The UN Security Council has become a Chamber of Commerce

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?

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?

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”

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

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"

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.

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)