantage cérémonieux et non officiel , la part des coups et des caresses reçus dès le moindre âge et la somme des avantages et des risques légaux et sociaux qui l´ entourent dans sa performance. S´il est avantageux d´être bon, ici ou dans l´au-delà, il le sera, bien que au fond de soi-même il ne l´est pas. On danse d'après la musique. Mais, laissons là ces généralisations, le lecteur n'a pas de temps à perdre.

Dès que j´étais étudiant de Droit ça m'a déjà impressionné du fait qu'un citoyen étranger, condamné par la justice de son pays, s´est empressé de venir au Brésil a mis enceinte une Brésilienne pour se libérer l´extradiction et l´accomplissement de la peine. Il me semblait qu´on avait l’habeas corpus préventif le plus facile et le plus plaisant de ce monde. Libre de la prison grâce à un avocat comis d´office, incompétent, un « avocaillon » illettré, néanmoins extrêmement efficace — “docteur du spermatozoïde.”

Ronald Biggs, un sympathique Anglais, participant au fameux « vol du train payant » en 1963, fut l´ un de ces cas. Après avoir accompli quelques mois dans une prison du Royaume-Uni, il s´est échappé des murs carcéraux et s’est évadé en Australie. Certainement, ne se sentant pas en securité dans un pays qui maintient de si forts liens avec l’ Angleterre, il fini par se fixer au Brésil après avoir découvert qu´ici il y avait des “bienveillances” légales, appropriées à son cas. Il s`engage alors dans une affaire sentimentale avec une danseuse de bonne foi, la met enceinte, et voilà tout ce qu´il lui fallait pour garantir sa permanence dans le pays. La justice anglaise essaya sans succès son extradiction, mais, comme le fils de Biggs dépendait de lui (bien entendu...), et il n´y avait pas, non plus, d´accord d´extradition entre les deux pays — le vieux problème des souverainetés... —le fugitif est resté ici tout le temps qu´il le voulut. Libre et d'après la Wikipedia sur l'internet—, et se faisant payer soixante dollars de tous ceux qui voulaient déjeuner ou bavarder avec une “célébrité.” D’après lui sa part du butin dans le vol a été minimale, tellement il a eu des frais avec des avocats et d´autres dépenses decourantes de la lutte pour ne pas revenir en prison. Cependant la nostalgie et le mal du pays sont devenus si insupportables, qu´il est retourné en Angleterre où il a fini par être encarceré.Vieux, malade, affaibli... ses photos ont éveillé la compassion auprès des personnes les plus sensibles et prédisposées à pardonner.

L'intéret — quelqu'un doit soutenir une thèse académique sur ce phénomène sociologique — c`est qu´une part importante de la société, surtout la carioca (personne née à Rio de Janeiro), qui jusque là l`avait adulé, éprouve pour lui de la considération avant tout pour sa sympathie personnele et son audace d’avoir participé à un vol donc la valeur actuelle est estimée à plus de cent millions de reais. Le “succès”, que ce soit politique, économique, sportif, artistique ou “sympathiquement criminel” — légitime n´importe quel acte. Dans le Premier Monde, les artistes de cinéma, pour renforcer leur renommeé de “durs”, aimaient être vus dans les restaurants et les spéctacles, en compagnie des maffieux de haute lignée. Le raffinement était d´ajouter à leur statut le frisson du danger. Cela se produisit avec Frank Sinatra, Alain Delon et d`autres incendiaires des coeurs féminins. Un politicien anglais, dans la fiction se sentant extorqué par son interlocuteur, a mencioné, pour l`impressioner, qu’il avait des rapports avec “les hautes sphères.” L'autre lui a répondu en toute confiance, que lui aussi, il avait des relations, mais “dans les basses sphères.” Ce qui était bien plus intimidant, parce que le mal peut être infligé avec la force et la vitesse d’un éclair, sans soufir des empêchements bureaucratiques.

Ce qui a été dit à propos d'extradition ne montre qu`un bref résumé qui, dans la difficile harmonisation des souverainetés, le crime reste très souvent impuni, ou quasiment. Ce qui ne se passerait pas, au moins en théorie, avec une fédération ou confédération mondiale, ayant pour juridiction la planète entière.

Un autre exemple en faveur de l'impunité réside dans la lenteur de remise de l'accusation par l’Etat qui se trouve soit déroutée soit en retard en raison des complications pour recupérer les sommes importantes déposées hors du pays. Comme l'argent peut, en à peine quelques secondes, changer de banque et de pays, avec un simple clic d’ordinateur, l`appliqué representant de la Justice arrive presque toujours en retard pour demander le gel les depôts effectués par les profiteurs de l’argent publique. Pendant que le representant judiciaire étudie — en duel avec la langue qu´il ne connait pas très bien, la législation bancaire des differents pays où l'argent a été transferé et qu`il écrit la demande de gel ou de retour de la somme, l’argent a déjà été envoyé dans une autre Banque, dans un autre pays. Et tout recommence depuis le debut. Même le créancier privé du débiteur millionnaire dont les ressources sont dispersées partout au monde ne réussit pas à se faire payer un joli chiffre mais sans signification réelle.

Les extraditions souffrent l'influence du prestige international des pays engagés. Dans le cas des Canadiens qui ont été arrêtés et puis condamnés par la séquestration d’un fameux entrepreneur de São Paulo, leur gouvernement a obtenu le repatriment des condamnés pour effectuer la peine dans leur pays. Très intéresant pour eux. Si jamais un groupe de Brésiliens se faisait arrêter au Canada ou aux Etats Unis suite à un kidnapping il est fort problable que le gouvernement brésilien n'obtiendrait pas leur extradition. Avec Bush, il est certain qu´il ne l´obtiendrait pas.
Même les homicides les plus atroces se soldent par l´impunité, vu l’“excès” de souveraineté, chaque pays se cachant dans un monde isolé, enfermé dans sa propre schizophrénie politique, sans aucun besoin de donner excessivement satisfaction.

Le cas japonais d'Issei Sagawa Japonais, 1981, qui, à Paris, a tué, et violé — en realité, techniquement, “il a violé le cadavre” — une belle étudiante hollandaise, qui était une de ses collègues à l’Université de Censier, de Paris. Il a fait ça parce que la Hollandaise qui l´aidait dans les traductions en ce moment lá, dans son studio, a refusé ses propositions pleines de passion et libidineuses, de natures sexuelles. Issei, qui a l’apparence d´un nain devellopé, avec une grande tête — j'ai vu une photo de lui—, il faisait 1,48 m et il pesait 44 kilos, bien moins que la Hollandaise. Celle-ci, qui ne voiait à cet asiatique que comme un collègue et ordonna qu´il se concentre sur le travail qu'ils étaient en train de faire. Le Japonais s´est lévé, prit un fusil calibre 0.22 que était dans une armoire, derrière la jeune fille et lui tira une balle dans la nuque. Ensuite il a fait l'amour avec le cadavre et en plus, il a coupé ses lèvres, son nez, ses seins et ses parties génitales, et les a gardées dans un congelateur pour une consommation future. Et vraiment il a mangé une bonne partie de cette viande avant d’être arrêté. Il avait cette compulsion étrange, en liant l’acte sexuel à l’acte de manger. Le cas est décrit brievement dans le livre de l'écrivain canadien, Max Haines, dans le “Book V” de ses séries “True Crime Stories.” Le rapport est à la page 121, dans le chapitre “Fantasies Turn to Cannibalism”. Dommage que cette série n'a pas été traduite en portugais.

L’accusé, après avoir écartelé le cadavre, a mis les dépouilles dans deux valises, qu'il a transportées en taxi. Il avait l´intention d´attirer le fardeau macabre dans un lac prochain. Dans la rue, lorqu´il a congedié le taxi, il a remarqué que les gens le regardaient avec méfiance, ce petit Japonais trainant deux valises bien trop lourdes pour lui. Effrayé, il a abandonné les volumes dans le trottoir, pensant qu’il n’y aurait pas de preuve de son lien avec l'homicide. La police n´est arrivée à lui que parce que le chauffeur du taxi, en lisant les titres des journaux, s´est souvenu de cet étrange oriental et prit l'initiative de prévenir les autorités.

Après avoir rassemblé des preuves irréfutables contre lui — trouvées dans son petit appartement, principalement dans le réfrigérateur —, Issei avoua le crime mais il était considérè comme irresponsable, fou, bien qu`il soit un homme instruit et intelligent. Il parlait bien le français et l'allemand, il étudiait en France dans le cadre d´un doctorat sur l'influence japonaise dans la littérature française. Le juge français prononça son internement dans une institution psychiatrique.

Issei était fils d'un riche industriel japonais. Après trois ans dans un asile français son père a obtenu qu'il fut extradé au Japon, sous condition de rester enfermé dans un sanatorium pour malades mentaux. Néanmoins, après 15 mois d'internement il fut dispensé. Les médecins japonais ont conclu qu'il était normal. La France ne pouvait rien faire car chaque pays possède sa propre souveraineté. Et finalement, qu´est-ce que c’est “être fou?”

Après sa libération — dit par Max Haines — , Issei Sagawa a écrit plusieurs livres sur son sujet favori — le cannibalisme. “Une connaissance par expérience ”. La famille de la victime — donc je n`ai pas spécifié le nom ici par respecte de la douleur pour les membres de la famille — elle ne devait pas avoir une bonne opinion ni sur le sérieux de la Psychiatrie, ni sur les coulisses de ce pompeux terme, généralement prononcé avec fierté: souveraineté.

Finalement l`asiatique a passé quatre ans et demi dans des asiles tout en étant « normal » selon les psychiatres de son pays. Certainement il y aura des gens, la famille d’Issei y compris, qui doivent penser que chaque l’homme mérite une deuxième chance. Il y en aura ausi qui penseront qu´il devint fou à cause d´une passion refusée. Quelqu'un a déjá dit que “l'homme est le feu et la femme, l´étoupe. Le diable vient et il souffle.”

(4-12-2006)

A Critical View of Saramago

2010-08-09T09:34:00.001-03:00

I hesitated for a few hours before starting to write about José Saramago, who passed away so recently. There was no lack of advice against my “heresy” and lack of “timing” - “Don’t be so bold, my friend, as to criticize such a universally acclaimed Nobel Prize winner! With so many people praising him, it is just not possible that they are all wrong! It’s even cowardice to criticize someone who cannot defend himself. If you didn’t like him, why didn’t you attack him when he was still alive? At least wait until his body is cold!” - I was told by some of my acquaintances.

One of them, more frank in his approach, warned me: - “They are going to say that you, an unknown petty author, ignored by publishers - excuse my sincerity, you provoked it... -, feel slighted by the success of such a great man of letters! Don’t forget that he was the only writer of the Portuguese language to receive the greatest literary honor, breaking with the prejudice shown by the Nobel Foundation (certainly political in nature) against our mother tongue! Besides this, you once told me that you couldn’t manage to read his work. So, how do you have the courage to criticize a writer who, by your own confession, you cannot manage to read? “I haven’t read it and didn’t like it”, is this the superficial catchphrase you use when judging the talent of others?”

Despite facing this moral firing squad - censuring recently deceased individuals really isn’t good manners, especially if they are famous and well-loved -, I would like to be so bold as to put forward a reservation, perhaps only “graphical”, against the only Nobel received by a writer of our language. Why am I doing this?

First, because I am an unconditional admirer of clarity, truth and, its twin sister, sincerity. Even when painful to the ears - of course, respecting courteous social conventions. Perhaps this fondness for truth is a sign of innate ingenuity - or even mental laziness - , considering that a lie requires mental effort that is exempt from the mere presentation of facts as they are, a characteristic of “dullards’. And don’t forget that imaginative work requires a good memory. Maxim Gorki, the great Russian writer who lived for a while among vagabonds and petty criminals, on describing a particularly unfortunate character in one of his stories, said that he was not sufficiently clever to be a thief. Thieves are usually astute. The professional exercise of evil requires much more gray matter than the easy utterance of sincere opinions. On the other hand, sticking to the truth - as an option rather than a defect - is the golden seal of moral greatness.

As far as this, strictly ethical, aspect is concerned, I am part of the group of admirers of Saramago, as the Portuguese writer was always a frank, intellectually courageous man and, I suppose, even physically dauntless. When he was around fifty years old and unemployed, he took an extremely bold decision: he dedicated himself exclusively to literature, full-time, risking his future. Instead of starting up some kind of small business capable of guaranteeing a living, he gambled on “all or nothing” and ended up winning, writing extensively, even at an advanced age.

In favor of the Nobel prize-winning writer, it is also necessary to recognize that he was always an intellectual sensitive to the suffering of those less fortunate in life. In addition, those who were intimate with him affirm that he was a pleasant sociable man, even if he did not desist from his opinions, which were sometimes harsh and uncompromising. Summing up, a “forceful personality” was something not lacking in this outstanding winner of the cerebral marathon race known as the Nobel Prize in Literature.

Incidentally, I ought to mention here that, in the first will of Alfred Nobel - the chemist and industrialist who invented dynamite - Literature was not established as an award category. There were doubts regarding its inclusion. Alfred Nobel only initially considered chemistry, physics, medicine and other more “objective” fields. However, as he had to distance himself from business activities for two years, he resolved to occupy his time writing plays for the theater. He thus found how something that appeared to be easy was in fact difficult, namely: writing well. And in this I include punctuation. Hence a new will and the explicit obligatory inclusion of Literature - “of idealistic content” - in the annual list of coveted Prizes. Prizes that would not be so earnestly desired if the financial reward were only symbolic: a gold medal and a diploma. It should be remembered that this does not diminish the merit of those receiving such an honor - to the contrary, it increases it, due to the fierce competition - but it does provide a clue regarding the underlying motivation of human beings. Including that of “spiritualized men of letters”, which was not the case of Saramago, a committed materialist. Alfred Nobel, an extremely intelligent businessman, knew what he was dealing with - the human race - when he created the Nobel Foundation, with its coveted cash award.

Now that these considerations have been made, I will explain why I have not managed - and still cannot manage - to read Saramago’s books: in the first place, due to his aversion, apparently uncontrollable, to beginning new paragraphs, transforming pages into “walls of text” that are far from attractive for voluntary reading. Something like the proclamations of state governors, which commence with “In witness thereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the Executive Department to be affixed this 1st day of December in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, etc.”

Following this discouraging finding, I only purchased two volumes by the author in question and practically forgot the matter, always promising myself to read, one day, a book by the Portuguese writer. I considered myself culturally guilty for not managing to feel comfortable with such a highly acclaimed author.

With the news of his death and reading, in newspapers, the extremely complementary declarations of well-known people in intellectual circles, I was impressed by my “evident” cultural backwardness, failing to appreciate such an important thinker. So I went back to his two volumes and once again tried to read them. To no avail. I discovered that Saramago not only detested starting new paragraphs, but also challenged normal standards of punctuation. He also did not like full stops. His text is a torrent of associations of ideas, with scant concern for order, coherence and punctuation. He typed or wrote whatever came into his head. It seems that he thought: -“It’s up to the reader to organize what I’ve written; I’m not going to waste my time with such trifles”.

In the case of any author, this method of working has the advantage of allowing for very much more extensive output, given that it saves time. A good portion of the job of writing - as any responsible author or journalist knows - is dedicated to the task of punctuating the text, thus facilitating the understanding of ideas on the part of the reader. Writing an immense and graphically dense “draft”, registering unconnected ideas without self-censorship, as they come to mind, does not seem to me to be a recommendable practice. Not even Nobel prize-winners should afford themselves the luxury of showing such discourtesy to their readers. And the great danger of this practice lies in the appearance of others imitating this style. With an involuntary incentive for expositive indiscipline, our language, currently little known internationally, will likely be less admired.

I was a judge for just over twenty-two years and, as such, accustomed - as in the case of attorneys and prosecutors - to living with a certain degree of objectivity and order in the narration of facts and law. Attempting to read books written by the author in question, I thought to myself: “An initial suit written in this manner would be summarily rejected as “inept”, according to procedural law nomenclature. Much too confused, although it may perhaps contain interesting ideas. Any kind of text in the fields of medicine, geography, economics, philosophy or politics - it does not matter which -, requires a degree of mental and graphic discipline. Thoughts, spoken or written, require order. Punctuation rules do not exist by mere chance. They are even requirements of civilization. Why cast aside the cultural conquests of humanity?

It seems to me that, in the long term, awarding the Nobel Prize to Saramago will not be conducive to promoting literature in the Portuguese language. I will explain: when a writer receives such an award, there is an automatic demand for his work, translated, throughout the whole world. And, in the case of Saramago, what is likely to occur? The foreign reader, perusing a text that has almost no paragraphs or full stops, with no great concern for the strict arrangement of ideas, will think that all writers in the language of the new Nobel prize-winner are somewhat “disorganized”. As a result, the overall image of authors of the country in question is prejudiced. In this case, Portuguese and Brazilian writers and those of former Portuguese colonies in Africa.

The great danger of acclaiming “graphically disorganized” writers lies in the involuntary encouragement of imitation. Aspiring writers who wish to “shine” in this area will no longer feel a need to re-write texts in which there is a total lack of concern for order in their train of thought. Even in the case of school compositions, students who write in any manner whatsoever, if reprimanded by the teacher for their lack of order and punctuation, will be able to defend themselves by saying that the teacher is “out of date” and that their school work adopts the “Saramago style”, already sanctioned by the Nobel Prize.

With the best intentions, perhaps the Nobel Foundation did a disservice to the Portuguese language when it awarded the prize to a writer who, although morally irreproachable - according to what people say who knew him - did not treat the language with the usual reverence. Foreign publishers will seek to translate the works of the author in question into their respective languages, although it is certain that they will only do this due to the fact that the author received a great honor, a guarantee of good sales on the publishing market.

There are times when I ask myself whether Saramago - a man of unparalleled intelligence and a committed communist -, was not unconsciously “cocking a snook” at the most “respected” institutions when he wrote his books after the award. He took pleasure in “demolishing the false idols” of capitalism. And the Nobel Prize is seen by some as rather “impregnated” with capitalist values, including emphasis on the high value of the financial award. Awarding the Nobel Prize for not very comprehensible texts would not bring prestige to the famous institution.

With respect to “understanding the works of prizewinners”, it is worth remembering that which occurred when the Nobel Foundation concerned itself with the “need” to award the Physics prize to Albert Einstein. The great German Jew - one of the greatest moral and intellectual geniuses of mankind - had just witnessed the scientific approval, through direct observation of a certain cosmic phenomenon, of his famous Theory of Relativity. In a way, international public opinion “demanded” that Einstein be awarded the prize. Once the commission of judging scientists gathered, its members immediately agreed - with one exception, whose name I cannot remember - to award the Nobel Prize in Physics to the young scientist and mathematician. However, the person who disagreed was firm in his opposition to awarding the honor to Einstein, saying that he could not manage to understand his famous Theory of Relativity, the same occurring in the case of the remaining commission members. He queried: - “How are we going to award a prize for a study that even we physicists do not understand?” The commission got around this problem, awarding the prize to Einstein, by means of another discovery related to photoelectric effects. In this way, public opinion was satisfied and the Nobel Prize in Physics commission could not be accused of granting the prize for something that its members did not understand.

If Alfred Nobel were alive, I do not know whether he would approve of awarding the Nobel prize to an author who, although intelligent and mentally courageous, left the extremely important task of putting his thoughts in order to the reader. Only Spiritism would be able to resolve this question. My humble opinion is that Alfred would be more cautious. At least he would tell the candidate: “Please include all the necessary punctuation and come back, if you wish, for a further assessment. The ways things are at present, you would only be being judged on your good character and occasional opinions expressed in newspapers, not on that which is written in your books. My foundation only examines works, not reputations.”

I am imagining, hypothetically, what Alfred Nobel would think, given that I consider him to be a highly interesting personality who deserves to have his biography more widely known. Unmarried, timid in the presence of women, he was once given up for dead in the explosion of one of his factories. In fact, it was his brother who died. Reading comments in the press regarding his supposed death, he was rather unpleasantly surprised at what people thought about him. This had a positive effect, as it served for his self-improvement. A remote analogy can be made between this fact - the false death of Alfred - and this partial criticism of the works of Saramago after receiving the Nobel Prize.

If the publishers of José Saramago had taken the trouble of re-editing his books, with normal punctuation, the valiant writer would really be read by a much larger number of readers. Not solely admired for his reputation. I could even become a great fan of his works. For the time being, my hands are immobile, suspended in the air, awaiting permission to applaud - but sincerely...

Of course, there is no doubt that the works of Saramago will not be re-edited, with normal punctuation. Neither the author’s publishers nor his family would agree to such a step. To the international prejudice of the Portuguese language. Incidentally, it is a pity that the Nobel Foundation has not adopted the practice of also awarding the prize to deceased writers. Machado de Assis, Eça de Queiroz and dozens of other authors would promote the riches of our language to an extraordinary extent.

Finally, I beg the pardon of admirers - when sincere - of the courageous writer who, if he were alive, would perhaps appreciate my frankness, although he was certainly more forthright than me in expressing his opinions. He would understand that if I respected a good-mannered period of “quarantine” with respect to his death, prior to making my opinions known, I would end up forgetting the matter. Reading my criticism, he would give me a clip on the ear and say, even laughing: “Read what I wrote again, you ass!”

(21-6-10)

The UN Security Council has become a Chamber of Commerce

2010-06-27T21:57:00.001-03:00

The title is not simply a catchphrase. It is the harsh reality of a troubled world, led by grown-up “children” who are already mature or even old. Frightened “children” who are, at the same time, ferocious, astute - some are dangerously intelligent - afflicted with a well-nourished cocktail of moral deficiencies: irresponsible egoism, envy, uncontrolled greed, insane vanity and a sincere enthusiasm for lying - generally more lucrative than telling the truth. At a moral level, and at any given moment in history, there is not much difference between a caveman and a large number of government leaders. Such “leaders”, at base infantile and shortsighted, guide their peoples to happiness or disaster, with a predominance of the latter. Sometimes, a trivial, mediocre governor of limited “creativity” is found to be more useful to his people than a virulent “patriot” - Hitler, for example, and several others that I dare not mention, fearing covert revenge, full of “grandiose projects” in favor of their beloved country. At least the lackluster leader does not hinder the normal growth of his community and leaves neighboring countries to live in peace.

Ordinary individuals - the governed - are more restricted by moral standards, fear of the police or neighborhood gossip. They are concerned with upholding their promises. However, when transformed into government leaders, they re-write the moral code, adopting more “flexible” standards. This is justified by saying: - “We have reached a new threshold... Adopting an overview, looking into the future, it is necessary to sacrifice many ‘things’ previously considered as correct”. They rise in status but fall in character. Forced by a need (or mere economic convenience) to protect their subjects from external egoism, they also start to lie and hatch plots, bringing cunning to bear against cunning. They defend themselves in this manner: - “If I do not defend my country, even by lying and using fallacious reasoning, from this arrogant and untruthful mob of foreign enemies or false friends, nobody will. Not even God, in His divine loathing of international intrigues, will lift a finger to save the weakest peoples. Perhaps it is because He sees that suffering is the surest way to purify the soul, His only interest in mankind. If He did not protect the Jews during the Holocaust, He will certainly not protect the Iranians now from the approaching massacre, planned by the descendents of the survivors of the aforementioned Holocaust. We will back the likely winners, after all, we will profit from them! Nobody ever got rich by backing the weakest runner”.

I would like to ask you - the reader - if I am exaggerating with respect to that which has happened recently in the international arena? I do not think so. Whatever your “leaning” in the conflict (which has not yet reached the level of aggression) between the Israel-USA consortium and Iran, it cannot be denied that the Security Council has become a kind of Chamber of Commerce, where all votes have a price. A price, really, and I am not speaking figuratively. “Money, business”.

Even though a reasonable accord was reached - thanks to Turkey and Brazil - in which Iran agreed with the American proposal (put forward several months ago) of delivering, under the responsibility of a European country, a large portion of its nuclear fuel for enrichment to 20%, for clearly non-military purposes (in order to fabricate a bomb, enrichment would have to attain a level of 90%), the USA immediately requested a meeting of the Security Council for imposition of further sanctions, without giving Iran time to discuss or even think about these new requirements. It is the wish of the “heavyweight USA-Israel duo” (although I am not saying this explicitly), that Iran totally interrupt any advance in its development of nuclear technology, for either peaceful or military purposes. It is alleged that they fear that the current Iranian president could, within a few months or years, come to fabricate nuclear weapons, a privilege which, from the point of view of the “darned duo”, can only be and should only be the right of a few “superior countries” (including the aforementioned pair), which are already tremendously powerful in terms of conventional and atomic weapons. In justifying this inequality of treatment, the duo alleges that the current Iranian government is dictatorial and primitive, to the point of allowing the lashing of thieves in public squares, the stoning of adulterers and other really primitive practices, although such practices are still part of the ancestral (and even religious) Islamic tradition. Criticism of such customs is justified, but it is necessary to consider that here one is dealing with a culture that is not going to disappear overnight, even though it should disappear.

As this article does not intend to discuss the origins and variants of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Iran is a mere metastasis of the political cancer that has never been excised), I am going to limit myself to demonstrating that the Security Council is becoming a Chamber of Commerce.

All those who accompany international news regarding the “Iranian threat” are reminded that China and Russia showed themselves to be against the use of further sanctions against Iran. Suddenly, on the eve of the voting session for further sanctions, China changed its stance. Why? Clarification is provided by the more courageous media, indicating that this abrupt turnaround occurred because the Israeli government explained in sobering detail to China that it intends to attack and destroy Iranian facilities used for extracting oil. With such a perspective, China would lose this precious source of oil for a long period. For this reason, Beijing thought that it would be more prudent to approve the new Security Council sanctions and maintain its supply of oil, which will not be affected by such sanctions. “Just business, nothing against Iran”. The sudden change of stance by the Chinese is thus explained.

Now, let us examine the Russian explanation. Everyone knows that Russia signed a contract with Iran for the sale of ground-to-air S-300 missiles. It was only necessary to deliver such missiles, which are solely a means of defense, destined to bring down aircraft and rockets in the event of an attack on the country. The Russian government, even after the Security Council decision to create further sanctions, stated that such ground-to-air missiles would be delivered, as they could not be classified as “offensive weapons” and that the contracts should be honored. There followed secret talks and Putin changed his stance, saying that the missiles would no longer be delivered. I do not know whether some kind of advance payment had been made.

Why did the Putin administration decide to change its mind? Because if Russia delivered the aforementioned defensive missiles to Iran, Sarkozy’s France (discreetly pro-Israel) would cease to provide Russia with something that is greatly desired in order to combat Chechen separatists: Mistral class amphibious assault ships, which can get very close to the beach, each vessel carrying 16 attack helicopters, 4 landing craft, 70 combat vehicles, 13 tanks and 450 soldiers. Such amphibious vessels even have 69 hospital beds. The sale of one Mistral class ship was already agreed and the sale of another four was being considered. Faced with perspective of losing the deal with the French, if he vetoed sanctions, or did not fulfill them, Putin changed his mind. “Sorry, business..”, he must have said to the Iranians, who will be less protected from aerial attacks against their most vital facilities. Foreseeing American support for a preemptive strike as inevitable (around thirty years ago, Israel bombed Saddam Hussein’s Osirak nuclear reactor) it is quite likely that the dose comes to be repeated. This time against Iran, effectively putting an end to any development in the nuclear field by this country, irrespective of whether it is for peaceful or military purposes.

Brazil courageously maintained its opposition to further sanctions, even losing money by adopting this stance. It insists on the existence of a principle that will never be able to be swept under the carpet (probably already well rumpled) of the Security Council meeting room, namely: if all nations have equal rights, there is no reason to impede the right of Iran to develop nuclear technology, as the five permanent members of the Security Council are already in possession of nuclear weapons and do not oppose the existence of such arsenals in India, Pakistan and Israel. The latter is an arch enemy of Iran and has not even taken the trouble to become a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, being “consequently” and “legally” able to fabricate nuclear weapons as it sees fit, free from inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The Brazilian government has undertaken to sell alcohol to Tehran, as well as food products, items that are not explicitly included in the embargo. Nevertheless, it will not manage to sell the alcohol because UNICA, the entity that represents ethanol producers, is aware that if alcohol is sold to Iran, it will be subject to reprisals in the form of tariffs imposed by the American government. Consequently, as a UNICA representative has already stated, not “a drop” will be sold. The ethanol producers will say: “We have nothing against the Iranians, its “just business”. Even those Brazilian companies interested in selling food products to the Iranians will tire of swimming against the financial current, given that export business dealings are performed by means of bank transactions and the “all-powerful duo” has already made it clear that banks maintaining transactions with Iran are on the black list. “Just business...”, the ethanol producers will say.

Of course, I have nothing against private companies always seeking the easiest pathway to do business. I also have nothing against Chambers of Commerce being used for business transactions. They were instituted for this very purpose. What is evidently wrong is seeing an extremely powerful global agency - the UN Security Council, created for another, supposedly more noble, purpose - in “competition” with real Chambers of Commerce. The intended goals of each institution are quite different. Ideally, the Security Council should address global friction, possibly leading to imminent armed conflict, taking a preponderantly moral standpoint, analyzing not only the economic interests of its members, but also their ethical opinions, avoiding or diminishing, as far as possible, any instances of injustice and abuse. Each “sanction” has an ethical component. It is not solely the result of an economic accounting exercise.

When the Security Council clearly perceives that the vote has been expressed solely in Exchange for an economic advantage on the part of the voting country - as has frequently been the case - such a vote would be invalidated or at least demoralized by public opinion. The so-called “economic deterrent vote” needs to disappear in decisions made by the Security Council. The rationale adopted as a basis for the vote of each member should be obligatorily published and widely disseminated, with a view to ensuring that international public opinion, as well as that of each country, is fully aware of the degree of intellectual honesty of its UN representatives and respective heads of state.

The reader can imagine what kind of justification would be put forward, in all sincerity, as a basis for voting at the present time. The representative of China would say: “Mr. Secretary General: I am really against further sanctions against Iran, but China needs Iranian oil. As it is highly likely - almost guaranteed - that bombing raids will be carried out by Israel or the United states on the oil facilities of this important supplier (and in this case, China will be without oil for a long time), I find myself obliged, for practical reasons, to vote in favor of further sanctions. This is my vote, Mr. Secretary”.

As far as the vote of the Russian representative is concerned, he would say the following: “Mr. Secretary: like China, I am also against further sanctions, which will only increase the suffering of the Iranian population and, indirectly, that of Gaza, deprived of almost everything. Nevertheless, my country is already counting on the acquisition of amphibious ships manufactured in France that will be very useful for combating Chechen separatists. And we have not been able to identify another potential supplier. The fact is that, if I do not support further sanctions, the Sarkozy administration will go back on its commitment and no longer sell us the ships, thus impeding our struggle against Chechen terror. With the French vessels in mind, I vote in favor of further sanctions. I would like to add that Russia has undertaken to sell ground-to-air missiles to Iran, for defense against any aircraft or missiles that come to attack the country in question. I am going to try to fulfill our contractual obligations; however, if France requires that I breach the agreement, I will breach it, because the amphibious ships are more important to Russia than any rights or wrongs against such a country as Iran, highly disliked”.

Some other countries that support sanctions would certainly say something similar, citing pending transactions.

It could be said that it is the responsibility of the International Court of Justice and not the Security Council to conduct a judicial analysis of unresolved disputes. However, it is the case that, according to the statutes of the aforementioned court, solely States - and the Palestinians do not constitute a State - can make claims against expulsion, with no compensation, from an area that has been occupied for almost two millennia. The root of the animosity that exists between Israel and Iran lies in the Palestinian issue, without any chance of being formally resolved by a Court. Hence the need for the Security Council to decide on the issue of sanctions, taking moral criteria of justice or injustice into account.

I have no real prejudice against any race. I consider them to be more or less equal in terms of innate natural capabilities and character trends. There is the same degree of variation regarding individual moral standpoints within each race. There are excellent individuals, authentic human gems, in all peoples. There are also astute gangsters in the guise of politicians. The problem is associated with good or bad luck in choosing the “bosses” and the kinds of trauma suffered, in the recent and/or remote past, and not forgotten by each people.

I am no admirer of Ahmadinejad - who all too often has a habit of saying the wrong thing at the wrong time, which will likely be the death of him - but I cannot ignore the fact that Iran has been the only country that rolled up its sleeves to defend, with a crazy kind of courage, the Palestinians, a people who have been tormented and expelled, without any blame on their part for imperial Roman injustice committed two thousand years ago.

Some readers may consider the opinions expressed in this article as ingenuous. “Ingenuous”, bearing in mind the real world, at the present time. But is it not a fact that civilization has grown attempting to implement “ingenuity”? There was a time when discussions focused on whether women had a “soul”. If they had such a thing, there was not guarantee that they had sufficient sense to choose a candidate during elections. They could not vote. Become judges? No chance! Besides this, Indians were not considered to be complete human beings -and so on.

Sooner or later, with a view to preserving its theoretical mission (ever more criticized in practice), the Security Council will have to step up to a higher level, no longer acting like a Chamber of Commerce. Those well-versed in International Law exist in their hundreds; however, it seems that they are afraid of freely expressing their negative impressions. They do not wish to put their academic careers at risk.

(14-6-2010)

“Freedom Flotilla”. Who is Right?

2010-06-08T10:52:00.001-03:00

An intellectualized humorist once supposed that the Law is like the handle of a teacup: you can hold it with the right or the left hand, according to the individual taste of the “customer”, or should I say client - a necessary correction in order to avoid excessively hurting the feelings of the defender of a cause incapable of being defended. If interpretive distortions occur on invoking the Law, in general, such calculating distorted interpretations are multiplied thrice-fold in the field of International Law. The reason for this is that, at global level, justice-politics reveals symptoms of split personality: crawling and stammering when the defendant is strong, and speaking out harshly and imperiously when the defendant is weak.

In the case being examined here, it is Israel that is strong, scorning international sanctions. Strictly speaking, in legal terms, Israel cannot even plead “defense of its sovereignty”, given that the Gaza Strip has never been subject to its sovereignty. It has only been an area under military occupation. And it is not even this at the present time. As far as I know, years ago, the UN considered occupation of the Gaza Strip to be illegal - lamentably, without any kind of practical consequence... “Sovereignty” implies peaceful possession, accepted by the majority of the local population. This is obviously not the case with respect to Israel which, by the way, has already recognized such occupation as only an intrusion, to the extent that it withdrew from the area, despite the violent protests of hundreds of its settlers.

At the weak end of the spectrum are the Arabs who inhabit this small coastal rectangle, the victims of a blockade that has lasted for around three years. Apparently, the leaders of the current Israeli government do not remember the suffering of their parents or grandparents when the Nazis forced the Polish Jews to miserably live surrounded in the Warsaw ghetto. The suffering was so intense that the wretched population — starving, humiliated and convinced that they would end up in the gas chambers anyway — cast all caution aside and revolted, being crushed without pity, as they had foreseen. The world was duly moved by this heroic revolt. Notable literary pages arose as a result (e.g.: “Mila 18”, by Leon Uris, himself a Jew), inspired by the bravery of those who, fighting, knew they were going to die. In “normal” or “civilized” wars, combatants believe in the possibility of returning alive, which was obviously not an option in the case of the aforementioned revolt.

It is true that the current siege of Gaza is less virulent than that which existed in the Warsaw ghetto. The Palestinian ghetto is more “modest”, although it is still a ghetto. Photographs in international magazines show the city of Gaza to be under a stranglehold, surrounded by refuse, discomfort and poverty. Israel prohibits the entry of almost everything. It is a more “modest” ghetto because if it were the same as that which existed in Warsaw, the horror would provoke such an international scandal that any remaining international solidarity that benefits Israel, as a consequence of Nazi persecution, would disappear. An article in the São Paulo newspaper “O Estado de S. Paulo” (edition dated 3-6-10, on page A12) states that “only 16% of non-orthodox Jews in the USA, under 40 years of age, feel themselves to be very close to Israel”. In other words, 84% of American non-orthodox Jews (i.e., those who await the Messiah) already feel disappointed with Israeli policy, at least with respect to the Palestinians expelled from their lands. In addition, the entity providing this information is not an anti-Jewish organization; it is the American Jewish Committee. Furthermore, according to the same newspaper article, the current editor of Foreign Affairs magazine stated that “this new generation, 20 to 30 years of age, no longer identifies itself with certain Israeli policies and no longer envisages Israel as a moral actor”.

Jurists, with or without inverted commas, and more sophisticated journalists argue for or against the intervention measures and behavior shown by the Israeli commandos. The arguments vary widely but, if reduced to the most basic terms, it is easy to see who has the better judgment - legally and politically speaking - in the incident that resulted in the death of nine activists, without any Israeli casualties. There were wounded on both sides. As I said at the beginning of this article, legal texts always lend themselves - even more so in the field of International Law - to interpretations according to “individual taste”. Let us look at an example.

International waters. The invasion of the ship occurred in international waters, far from territorial waters under the solely de facto control of the Israelis. It should be remembered that the UN already decided, years ago, that the occupation of the Gaza Strip is illegal. If the occupation is illegal, in the last analysis, this area should not be policed and isolated by Israel, as that which is illegal does not merit legal protection. This is an important point in favor of the activists. Principally considering that there was no news or reasonable suspicion (Israeli intelligence would have easily gathered all necessary information during the preparatory phase of the marine flotilla) indicating that there were arms amongst the food and other items sent with a view to alleviating the situation of the besieged population.

The invasion of the vessel that led the small flotilla occurred at 04:00 hrs in the morning - “pirate tactics”, making the most of the slumber of those on board. If there was resistance on the part of the activists, this was perfectly natural and legitimate for the following reasons: firstly, because they were in international waters; and, secondly, because the mission of the flotilla was one of charity and solidarity, without any intention of violently taking possession of the lands of others, or any belligerent purposes. The physical resistance of a few was improvised, using chairs, iron rods, catapults and other fragile means of defense. If, eventually - and it is difficult to believe in the Israeli version... - one of the activists managed to gain possession of the weapon of an inattentive rather “half-witted” commando, this would be an act of defense rather than aggression, as in the case of someone who, in his own home, confronts thieves and manages to gain possession of the weapon of one of his assailants. Commandos are highly trained and certainly not inexperienced to the extent of losing possession of their weapons in moments of conflict.

In an article dated 4-6-10, on page A11 of the aforementioned newspaper, the writer Linda Grant reminds us of that which happened regarding the vessel “Exodus” in the summer of 1947. She draws an analogy between the two situations, although the respective positions are reversed, as the Exodus incident involved Jews attempting to break through a blockade. The ship in question carried 4,500 Holocaust survivors and left France destined for Palestine. It intended to run the blockade established by the British, who were quite rightly concerned with the incessant flow of Jews who had been, in the author’s own words, “rotting in displaced persons camps since the end of the war.” The English knew that the Palestinians would react against a mass “return” of Israelites after an absence of almost two thousand years. Linda Grant says that the Jews “didn't expect to be able to land, but they knew that the rickety vessel with its pitiful human cargo of refugees would show up the British as cold-hearted colonial masters. As the ship approached Haifa, the commander received a radio signal from the Zionist leadership not to risk the lives of the passengers by a confrontation. But the incalcitrant Polish captain refused to turn back. Hemmed in by three British destroyers, the crew and passengers found themselves boarded, and retaliated (very much like that which occurred in the case of the pro-Palestinian activists) with whatever weapons came to hand – a consignment of cans of kosher corned beef. The British killed three people.” The passengers were unable to disembark and were returned to refugee camps in Germany. This incident helped the Jewish cause tremendously, in terms of international sympathy. Any similarity to that which occurred regarding the “Freedom Flotilla” is not mere coincidence. It is a maritime precedent demonstrating that the violent reaction of a few individuals against the armed boarding of a vessel is perfectly normal. In addition, as far as I can gather from the above account, in the case of the “Exodus”, the vessel was not in international waters. Besides this, at the time, the United Kingdom had very much more legitimacy than Israel, today, with respect to impeding the progress of the 4,500 passengers who had come to settle in Palestine - a source of friction with Arab residents - , this being the opposite of the situation involving the “Free Gaza” activists, who only intended to deliver their humanitarian cargo and then return.

I have already read arguments, in favor of the Israelis, saying that the flotilla had been invited to sail to the Israeli port of Ashdod, further to the south, where its cargo would be handed over to the local authorities, who would assume responsibility for transporting it to the city of Gaza after completing detailed inspection. Such an argument has little credibility, given that the Israelis remain firm in their resolve to maintain a “stranglehold” on the Hamas government in Gaza, depriving the population of basic items necessary for its daily existence. It is not easy to believe that the Israelis would act to the contrary, demonstrating their good faith by “forwarding” ten tons of humanitarian aid. Why should the pro-Palestinian activists believe in such a promise? If Israel intended to ensure that this aid arrived in Gaza, why did it not allow it to be unloaded in the port of Gaza, as the flotilla organizers had in mind, under close inspection by the Israeli army? Everything indicates that here one is dealing with an argument fabricated at the last moment, given the international fiasco resulting from violent interception of the flotilla.

With regard to this event, the ambivalent reaction shown by the government of Barack Obama is lamentable, considering that he is a president in whom I still persist in having great hopes. Initially, Obama requested that an investigation be performed by the Israelis themselves, acting on their own behalf - an absurd degree of naivety. Fortunately, following this, he suggested that an impartial international investigation be conducted. The meek American reaction can likely be explained by the imperious necessity of financial support by the American Jewish lobby in the next round of US legislative elections.

As everyone knows, even the most well-meaning democracies do not dispense with campaign financing. In a manner of speaking, the highest political positions are “purchased”, in part, via electoral propaganda. Success does not solely depend on the ideas and character of candidates. In addition, aggravating the difficult stance maintained by Obama, there is evident divergence between the views and sympathies of the president and his secretary of state with respect to the Middle East problem. It is difficult to imagine that the defeat of that valiant lady - within her own party, at the time of choosing the person who would be the democratic candidate during the last presidential election - has not left a significant degree of residual resentment which, like a volcano, lies dormant but not extinct, awaiting the right moment to erupt.

In today’s press, Prime Minister Netanyahu, somewhat surprised with the repercussions of his “disastrous piracy” said that he was seeking “creative solutions”. Netanyahu is really a patriot. However, he is a patriot of the old school, outdated and narrow minded, founded solely on egoism, only concerned about the happiness of his fellow citizens and indifferent to the suffering of other peoples.

“Creative solutions” always exist. The problem is that they require sacrifices to be made. One of these is that of sitting down at the negotiating table with the Palestinians and confronting the issue of creating a Palestinian State, with at least a wide highway connecting the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, as it makes no sense to maintain these two regions separate. In the event that agreement is not possible, the parties should “wash their hands” of the issue, requesting that an international court decide, via arbitration, the future boundaries between the two states, because everyone has had enough of blood, anguish and suffering. With regard to the return of Palestinian refugees - thousands of them, crowded together in camps scattered throughout the Arab world - a possible proposal would be that of compensating each displaced Palestinian family and asking the UN to provide a large area (in Africa, for example) where such Palestinians could settle and prosper. I vouch that, in a few decades, this “second Palestine”, perhaps African, would be able to attain an equal standing, in terms of progress, with the Israel of Netanyahu, already deceased and remembered with hatred or affectionately missed, depending on his behavior from this time onwards. And Africa would profit from this.

I remembered Africa in the above suggestion because if the Zionist Movement had accepted the offer made by the British in 1903 to install the Jewish State in a region that then corresponded to Uganda (currently Kenya), with a relatively mild climate - an offer refused on the grounds of wild animals and the proximity of African tribes - Israel would have become a respected and tranquil power, rather than a hated one. I do not know whether the mass transfer of Palestinians would be possible at the present time, although virtually uninhabited lands exist that are capable of providing a home for new nations.

What is the difference between Hamas and the Palestinian National Authority? The latter, weary of fighting, became resigned to accepting the existence of Israel. It only wants to be a state, with the sovereign status enjoyed by other states. Hamas, on the other hand, found it difficult to “swallow” expulsion of the Palestinians by the “intruders” and, for this reason, does not accept the State of Israel. Ousting the “intruders” has become an impossible and impractical option. Even less so, an inhuman massacre of Homeric proportions, which would never even come to occur, given the economic, military, nuclear and political might of Israel. Hamas needs to convince itself of this evident reality, accept the real world and do the only thing possible: claim reasonable compensation for the displaced, and ask the UN for sufficient space where Palestinian refugees could settle, prosper and subsequently constitute a state.

If the European Union is able to designate billions of euros in order to save Greek finances, and the USA billions of dollars with a view to saving American banks and industries, with a much smaller amount of cash it would be possible to “acquire” a more or less suitable area in some continent, for settlement by the new “errant Jews” who currently answer to the name of “Palestinian refugees”. Hamas might consider this to be unjust, but it needs to be convinced that perfect Justice does not exist in any part of the planet.

Think about this, Mr. Netanyahu, and strive to leave your good name on the Earth before being consumed by worms. Save the small critters from indigestion. Your biography could still be augmented, transforming you into a true statesman. And please, Mr. President Barack Obama, think of American relief when the great wound that contaminates the Middle East, and which could spread to other areas, is finally healed. Once the principal source of rancor - the Palestinian situation - has disappeared, terrorism, if it persists, will be the mere activity of gangsters, much more easily controlled.

(5-6-10)

What now, Messrs. Wolves?

2010-05-28T16:02:00.001-03:00

For those of you who do not remember how La Fontaine, in his fable “The Wolf and the Lamb”, portrayed the constant prevalence of the arguments of the strongest party, I will repeat it here, with discreet embellishments (literary freedom...), showing its analogous pertinence to the reaction of the great powers to the nuclear agreement signed by Iran, Turkey and Brazil on 17-5-2010.

The fable states that a lamb was drinking water from a stream that flowed on sloping terrain, when it saw a wolf approaching to quench its thirst. The wolf was on a level higher than that occupied by the lamb. The defenseless herbivore tried to hide, but had already been seen by the wolf. The latter, scowling, in all certainty already salivating at the though of an imminent meal, initiates the following dialogue with the lamb:

— What makes you so bold as to dirty the water that I am drinking? — I am not dirtying anything, because water flows from high to low and you are upstream from me — This does not matter, because you said bad things about me a year ago! — But, Mr. Wolf, I had not been born a year ago! — Well, if it was not you, cheeky lamb, it must have been your brother! — That cannot be, because I have no brothers... — Then it must have been another lamb - a friend of yours, or the dog that guards the flock, or even the shepherd - such rabble. The fact is that I feel judicially offended!

With this haughty argument, the wolf considered the artificial polemic to be closed, carrying its prey in its mouth in order to devour it in some quiet place. While chewing on the now defunct debater, the wolf was perhaps thinking: “Shut up, conscience! Wolves are also “human beings”. God did not create me to eat vegetables. If anyone is to blame for the lame sophisms that I invented at the time, it is not me”.

Mention has already been made at the beginning of this article of the moral of this story: it is not difficult to forge “arguments” in order to justify the interests of the strongest. At the present moment in time in international politics, power is in complete favor of those countries that sympathize politically with Israel - a notable possessor of atomic weapons, without being bothered on this account - and fear, or pretend to fear, that Iran is planning to fabricate atomic bombs in order to drop them on Israel; even acknowledging that Iran itself knows that it would be crushed and incinerated in a nuclear inferno, soon after or even at the same time as any ill-advised attack.

The perspective of armed conflict is like a dream come true for the lucrative armament industries of several countries. Furthermore, it serves the political interests of Iran’s great enemy in the region, which is none too satisfied with the perspective of having to re-start disagreeable bilateral talks that attempt to discuss the creation of a neighboring Palestinian state, with a growth in population that is far greater than that of Israel. Following the agreement signed on May 17th 2010, the “wolves”, unhappy with the decreased risk of armed conflict, need to invent new arguments in order to stir up mud in the water; and, according to media reports today (19-05-10), it appears that that they are doing just that.

With a view to clearly and globally understanding the “Middle East problem” (without an overview of the problem, it is difficult to understand its component parts), it is necessary to persevere with a synthetic view regarding the origins of the Palestinian issue and subsequent developments up to the date of the nuclear agreement mentioned at the beginning of this article. This short simplified explanation will be considered as “simplistic” or “naive” by those interested in maintaining a pre-conflict or openly warlike climate; however, the author still trusts in the existence of intellectual honesty and intelligence on the part of the majority of those who read articles concerning this controversial issue. I will make an extremely brief summary of the festering sore that has potential for transforming the planet into an enormous open wound, infected with hatred and with presentiments of burned flesh.

As mentioned above, there follows a highly simplified “primer”, in order to allow for a rapid understanding of the topic in question.

In year 70 of the Christian era, Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans. The Jews found themselves forced to abandon Israel - the so-called “second diaspora” - without even surmising any incentive or participation on the part of Palestinian Arabs in this expulsion. Up to then, Arabs and Jews had lived together reasonably peacefully. Most of the Jews became scattered throughout the south of Europe, although slowly moving in a northerly direction. Despite this diaspora, the Jews, zealously maintaining their customs and religious traditions, mixed little with the Europeans and were persecuted in various manners, including - in some countries - the prohibition of acquiring land for cultivation.

As a result of this prohibition and needing to earn a living, the Jews specialized in the only options open to them, namely: business and finance, becoming very skilled in matters of money and business in general. To a greater extent than the Christians, given that Christianity did not look kindly on “vulgar” and earthly mercantile activities. The eyes of Christians were fixed on the infinite - spiritualism is all well and good but, as everyone knows, it does not pay the bills. When there was a shortage of money, some Christian governors requested loans from the Jews; however, when the time came for payment, if this was not possible, a “pogrom” was invented, alleging that the Jews were the assassins of Jesus Christ. And the masses, jealous of Jewish wealth, gave vent to their repressed feelings. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Jews, as a result of their business dealings with other peoples, cultivated the art of learning foreign languages, a powerful tool that maintained them, on average, much better informed than those practicing other religions.

As victims of regular “pogroms” (massacres), confiscations and humiliations, it would be only natural for the Jews to yearn for a “homeland”, a country that was their own, not as mere guests tolerated to a greater of lesser extent. But which country would it be, after nearly two millennia scattered throughout the world?

In Germany, with the rise to power of Adolf Hitler - a powerful speaker, but a mediocre thinker, violently anti-Semitic -, the European Jews attempted to obtain the authorization of other countries for a mass migration, fleeing from the Nazi threat. However, despite formal declarations of solidarity, such countries, including the USA, did not agree to receiving millions of German Jews, it being the case that the same occurred in the case of other nations, apparently sympathetic (paying lip service only) to the yearning of the Semites to live in safety.

In 1902, long before Hitler, the British Colonial Secretary even offered the Jews an area of 5,000 square miles known as “Mau Plateau” in Uganda (this area is currently part of Kenya); however, the offer was rejected on the grounds that there were many wild animals in the region, as well as the presence of Masai tribespeople, which could represent a problem. The actual climate was not bad, as the plateau was situated at a reasonable altitude, being similar to that found in the south of Europe. This proposal ended up being rejected at a Zionist congress. In my humble opinion, this was the wrong decision, due to the fact that, with the passage of time, Israel would have become a powerful nation, with its inhabitants free from the concerns inherent to every country that is transformed into an occupying force, as in the case of Palestine. The most that could occur would be some kind of revolt on the part of the local natives, in the event that they were not treated with respect.

Ultimately, with an incessant influx of Jews to Israel, coming from all parts of the world, without a cry of “enough!” on the part of successive Israeli governments, the mere number of people occupying the same space resulted in that which would be inevitable, namely: the pure and simple expulsion, with no right to compensation, of the weakest - in this case, the Palestinians. Here the great sore, infected to an ever greater extent and expressed in the form of “suicide bombers” and rockets that are little more than home-made which, for the time being, generate more noise than deaths. They do not kill to a great extent, but serve as a pretext for interrupting talks held with a view to dividing Palestine into two states. This is something which, at base, the current Israeli government does not accept at all, although it does not say so in an explicit manner, fearful of losing international support.

Where does “nuclear Iran” come into all this? Could it be that there is only expression of solidarity with the suffering of the Palestinians or, as Israel alleges, is there a desire for increased power in the region? I would risk stating that solidarity is likely the preponderant factor, due the fact that a mere desire for increased influence, through growth in nuclear capabilities, has shown itself to be immensely counterproductive, actually reducing influence, a shot in the foot, extremely dangerous for the future of Iran itself. Through the works and grace of its enemies, the country has become an international villain, suffering progressive sanctions - with a further batch on the horizon, according to newspapers on May 19th. Hillary Clinton has already made it clear that the Security Council is not going to take account of the agreement signed, days previously, by Iran, Turkey and Brazil. Hillary is re-writing the fable of the wolf and the lamb, “If it was not you, Iran, that muddied the water, it was a relative of yours, your dog or your shepherd”. The order of the day is to devour Iran, on whatever pretext, making the most of current circumstances surrounding its current president, Ahmadinejad, showing him to be a big mouth who uttered a few stupid phrases in the past and is afraid of being seen as a coward - by his citizens - if he recants on his misguided statement regarding the non-existence of the Holocaust and the infantile promise of wiping Israel off the map.

Several decades ago, the Shah of Persia signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; however, Article X allows any signatory state to withdraw from the treaty, by alleging, for example, security reasons (in this case, in relation to its enemy Israel). On the Internet, it is possible to access the aforementioned Non-Proliferation Treaty and see how easy it is, at least from a legal point of view, to become free from International Atomic Energy Agency criticism and inspections.

Three months after submitting a request for withdrawal from the treaty, Iran would be free of the possibility of being accused of non-compliance with any international standard. It would be in the same position as Israel, which has always makes it implicit that it is in possession of nuclear weapons and does not wish to sign the NPT, remaining exempt from inspections. I do not know whether Iran did not request withdrawal from the NPT for reasons of incompetence - forgetfulness on the part of its Foreign Relations Ministry - or whether it did not make such a request because, if it did so now, the “wolf” of the fable, or the subservient pack, would say that making such a request now is an implicit confession that Iran is fabricating nuclear weapons, there being an urgent need for invasion of the country, prior to the end of the three-month period.

Whoever accompanies, on a day-to-day basis, media reports on what is happening with respect to the “Iran problem”, can only be amazed that almost no mention is made of the inequality of international treatment of the “nuclear” stances adopted by Israel and Iran. The former, I repeat, has not signed anything and enjoys the luxury of fabricating nuclear weapons to its heart’s content, despite the fact that it has the best-equipped armed forces in the Middle East. Iran is the “villain” (although it could cease to be one in three months), despite the fact that it has now agreed to hand over part of its uranium for enrichment in Turkey. Even if Iran does this, it will still be subject to further sanctions, because it still has many kilos of this material, necessary for normal activities performed for peaceful purposes. It should be emphasized that, if Iran hands over all its uranium for enrichment in another country, it would have to deactivate its facilities for a long period of time. Perhaps decades, as nobody can guarantee what will happen in the future. In addition, Iran is very astute in developing its knowledge regarding use of the atom, given that oil is a finite asset, it pollutes, and it even encourages the occult energy ambitions of powers that imagine themselves to be “smart”. “Pero no mucho”, because there are still many thousands of intelligent readers who are not easily deceived and understand the moral of the fable, and how it is just as applicable today as when it was originally published by Fontaine.

(19-5-2010)

Political short-sightedness regarding “nuclear doctrine”

2010-05-07T15:38:00.001-03:00

Somebody once said - it is impossible to locate the source of everything that one reads - that a particular person amassed an amount of knowledge that exceeded the capacity of his brain. It’s a bit like a disorganized woman who unexpectedly needs to catch a plane, realizes she is late and can only take one suitcase. In doubt about what to take or not take, she stuffs clothes and various other objects, without any kind of order, into the suitcase, to the point that she needs to sit on it in order to close it. The suitcase, groaning, ends up acceding to her wishes, but some of the clothes are left hanging out of the closed luggage, swaying like crazy ideas in the breeze.

The same thing occurs in the case of some intellectuals, who are unable to adequately digest certain topics. First, because they are morally indigestible and complicated; secondly, because in the highly insatiable - and active - brain of such intellectuals, there is no natural organic space for digesting so many ideas and so much information. The result is that which is seen, with a certain frequency, in dealing with some more polemic issues: it is not possible to discern the obvious that is more distant. Hence the comparison with the actual condition known as myopia, which is characterized by difficulty in distinguishing more distant objects, although objects close at hand are discerned with ease. Besides this, aggravating the problem, there is the almost required professional “pose”, or the impossibility of thwarting the powerful interests that drive us and which it is advisable not to contradict.

Amplifying such analogies, in the mental area, the equivalent exists of the stomach and the liver. The mental “stomach” represents the neurological mechanism of perceiving what one reads or hears. - “Did you read that article?” - “Yes, I did!” You read it but you did not properly digest it. The mental “liver” is designated with the task of filtering that which has managed to reach the “stomach”. Some minds are slow in their capacity to ingest knowledge, although they even have a reasonably developed mental “liver” - so-called “common sense”. Their problem is perhaps more glandular or neurological in nature, the result of visual or auditory problems, or the consequence of attaining an inadequate degree of literacy. Reads little, but “digests” much of what is read. They are people we call “sensible”, confident in their common sense. They are not “brilliant” but, like innocent children, say what adults do not dare to say: that “the emperor has no clothes”.

Other minds are capable of speed-reading but, paradoxically, are weak when it comes to joining the pieces necessary for formation of more judicious and balanced innovative convictions. In other words, they judge badly. A certain individual - once again, I beg forgiveness for not remembering his name - was considered to be the fastest reader in the world. In all certainty, a genetic accident, a caprice of nature, as he had not attended any kind of “dynamic reading” course. He had a kind of large “bump” on the back of his head, which may possibly have been related to his ability to read and understand, with incredible speed, whatever he read. Nevertheless, he wrote nothing and it seems that he spoke little. He was certainly lacking a mental “liver”, the filter capable of metabolizing what he read and composing something himself. Had he lived at a time of greater advances in genetic engineering, he would have been able to provide a few of the neurons or genes responsible for such fast reading skills - for grafts, thus fulfilling a need that is ever more necessary for the understanding and restructuring of our world. Whoever is intensely interested in what occurs on the planet and beyond it, in various areas, via the written word (my case and certainly that of the reader), would probably be thankful for the possibility of attaining a threefold or even a tenfold increase in reading capacity. Of course, as long as this is not at the cost of a decrease in critical judgment.

This long preamble leads up to the news that the USA has announced a new nuclear doctrine (New Start Treaty). In brief summary: the United States and Russia have resolved to decrease their respective nuclear arsenals by a third, by the year 2020. At the present time, it is estimated that each of these countries has 3,000 nuclear warheads. The “good news” is that, in ten years time, each one will “only” have 2,000 warheads - still sufficient to destroy planet Earth several times. Fewer times that now, but enough excess power to give cockroaches the right to replace use.

Firstly, it should be noted that a lot can happen in the space of ten years, making the intention of “denuclearizing” the world (in fact, only two countries) ridiculous in such a long period of time. If a new climate of global tension arises, with China or another country coming to assume a more aggressive role in the fragile balance of power, it is evident that, for reasons of security, both the USA and Russia would desist from compliance with this limited and incomplete target. Within a few years - less than ten - other actors, besides the USA and Russia, will also be participating on an equal footing (if not in terms of power, at least in terms of threat) in this astute game of poker that is called international politics, in which nuclear power has a significant role to play. When Israel became an atomic power, and Iran eventually comes to think of becoming an atomic power, the objective of both countries is that of ensuring they are respected. The stronger and more armed they are, the lower the chance of being attacked. The problem is that, with unilateral force comes the temptation of abuse. As I have already said in another article, the only reason why there was not a third world war in the 1960s - the “Cuban missile crisis”, remember? - was because both the USA and Russia were nuclear powers.

Another “interesting”, if not to say ridiculous, facet of the new “nuclear doctrine” was the American commitment (Obama needs to react more to the pressure he is subject to within his own government, i.e., Gates and Hillary) to not using atomic weapons against countries with no military nuclear capabilities, even if attacked with chemical and biological arsenals. Up to this point, nothing amiss. Now comes the reason for using the word “interesting” in the first line of this paragraph: the only exception in the “doctrine”, permitting a nuclear attack on the part of the USA, would be in the case of countries that disrespect the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would represent a warning to Iran. “Disrespect” is a vague, flexible term. It does not necessarily mean attack another country with atomic bombs. According to the “new doctrine”, simply not agreeing with a resolution could be interpreted as “disrespecting”, authorizing an American nuclear attack.

It seems to me that the editors of the “nuclear doctrine” forgot that if Iran, several decades ago, at the time of the Shah of Persia, signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it would be sufficient for it (in order to be free of the stigma of violation of the Treaty) to request withdrawal from the NPT, based on that stipulated in article 10. For example, Iran could allege that its withdrawal is for reasons of security, considering that its mortal enemy Israel enjoys undeniable military superiority and, by all accounts, nuclear superiority too, as it always makes implicitly understood but not explicitly confirmed. On requesting its withdrawal, within a period of three months, Iran would be legally free to do whatever it saw fit within its nuclear facilities, without being subject to inspections, as in the case of Israel, which is not party to the NPT and, for this reason, has not been bothered by the international community.

The Obama administration (at least Obama himself, as an individual), well intentioned in its desire for world peace, needs, we believe, to be bolder in its objectives. It needs to establish global disarmament as a priority agenda, not only in the nuclear area, but also in the area of conventional weapons, which kill more people than atomic weapons, exactly because they do not intimidate those who fire them. It is not sufficient to restrict limitations to nuclear weapons. It is estimated that around fifty million people died in the Second World War, counting both civilians and military personnel, the victims of cannon, torpedoes, machine guns, bombs and bayonets. It is this that needs to end. In order to demonstrate that nuclear weapons even inhibit the slaughter, suffice to say that from 1945 (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) to the present day, there has not been a single death caused by a nuclear explosion. There have only been atomic tests, without deaths. Deaths due to radiation have only occurred by accident, as in the case of Chernobyl (Ukraine) in 1986. During this same period, how many millions have died the victims of conventional weapons, in wars in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, the Middle East, Africa, etc?

Wake up Gates and Hillary! The great solution is to disarm the world! How to do this? By creating an active agenda, discussing mechanisms that effectively guarantee the security of all countries and populated areas that aspire to statehood, as in the case of the Palestinians, for example. A clarifying campaign, with a view to explaining to the world, in all languages, that it is necessary to discuss, right now, how to amplify the powers of the UN, with the objective of creating a type of single global government, in the form of a Federation that dispenses all countries from the immense expenditure necessary for maintaining individual armed forces. Why maintain around two hundred armies, navies and air forces? It would simply be sufficient for each country to maintain a force for keeping internal order, as already occurs in the case of all states of any federation.

In the hypothetical case of an invasion of Earth by aliens, all nations would certainly unite, in an organized manner under one command, to fight the enemy. As such a threat does not exist, it is to be hoped that the incentive (unfortunately necessary) of fear of an extraterrestrial invasion comes to be replaced by fear of an “internal invader” already dangerously present amongst us in the form of environmental pollution, local wars, attempts to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities, global economic crises, unemployment, disorganized migratory movements - with virulent responses on the part of those countries most “invaded” - hunger, drought and poverty in general.

It is clear that such an undertaking - the creation of a global democratic government - will take years, but taking a first step in this direction is the equivalent of striking a light in the depths of the dark tunnel traversed by humanity. Obviously, the nuclear arms industry will feel itself to be threatened, arguing that such pacifism will mean thousands of unemployed, as well as a decrease in tax revenues. On the other hand, industries manufacturing conventional arms will certainly favor nuclear restrictions given that, with such a “doctrine”, there will be greater demand for traditional weapons. “Well’ - they could argue - “all countries, or groups, need to defend themselves, one way or another”. It would be possible to resolve the problem of unemployment in the arms industry, with government financial assistance, through a change in activity in “x” years. With less spending on the purchase of arms, the same sum would be directed to the manufacture of more useful things than the constantly innovatory material of death and destruction.

Some readers will say that this story of “world government”, with all countries relinquishing part of their sovereignty regarding foreign affairs and human rights, is a crazy utopia, and that the world cannot - and perhaps should not - function like a well-adjusted clock.

I disagree (doing nothing more than follow the lead of great thinkers - too numerous to mention here), believing that it is the right and even the obligation of the human race to attempt to imitate a well-adjusted clock, with all hands working in harmony. It is the obligation of every politician to fight to see not only his country, but also all the countries in the world, free from the misery and conflict that originate from the supposed right of each head of government to decide whatever he or she wishes, babbling the old mantra of “I have total authority in my country! Other countries can sort out their own problems! Their suffering is even educative, ha, ha, ha!” Patriotism of this type, today, with globalization, is a vice rather than a virtue.

The ideal of seeing the world functioning like a well-regulated machine, with a minimum of suffering is, at base, an ember that glows weakly, with little hope, in the imagination of many human beings. At least in the imagination of those that suffer - the vast majority. And the breath blown on the ember of hope does not need to come from ideologically opposed cheeks. Armed ideologies have already killed more people than tuberculosis, syphilis, typhus and leprosy collectively - begging your pardon for the bad taste of such a pathogenic emphasis.

(9-4-2010)

2010-05-07T15:28:00.000-03:00

Political short-sightedness regarding “nuclear doctrine”

Somebody once said - it is impossible to locate the source of everything that one reads - that a particular person amassed an amount of knowledge that exceeded the capacity of his brain. It’s a bit like a disorganized woman who unexpectedly needs to catch a plane, realizes she is late and can only take one suitcase. In doubt about what to take or not take, she stuffs clothes and various other objects, without any kind of order, into the suitcase, to the point that she needs to sit on it in order to close it. The suitcase, groaning, ends up acceding to her wishes, but some of the clothes are left hanging out of the closed luggage, swaying like crazy ideas in the breeze.

The same thing occurs in the case of some intellectuals, who are unable to adequately digest certain topics. First, because they are morally indigestible and complicated; secondly, because in the highly insatiable - and active - brain of such intellectuals, there is no natural organic space for digesting so many ideas and so much information. The result is that which is seen, with a certain frequency, in dealing with some more polemic issues: it is not possible to discern the obvious that is more distant. Hence the comparison with the actual condition known as myopia, which is characterized by difficulty in distinguishing more distant objects, although objects close at hand are discerned with ease. Besides this, aggravating the problem, there is the almost required professional “pose”, or the impossibility of thwarting the powerful interests that drive us and which it is advisable not to contradict.

Amplifying such analogies, in the mental area, the equivalent exists of the stomach and the liver. The mental “stomach” represents the neurological mechanism of perceiving what one reads or hears. - “Did you read that article?” - “Yes, I did!” You read it but you did not properly digest it. The mental “liver” is designated with the task of filtering that which has managed to reach the “stomach”. Some minds are slow in their capacity to ingest knowledge, although they even have a reasonably developed mental “liver” - so-called “common sense”. Their problem is perhaps more glandular or neurological in nature, the result of visual or auditory problems, or the consequence of attaining an inadequate degree of literacy. Reads little, but “digests” much of what is read. They are people we call “sensible”, confident in their common sense. They are not “brilliant” but, like innocent children, say what adults do not dare to say: that “the emperor has no clothes”.

Other minds are capable of speed-reading but, paradoxically, are weak when it comes to joining the pieces necessary for formation of more judicious and balanced innovative convictions. In other words, they judge badly. A certain individual - once again, I beg forgiveness for not remembering his name - was considered to be the fastest reader in the world. In all certainty, a genetic accident, a caprice of nature, as he had not attended any kind of “dynamic reading” course. He had a kind of large “bump” on the back of his head, which may possibly have been related to his ability to read and understand, with incredible speed, whatever he read. Nevertheless, he wrote nothing and it seems that he spoke little. He was certainly lacking a mental “liver”, the filter capable of metabolizing what he read and composing something himself. Had he lived at a time of greater advances in genetic engineering, he would have been able to provide a few of the neurons or genes responsible for such fast reading skills - for grafts, thus fulfilling a need that is ever more necessary for the understanding and restructuring of our world. Whoever is intensely interested in what occurs on the planet and beyond it, in various areas, via the written word (my case and certainly that of the reader), would probably be thankful for the possibility of attaining a threefold or even a tenfold increase in reading capacity. Of course, as long as this is not at the cost of a decrease in critical judgment.

This long preamble leads up to the news that the USA has announced a new nuclear doctrine (New Start Treaty). In brief summary: the United States and Russia have resolved to decrease their respective nuclear arsenals by a third, by the year 2020. At the present time, it is estimated that each of these countries has 3,000 nuclear warheads. The “good news” is that, in ten years time, each one will “only” have 2,000 warheads - still sufficient to destroy planet Earth several times. Fewer times that now, but enough excess power to give cockroaches the right to replace use.

Firstly, it should be noted that a lot can happen in the space of ten years, making the intention of “denuclearizing” the world (in fact, only two countries) ridiculous in such a long period of time. If a new climate of global tension arises, with China or another country coming to assume a more aggressive role in the fragile balance of power, it is evident that, for reasons of security, both the USA and Russia would desist from compliance with this limited and incomplete target. Within a few years - less than ten - other actors, besides the USA and Russia, will also be participating on an equal footing (if not in terms of power, at least in terms of threat) in this astute game of poker that is called international politics, in which nuclear power has a significant role to play. When Israel became an atomic power, and Iran eventually comes to think of becoming an atomic power, the objective of both countries is that of ensuring they are respected. The stronger and more armed they are, the lower the chance of being attacked. The problem is that, with unilateral force comes the temptation of abuse. As I have already said in another article, the only reason why there was not a third world war in the 1960s - the “Cuban missile crisis”, remember? - was because both the USA and Russia were nuclear powers.

Another “interesting”, if not to say ridiculous, facet of the new “nuclear doctrine” was the American commitment (Obama needs to react more to the pressure he is subject to within his own government, i.e., Gates and Hillary) to not using atomic weapons against countries with no military nuclear capabilities, even if attacked with chemical and biological arsenals. Up to this point, nothing amiss. Now comes the reason for using the word “interesting” in the first line of this paragraph: the only exception in the “doctrine”, permitting a nuclear attack on the part of the USA, would be in the case of countries that disrespect the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would represent a warning to Iran. “Disrespect” is a vague, flexible term. It does not necessarily mean attack another country with atomic bombs. According to the “new doctrine”, simply not agreeing with a resolution could be interpreted as “disrespecting”, authorizing an American nuclear attack.

It seems to me that the editors of the “nuclear doctrine” forgot that if Iran, several decades ago, at the time of the Shah of Persia, signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it would be sufficient for it (in order to be free of the stigma of violation of the Treaty) to request withdrawal from the NPT, based on that stipulated in article 10. For example, Iran could allege that its withdrawal is for reasons of security, considering that its mortal enemy Israel enjoys undeniable military superiority and, by all accounts, nuclear superiority too, as it always makes implicitly understood but not explicitly confirmed. On requesting its withdrawal, within a period of three months, Iran would be legally free to do whatever it saw fit within its nuclear facilities, without being subject to inspections, as in the case of Israel, which is not party to the NPT and, for this reason, has not been bothered by the international community.

The Obama administration (at least Obama himself, as an individual), well intentioned in its desire for world peace, needs, we believe, to be bolder in its objectives. It needs to establish global disarmament as a priority agenda, not only in the nuclear area, but also in the area of conventional weapons, which kill more people than atomic weapons, exactly because they do not intimidate those who fire them. It is not sufficient to restrict limitations to nuclear weapons. It is estimated that around fifty million people died in the Second World War, counting both civilians and military personnel, the victims of cannon, torpedoes, machine guns, bombs and bayonets. It is this that needs to end. In order to demonstrate that nuclear weapons even inhibit the slaughter, suffice to say that from 1945 (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) to the present day, there has not been a single death caused by a nuclear explosion. There have only been atomic tests, without deaths. Deaths due to radiation have only occurred by accident, as in the case of Chernobyl (Ukraine) in 1986. During this same period, how many millions have died the victims of conventional weapons, in wars in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, the Middle East, Africa, etc?

Wake up Gates and Hillary! The great solution is to disarm the world! How to do this? By creating an active agenda, discussing mechanisms that effectively guarantee the security of all countries and populated areas that aspire to statehood, as in the case of the Palestinians, for example. A clarifying campaign, with a view to explaining to the world, in all languages, that it is necessary to discuss, right now, how to amplify the powers of the UN, with the objective of creating a type of single global government, in the form of a Federation that dispenses all countries from the immense expenditure necessary for maintaining individual armed forces. Why maintain around two hundred armies, navies and air forces? It would simply be sufficient for each country to maintain a force for keeping internal order, as already occurs in the case of all states of any federation.

In the hypothetical case of an invasion of Earth by aliens, all nations would certainly unite, in an organized manner under one command, to fight the enemy. As such a threat does not exist, it is to be hoped that the incentive (unfortunately necessary) of fear of an extraterrestrial invasion comes to be replaced by fear of an “internal invader” already dangerously present amongst us in the form of environmental pollution, local wars, attempts to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities, global economic crises, unemployment, disorganized migratory movements - with virulent responses on the part of those countries most “invaded” - hunger, drought and poverty in general.

It is clear that such an undertaking - the creation of a global democratic government - will take years, but taking a first step in this direction is the equivalent of striking a light in the depths of the dark tunnel traversed by humanity. Obviously, the nuclear arms industry will feel itself to be threatened, arguing that such pacifism will mean thousands of unemployed, as well as a decrease in tax revenues. On the other hand, industries manufacturing conventional arms will certainly favor nuclear restrictions given that, with such a “doctrine”, there will be greater demand for traditional weapons. “Well’ - they could argue - “all countries, or groups, need to defend themselves, one way or another”. It would be possible to resolve the problem of unemployment in the arms industry, with government financial assistance, through a change in activity in “x” years. With less spending on the purchase of arms, the same sum would be directed to the manufacture of more useful things than the constantly innovatory material of death and destruction.

Some readers will say that this story of “world government”, with all countries relinquishing part of their sovereignty regarding foreign affairs and human rights, is a crazy utopia, and that the world cannot - and perhaps should not - function like a well-adjusted clock.

I disagree (doing nothing more than follow the lead of great thinkers - too numerous to mention here), believing that it is the right and even the obligation of the human race to attempt to imitate a well-adjusted clock, with all hands working in harmony. It is the obligation of every politician to fight to see not only his country, but also all the countries in the world, free from the misery and conflict that originate from the supposed right of each head of government to decide whatever he or she wishes, babbling the old mantra of “I have total authority in my country! Other countries can sort out their own problems! Their suffering is even educative, ha, ha, ha!” Patriotism of this type, today, with globalization, is a vice rather than a virtue.

The ideal of seeing the world functioning like a well-regulated machine, with a minimum of suffering is, at base, an ember that glows weakly, with little hope, in the imagination of many human beings. At least in the imagination of those that suffer - the vast majority. And the breath blown on the ember of hope does not need to come from ideologically opposed cheeks. Armed ideologies have already killed more people than tuberculosis, syphilis, typhus and leprosy collectively - begging your pardon for the bad taste of such a pathogenic emphasis.

(9-4-2010)

Mental dishonesty + arrogance = condemnation of Iran

2010-04-07T09:27:00.001-03:00

Whoever takes the time to study, even if not in depth, the astute international campaign that is underway against the development of nuclear capabilities by Iran, can only be astonished by the tremendous partiality shown by the news media against the only country, Iran, that has had the courage to offer its firm solidarity to the Palestinians, expelled from land occupied for almost two thousand years. And here lies the core of the Middle East problem. Iran is a mere development, subject to interpretive distortion in complex international politics, given that images of atomic mushroom clouds have a greater impression than the day-to-day humiliation of defenseless populations, in this case, the Palestinians.

Such Iranian solidarity could come at a cost, to its people, of the bombing of its nuclear and non-nuclear facilities, followed by a defensive war - which will be tortuously baptized as “offensive” - with the consequent massacre of its population. Those “statesmen” poisoned by hatred, stupidity or shady interests, are excited by the odor of blood and oil of a country that is weak, when compared with Israel and its acolytes, including the USA.

What is the basis for beleaguering this country? The possibility, however remote, that it comes to develop nuclear weapons that could, in theory, be launched against its fierce enemy Israel, a mortal foe that has never denied its nuclear capabilities and enjoys the privilege of never having been bothered on this account. In fact, Israel never took the trouble to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And, as it has not signed the treaty, Israel is not subject to inspections, being able to fabricate nuclear weapons at will. The technically perfect but morally aberrant legal consequence for the globalized world - something that needs to be urgently corrected by the Disunited, or should I say United Nations, if it has sufficient lucidity and courage to take this measure. This appears o be dubious, given that intellectual sheep, even those with doctorates, are to be found everywhere.

Someone could argue that, around forty years ago, Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, in which the possibility was established of any country withdrawing from it - it being sufficient to allege that it was withdrawing for reasons of security, without further explanation. According to the aforementioned treaty, three months after declaring that it wished to withdraw from the treaty, Iran would be “free” to fabricate nuclear weapons, on an equal legal standing with Israel. Today, however, if Iran were to request its withdrawal from the treaty, its enemies would jump with joyous euphoria, saying that such withdrawal is an authentic “confession” of its intention to develop nuclear weapons, thus needing to be contained and, if necessary, destroyed. It is highly surprising that Iran has not remembered to simply withdraw, formally, from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, thus escaping the accusation that it is violating international standards. It should be made clear that there are no such “international standards”, only international treaties.

The media, almost entirely the enemy of Iran, repeats the whole time that, a few years ago, the president Ahmadinejad of Iran promised to “wipe Israel off the map”, and an atomic bomb (as interpreted by his enemies) would be the kind of broom foreseen for this task. A rhetorical outburst that was not only mindless, but also impossible to achieve, not formally denied by Ahmadinejad simply due to his fear of appearing weak. Without even mentioning his lack of astuteness. Any other more adept president would take up the microphone and say (perhaps resorting to lies) that the promise of “wiping off the map” was made at a time of indignation following abuse committed against the Palestinians, and that he never seriously thought of destroying a country with seven or eight million inhabitants. He would also say that his non-recognition of the Holocaust was also an exaggeration on his part, and that he would never initiate a nuclear war as there can be no winners in this type of conflict. With this “retreat”, sincere or truthful, there would at least be a slight improvement in his image on the international stage. Perhaps he has not denied his original statements knowing that nobody would believe him and, furthermore, he would appear to be a coward. Anyway, such bombastic phrases do not justify what it is intended to do now against Iran, chastising an entire people as a result of the mindless words of a single person, albeit the president of the republic.

Ahmadinejad should know perfectly well that, in the unlikely event of a nuclear attack on Israel, Tehran would almost immediately be reduced to ashes. Besides this, the Mossad, the ruthlessly effective Israeli intelligence agency, would be aware almost immediately of the Iranian plan of attack, quickly taking all necessary measures.

It is evident that the Iranian president, with his “indirect” references to future nuclear weapons capabilities, wishes to impose respect far more than fabricate atomic weapons that could be effectively used, this year or next. Specialists in the nuclear field frequently express the opinion that it will be necessary for several years to pass before Iran can fabricate nuclear weapons and launch them against Israel. It should not be forgotten that countries manufacturing nuclear weapons need to perform tests prior to using them. And any Iranian atomic test would be detected by Israel and its countless allies, showing solidarity when they should only be fair, separating the wheat from the tares. Using this metaphor, Ahmadinejad, with his bravura, represents the tares.

As everybody knows, Israel enjoys immense superiority in terms of conventional arms in the Middle East. In order to maintain its military hegemony, it has no need for nuclear weapons; however, “just in case”, it substantiates its power with presumed nuclear capabilities, which have never been inspected. Israel wants this situation to continue, which will allow it to prolong, indefinitely, the current impasse with the Palestinians in creating two states. Everything indicates that Benjamin Netanyahu has no intention of reaching an agreement, despite his statements to the contrary. He is gaining time and, with the opportune and “blessed” Iranian nuclear threat, has found a good pretext for prolonging this impasse while he extends and amplifies occupation of the West Bank. Besides this, he has an insuperable international lobby at his disposal, even capable of putting a Barack Obama in office. He even concedes himself the right to be arrogant, even putting pressure on the presidents of such countries as Brazil, for their representatives not to visit Iran.

The international media is so aberrantly partial that it even considers a “challenge to the West” the fact that Tehran demands the simultaneous exchange, on Iranian territory, of its slightly enriched uranium (3.5%) for material enriched to 20% from abroad, necessary for medicinal purposes. The Western powers intend - seems like a joke... - that the Iranian nuclear material be delivered “in confidence” to Russia and then France, in order to be devolved to Iran years later. Such a scheme does prevent this material from being “confiscated” or retained in Europe, on one pretext or another, by political forces interested in maintaining total Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. What moral authority do Western countries, long accustomed to duplicity, have to require such confidence in them by a country that is comparatively weak and without any strong allies?

China, with the power of veto at the Security Council, has maintained discreet resistance to pressure regarding the imposition of further sanctions against Iran. Fifteen percent of the oil consumed in China comes from Iran. Hence the Chinese resistance to requests for further, more serious, sanctions. Nevertheless, as there are no ethics, only interests, in the international field, the possibility cannot be discarded of Iran’s enemies arranging a scheme for providing China with oil under more favorable conditions, as long as China does not veto harsher sanctions against Iran, including bombing, at the Security Council. If this occurs, Iran will pay dearly for its solidarity with the Palestinian people.

Also look at what is happening in the case of Russia: initially, the country’s leadership indicated that it was not in favor of further sanctions against Tehran. Russia currently needs to purchase French transport aircraft and Sarkosy has determined that the sale of such aircraft is dependent upon the “the Russian vote at the UN”, i.e., on the issue of sanctions (according to the Associated Press, quoted in the newspaper “Estado de S. Paulo, dated 2-3-10, page A-14). The Russian president has already accepted “intelligent sanctions”, demonstrating that heads of state “adapt” their own conscience according to the demands of current circumstances.

Some may say that the stance adopted by Ahmadinejad cannot be explained by his solidarity with the Palestinians. It could be said that what he wants is to exercise greater dominion in the troubled region. It is possible that such a motive also exists, given that a skillful mixture of motives is extremely common in politics. Anyway, if such pretensions of regional power exist, their fulfillment will be highly problematic, given that various Arab countries do not look kindly on submission to a country that is not even Arab, but Persian. Sooner or later, Ahmadinejad’s presidency will come to an end. All the evidence indicates that he will be succeeded by a government that is less “fanatic” and more careful in the words it uses. He will be out of power before the bellicose nuclear fruit is finally “ripe”, with its respective test. And if he manages to fabricate a bomb during his mandate, he will not use it because he is not so stupid as to ignore the fact that retaliation would be immediate and deadly, turning even the president himself to ashes.

That which has impressed me and taken me by surprise, provoking my obvious ire, is the impertinence shown by certain North American authorities in threatening the Brazilian president, almost “prohibiting him” from visiting Iran, during the trip he will make to the Middle East in May. Arturo Valenzuela, an American and Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, left a threatening message: “We want the Brazilians to be more forceful with the Iranians”. In addition, according to the press, Hillary Clinton is going to increase the pressure when she comes to converse with Lula in the near future. Fortunately for the Brazilian people, the president has already replied in kind, saying that he converses with whoever he wishes. A lesson in self-esteem on the part of an ordinary ex-factory worker for many of those in smart suits who are incapable not “blindly accepting the views of others”.

Why is there such irritation on the part of Israeli politicians regarding Lula’s visit to the Middle East, including Iran? In my opinion, it is not because Brazil has influence in deliberations made by the Security Council. The danger lies in Lula calming Ahmadinejad, convincing him to temper his discourse, withdrawing remarks concerning his intention to “wipe off the map”, denial of the Holocaust, and the promise that he will be able to fabricate nuclear weapons. A milder non-threatening Ahmadinejad is just what the Israeli “hawks” do not want, as it is likely that, with this calm, the problem of creating two states in Palestine would have to be addressed once again.

In general, different peoples are in fact similar, made of the same “clay”. There are individuals who are more and less intelligent, more and less cultured, and more and less inclined to human solidarity. Their happiness or misfortune depends on good or bad luck in the choice of their governors. The same occurs in the case of the Israelis and the Iranians, both currently in a rising tide of bad luck. Most of the Jews, admirable Jews, exemplary Jews, would like to live without apprehension, but this essentially originates from the impasse reached with the Palestinians. As long as this issue is not resolved, by agreement between the two parties (almost impossible), or by order of the International Court of Justice (once modifications are made to the UN Charter), we will live at the brink of war, which could become generalized, or turn into a new form of guerrilla warfare. If Iran is bombed, it is not impossible to imagine the assassination of Israeli diplomats in various parts of the world, and vice-versa, as violence breeds violence. Whoever senses that he has suffered injustice and has a hot temper will always grant himself the “right” to react according to his own standard of justice, and to hell with the law.

The world would applaud the great stroke of luck of seeing an exceptional leader arise in Israel, on a level with the admirable Jews that have so enriched civilization. He is likely already there, a younger rather than older individual, rather anonymous and without power. A politician of great moral and intellectual integrity. A mixture of Baruch Spinoza, Einstein and innumerous other intellectuals of courageous mental honesty, who knows what would be best for their country and also for the Palestinians - with or without Hamas, the mere collateral effect of a deep wound. A new Moses, with a new function: that of extending a hand in friendship, with no tricks, to the Palestinians, their Semite cousins who, after living separated for centuries, have forgotten, on meeting again, that they continue to be related.

(2-3-10)

Summary of the distorted “Iranian impasse"

2010-02-23T17:43:00.001-03:00

Before going any further, an explanation: generically speaking, I have nothing against “Jews”, irrespective of whether they are seen as a “race” or religion. Very much to the contrary. As a student in educational institutions ranging from primary school to university, I always felt a natural intellectual affinity with Jews, who are generally affable and good humored individuals who value culture and are averse to brutality. I have never been indifferent to the humiliation and suffering that they have undergone in Europe as the victims of persecution - and not only by the Nazis.

Nevertheless, rather than preventing me, such sympathy obliges me to criticize Israel’s foreign policy over recent decades with respect to the Palestinian people, as well as it’s associated “unfolding developments”, one of these being Iran. Yes, unfolding developments. Iran’s animosity against Israel and the very existence of Islamic terrorism are largely nurtured by the unjust and mean way in which Israel has been treating the Palestinians. It should be remembered that the Israelis were expelled by the Romans, not the Palestinians, who now see themselves as displaced from land they have occupied for almost two thousand years. If the Palestinian-Israeli issue had already been resolved (by the UN, there seeming to be no alternative, amplifying and strengthening international jurisdiction), Ahmadinejad would not be repeating the stupid remark, always remembered by his enemies, of “Wiping Israel off the map”. A mindless phrase, uttered with a view to grabbing votes in elections, as everyone knows, even he himself, that it no longer makes sense, in the modern world, to “wipe” a country - any country, irrespective of whether it is weak or strong - “off the map”. Besides this, Israel is extremely strong in the military, diplomatic and intelligence (spying, using the former nomenclature) areas. In addition, the geographical extent of its population is not limited to Israel. Approximately 6 million Jews live in Israel, but an equal number live in the United States. According to Wikipedia data, the worldwide Jewish population is that of between 12 and 14 million. Among European countries, the greatest concentration of Jews is to be found in Sarkozy’s homeland - France.

Charles Proteus Steinmetz, a Jewish scientist who was born in Germany and subsequently immigrated to the USA (where he had a brilliant career in electrical engineering) said that “There will be a time of small independent nations whose first line of defense will be knowledge”. With this statement, he foresaw the existence of Israel and its concern with so-called “intelligence”, or information in political, military and even commercial fields. Mossad, the Israeli secret service, is probably the most effective in the world.

When compared with Arab countries, Israel has enormous superiority regarding the most modern conventional weapons, as well as an atomic “plus” of dimensions unknown to the rest of the world because nobody - not even the International Atomic Energy Agency - is so bold as to investigate the kind of nuclear arsenal that Israel possesses, without being bothered by western nations. It is this unequal treatment (even an unequal degree of curiosity) that so revolts the Iranians. They can always ask: “If the Israelis have the right to fear Arab aggression and, as a result, are authorized to possess nuclear weapons, why is it that we Iranians do not have the right to fear aggression by the Israelis, who already have such weapons?”

What the Iranian president needs to get into his stubborn head is that although the “shock-value” wipe-off-the-map phrase could have provided him with a few million votes years ago, its repetition, or simple permanence, could currently mean the disgrace of the country. The mindless phrase facilitates and even “authorizes” an attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities, not only by the Israelis, but also by international forces led by the Americans. As far as this is concerned, there are disappointing signs (and I hope I am mistaken) that Barack Obama is weakening, incapable of resisting pressure brought to bear by the Israeli lobby and his Secretary of Defense, an unfortunate left-over from the W. Bush government. If Iran is bombed, its population will unite in support of its president, as is usual in all countries. We will have a third war underway, to the delight of the American arms industry. It should be remembered that the armaments industry, everywhere, only prospers in a climate of war. Peace is its penury, its ruin, its purgatory. In a less idiotic world, the arms industry would have ceased to be in private hands a long time ago, except with regard to such light arms as revolvers, shotguns and the like.

In the event that an attack occurs against Iranian nuclear facilities (and inevitably in neighboring areas), what kind of benefit could this bring to the country? None whatsoever - only further retardation and destruction. In every aspect, not only that regarding the development of nuclear know-how. Sooner or later, nuclear energy will be necessary to Iran, which does not have sufficient hydroelectric power plants. Could it be that the current president does not understand that maintaining the aforementioned inept phrase only provides arguments and pretexts for Israel to maintain itself as an unequalled power, and in expansion, in the Middle East? From this point of view, it would be useful for Iran to free itself from Ahmadinejad, as in the same way that it would be useful for Israel to free itself from Benjamin Netanyahu and its current Foreign Minister who, one day, will be judged by History. Almost always, it is “leaders” that disgrace their respective peoples. Even in democracies. This is due to the fact that their most important concern is that of pleasing “the masses”, who are neither interested nor have time to read the torrent of news published and analyses performed according to the particular interests of newspaper, magazine and television editors.

More specifically, with regard to the possibility of a series of “harsh sanctions” (bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities?), there follows an analysis of the false “imminent threat” that Iran will soon be capable of making atomic warheads and launching them against Israel.

The text that follows includes information gathered from the respected Brazilian newspaper “O Estado de S. Paulo”, which could never be accused of nurturing any kind of sympathy for the current Iranian government.

On 8-2-10 (Page A8), the newspaper in question states: “Iranian radioactive material is enriched between 3% and 5%, and adequate level for civil applications. On being re-processed, such fuel can reach an enrichment level of 20% (ideal for medicinal use), or even 90% (the required percentage for fabrication of an atomic weapon”. Quite a jump this, from 5% to 90%. In summary, Iran is still a long way from being able to produce nuclear weapons. Its current struggle is that of managing to achieve an enrichment level of 20% - far from the 90% necessary to produce bombs. The same article continues by saying that the intelligence services of the USA and European countries “calculate” (a likely exaggeration) that Iran will be capable of producing a nuclear bomb within less than five years”. When an article such as this states “less than five years”, the reader can be certain that the prediction is not that of one, two or three years. It is that of at least four or five. Therefore, the alleged “Iranian bomb” is not a matter of such immediate importance that it justifies bombing now, by any country, unleashing a new war.

The false arguments for immediately “punishing” Iran also include the fact that Iran has shown itself to be reluctant regarding the western proposal that it should sent its nuclear fuel to be processed in France. Iranian suspicion regarding this proposal is justified. What kind of guarantee is there that France and western nations (after a period of time and strongly influenced by Israeli diplomacy) will not resolve to “think again” and “retain” the Iranian nuclear fuel, alleging this or that reason or pretext? In this case, Iran would be deprived of a material that is its own, depending on enormous, slow and inefficient legal bureaucracy in order to claim the devolution of its fuel in an international court of justice. In addition, it is well known that the decisions of international justice are not automatically fulfilled. If France were to refuse to hand over the fuel (to which it has no right of ownership) following years of legal disputes and sentenced for this at the International Court of Justice, the matter would come to be examined by the Security Council, where solely politically motivated decisions are the order of the day. Furthermore, France has already expressly stated that “...its state-owned nuclear company, Areva, would not be able to deliver the fuel to Iran for at least two years, due to prior supply commitments” (same journalistic source).

Summing up, France simply creates confusion with its proposals and counter-proposals. On 10-2-10 (page A12), the aforementioned Brazilian newspaper stated “About one year ago, Sarkozy declared that there were two options: an Iranian nuclear bomb or the bombing of Iran”. In January, the French president warned of the possibility of an Israeli military attack on Iranian nuclear facilities”. Sarkozy is the son of a Jewish mother, converted to Catholicism. It is not unlikely that such a situation makes him inclined to see things in a distinctly partial manner that favors Israel, which is in possession of a nuclear arsenal (always understood to exist but not explicitly confirmed) or pretends to have one, but does not allow foreigners to conduct any inspections.

On this topic - sanctions against Iran - our foreign policy is going in the right direction. Although perhaps not “politically correct” internationally, such policy is certainly “politically correct” from a moral point of view, which is much more important in the long term than subservience to the interests of the more artful.

During his next trip to the Middle East, a great amount of pressure will be subtly brought to bear on President Lula by the Israeli government to adhere to the almost unanimous international viewpoint that judges, with extreme partiality (and without the slightest embarrassment), a conflict capable of unleashing an unjust war against a relatively weak nation - Iran. Please forget the thoughtless bravura shown by the Iranian president. Think only of the Iranian people. At heart, what Iran intends to do is create a shield that provokes some degree of respect, or even fear, in an enemy that is known to be too powerful and influential to be opposed with respect to any territorial pretentions. If the fear is mutual, there is some hope of an agreement regarding the central conflict - the Palestinian issue.

It is to be hoped that the Brazilian government, although polite in its statements during visits, evasively says that it is going to “think about” the suggestions and subsequently decides with a clear conscience (although with an expired vote at the UN). If other countries, through stupidity or shameful submission, wish to authorize such bombing (without a minimum of remorse regarding the unequal treatment of the countries involved), may the blood of Iranian victims be a stain on the conscience of others, not our own.

If the conflict in Palestine is resolved, in a just manner (the decision should come from an “external” source), innumerous other problems will also be automatically resolved, or almost resolved.

(10-02-10)

Obama is a statesman. It is essential to support him. Banks, etc.

2010-02-03T09:22:00.003-02:00

The difference between a “mere” president of a republic and a statesman is that the former is solely concerned with surveys of public opinion and how to remain in power; he himself - if this is permitted by legislation - or someone that he is inclined towards. This often means that he will continue, after the election, as a “half-president”, or some other kind of fraction of governor, according to the level of psychological dependency of the person indicated by him. On the other hand, a statesman, in the full meaning of the word, relativizes the reaction of his electorate because he knows that the population in general has a quick-results mentality (often somewhat immature), only thinking of its own good fortune, without finding the conditions or time necessary for making a more precise analysis of the country’s problems. It should not be forgotten that so-called “experts” can also be wrong, given that they base their predictions on human behavior, this mixed bag of caprice, venom, vanity, sympathy, antipathy and capricious calculations of personal interest.

I wish to make it explicit, without irony, that the above paragraph is not related in any way to the current political-electoral situation in Brazil. However, I involuntarily thought of the situation in Argentina, where a certain president, who could not be re-elected due to a constitutional impediment, was, in a manner of speaking, “re-elected” via his wife. When they refer to polemic decisions, Buenos Aires newspapers openly write, without any intention of satirizing, that one presidential decision or another was made by “the Kirchners”, instead of the president actually holding this position. As if there were two presidents in office. While on the subject, I think it is surprising that no legal prohibition exists (as far as I know), not even in First World countries, regarding the candidature of the wife of the president when the actual president cannot put himself forward as a candidate. Is it not the case that such an omission is proof of political-electoral ingenuity?

On the subject of Barack Obama, his fall in popularity is principally based on two factors, namely: i) unemployment has not dropped to the “normal” level that existed prior to the onset of the economic crisis, and is ever increasing in his country; and ii) a cruel doubt: is it really worthwhile remaining in Afghanistan, considering the high economic and political costs involved? How many billions of dollars and how many hundreds of corpses of American soldiers will be necessary to reduce (even slightly) the cultural backwardness - from the point of view of Western standards - of a population nurtured from the cradle on the “milk” of exceedingly rigid moral and religious norms that go against Western culture? Is it really feasible, without paying an astronomical price, to forcibly drag a people that still live in the Middle Ages into the twenty-first century? Would this cultural update “course” not be less expensive, less bloody, if it were given solely in the form of internet access, financial aid, non-hostile propaganda, study grants to young Afghans, etc, instead of uniformed “teachers” machine gunning and bombing their “students”, many unintentionally as innocent civilians who were near the targets attacked by manned and unmanned aircraft?

The average Muslim, watching American and European films, falls over backwards, shocked and sickened, on suddenly seeing ninety percent explicit sex scenes, with oral - but not verbal - variations, clearly suggested in the images and expressly mentioned in the soundtrack and subtitles. These are “raw” scenes that appear without any prior warning, making it impossible for rapid evacuation of the Muslim theatre where women and children are present. This distorted model of “Christian civilization” that so shames true Christians - and even those agnostics of greater modesty - certainly does not contribute to increasing respect for the “invaders”, who are present in the country without being invited. Given that Bin Laden is no longer in Afghanistan, many Americans ask themselves: “so why are our young soldiers dying over there?” And when I say “over there”, I am including part of Pakistan, which is becoming progressively involved in the conflict.

Besides the premature and unjust disappointment of his electors (jobs are not created by decree), Obama is now being attacked with greater vigor by the Republicans, excited with his fall in popularity. They detect the odor of the black sheep’s blood in the air. In this rejection, there is a certain amount, almost impossible to measure (or confess) of racial discrimination, an instinctive component that it is difficult to fully eradicate, given that it is an aspect related to the genetic inheritance of us all (this will a topic for another article).

A book recently published in the USA, the title of which I cannot remember, collects the indiscreet comments of politicians when talking freely, thinking that nobody is recording the conversation. In these conversations, they make an attempt to convince party colleagues. In one of them, ex-president Bill Clinton (a good natured, sympathetic, politician, but always a politician) puts pressure on his Democratic colleagues to support Hillary Clinton, instead of Obama, in the dispute for the party presidential nomination. According to the book, at the time of the Democratic primary race, Clinton is alleged to have said the following during a telephone call to the late Senator Edward Kennedy: “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee”. I do not know whether there was any racial or solely social prejudice in this statement, or a mixture of both, but one thing is certain: Obama’s race will have a degree of weighting in the guided artificial acceleration of his level of rejection. Many people wish to bring about his downfall, even though one is dealing with a man - almost a “youth” based on his appearance - who has everything necessary to honor a country that has had the good fortune to produce individuals like Thomas Jefferson, his colleagues who prepared the American Constitution, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Obama himself.

To date, at least Obama has shown himself to be a statesman proposing to the world a moral and intellectual model of how the statesman of the future should think. This cannot be limited to solely thinking of the benefit of his own country. An analogy would be a shepherd who cares for his own flock, but keeps a vigilant, collaborative and non-covetous eye on the flocks of others, avoiding, as far as possible, that any harm should come to them. It is this that is Barack Obama’s intention. I am not exaggerating. He may err, for an instant, but his error is well intentioned, the fruit of mature responsibility and foresight, free of the usual underhand subterfuge of all presidents solely concerned with their electorates. Presidents of the old guard believe that they have the right to shamelessly lie, if this benefits the country in question. They call this patriotism and sleep with a clear conscience.

Financial institutions will exercise a high degree of influence in order to diminish the prestige of the American president. With the necessary insistence, Obama intends to regulate the activities of banks and, as a consequence, that of their CEOs, with a view to preventing any repetition of the immense crisis, initiated in 2008, which did not result in a complete collapse of the global economy for the sole reason that the American government injected trillions of dollars in the bail-out of banks and large corporations. Such bankers - people of all kinds, in all areas - want to see a return to gratifying irresponsible profits, pocketing enormous bonuses, “facilitating” loans and other operations, but leaving the government to cover losses, if and when the “bubble” bursts. This is something that is completely within the realm of possibility, and they know it, but they are not very concerned as it is highly unlikely that they will have to return their self-granted gains.

A currently popular and very wise saying states that “If you owe the bank a thousand dollars, you are at the bank’s mercy. If you owe the bank $100 million dollars, the bank is at your mercy”. In other words, the bank is not going to press you for repayment. It is going to treat you with a gloved hand because, if it does not, you could say that you are not going to pay, leading the bank to insolvency. An the saying should be amplified, as it has been already: if a bank is imprudent, granting loans that are unlikely to be paid back, the government, thinking of the well being of account holders, finds itself obliged to effect a bail-out. It is not going to leave millions of depositors in the lurch. Governments are thus “at the mercy” of sufficiently large irresponsible banks. Hence the expression that “banks cannot grow to a point where they become “unbreakable”.

Obama is now stirring up a financial wasp’s nest that will perhaps put his very office in danger. He wants to separate two banking activities: that of safeguarding the rich source of small cash of the current account holder (with limited remuneration) and the activity of high-risk investment. You, the reader, have likely already received telephone calls from bank managers suggesting that such and such a deposit should be invested one fund or another, or other similar applications, with a nomenclature that varies from bank to bank. There are so many funds and other acronyms that the client becomes confused, not being a specialist in the area, as is usually the case. The client ends up accepting the suggestion put forward by the manager who, even if he is an honest employee, is not a holder of the Nobel Prize in Economics. And just why does the manager make such offers? Because it is required of his immediate superiors who, in turn, follow the guidance of the handful of individuals who are at the top of the organizational hierarchy and are perhaps interested in being awarded their bonuses.

The conclusion to be drawn from all this is that such advice given to current account holders ends up facilitating the practice of banking activities that could result in a danger of generalized collapse, followed by cries for substantial aid from the government, i.e., from the tax-payer in general. It is edifying, at first sight, to find current account holders being warned that if they want big profits (involving significant risks - there is no “free lunch”), they should approach the investment banks. If they lose a lot of money, the government will not feel morally obliged to intervene, given that it is not its moral obligation to save casinos and those who frequent such establishments. Summing up, deposit banks deserve assistance, whereas investment banks do not. And, as a rule, deposit banks (I am not sure about regulations in the USA) cannot invest the resources existing in such financial institutions, given that, in the event of large-scale losses on the part of investment banks, the money of depositors would evaporate in the same way. In all certainty, what I am saying is obvious, but I am saying it just because, in the world of high finance, the obvious is somewhat evanescent and mysterious.

The Obama administration has created a commission to address the issue of reforms in the financial sector. Here one is dealing with the Angelides Commission, so-called because it is chaired by Democrat Phil Angelides, an economist of good moral and technical reputation, who was formerly “treasurer” of the State of California. The vice-chairman is a Republican and the ten-member commission is comprised of representatives from both parties. It is to be hoped that it functions, despite the fact that it is a commission. It is a pity that the result will only be presented in December 2010. In the meantime, many things could happen. I only hope that Obama is still alive and in office, and that he has also made a significant leap forward in the development of techniques to combat terrorism.

There is no space here to speak of international terrorism. It is sufficient to affirm, without fear of erring, that it is being fought in the wrong way, superficially. It is not that the USA and the European Union should not defend themselves from sporadic attempted attacks. These are the symptoms, the consequence, the fever arising from an infection. It is necessary to examine the deep-rooted motives for terrorism. It is erroneous to imagine that the problem will be resolved by killing the terrorists. Others will replace them, perhaps with an even greater degree of resentment.

It is my hope that, very soon now, Obama will realize that it is not practical to scan all people travelling by plane to the United States. Neither is it practical to oblige all the world’s airports to examine the political ideas, appearance (i.e., Arab) and the private parts of all those heading to the USA by plane. It is too bureaucratic and partially useless and will only serve to isolate the powerful American nation. How many aircraft, coming from abroad, land in the USA each year? Millions or billions? I am left wondering whether there could be some kind of economic interest behind these measures on the part of companies specializing in security. In addition, there is a need for a response by air transport companies in the form of a vigorous lobby for the cessation of an erroneous, ingenuous policy, which is going to end up ruining their business. If this idiotic policy against terrorism continues, Osama Bin Laden will smile in a satisfied manner, thinking: “How easy it is to force the enemy to be self-disrupting...”

(25-01-2010)

USA in Afghanistan: relentless persistence

2010-01-29T15:26:00.001-02:00

An alternative title would be: “What is the USA doing in Afghanistan?” And the reply would be: erring more than getting things right, despite good intentions. Even the normally praiseworthy virtue of persistence depends on the best possible evaluation of a variety of factors, in order to not be damaging to the community and the actual entity demonstrating persistence, functioning as its coffin. In the world of business, such a distinction is particularly evident, given that the almighty dollar is not greatly given to philosophy and forgiveness. It is unmerciful on those who do not know how to shrewdly assess all the “pros” and “cons” of any business transaction. Someone once said that money and health do not tolerate effrontery.

According to the article “Vietnam replay: A war that can’t be won”, written by William P. Polk, professor of history at Chicago University and president of the Adlai Stevenson Institute of International Affairs, published in Portuguese, under the title “Lições do Vietnã”, in “Le Monde Diplomatique, Brasil” on 28-11-09 (page 21), it is calculated that the overall cost of the Afghan war - which has already lasted eight years - will cost the US economy between $3 and $6 trillion, in other words, more than 25% of the US gross domestic product.

With just half of this spending, poor Africa (the adjective is really unnecessary) would take a great leap forward in terms of quality. With the essential prerequisite that the use of such resources allocated to the continent be closely scrutinized by the donors themselves, or by a reliable international agency. This is because a common practice among some governors of destitute countries is that of diverting a large portion of such assistance to their personal bank accounts situated in Switzerland or other Tax Havens. This problem will only be resolved when there is more flexibility regarding use of the term “sovereignty”. At the present time, as a rule, the crooked politician says, in a firm voice: “We do not allow foreigners to come snooping into the accounts of our country!” A mere excuse for preventing generous donors, generally Americans and Europeans, from overseeing use of the considerable amounts involved. However, I will not go into this aspect any further here, as it strays from the main topic of this article. I only wish to add that, at the time of the Marshall Plan, destined for European recovery following the Second World War, a large portion of the money sent by the American government in order to boost the south Italian economy ended up returning to banks in the United States - in the current accounts of Mafiosi of all types and styles.
According to the aforementioned William P. Polk, comparing the current conflict in Afghanistan with the situation found during the Vietnam War, (...) “The corruption of the South Vietnamese government” (supported by the Americans) “was monumental. Officials stole aid money and food given to their people; and they sold to the enemy Viet Minh equipment and arms given as war material by the US”. He adds that “In Afghanistan, the government we condoned and effectively installed is involved in the drug traffic, sells offices in the police, army and civil service, decides law cases by the size of bribes, steals everything its officials touch, and has been caught selling ammunition to the Taliban. Everything is for sale. The re-election of Hamid Karzai was not a travesty; it was a joke...”
How does so much investment in Afghanistan (in money and lives) benefit the USA, if local government is evidently not reliable and currently detested to an ever greater extent by the Afghans themselves? And the hatred shown by the population for its own government ends up extending to its “sponsor”, the USA, considered to be a “foreign occupying force”, irrespective of the reason for its presence. The people of no country whatsoever can tolerate living under military occupation.
History demonstrates that there is an instinctive reaction against foreign troops “assuming control in our country”. The only exception of which I an aware - and I am not well-versed in history - occurred in Japan, following its defeat by the USA. This is due to the fact that the Japanese had a certain degree of guilt regarding the attack on Pearl Harbor, without a prior declaration of war. Besides this, the American government did not abuse its power as an occupying force. Certainly due to the fact that I was born with a mysterious and instinctive propensity to consider myself a kind of “world citizen”, I have never really understood why such a violent aversion exists to the presence of foreigners. In general, I even find their presence pleasing, if they show themselves to be friendly and “non-superior”. However, this is not the usual instinctive reaction. And the USA encourages such Afghan aversion when, attacking strongholds allegedly held by terrorists, it ends up involuntarily killing civilians, including children, given that many of these strikes are performed by unmanned drones.

Why did the USA invade Afghanistan soon after 11-9-01? Because it was there that Osama Bin Laden, the architect of the attacks, was to be found. And the Taliban supported him, or at least did not restrict his actions. However, one can be sure that Bin Laden is no longer to be found in Afghanistan and that he left the country a long time ago. It is said that he is hiding in the tribal zones of neighboring Pakistan. This finding led the Americans to bomb locations in Pakistan where Bin Laden and his followers could have found a safe haven. Conclusion: more deaths, now Pakistani casualties, the majority of whom are non-combatant civilians. Thus a further source of anti-western hatred is born. Before long, the USA will be at war with Pakistan, or at least “half” of the country. And Pakistan, although a relatively underdeveloped country, is in possession of nuclear weapons.

A few days ago, the USA started to use aircraft to attack Bin Laden’s followers in Yemen, an established breeding ground for terrorists. As far as I remember, around half of the terrorists that were on the hijacked passenger planes on 11-9-01 were of this nationality. If a large number of Yemeni civilians are killed as a result of such bombing, the possibility cannot be ignored of the Americans becoming involved in a “fourth war” (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen). And perhaps others, if the terrorists migrate to neighboring Arab countries - not to mention Iran, in view of the danger of this country developing nuclear weapons.

By way of parenthesis, I would venture to say that Iran likely has the “secret” (not so secret really....) objective of developing a nuclear weapon, but not to use it against Israel. Its intention is dissuasive, in order to create something like a balance of power in the region. This is because if it ever used its bomb, Israeli and even American retaliation would incinerate Iran on the very same day, or the following day. Ahmadinejad would be a cadaver and the grave digger of his country, hated for various generations - and he is aware of this. What the bold-faced Iranian president really desires is that Israel and the international community believe that it is not possible to toy with Iran and that the country deserves to be respected, as it already has, or is close to having the power of nuclear armament. And his argumentative defense will always be the following: “If Israel has, or suggests that it has nuclear weapons, and is not harassed on this account, why is it that only Iran will be subject to sanctions even when there is no certainty that the nuclear power in question is not strictly destined for peaceful purposes?” In my opinion, there is a certain degree of bluff in the firmness and mystery shown by the Iranian president.

Before the four small fires spread, forming a single large conflagration, it would be more prudent for Barack Obama to follow his natural vocation - not that of his Secretary of Defense - in order to confront important international problems with the intelligent understanding and pacificism that he demonstrated during his electoral campaign and during the first few months of his government. As William Polk says, “Terrorists do not need Afghanistan, remote and poorly served by communications and transport: the 9/11 attackers were based in Europe, and future terrorists could attack from anywhere”. So, I ask, why remain in Afghanistan?

After a turbulent occupation for ten years, the Soviet Union ended up withdrawing from Afghanistan, and with losses of all kinds. In all certainty, it was this useless war that was the final blow to the dream of implementing socialism on a global scale. Socialist countries do not become rich. They may even be fair and just, but not rich. And the scanty resources that the Soviet Union had available ended up going down a drain represented by a counterproductive conflict of long duration.

Does that stated above mean to say that we should leave those engaging in terrorism to freely act in a destructive manner? The obvious answer to this question is “no”. It is up to the western world to remain alert, on the defensive rather than the attack, led by the most powerful and organized nation in the world - for the time being... Together with such vigilance, there is a need to place the greatest possible emphasis on the task of convincing the populations of invaded countries that the western world does not intend to crush them or dominate them indefinitely. And such assurance should be sincere.

Principally, encourage debates on television between followers of Islam and the western world, but prohibiting mutual offenses and only permitting arguments. In these debates concerning opinion, even members of the Taliban and those engaging in “jihad” would be able to participate, with diplomatic immunity, guaranteeing their return to their respective countries following the debates. Such a policy is already being cautiously put into practice in Afghanistan, with a large number of American civilians making contact with the local population. It should not be forgotten that Muslims are fiercely indoctrinated from their first years of life. Whoever is the son or daughter of a Muslim becomes a Muslim. Whoever is the son or daughter of a Christian becomes a Christian. Only a constant exchange of points of view can change this, little by little, breaking down prejudices on both sides. The BBC and some other television stations, including Al Jazira, could transmit the debates. It is possible that the basis for a single religion could arise from such an exchange of points of view - something that would be a huge step forward in the direction of world peace.

Prior to Moses, the world was inhabited by many gods. Apparently, monotheism was an advance. However, so many “monotheisms” arose (e.g., Christianity and Islam) that, in a certain way, polytheism returned to the planet, although in the form of a smaller number of deities. Jehovah, Christ and Mohammed represent the same single god; however, their followers battle against the “other” gods, which are basically one and the same “god”. They argue that there are many representatives, but only one god.

There is a great deal of inconsistency in these contests. If such inconsistencies were limited to pious prayers, there would not be any problem. The danger is that such beliefs become transformed into ideologies and even bloody territorial disputes. Israel insists that Jerusalem is its city, for both religious and historical reasons. The Palestinians make the same claim. And both worship a single god. How one asks, if both sides guarantee that there is only one god? Does this not, it is argued, allow the conclusion to be drawn that polytheism has returned to civilization in another guise, while refusing to admit the obvious?

There is much more that could be said regarding this topic, but the reader has now earned a well-deserved rest.

(7-1-10)

Ahmadinejad and the global nuclear issue

2009-12-19T11:53:00.001-02:00

There was agitation in the media with the brief stay of the president of Iran in Brazil. Obviously, the national and international Jewish community did everything (it has its political reasons) to pressure the Brazilian government to avoid this meeting. In all likelihood, the main intention of the visit, days before, of the polite and persuasive Israeli president, Shimon Peres, had been to attempt to cancel reception of the Iranian. He did not succeed - in this respect, our government was correct - because if it had given in to such pressure, it would be relinquishing its own sovereignty with respect to something of use that it still possesses, namely: the right to maintain contact with any country whatsoever, without having to request permission from the visitor’s enemies. It is only countries that are totally defenseless and without strong allies that allow, when coerced - fearful of stifling commercial or even military reprimands - other countries to exercise control over their foreign contacts, even at the level of ordinary conversation.

In this article, I will not be making an analysis of what is currently the best interpretation of sacrosanct “sovereignty”, which can not only be useful and beneficial, but also damaging to good international relations. It is even damaging to the actual countries that make abusive use of it. Drunken with euphoria, irresponsible, demented or ignorant governors, hypnotized by the abstract notion that “they can do anything because they are sovereign” (imagining themselves to be “kings”), forget that their folly generates consequences that are not solely internal, given the fact of globalization. This, however, will be left for another occasion. The topic of this article is the nuclear issue, seen as a global problem and not only associated with Iran and North Korea. Sooner or later, will be tempted (like Adam in the Bible) to take a bite of the forbidden fruit of nuclear knowledge for some kind of purpose. If the approach adopted in this article causes uneasiness or even repulsion, the blame is not mine but that of the current global reality, which should never be ignored like, unfortunately, any and all reality.

Paradoxically, the “nuclear threat” has been and still will be of enormous use for our planet to make advances, globally, in terms of security, justice and effectiveness. Without it, and its two “camouflaged allies” - environmental pollution and the irresponsibility of large American banks - our future would be more depressing. Analogously, snake venom, at the right dose and scientifically manipulated, saves lives. And not only the lives of those bitten by snakes; it “thins the blood” according to scientists. Somewhat intimidated, as long as George W. Bush did not see, on television, the floods in the south of his country and the roofs of houses ripped off by the force of hurricanes, he was not convinced that Mother Nature does not tolerate effrontery.

With the recent global economic crisis, leaving millions of workers unemployed, various leaders (for example, Gordon Brown) concluded that large banks cannot act in an irresponsible manner, confidant in future government support, inevitable for maintaining public confidence in the banking system. This is because avarice, in any sector, is only concerned with the present; however, “someone” - in this case the State (not necessarily socialist)) - has to be concerned with the future. It is fear of the atomic bomb, together with fears regarding global warming and financial anarchy - with unemployment and protectionism - that will force humanity to think seriously of setting up a world federation, or an equivalent entity, in which all nations feel themselves to be adequately protected against the ambitions of other countries. Currently, this situation does not exist. It’s “every man for himself”. All nations arm themselves, in the best possible manner, because no system exists that provides them all with real security. And this generalized lack of confidence represents an outlay of trillions of dollars - wasted wealth, diverted from being used for more useful purposes.

Due to the simple fear of their use, nuclear weapons could prevent long-lasting and no less deadly conventional wars. Despite the fact that the global atomic arsenal is estimated in thousands of nuclear warheads, only two bombs have been dropped in wartime to date: in Japan in 1945. Other bombs exploded, but in tests, without any victims. Fear is a negative and wretched feeling; however, at the right moment, it can save millions of lives. Throughout the world, Criminal Law has been aware of this for centuries. Rather than offer advice, it threatens punishment. The same can be said for the Highway Code. Authorities in the health area conduct their anti-smoking campaigns invoking a fear of cancer and pulmonary emphysema.

During the “very hot” time of the Cold War, with Stalin demonstrating ambitions of dominating as much of Europe as possible, the only reason that there was not a war between the Soviet Union and the USA (despite no lack of tension) was due to the fact that, if such a conflict occurred, it would not be conventional. Both sides would suffer devastation capable of incinerating and sterilizing their own countries. There would be no victors. The wars in Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia were prolonged because the combatants knew that nuclear weapons would not be used, bearing in mind the possibility of fearsome retaliation. At the time, the USA did not accept the suggestions of “hawks”, including General Douglas MacArthur, who favored the use of a few atomic bombs in Vietnam. It was not fear of aircraft, tanks, machine guns and bayonets that avoided a Third World War. It was a vision of a “mushroom cloud” that forcibly led to mutual and indigestible tolerance. “Small” fears cannot hold back our warmongering impulses. Only “gigantic” fears activate mechanisms of necessary restraint.

In conventional wars, princes, presidents and generals, as well as their families, are practically free from personal physical danger. It is for this reason that the history of mankind has been so “rich” in wars. In nuclear wars, fear is democratized. Even if they find refuge in shelters, those in power (who send out young people to fight for them) will be poisoned by radiation if they leave their lairs. And they cannot remain in them indefinitely. Hence the paradoxical use, favoring peace, of the feeling that the “other side” is also in possession of nuclear arms. All valor has its limits.

We insist in demonstrating the use of and even the need for fear, in order for mankind to be, at least, more “cooperative”.

What is it that originally explains, in part, the creation of the most powerful nation on the planet, the USA? The fear of thirteen American colonies of losing the war of independence. Alone and in isolation, these colonies were aware that they would not be able to free themselves from British domination. United, they would perhaps achieve their goal, as in fact occurred. Ultimately, fear of probable defeat led the colonies to unite, although they had to renounce several of the privileges of so-called sovereignty (for example, in foreign policy), which would have to be unique. In international politics, it is an undeniable fact that only interest and fear force countries to become united and behave in a civilized manner. In addition, the more nations are united, the better the global security climate. When one speaks of “interest”, this is implicitly understood to be a form of fear, the dread of “losing” something.

Like a parenthesis, the then American president, Harry S. Truman, has been the object of much censure to date with respect to his decision to drop two atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima e Nagasaki, on August 6th and 9th 1945. Nevertheless, if such extremely deadly weapons had not been used, it is likely that the Japanese empire would have continued fighting to the end, given the fact that it was the military, not civilians, who decided at the time regarding surrender or continuation of the war. When the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan did not surrender. It was not convinced that the war was lost. It was necessary for a second bomb, three days later, together with the American threat (via radio) that it was in possession of other weapons of the same type, which - according to historians - was not true.

According to the web-based encyclopedia known as “Wikipedia”, the day after the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, President Truman issued a radio warning that he could repeat the crushing castigation used on the previous day. What was the response of the Japanese high command? They stated that the warning was “allied propaganda”. On this topic, the then United States Secretary of Defense, Henry L. Stimson, afterwards explained that “the two atomic bombs which we had dropped were the only ones we had ready, and our rate of production at the time was very small”.
The Japanese people have always been extremely proud and combative (was it not they who invented the kamikaze?) and it is more than likely that, if it were not for fear of the successive dropping of atomic bombs, the Japanese would have continued fighting for may months, even finally to the point of hand-to-hand combat in the streets of Japan, after devastating American bombing had reduced the main cities to rubble. At the time, Japanese patriotism would not accept surrender unless drowned in blood - its own and that of Americans. Even today, in Japan, the descendents of samurai enjoy a high degree of social prestige. As far as I know, even greater than that of the status of the most important captains of industry. Brazilians living in Japan and practicing the “vale tudo” variety of martial arts are surprised, when walking through the streets, by the prestige that they enjoy, simply due to the fact that they are professional fighters.
Atomic weapons are undeniably a tragedy; however, without them, there would be even more bloodshed, with millions dying not in a few minutes, but daily or over a period of months or years. They are useful precisely for the psychological effect of “prohibition of use’. This should be taking into account when the one examines the stance adopted by North Korea and Iran, who can always ask, based on the assumption of equal rights: “Why is it only us that do not have the right to not be fearful of countries that are already in possession of atomic weapons?” North Korea has already been a signatory of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It ended up withdrawing in 2003, as the actual treaty permits, as long as three month’s notice is given of intention to withdraw. Furthermore, according to the treaty, it is sufficient to allege that withdrawal is in the “supreme interest of the country”, according to its own criteria and not those of other signatories of the treaty. This treaty is not considered to be a model of legal precision regarding the rights of countries that adhere to it or withdraw. If North Korea withdrew from the treaty, in accordance with its terms, why has it subsequently been subjected to threats due to the fact of possessing nuclear weapons? Israel has not even signed the treaty, implies that it has the atomic bomb and has never been bothered as a result of this. It is impossible for many to understand such inequality of treatment, if one supposes that all countries should have the same rights. It is simply a question of international coercion, not of legal or political prevention against one State or another.
According to the same treaty, Iran could also withdraw from this commitment, escaping the stigma of a treaty breaker; however, it is foreseeable that, even if it withdrew, it would continue to be pressured, this being a peculiar characteristic of our imperfect international system, which tends to make decisions based on political convenience rather than legal precepts.
Ahmadinejad is unreserved in his use of words and it is this that is his main problem. A few years ago, he made two big mistakes that he likely regretted but does not have the courage to admit, in order not to show “weakness”. The first of these was to completely deny the Holocaust, without giving any further explanation. The second was to say that Israel, a country with around seven or eight million inhabitants, should be “wiped off the map” - something that is evidently inconceivable and impracticable. As a result of these statements, he became the involuntary worst enemy of his own country, given that he legitimized the attempt of its greatest adversary (Israel) to obtain the sympathy of the international community and act with extreme aggressiveness against the Palestinians.
With regard to the Holocaust, if Ahmadinejad had limited himself to casting doubt on the number of Jews really exterminated, his opinion - although accused of being “churlish” by the Israelis - he would have been much less repudiated. It would be a tolerable, theoretical, historical, quantitative, statistical doubt, subject to the meticulous scrutiny of those historians more concerned with precision, or seeking notoriety. I think that the strange decision taken by the European Parliament of “criminalizing negation of the Holocaust” would not reach the point of prohibiting examination of the topic. Even if, eventually, there is found to be a smaller number of victims, use of such a forceful term as “Holocaust” would not be inappropriate to describe the extermination of a significant proportion. At least hundreds of thousands or even a few million lost their lives as a result of such persecution.
If Ahmadinejad were a better strategist, or perceptive, or at least prudent, He would currently say the following in front of the microphones:
“I have always been against the creation of the State of Israel in Palestine, occupied for almost twenty centuries by Palestinian Arabs, who were not those originally responsible for expulsion of the Jews. Sooner or later, considering its volume such a “return” would inevitably result in the unjust expulsion of local populations, as in fact occurred. However, I currently recognize that Israel has become a consummated historical, political and geographic fact that should be accepted, as long as such acceptance is accompanied by political and economic compensation as justice for those expelled”.
“This - Justice! - will henceforth be our foreign political struggle, without violence, presuming that the major powers act with a minimum of honesty and spirit of equality. When I denied the Holocaust, I was referring to the possible occurrence of quantitative exaggeration in its evaluation, as a mere topic of historical interest. With regard to doubts concerning our intention to use nuclear energy, for peaceful or military purposes, I can confirm that our intentions are peaceful; however, we also have the right to be fearful of the aggressiveness of neighboring or distant countries that are politically aligned with our greatest enemy, which does not hide the fact that it is in possession of nuclear weapons, but does not allow its facilities to be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The obligations concerned have to be the same”.
“Finally, we do not accept the recent proposal of sending our nuclear fuel for treatment in Russia, then France, before being eventually returned to Iran, given that there are no firm guarantees that, if such shipment occurs, our uranium will not end up being retained in these countries for some kind of reason or pretext. In the event that this occurs, we would have our hands tied, prevented from mastering nuclear technology that is necessary because petroleum resources are finite and we do not have sufficient hydrographic resources. From what we have seen to date, the policy adopted by states is not reliable and international justice, despite the good intentions of its judges, still does not have statutes capable of treating, on an equal basis, all nations and peoples that do not yet have the status of a State. If our “legal failing” is that of not complying with the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it will be easy for us to resolve such a failing by simply stating that we have withdrawn from it, as permitted by its article X. Anyway, we still have the right to equal treatment of all nations, without the current privileges. This is our stance. The Security Council should provide us with a reply”.
With the evaporation of any legal basis for international sanctions, given that the 1968 treaty can no longer be considered to have been violated by Iran, I am wondering where the Security Council would find legal justification for the announced sanctions.

(30-11-09)

_______________________________________________________

Grave diggers of Capitalism

2009-10-16T11:39:00.001-03:00

According to newspapers, the managing director of IIF – Institute of International Finances, which represents world’s major banks, during an interview held on September, 14, 2009, declared to be against a “fixed limit” of indebtedness, enforced by government, for banks. He suggested this limit to be variable, depending on assets risks, according to the subjective opinion of bankers themselves, which implies on difficulty or no alertness. To acclaim his “advanced” or “ultra comfortable” opinion that banks cannot have any governmental really limiting control, concluded giving a crowning touch on contributor’s shoulders, saying “not being desirable to use moralist behavior to approach the payment problem” of bank top executives. It is really audacious on nowadays circumstances.
In other words, according to him, “no moralist behavior” because “war is war”, “ the squeaky wheel gets the grease”, “finance is a subject for real males”, “ without competence one cannot settle”.
What happens is that, when things go wrong and boat begins to sink, those fearless supporters of the slogan “only a competent person can survive”, they are not ashamed of crying, run to government’s “mother lap”, asking for a help of trillions of dollars. This money at the end will come from idiot contributors’ patrimony. But, not as could be right, from the patrimony of those hasty executives, not so “competent” as demonstrated, and who enriched with the generous bonuses self given before the facts demonstrated that they were right on loan policy.
Why did they have the courage to risk? Because they knew that if something would get wrong, government could not deny the “safeguarding” loans and donations. On the contrary, it would happen a collapse with unimaginable consequences, demoralizing banking system and, consequently, all the rest of American economy, reflecting internationally. Authentic blackmailing, with chances of succeeding, as really happened.
However, after reaching the top of tidal wave, loaded, “risk” supporters (in theory), they attack once more, arrogantly, pleading that government does not have to be concerned with this story of risks of bank loans and bonus immediately paid to executives. That’s why the mentioned speech of the managing director of the Institute of International Finance is understandable, because each representative from any group feels the necessity of “call to his side or to himself” for his peers benefit. The problem is that, in the case of being analyzed, financial power behind IIF is so, that many heads, in the political and media areas, will hurry, as is happening, to launch doubts to the public about the necessity of imposing limits and responsibilities to the handling of money deposits on banks which cannot allow the luxury of “bankrupting”. They know that medium reader has not much time, or sometimes even cultural conditions, to distinguish with absolute certainty right from wrong.
This article’s title talks about “grave digger”. Could be an exaggeration? Let’s see.
Socialism supports the wonderful ideal of promoting solidarity, enlarged planning, and equality among human beings. The problem is that behind the theoretical and sincere intention of most idealists, some of them murdered by tough realistic ones, also existing, perhaps mixed with the equalitarian ideal, the purest selfishness and power sickness of the “boss”, Stalin, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez, etc. and their minor partners in their power enjoyment. This group, due to an impressing “coincidence” “do not leave the sugary”, sorry for the expression, used only because of its force. When strong opposition exists, brutal repression becomes almost inevitable against those who think differently and oppose to the lifetime staying of the “leader”.
The one that is occupying the “democratic throne” knows that if he would leave power and stay in the country could be assassinated. The dictator of the left, or even the one of the right, concludes that there is no “healthy” back path. The eagerness for revenge observes him at each corner. Maintain himself as lifetime dictator becomes, after some years on office, kind of legitimate body self-defense.
The basic failure of “real Socialism” is in restraining citizens’ creativity which all together, summing up individual intelligences, can see better and farther than a bunch of autocrats. Even if among these exist brilliant minds, they suffocate some own ideas, pretty good ones…, because they fear to arise the jealousy of the “big boss”. He will not approve the contrast between his mediocrity and the special intelligence of some subordinates who can ambition his place.
In summary, only a really democratic Socialism, but responsible, with free initiative stimulus, will allow future generations the union of entrepreneurs creativity anxious for some security or protection that saturates all citizens souls. They want the State to take care of them from birth to death, since they work well and obey the laws enforced from their representatives. I do not feel anything wrong on it. Wrong is the State ignoring the necessity of security in unemployment, old age and illness for all hand or intellectual laborers.
With Capitalism, the spontaneous individual creativity even originated at mean greed, or wished of having and being better than the neighbor, meets a favorable field to generate richness which can benefit all, even if this benefit is not in the beginning plans of the “selfish”. The general benefit, though unintentional is a useful collateral effect that justifies the maintenance of Capitalist system. This happens because generates jobs and taxes. But, the legislation must impose limits to human being’s greed, a powerful psychological force, ubiquitous and useful, since being watched or maintained under the limits, as happens with all forces being of any type. If it would not be controlled, apparently, as the IIF intends, it is feared and demoralized. That’s why, the word “grave digger” was used.
By the way, one of the smartest inventions of Capitalism was the creation of the “corporate entity”, namely corporation, a legal fiction at the same time useful and “smart” as it allows the intelligent and balanced entrepreneur to earn unlimitedly when his company has earnings and to loose in a moderate way when there are losses, unless the stockholder would be very careless investing all his money in stocks of the only company which did not work.
When a corporation goes bankrupt, bankrupt is the company, the partnership, the abstract entity, not flesh and blood. The stockholders never become “bankrupt”. Only the bankrupt entity’s properties, when something remains, are seized and sold, for the profit of creditors. The alert, precautious stockholder when previews that the company is going to bankruptcy sells his stocks and does not loose or loose less. Anyhow, his personal status is not affected by the bankruptcy. When the company has earnings, these earnings totally go to stockholders, of course, discounting the taxes that everybody has to pay, rich or poor. In the case of large banks which gave origin to the present situation, one might ask, it was by chance examined if CEOs were much affected by bankruptcy in terms of patrimony?
Such elementary notions, well-known by the reader, are remembered here to stress that judicial world already allows this great privilege of allowing unlimited earnings when the corporation has no problems or minimum losses, or even none, at the moment of business liquidation. And now they want the growth of the irresponsible bonuses?
Ralph Byron Perry, a famous American philosopher, dead in 1957, president of the American Association of Philosophy and Pulitzer prize holder for Biographies and Autobiographies, objectively defined where is the legitimacy for moral support to Capitalism. He said in other words that the fundamental idea of modern Capitalism is not only on the individual right of owning and enjoying what he earned, but on the thesis that exercising this right benefits everybody.
In the case of bankers who rushed to receive high bonuses, before their policies correctness were verified, there were not of general benefit. And now, they want us to allow them to once again go ahead. Another crisis like this and Socialism will feel recovered from the economical failure of the Soviet Union. Therefore, the “grave diggers” of the title, is a relevant qualification. Unless they prove, in a great trial, not necessarily judiciary, that they were victims of fate, an apparently impossible mission. A good criterion to know if there were acting in bad faith or frivolously when verifying this little detail: when crisis became clear, top executives, who earned the bonuses, lost money at the bank they administrated? If they lost plenty, they have acted on good faith. If they would not have lost anything or very little, they deserved to receive an economical punishment.
However, it is not all lost defending, when brightly, Capitalism. The German magazine “Der Spiegel” published an interview with Dominique Strauss-Kahn, managing director of , IMF, that appeared in the “O Estado de São Paulo” newspaper on September15, 2009, B3, where the experienced economist contests Goldman Sachs executive director’s arguments after the crisis. The banker would have said that the “crisis” was inevitable; a “perfect storm” there weren’t any ways to protect from it. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, an expert on the topic, disagreed: “It is a mistaken metaphor. Human society is not a force of Nature. The financial crisis was a catastrophic event, but an event created by human action. The lesson which all of us must learn is that even an economy needs some kind of regulation, on the contrary, its functioning is compromised”.
As can be seen, the opinion of some grave diggers of the system itself can be neutralized by bright minds that can, in this case an obstinacy of Nature, be at any place, even in the polemic International Monetary Fund so many times in the past, attacked by us, Brazilians.
09/18/2009

Wouldn’t the equivalent of a Brazilian “Sorbonne” be useful?

2009-10-16T11:31:00.001-03:00

(Word 2003)

Our esteemed President Lula intends to acquire 36 Rafale fighter aircraft, 4 submarines, the hull (how?!) of a nuclear submarine and 50 helicopters, besides other associated items. By all accounts, total spending amounts to 12 billion euros. For the time being. Costs to be paid by future governments. Just what is happening with Brazil?

In all certainty, many Brazilians - or even foreigners - feel perplexed, asking themselves what is the possible explanation of such bellicose concern (far from modest) when there are so many non-military and urgent needs that have not yet been addressed. Could it be that this is the inevitable result of some kind of “thinking big”? Is it to protect us when the “pre-salt” is closer to becoming concrete wealth from which it is possible to reap benefits?

It is difficult to reply with certainty, given that I lack specialized information in this field. For a long time, the Brazilian armed forces - which need to be valued as they are really comprised of people who are capacitated, patriotic and underpaid - have been insisting on the need for modernizing our means of defense, currently almost reduced to scrap. If the defenseless and ill-policed Amazon region were not enough, a black goldmine - the pre-salt - has now appeared on the horizon. This something new that will result in our country being seen in a new light, as in the case of other countries with significant oil reserves. If Iran, Iraq and Libya were only rich in rocks and sand, with no oil, they would not have appeared in international news with the same polemic intensity.

In summary, we should give a vote of confidence in the common sense of our Armed Forces and the President of the Republic regarding the need for so much spending on defense. If in doubt, pro-government. There being, as promised, effective technology transfer, our engineers and technicians will learn - in practice and not just from books - how to penetrate the complicated secrets of a technology that has always been too distant from developing countries. Besides this, jobs will be created. Our country appears to be taking its first steps towards becoming a great power. Let it be so; however, it is to be hoped that Brazil continues to maintain it current pacifist aura.

A possible undesirable side effect of the acquisition of these modern arms - in such quantity - is that of providing an incentive for an arms race in South America. In fact, this has already been initiated by Hugo Chaves, with a treasury full of oil money and constantly worried about a non-existent or remote real American threat. In addition, some more competitive Argentines will certainly come to put pressure on the government in Buenos Aires in order to not be left behind, also purchasing aircraft and submarines. Those who, in theory, may come to suffer indirectly from this policy are the poorest sectors of both countries, in the event that the jobs created do not compensate for such high spending.

With a view to compensating for this apparent “warlike spirit” of our president (only apparent, as Lula is patient, does not lose his temper easily and is a diplomat by temperament), I would like to take the liberty of suggesting to Your Excellency, or the next president, whoever he or she may be, an idea which would not involve such significant expense and would neutralize the somewhat bellicose aspect of the acquisition in progress (although no contract has as yet been signed). Once transformed into reality, this “idea” would give a great deal of impetus to establishing the presence of Brazil on the international stage, in a rare combination of events so favorable to my country.

I refer to the creation of a kind of Brazilian “Sorbonne”, so to speak. With another name, of course. An International Relations and Law study center that would not only be a “first” in the Southern Hemisphere, but which could have an “edge” over its equivalents in the Northern Hemisphere (Sorbonne, Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard and wherever there are similar study centers). For example, in Tokyo there is a center that prepares young people for working at the UN - something that we do not have here in South America.

What would this “edge” be? A greater emphasis on well-founded studies and suggestions for remediating, to the greatest possible extent, current deficiencies in international justice and the actual United Nations Organization.

In respectable circles, there are thoughts, and not only at the present time, of reforming the UN. Perhaps a contingent of “new blood” - not actual blood, spilt in battles and terrorism - composed of Brazilians and South-Americans - can help to convince the world that current Public International Law has already become a little outdated and, for this reason, needs to be rejuvenated. There is no lack of examples of this lack of modernization of international norms: uncontrolled immigration of the destitute from Africa and Eastern Europe, forcing the European Union to close borders, giving rise to racism of economic origin; Jews and Palestinians who cannot manage to come to an agreement, meaning that an international decision is desirable - “coming from outside”. It should be remembered that, as a Palestinian State does not exist, they cannot bring proceedings against Israel at the International Court of Justice. This court, which unites the world’s best judicial minds, has its hands tied, as its judges cannot alter its statutes, established based on political criteria by the UN. In addition, it would not look good, morally, if its magistrates, after being nominated, came to claim greater decision making powers.

This evident international legal inadequacy encourages, for example, some bad Israeli politicians (the good ones, being more discerning, have not yet managed to attain positions of power) to create obstacles in peace negotiations with the Palestinians, tolerating amplification of settlements. Besides this, even if a Palestinian State does come to be created, proceedings can only be brought against countries at the International Court if they have agreed to this. Knowing that they are not in the right, they obviously do not agree. How, in legal terms, is something so grotesque still permissible in a century so advanced in learning?

Another issue that is evidence of a need for changes in the existing model of international justice is that regarding the current prohibition of advances in nuclear knowledge in the case of certain states, whereas others are not subject to any restrictions. The USA, France, England, Russia, China, India and Pakistan openly admit to possessing nuclear arms and could, in all certainty, augment their destructive power. In the case of Israel, everyone knows that it is in possession of nuclear arms, but the Israelis do not confirm or deny this and they do not allow inspectors to enter the country to investigate the situation. It is simply inferred that Israel is in possession of “the bomb”, allegedly as a means of protecting itself from Arab resentment. It is clearly stated that, if the western world does not act against Iran, Israel will conduct the necessary aerial attacks, according to its own particular understanding of the situation. And it is easy to imagine what could result from “preventive strikes”, without the prior authorization of international justice.

The Security Council demands that North Korea and Iran not only be prohibited from manufacturing atomic weapons, but also that they open up their nuclear facilities to international agency inspections, in order to accompany the way in which the technology used is evolving, and with a view to ensuring that they do not manufacture - now or ever - “elementary” atomic bombs which, much more advanced, can be stockpiled in their hundreds or thousands in the arsenals of great powers. Such countries, quite rightly, feel that they are the victims of a double standard. They think: “It is only us that do not have the right to fear the possibility of aggression?” Because the principal underlying reason or excuse for possession of nuclear weapons lies in the need for defense.

Kenneth Waltz, a highly respected “neorealist” professor at the University of Columbia, USA, says that “the world exists in a perpetual state of international anarchy”. Without a “central enforcer”, means that states must act in a way that ensures their security above all, or else risk falling behind. “This is a fundamental fact of political life faced by democracies and dictatorships alike: except in rare cases, they cannot count on the good will of others to help them, so they must always be ready to fend for themselves”. In summary, in the case of the Iranians and North Koreans, it is difficult to understand why they are prohibited to do what others, who are stronger, do without any kind of hesitancy. If nuclear proliferation is unadvisable, which it obviously is, it becomes necessary to create international mechanisms that provide absolute security for weaker countries, even though they may make a verbal show of force. Such total security still does not exist and is something that needs to be thought about. Perhaps in greater depth at the possible Brazilian “Sorbonne”.

This article would become too long if one continued to expose all the weak points of our international regulation. To give another example, the World Trade Organization cannot manage to prevent the USA and France from protecting their farmers. Commercial “reprisals” (or what other name they may have) could be taken, but everything requires a lot of time, in a highly changeable market. For its part, accepting a denouncement, the International Criminal Court ordered that the president of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, be apprehended in view of an accusation of several massacres. However, it is unlikely that such an order will be fulfilled, given that he has the support of neighboring countries. If, eventually, the ICC authorizes a “commando” operation (perhaps not established in the Court statute) in order to kidnap the accused, it is difficult to foresee what would happen afterwards, with a possible terrorist “reprisal” by his followers. The current impasse will likely end up in cancellation of the arrest order, with a view to preserving the prestige of an institution that could still come to represent an immense and effective advance in global criminal justice. Another case: Cesare Battisti is currently a thorn in the side of the Brazilian justice system. There is a subjective margin for completely opposite interpretations.

The “edge” over its equivalents of the Brazilian “Sorbonne” suggested above, would be that of studying, in greater depth, possible and necessary modifications regarding international justice, obviously without neglecting the usual curriculum of subjects studied at the University of Paris and other centers. This “home-grown Sorbonne” (so to speak) will not have any political connotation of the “leftist” kind or opposition to currently existing universities established for the same purpose. It will be just one more university teaching International Law and Relations, although the first, as I have already said, in the Southern Hemisphere.

Another, practical, objective of the Brazilian “Sorbonne” would be that of allowing not only Brazilians, but also other South Americans (especially the sons and daughters of more modest families) to acquire preparation, without having to live in more distant countries, that enables them to work at the UN headquarters, its agencies and in various international agencies.

Some will say that several Brazilian universities have professors of International Law who are versed in, for example, North American Law as well as or even better than many attorneys in that country, the same occurring with respect to International Law.

This cannot be denied. However, such professors, or attorneys, are knowledgeable in International Law in Portuguese. This makes a difference, as Portuguese is not the language officially used at the UN. When and if it does become the official language, it will be less necessary to have an understanding of new languages. In Spanish-speaking countries, there are moves with respect to also making Spanish an official language at UN level. If the most competent monolingual Brazilian professor in International Law wishes to orally defend the interests of a client at international courts, he will have to delegate his mandate to a foreign colleague who speaks English or French fluently.

In the case of those who wish to work at the International Red Cross, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, UN Headquarters, etc, it is not enough to present oneself with in-depth knowledge - solely in Portuguese - of the necessary topics.

Hence the need for the suggested Brazilian “Sorbonne” to also hold its classes in English and/or French. Besides this, ordinary “tourist-level” English is not sufficient to work abroad in really important centers.

Some may say: “If the language is so necessary, it would be easier and more practical for the father of the student to send his son or daughter to study in Europe or the USA”. It may be practical, but it is not always easy in economic terms. More wealthy families already do this, and are likely to continue, given that it is possible to learn the language more quickly. However, more modest families cannot give themselves the luxury of this option, due to a scarcity of financial resources. Private universities are costly and there are the problems of accommodation and sundry expenses. Promising talents lose the opportunity of projecting the image of Brazil abroad, for reasons associated with a lack of family resources.

The Brazilian “Sorbonne” could invite several foreign lecturers of particular prestige in order to give classes, which would be recorded and made into DVDs (with payment of copyright fees) and subsequently used to accustom the “ear” of students to understanding that which they perhaps already know in Portuguese. Perhaps it would be advantageous to first attend the class in Portuguese “live”, given by Brazilian lecturers, and then listen to the “English or French version” of the same topic, with the lecturer present to “pause” the DVD when necessary in order to explain, in Portuguese, anything that has not been well understood.

As this article is only an exemplification of what the Brazilian “Sorbonne” could come to be, I will not go further into the matter.

Let’s see whether the government, or some educational entrepreneur of greater vision, reacts to this suggestion, which could not be outlined in greater detail for reasons of space.

(21-9-09)

Was there misconduct on the part of banks that gave rise to the crisis?

2009-08-20T11:15:00.002-03:00

Something that intrigues me, in times such as ours - when “hunting down the offender” is almost an obsession, even extending to topics of minimal importance - is the apparent indifference shown by the global media with regard to ascertaining, at the end of the day, whether or not offenses were committed or there was misconduct on the part of the CEOs that caused the enormous financial crisis which, to date, is afflicting not only the USA but also the whole planet. The only reason that the world did not “go bankrupt” was that trillions of dollars were injected into the expiring global economy.

Few pondered the mere hypothesis of examining and eventually punishing, in financial terms, the unscrupulous conduct (by all accounts) of directors of the various American banks that gave rise to the crisis.

There is a certain degree of international moral “legitimacy” in requiring the investigation of facts with such large-scale repercussions - also with a view to ensuring that they do not come to be repeated. If the judicial legitimacy of those prejudiced is idealistic -given that we do not yet have a “global federation” - there is, at least, a great deal of international curiosity concerning what happened at the time when home ownership loans were made to people who were unlikely to be able to repay them. If there was a lack of scruples (as I believe was the case) on the part of some bank CEOs, the consequences of their lucrative folly - they received their recompense before the crisis erupted - are not being borne solely by their fellow American citizens.

The whole world is suffering as a result of probable lack of financial scruples. It’s a chain reaction, a domino effect. Mere investors who lost a lot, but not everything, are suffering in both pocket and spirit. However, those suffering to a much greater degree are workers and entrepreneurs throughout the whole world who lost their jobs or are on the verge of bankruptcy due to stagnation of the economy of the great northern giant. The wagons helplessly follow the path taken by the locomotive in an ever-more unified world. Unemployment breaks down self-esteem, with organic and even conjugal consequences, without even mentioning the pure and simple despair that hunger brings. The “smartness” shown by the directors of important American banks that gave rise to the crisis should be examined with all theoretical and practical impartiality and rigor. At court level, where the right of defense is assured, the evidence of experts is heard, and a financial sentence would have practical effects. The “blah blah blah” of the media, with lightweight conjectures, is no enough.

From what it is possible to read to date, such a requirement does not seem to have been taken very seriously. It is to be hoped that such an omission is only apparent - a question of priority. Of course, before chasing after the assailant who stabbed the victim, it is necessary to assist him, as he is bleeding on the ground. The American government “only” spent a few trillion dollars in order to contain the crisis. It is to be hoped that, once more pressing aid has been provided, the government spends an infinitely smaller fraction of this amount on legal expenses in order to “clear up the matter”.

If the CEOs are innocent, they will be content with a verdict. If they are not... Anyway, there will be a universal educative effect, as millions of people would accompany a trial of such extensive scope. Free classes, live, on the double-dealing essence of the world of high finance. It would be good for the whole world to acquire more in-depth knowledge of the morals - or lack of morals - existing in this area as, in this way, everyone will have a better idea of where to invest their hard-earned money, saved for their old age.

As the American man of letters Scott Fitzgerald said, “rich people aren’t like us”. It is true, but assailants are also different. It is to be hoped that the executives in question are not on a level with the latter. This will eventually be proved with the formal judgment of specific banking conduct in question. Good for the CEOs who, arriving in heaven after death, will be able to show Saint Peter a copy of the verdict that absolved them. It is likely that not even the guardian of the gates of heaven is absolutely certain whether or not he should bar the charming and persuasive individuals with collars and ties, capable of persuading him to make a few investments. Saintly souls generally have no understanding of finances.

It is common for specialists to highlight, quite rightly, that the American government had no alternative but to bail out the large banking institutions that caused the whole vast problem, irrespective of the losses involved. Without the bail out, the breakdown of the banking system would have resulted in chaos. A social convulsion - all hell would be let loose on the planet, not only in the USA, but here, there and everywhere. As a consequence of the imprudence of giant banking institutions, large, medium and small companies would go to the wall if the American government did not inject trillions of dollars in a mega-bailout.

It is possible to speculate that, at the time of peak profits (via bonuses and other advantages) the following type of dialogue could occur between such executives: - “Between ourselves, David, don’t you think that we are taking too many risks? I’m concerned. We are getting richer all the time, but one day the bubble will burst...”. - “You worry too much, John. “Bubble will burst”, bah... What bubble? Ours? Never! I didn’t invest the money that I earned by honest (sic) means in real estate. There is a big wide world out there. Do you think that the government is going to let the banks go bankrupt, leading to a collapse of the whole economy? If it did, the government itself would also collapse! Trust in what I am saying! A government bail-out will happen, there is no other option. Checkmate for our mediocre politicians! High finance has always been an area in which normal strict moral rules do not prevail. Economics is not an exact science. If the worst occurs, we could always argue that to err is only human. Just between us, the actual judges who come to judge the case don’t understand much about finance and will be left in doubt. And “in dubio pro reo”, the accused enjoys the benefit of the doubt. As far as legal experts are concerned, we will be able to influence them or invalidate their conclusions with our own experts, chosen perhaps from winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics. “Relax, pal!” How about it, are we going to play golf on Sunday?”

It is both common and understandable that governments find themselves to be obliged to meet absurd illegal requirements, in all forms of criminality. If a group of common bandits is surrounded when robbing a bank, or anywhere else for that matter, and threatens to kill innocent people if their demands are not met, the police usually concede. A vehicle is provided and, if necessary, even money and a plane. However, once the hostages have been released, a violent and tenacious pursuit is initiated in order to arrest the criminals and apprehend the robbery or ransom money.

In the banking area and perhaps others - I have no knowledge of all the possible developments involved - it is to be hoped that the American government proceeds in much the same way as it is accustomed to proceed in the case of ordinary “kidnappers”.

I have immense confidence in the character of Barack Obama and believe that he will not fail to contemplate (once the eye of the hurricane has passed) a need for in-depth investigation of the human errors that led to the crash of the American “hyper-jumbo”, which did not set the whole planet aflame simply because trillions of dollars were spent on fire extinguishers. If convinced of bad faith, those prosecuting the “barons” will certainly request that their assets be frozen, or, more fairly, a good part of such assets. “Just in case”, because if the legal process takes too long, such ill-gotten profits will evaporate.

If there is proof of bad faith, it is a case for saying that these people are demoralizing the actual capitalist system. Capitalism is a system that has advantages over its rival socialism, due to the fact that it is more in line with human nature, which is preponderantly egoistic, ambitious and driven by envy - an ugly but powerful source of motivation. The undeniable fact is that capitalism generates wealth, companies, jobs and even culture. It is only that unleashed, without reins, it becomes astutely ferocious and cannibalistic in nature. Without the counterweight of ethics and without fear of being held to accounts, the irresponsible executives inadvertently became canvassers for Bin Laden and other inflammatory “reformers” throughout the world.

Think about this, honest Obama, and let us wait and see.

(05-8-09)

Congratulations, Gordon Brown!

2009-07-07T08:32:00.001-03:00

On sitting down to write these lines, I feel myself to be thirty percent sad and seventy percent happy. The percentage of sadness is due to the fact that Gordon Brown, the prime minister of the United Kingdom, has anticipated “my idea” (or at least its verbalization, as many people here in Brazil and in the rest of the world have already intuitively deduced this) that global solutions are necessary for global ills. From this starting point, world government is just another step forward. At least, initially, as a topic of conversation.

My percentage of happiness comes from knowing that the prime minister of an important country was fully aware that the response to the current crisis must be global. His article ends stating that (...) “as America stands at its own dawn of hope, so let that hope be fulfilled through a pact with the wider world to lead and shape the 21st century as the century of a truly global society”.

This statement fits like a glove for those who believe that it is necessary to start, right now, and in an amicable manner, to talk about how to set up a democratic world government. Pardon me for saying so, but no society exists, irrespective of whether or not it is global, that does not have an equivalent government.

In an item published in O Estado de S. Paulo newspaper (B4, Economia) this morning (03-03-09), when I was preparing to write my article, I read that Gordon Brown stated that, in order to resolve the current global economic crisis, there is a need for a global “new deal”. It was precisely about this topic that I was going to write. Everyone, including me, likes to imagine “discovering the wheel” and, in the case in question, Gordon Brown first externalized that verbal synthesis which summarizes an idea that is not yet usually “made concrete” in a phrase. Whether we like it or not, peoples “think” using ready-made clichés and phrases. If the phrase were non-existent, perhaps the thing that it represents would not exist. Man thinks much more with words than ideas. If such terms as “infinite”, “subconscious”, “incongruence” did not exist, how many hundreds of words would we have to use in order to express something close to these nouns? In the language used by deaf people, hand movements certainly exist with such meanings; however, it is my belief that these gestures can only be perfectly understood by those with impaired hearing who are already familiar with these concepts.

Returning to the global “new deal”, what I was going to say, prior to glancing at the newspaper, is that with irreversible globalization (fruit of the internet and the intense exchange of information, goods and services between all countries) a “new deal number two”, if only North American, would not even resolve American difficulties, to the contrary of that which occurred in the case of the policy of Franklin D. Roosevelt. At the time of his government (he was elected four times) in the 1930s, the USA was politically isolated, this being something that no longer occurs. The Americans became exaggerated consumers and the whole world needs these rich buyers. When they show signs of a shrinking economy, everyone suffers, including those who live in the USA.

I think that, as far as economics is concerned, the majority of historians agree that Franklin Roosevelt was a pragmatist. Taking over responsibility for government at one of the worst moments in the history of his country, he was in urgent need of solutions, not theories. After hearing proposals put forward by the best minds that surrounded him, he decided whether to take this or that way forward. A “solutionatic” instead of a “problematic” approach. If it was unsuccessful (the outcome of certain issues is dependent upon the passage of time), he took a change in direction, without any kind of ideological trauma. Economics is a science (humm...) highly impregnated with philosophy and psychology. Whoever reads books and articles on economics, even if only in part, is astounded by the high degree of subjectivism that impregnates a branch of knowledge that could only be called “science” with a good stretch of the imagination. Unless one excludes predictability, one of the essential attributes of all sciences. If economics is a science, it is so to a lesser extent, although useful as some of its few truths have withstood the passage of time. What demoralizes the science is its object of study, its greedy guinea pig: the laboratory rat, or rather, man.

What was the brilliant intuition behind the “new deal”? The idea that, in times of economic crisis, it is better to do something - construct something useful - than to just sit at home, depressed and inutile, ruminating on the unhappiness of being unemployed or the lack of outlook for your business. As a result, Roosevelt resolved to do something - to build, investing heavily in public works. In doing this, he provided millions with employment and developed an infrastructure that, once the difficulties had passed, made the country much richer and more powerful. I do not know whether this generated inflation; however, it is certainly true that if a government, any government, prints money but, at the same time, increases the gross domestic product, sooner or later, such an increase neutralizes the inflationary effect of the printed money. Inflation is caused by excessive money supply in relation to economic growth. If the economy grows in the same proportion as money supply, then the equilibrium continues. There is no inflation. It is this, for example, that Brazil promises to do: construct and repair highways, amplify ports and airports, build railroads, reservoirs, sewage networks, schools, etc. If Brazil had ports that functioned in an effective manner, would this detail not be of benefit to the country when the global crisis passes? In summary, it is better to use one’s hands for doing useful work, rather than biting one’s nails. Work, it should be emphasized, does not mean employment in government jobs in which there is no work in the strict sense of the term.

Even in dictatorial regimes, full or almost full employment works wonders in the economic area. Hitler, a dictator who was somewhat ignorant (his oratory style, shouting and yelling, excited and hypnotized rather than provoking rational thought) managed to pull Germany out of economic depression. Thanks to large-scale investment by the state. It is only necessary to mention that, in 1933, there were 6,000,000 unemployed. In 1939, this number had dropped to 300,000 - a considerable reduction.

Some scholars of the German “economic miracle”, unnecessarily concerned with possible praise of a morally abominable figure, attempt to invalidate this highly satisfactory economic result alleging that, from the year of 1933, women were no longer counted as unemployed. Besides this, after 1935, Jews lost the status of citizens and were not included as such in statistics. It is also mentioned that there was an increase in the number of individuals called up to join the armed forces - all this to explain that the so-called German “miracle” cannot be even partially be attributed to Hitler.

In fact, it seems obvious that Germany, starting off with hyperinflation, came to be a great power in 1939. Not due to any merit on the part of Hitler himself, but the basic idea that any country, in order to grow, needs to produce goods, either through private sector initiative or governmental resolve. Although they represent opposing political philosophies, the United States and Nazi Germany freed themselves from depression and unemployment by adhering to the same recipe: “building things”. Something like an unemployed bricklayer who, in order to occupy himself, resolves to build rooms in his back yard. With the passage of time, this “hobby” could come to be a source of income, through the renting of sleeping quarters.

The significant difference between Roosevelt and Hitler lay in the “kind of things” they did during the depression. Hitler’s Germany directed its productive energy into the arms industry, as its plans included pitiless and unscrupulous expansion of “vital space”. Once armed to the teeth, what was Germany to do with so much power? It could only be declaring wars, invading neighboring countries and making them slaves. Submarines, tanks, battleships and fighter planes do not serve for tourism purposes.

On the other hand, the United States devoted its energies to building other “things”, using its resources in infrastructure improvements. There was only heavy investment in the arms industry at a much later date, following the attack on Pearl Harbor. After the USA came into the war against the Axis powers, this well-founded and peaceful infrastructure, created as the “new deal”, made it possible to produce the bombers that filled the skies of Germany, for hours and hours, during a single mission. A devastating show of force. Would all this have been possible without the “new deal”?

Coming back to the article by Gordon Brown, the whole text focuses on recognizing that, without a global response (and not only on the part of the USA), the world will not be able to extricate itself very quickly from the mess that it has got into. His own words, taken at random, show reveal the main focus of his article: “... while we can do a great deal nationally, we can do even more working together internationally”; “A new set of challenges faces the whole world, which summons forth the need for a partnership of purpose that must involve the whole world. Rebuilding global financial stability is a global challenge that needs global solutions”; “That is why President Obama and I will discuss this week a global new deal”; “I see this global new deal as an agreement that every continent injects resources into its economy”. And so on. Even specifically mentioning the country of Obama, who will be making a brief visit to England, his opinion explicitly implies that all countries with some degree of wealth should continue to work and produce without only thinking of internal problems, most notably those concerning market reserves.

However, the current global crisis may yet help countries to understand something that is still seen as a utopia and, as such, highly debatable. Man is a paradox in the field of ideas: intelligent in examining details, but slow-witted in managing the whole. Only this, even more than malice, explains the existence of so much suffering throughout the world.

(03-03-09)

What should be done with Kim Jong Il? Nothing.

2009-06-12T08:09:00.001-03:00

The ambitious, intelligent and persuasive global arms industry should be extremely excited with the challenges or “follies” (what else to call them?) of Kim Jong Il, the North-Korean dictator.

In abstract terms, the client adored by the arms industry is fear. Without it, there would be generalized insolvency in the cannon industry. Even worse than General Motors. On the other hand, the client respected in flesh and blood is any head of state or government sufficiently unscrupulous or courageous in resolving the problems of their country (principally those of an economic nature) by avoiding them through emotional saber-rattling.

This is exactly the case of Kim Jong Il, the son of another dictator and likely the father of a third. This will only not happen if his son refuses the post. If this occurs, another family member will probably be proclaimed “king”. A strange case of royalty, of blue blood (or, in this instance, yellow) in a type of regime whose very essence (communism) resides in the closest kind of identification between leaders and led. Given that, in North Korea, there is no free press or free elections, the masses - lean, but not by choice - support the orders handed down by their irrevocable “father”, without further analysis.

Considering that there is not even a shadow of democracy in North Korea and that its future (and that of the whole region) depends on just one man, and this depends on that which occurs in his mind, the best solution regarding the Korean nuclear threat lies in patiently awaiting a biological decision to be made. In the case in question, concerning his health. After he is gone, we will see what needs to be done. Attack North Korea? Only if the country attacks first, and in a concrete manner. This means without even considering so-called “preventive attacks’, which would have extremely serious consequences in terms of destruction, deaths and radioactive contamination.

Given that world government, or some semblance of such government, does not yet exist (this is something that needs to be changed as a matter of urgency), with powers, accepted by all countries, of immediate intervention for “confiscation” or “extraction” (as in the case of a rotten tooth) of dictators who are putting various other countries at risk, and even those who are under their domination (as in the case of Robert Mugabe, in Zimbabwe), the wisest solution is not to encourage the warmongering of a head of state who may not be in full control of his mental faculties for physical (stroke) or psychological reasons.

In the 1930s, if Hitler (after arming Germany with the largest war machine ever seen - externalizing his intention to dominate the world) had been “extracted” from power by a democratic world government, we would not have had the widespread slaughter that was the Second World War. Not even its consequence, the so-called “Cold War”, which nearly became transformed into an atomically “hot” war in 1962, at the time of the Cuban missile crisis. This did not result in nuclear conflict solely because Nikita Khrushchev, a simple-minded man (on one occasion, in the middle of a UN session, he removed a shoe and began hammering it on the table, demanding attention), but a man of great vision, had the good sense and moral courage to make an about-turn, ordering the return of ships that were transporting nuclear missiles destined for Cuba.

In fact, this gesture of courageous prudence, which saved humanity from a war that was likely to be nuclear, did not save the prestige of Khrushchev within the Soviet Union. Russian generals thought that he was “soft” in dealing with the incident. Instead of being thankful for not being incinerated, the star-studded and medal-bedecked generals criticized the retreat. They did not understand the reach of this heroic gesture precisely because it was not “heroic”, i.e., accompanied by the beat of drums. As a result, Khrushchev lost his hold on power in his country. With the return of the missiles, international headlines remained fully focused on John Kennedy. This is just another example that “taking a hard-line standpoint” is of “greater value” to the masses than acting in an intelligent and discerning manner. Being fully aware of this, dictators generally rely on shows of force - and it is the people who end up being hurt. Just as in the case of the Falklands, a small-scale war destined to distract attention from the problems that afflicted Argentina at the time.

Any kind of military measures - “other options” - against Kim Jong Il, with a view to bringing his nuclear activities to a halt or destroying them would be counterproductive. Such military measures are unthinkable, given that North Korea has a numerous and powerful army. In addition, in an extreme situation, it could launch missiles with nuclear warheads. That would lead to chaos. There is no guarantee that the country would be flattened before pressing the launch buttons. Even if this occurred, following a sudden and precise attack by the USA, such a preventive attack would be an act of cowardice against a population that cannot be blamed for the foolishness of its head of government, the “master” and architect of public opinion. In a land where there is no freedom of the press, few think differently from their leader.

Besides this, “hard-line economic sanctions” also do not function, as they augment the poverty of countries governed by dictators if such leaders are, rightly or wrongly, supported by the populace. It is only the poorest sectors of society that suffer. There will be no lack of food and other indispensible goods on the table of those in government and their supporters. And when hunger is a threat, there is an increase in the proportion of “friends of the ruler”, whose interest is that of getting enough to eat, this being a primary drive embedded in all living beings. A lack of food in the stomach can have immense persuasive force.

However, an irrefutable argument that reinforces popular support for Kim Jong Il has a factual basis: there is currently unequal treatment among countries. The UN Security Council requires that North Korea interrupt its nuclear program destined for arms production. The problem is that, for this to occur, it would have to maintain inspectors within its nuclear facilities, constantly checking whether the activities in question are solely being developed for peaceful purposes. This is very irritating for the country being inspected.

I doubt (a normal reaction) that Israel would allow international inspectors, with Arab surnames, to scrutinize its nuclear installations. However, the five permanent members of the aforementioned Security Council (USA, United Kingdom, Russia, China and France) are free to have as many nuclear arms as they wish. Together, they could destroy the Earth many times over. Besides the five permanent members, India, Pakistan and Israel also have their nuclear arsenals, without any opposition on the part of the Security Council. What is the conclusion drawn by the North Koreans (the same applies in the case of Iranians) as a result of this evident inequality? Are the North Koreans in some way “inferior” or congenitally imbalanced? In theory, is it not the case that all countries have equal rights?

An article entitled “Que tal a velha diplomacia?” (Bush’s Best Example), by Norman Dombey, Emeritus Professor of Theoretical Physics at Sussex University, Great Britain, published in “The Guardian” and reproduced, in Portuguese, in the “O Estado de S. Paulo” newspaper on 31-5-09, in the supplement entitled “Aliás”, J5, specifies the breaking of several promises made by the George W. Bush government to Kim Jong Il, resulting in retaliation on the part of the dictator. The aggressiveness ingrained in Bush by the well known “hawks” that surrounded him made a significant contribution to the exaggerated reactions of the North Korean president, someone already exaggerated in nature. He concluded that it was no longer possible to trust the Americans. Thence the conclusion drawn by the aforementioned author of the article that the Obama administration “blundered into sanctions and threats”. For reasons of space, it is not possible to transcribe all the arguments put forward in the article, but these can be read in the publication in question. Well worth the effort.

Another article, in the same Brazilian newspaper, dated June 1st 2009, on page A12 (this time by Seumas Milne, previously published in “The Guardian”), under the title of “Hipocrisia estimula proliferação” (Hypocrisy encourages proliferation), also draws conclusions regarding hypocrisy and double standards in the international field, allowing some countries to fabricate nuclear weapons and prohibiting others. In other words, the permanent members of the UN Security Council and a few “allies” (Israel, India and Pakistan) have the “right to have fear”. On the other hand, North Korea and Iran have no such right. How is it possible to explain this inequality, without “shame”, in a world that reaffirms the existence of something that does not exist, i.e., equality? The explanation lies in the title of the aforementioned article: “Hypocrisy”.

Nuclear weapons states are generally more respected than those not attributed with equal powers. This is a factor that also motivates Kim Jong Il. Given that the USA invaded Iraq, based solely on “mistrust” (in fact, just another pretext) regarding the existence of weapons of mass destruction, and Bush broke agreements and confronted the UN, Kim considered it safer to emphasize, through a loud-speaker, that his country was really in possession of nuclear power, albeit incipient. Apparently, Kim is afraid and knows that enemies of countries with nuclear arsenals think more carefully before attacking.

Clearly, the more widespread nuclear proliferation, the greater the danger for all mankind. Proliferation should be avoided at all costs, but nota t the cost of a war that could become nuclear. It would be a case of contradicting purposes.

Innumerous more prudent countries are not bothered, diplomatically, by this inequality. For example, Sweden, which already has the technology necessary for construction of atomic weapons, has explicitly decided not to construct them. Perhaps knowing that, as it stands, the country will not become the target of mistrust and hostilities. Brazil, which could construct such arms within a few years, has also preferred to follow a more peaceful path, if only due to the fact that it does not feel threatened. If atomic energy were to be developed for military rather than peaceful purposes, such a move would likely lead to rivalry on the part of Argentina. On the other hand, North Korea and Iran could argue that they indeed consider themselves to be in potential imminent danger, if they continue to be “weaker” than their neighbors. Hence the union of fear and arrogance and, in the case of Iran, the need to impress the electorate.

Summing up: what should be done in order to resolve the current impasse? The reply to this question seems simple: Obama and his allies work, diplomatically, with a view to gaining the confidence of North Korea, Iran and Israel, with the urgent signing of a treaty guaranteeing that none of these three countries will be attacked, unless they are considered to be evident aggressors by a majority decision by the UN Security Council, without any right to veto in this case. A treaty without conditions and without inspections of any nature whatsoever.

In the meantime, considering the current state of the world, there is no way of impeding nuclear proliferation, the fruit of fear and/or arrogance. Nevertheless, with the exception of some kind of insanity, no country, of whatever kind, is going to want to initiate a nuclear war, which would also end up incinerating the actual aggressor. Once such a treaty has been signed by Obama, North Korea would have more confidence in “pieces of paper”. In all certainty, the new American president would not be subject to demoralization, for example, coming to be known as an “international trickster” or even a “sluggard”.

With peace ensured, albeit in a provisory manner, the world will be at leisure to deal with other matters. Such “other matters” will have to include the establishment of a new world order, more effective than that which currently exists. The immediate total abolition of nuclear arms is an illusion. The USA is fearful of the growing power of China, and vice-versa. Israel is fearful of Iran, and vice-versa. Even if all countries were to sign a treaty eliminating their nuclear arsenals, there would be no guarantee that a few warheads would not remain hidden, “just in case”. However, a new world order, which definitively resolves the matter, is a topic that cannot be dealt with here.

(2-6-09)

Racism, Obama and World Government

2009-04-28T10:58:00.001-03:00

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)

Radovan Karadzic and the trouble he is going to cause ...

2009-03-16T11:48:00.001-03:00

(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.

“Neopatriotism”, Bush and Obama

2009-03-16T11:29:00.001-03:00

(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.

Crimes and sovereignty

2009-03-16T11:26:00.002-03:00

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)

The Idealism of Oscar Niemeyer

2009-03-16T11:18:00.002-03:00

(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.

Gaza: retaliation in kind for the shoe-throwing incident?

2009-03-16T11:08:00.002-03:00

(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.