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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(05-8-09)

Congratulations, Gordon Brown!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(03-03-09)

What should be done with Kim Jong Il? Nothing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2-6-09)

Racism, Obama and World Government

If there is a politician I respect, it is Barack Obama. Not only due to the fact that he attained, in an honorable manner, the presidency of the most powerful nation in the world, but also because he has partially broken down the racial prejudice that still restlessly lingers in the deepest layers of white American society. As here one is dealing with a prejudice related to skin color (it is not the case, as in the example of anti-Semitism, of white against white), the reaction against a man of dark-colored skin has, in my opinion, an instinctive, even biological component, its eradication being slower and more difficult. Hence a need for the law to intervene, hastening integration and weakening, little by little, this mysterious instinctive repulsion.

The argument that cuts, by the roots, any moral justification for all kinds of racism is the following: nobody chooses their parents before being born. After being born, there is no way of changing such features as skin or eye color, height and level of intelligence. The most one can do is use the qualities with which you were born (and, depending on the case, certain defects...) in the best possible manner. Even if I think that, in statistical terms, races show slight differences - Negroes, for example, appear to have more aptitude in athletics, football, boxing and basketball - what is really important is the individual. In this way, a blonde Swede could be born an athlete, whereas a black African boy could detest sports, preferring to dedicate himself to mathematics or poetry. Nature is capricious and every member of the Ku Klux Klan needs to be aware that his or her “whiteness” is merely accidental.

What it is in Obama that distinguishes him from mediocre presidents is the knowledge that understanding one’s opponent, or even enemy, is of much greater value that the threat or use of force. With force, we are able to silence the hazard, but not eliminate it. To the contrary, we strengthen it. We encourage its secret maneuvers. We just do not know what is really going on.

When Obama formed his government, he invited several politicians and technicians who had served during the Bush administration, although may Democrats censured such choices; they were likely to be potential traitors. Obama, nevertheless, inspired by the precedent of Lincoln, had the courage to decide to the contrary. For two good reasons: politicians and technicians who formerly saw him as a foe, came to see him as a reasonable man, only interested in making the right decisions. Surrounded by people who served in previous governments, Obama will come to have a view of problems that is much closer to reality.

Forgive me for this long and unnecessary introduction, but it is necessary to warn this promising head of state not to allow himself to be contaminated by vestigial bellicose tendencies, as a result of the being in the company of a few possible residual “hawks”. In dealing with the problem of North Korea launching a long-range ballistic missile, Obama jeopardized his good policy of never threatening another country. If only due to the fact that threats should be fulfilled, or suffer the penalty of demoralization. However, prior to the missile launch, he promised a “severe and united response on the part of the international community” if Pyongyang went ahead with the launch (“O Estado de S. Paulo” newspaper - page A14, dated 3-4-09).

In fact, the missile was launched and no serious retaliatory measures could be taken, as it is only necessary for a veto on the part of any one of the five “big-shot” permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, in order to prevent a military or especially “severe” response against the transgressor. In this case, a dictator who is a little crazy and perhaps in possession of nuclear weapons, which complicates the strategy even more. Given that Kim Jong-il was already an example of mental imbalance, it is likely that his state of mind deteriorated even more following the stroke that he suffered last August.

With regard to the stance adopted by China and Russia, denying significant sanctions against Pyongyang, for the first time in my life I find a situation in which the power of veto could actually assist humanity. In fact, in this case, both military and economic measures would only aggravate the problem of nuclear proliferation. If there were aerial attacks against North Korea, it is absolutely certain that the dictator would retaliate which as much force as he could muster, with conventional weapons and perhaps even nuclear armaments. Despite the poverty in which its population lives, everyone knows that North Korea has a very large and well-equipped army. And there is no lack of bellicose insanity on the part of the current “Great Leader”. If he dies, one of his three sons (the bizarre “communist monarchy”) will continue the struggle, which will be bloody. Such a conflict would be much more explosive that that engaged in against Iraq - in all likelihood, with a certain degree of support on the part of China, a “technically” communist country. The USA and its allies would become involved in yet another war (the third), precisely at a very difficult moment for the global economy.

With regard to the imposition of severe commercial sanctions against Pyongyang, based on historical evidence, it can be shown that the deliberate impoverishment of a country governed by dictators only serves to prejudice the civilian population. The anonymous population will certainly go hungry. Children will become undernourished due to a lack of milk, although there will be no lack of this product, or even caviar, for the friends of the “leader”. Trade isolation only works when the country being attacked has a democratic government, or when the dictator is already weak and isolated. This is not the case in North Korea. Thus, in certain exceptional cases, the right of veto on the UN Security Council is really a blessing.

Obama, during a speech last Sunday in Prague, put forward a plan for “a world without nuclear weapons”. He proposed a reduction in the nuclear arsenal of both Russia and America. I have nothing against such a proposal, but Obama would do better proposing discussion of a significant, bold and definitive step for reorganizing the world, and not only in the economic sphere.

What kind of step could this be? First and foremost, amplifying the jurisdiction, competence and effectiveness of international justice, which is currently limited by the sacrosanct and often abusive sovereignty of each state. Second, equipping humanity with standards for the great and inevitable leap forward: a democratic world government (without the predominance of any single country), with the voluntary and progressive adhesion of its members. In a similar manner to creation of the UN, the European Union and, long before, in the 18th century, the voluntary (yes, voluntary) coalition of thirteen American colonies, united against England. The colonizing English, the “foreign enemy” at the time, was the driving force behind the union of such colonies, the very kernel of the powerful American state. There is an urgent need for a world government. At the present time, the “enemy” is both internal and external at the same time. It is global, given that the current economic crisis has not left any country untouched. In addition, we have two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan), with a risk of another two (North Korea and Iran), besides unending tribal killings in Africa.

Solely reducing the Russian and American nuclear arsenal of is not enough. If, in theory, all countries of the world have equal rights (it’s in the United Nations Charter), there is no logic in the “big shots” requiring that North Korea and Iran abstain from furthering their aims in the nuclear technology field, which could be destined for both military and peaceful purposes. Such countries, discriminated in this manner, can always ask, quite rightly: “Why is it that the USA, China, Israel, the United Kingdom, France, India and Pakistan can have nuclear weapons, and we cannot?! Isn’t this kind of prohibition an explicit confession of racism? Are we, perchance, inferior peoples, congenitally unbalanced, incapable of dealing with such advanced forms of energy?

Nuclear weapons are the direct fruit of fear. And fear, in turn, can give rise to domination. The intimidated party always yearns to bind the party that is alarming it. And the former does not wish to be bound. During the Second World War, it was fear of the Nazis that led the Allies to build the first atomic bomb. Hitler put pressure on his scientists to fabricate an extraordinary weapon that would make TNT look like fireworks. This very real Nazi threat motivated Einstein (a pacifist and adept in the subject of world government) to propose to president Franklin D. Roosevelt that research be accelerated for construction of the bomb before the Nazi dictator managed to attain the same goal. His notion was well founded.

Israel has atomic bombs and has never given its permission for a count to be made. It is free of inspections. It alleges fear of being “wiped off the map”, as one of its enemies in the Middle East once said. An idiotic metaphoric flight of fancy, but one that Israel has the right to take seriously. Despite the liberty that Israel enjoys in fabricating nuclear weapons, Iran, which still does not have the bomb, sees itself as threatened with bombardment because it does not allow UN inspectors to have total access to its nuclear installations, which could also be destined for peaceful purposes. Where is the logic in this difference in international treatment? The North Korean dictator could say the same thing, irrespective of whether or not he is half crazy. This inequality of rules will only disappear with the formation of a world government, with a Global Constitution, with effective worldwide justice that provides all nations with a sense of total security.

Why, one asks, does the USA not put forward a proposal to Russia for total destruction of their respective nuclear arsenals, and not Just reduction in the stock of warheads? Answer: because both the USA and Russia fear China. It’s generalized fear, mutual distrust, which functions as cement and justification for spending trillions of dollars on security via weapons. Would it not be more rational if a global democratic federation gave an absolute guarantee that there would be no further armed attacks by one country against another?

It seems strange that Obama - such an intellectualized politician and, above all, of good character - has still not mentioned the expression “global government or federation” in his speeches. As far as the term “global” is concerned, this only refers to financial control. Nevertheless, I presume that he has likely already thought about this broader hypothesis. He has only not dared to verbalize it because the government that preceded him alarmed the international community to such an extent (with supposed American supremacy) that use of the expression “world government” would undermine his prestige. Everyone would immediately think of Bush and “American dictatorship”. First, he needs to gain the confidence and calm the minds of all peoples, before daring to stir up a “hornets’ nest” that I am sure will produce much more honey that stings.

I’d like to make a bet. Before the end of his administration, Obama, feeling the ground to be firmer beneath his feet, will approach the topic with complete honesty and without any hidden “patriotic” intentions. As someone once said, our future homeland is Humanity - a perfectly attainable dream.

(8-4-09)

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

(written in 11-10-08)

The aforementioned Serbian psychiatrist, under the guise of a poet, a politician giving rise to significant local repercussions, a bearded fugitive and, finally, a defendant at the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia, will certainly bring about substantial changes in the procedural rules of the Court that is judging him. Why?

Because he has invoked the right to put forward his own defense, which is permitted by the current standards adopted by the Court in question. After him (it would cause a bad impression to remove permission for self-defense after initially granting it), it is quite foreseeable that the International Criminal Court will no longer allow defendants to personally put forward their own defense, unless they have specific abilities, as in the case of ex-attorneys, judges or prosecutors. Experience gained with the judgment of Slobodan Milosevic should have already taught us that temperamental and extroverted politicians never lose the opportunity of transforming a show of defense into a platform for themselves. Did they ever imagine a Fidel Castro putting forward his own defense? If in speeches, not defending himself, he can continue for five hours, how long would it take if he were speaking in his own defense?

In these cases, defendants, not having any kind of specific professional education, make abuse of the excuse or “right” of ignoring the most elementary procedural rules. At any moment, they provoke incidents and arguments with those present in the courtroom, even (or principally) the judge who is presiding over the proceedings. The magistrate, having no means of restraining the jaw and tongue of the irreverent defendant (concerned about demonstrating exemption and tolerance regarding the judicial ignorance of the defendant), ends up being at an apparent disadvantage, due to the difference in tone of voice. He becomes transformed into someone who is being accused, due to the fact that he only patiently explains - while the defendant only attacks. People of limited education think: “The judge is at a disadvantage ...”

In all likelihood, every legal professional has already had the unsavory experience of arguing with people who are ignorant and furious, either justly or unjustly. They cannot understand the need for rules for everything: for making accusations, for defending and for passing judgment. The accused has nothing to lose, but the magistrate does have something to lose. This is what occurred in the case of Saddam Hussein, when he was judged by a special court in his own country. Assuming that he had nothing to lose, as he would be hanged anyway, Saddam said what he wanted, whenever he wanted, also raising his voice. At a certain point in the proceedings, the principal judge, a highly educated Kurd (accustomed to other environments), requested that he be removed from the case. Saddam, when questioned at the beginning of his interrogation (in line with standard procedures) regarding his name, replied, almost shouting, more or less in the following manner: “You know perfectly well what my name is!!! I am the president of Iraq!”, and it was in this insolent tone of voice that he continued in the “bullfight”. All the time, he said exactly what he wanted. After all, he was “authorized” to turn the court into a circus, because he has the excuse of not having any judicial education. He did not even recognize the jurisdiction of the court - the same occurring with Milosevic and Karadzic.

En passant, many internationalists say that the Bush government was against the judgment of Saddam by an international court (as occurred with the Nazis, in Nuremberg), because the United Nations (and its courts) no longer permit the death penalty. Such a prohibition was non-existent when the Nazis were judged. Accusing and judging Saddam at an Iraqi court, it would be possible to hang him, as events actually turned out. As far as the Americans were concerned, it would be easier to pacify Iraq with Saddam silent, in his grave, rather than speaking or agitating the whole time, even in a prison. As a result, in strict terms, although violating accepted international justice (a president was condemned by a court set up by occupation forces), the Americans were “strategically correct”. Imagine what Iraq would be like today with a live Saddam, adding fuel to the hostilities. The annual body count would be even higher.

Another alteration that will likely occur to the procedural norms of the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia (following judgment of Radovan Karadzic) will be a reduction in the permitted number of witnesses, for both the prosecution and defense. An enormous number of witnesses bring about an elevated degree of sluggishness, it being highly likely that the defendant will die while he or she is being tried. This is what happened in the case of Slobodan Milosevic, who was imprisoned for around eight years and died prior to judgment. The defendants in such judgments are generally individuals of advanced years and the emotional strains of a court case certainly do not contribute to their longevity. Heat attacks function like an “avenger”, killing without passing judgment. If death occurs, the case is closed, which makes it possible for followers of the deceased to argue that their leader would prove his innocence, if the trial had come to its intended conclusion. For reasons of doubt, delay in the trial ends up benefitting recollection of those who should be remembered as individuals to be condemned.

In the first fortnight of April 2008, I spent two weeks in Holland, in the city of The Hague. I visited several international courts and, thanks to the generous letter of introduction of a person of outstanding legal knowledge in the international field, Minister Francisco Rezek, I managed to obtain two highly valued interviews, filmed for DVD. In order to make the most of my stay in the so-called “Low Countries” (they really are low, at a level below that of the North Sea - hence the canals, windmills and clogs ...), I attended part of a trial at the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia - the same one that will judge Radovan Karadzic.

I arrived at around 09:00 hrs, a few minutes late. Through a window (probably armored glass), I was able to accompany the questioning of a prosecution witness who, luckily for everyone, spoke English, dispensing with any need for an interpreter. In the area where I was accompanying the proceedings, there was also a television screen showing who was asking the questions and who was replying, with perfect sound. The interrogating attorney was an Englishman (as far as I know, more than half the attorneys working in the international field are English), with the traditional wig that has no intention of hiding the fact that it is a wig. It is more of an ornament than a wig, conceived, logically, I suppose, in order to disguise baldness. As its use became customary, it is even placed on the thickest heads of hair, although, as chance would have it, this was not the case of the attorney who was putting forward the questions.

The attorney in question (astute but extremely delicate in his choice of words and tone of voice) broke down and minutely examined each statement made by the witness, even those that were the simplest and clearest, in striving to identify any insecurity or imprecision. At certain times, a young woman on the prosecution team (in my opinion, surprisingly young to be there ...) made a technical objection, addressed to the three judges that comprised the bench. The chairman of the tribunal decided on the objection and the English defense attorney proceeded with his endless questions, seemingly striving to find the smallest breach. His patient and persistent voice was capable of penetrating solid rock.

Suddenly, the chairman of the tribunal, with all courtesy (certainly controlling himself), asked the defense attorney how much time he had planned to dedicate to questioning that particular witness. When the Englishman said, almost smiling, that he intended to spend another five hours, I could take no more and left. That was enough for the patience of a poor Brazilian. The court suspended the session, scheduling a return for so-many minutes later. I did not return - if solely for the reason that my “listening skills” are not as good as they might be.

I do not know how many more witnesses would be heard. As there are normally several dozen, I imagine how it is highly likely that successive defendants in trials involving genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity will give up their souls to the Creator (or the Devil) before being sentenced.

Besides being a psychiatrist, Karadzic is a practicing poet. Add to this the fact that he has outspoken ideas regarding construction of Greater Serbia. A mixture of such wordy ingredients can only result in lengthy dissertations (with or without temporal pertinence) regarding his real or imaginary mission of defending Bosnian Serbs, “purifying” the region. In addition, he will be automatically forgiven for the lack of appropriateness and measure in his interventions “because, after all, I am not a student of Law”. As he said at the beginning, he does not even recognize the legitimacy of the Court, defending himself, according to his own words, as he would defend himself from a natural phenomenon - a hurricane or earthquake, for example. He will therefore be free to transform the Court into a radio station, TV channel and electoral platform. With the advantage, furthermore, of mixing politics with poetry and psychiatry - the ancient science of the crazy. It is the judges who will go crazy, attempting to maintain order in the Court. I hope I am mistaken.

It may be said that the fact that Karadzic has no legal education is irrelevant, because if he had, he would also be able to take advantage of the confusion and procrastination. In an even more competent manner.

It may be a paradox but, in this case, judicial ignorance helps in delaying the sentencing of the defendant who is known to be guilty. The attorney, judge or prosecutor who is defending himself does not wish to appear ridiculous, making declarations at the wrong time and in an erroneous manner. A sense of shame holds him back. His education and self-respect repel the idea of talking nonsense in court, even more so when being seen on television. He at least hopes that History will describe him as an intelligent man. On the other hand, the layman who defends himself (thinking, more importantly, about the “audience”) is just not concerned with procedural rules, with the excuse of considering himself as “not part of the legal profession”. Throughout the world, more tolerant judges know, from their own experience, that petitions written by ignorant individuals give rise to many more problems than those prepared by competent professionals. At least one knows exactly what they are contesting.

In conclusion, the self-defense of Karadzic will at least have one merit: it will cause repercussions at the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia, inducing it to implement procedural modifications that allow for just sentencing but without excessive delay. If the defendant wishes to defend himself personally, he should only do so during the closing allegations, once all the evidence has been gathered, when the defendant can say exactly what he wants, before sentencing.

“Neopatriotism”, Bush and Obama

(written in 10-11-08)

At one particular time or another, somebody creates a new term. If it is a good idea, it “takes on”. It becomes incorporated into the language. It takes its place in dictionaries and enriches and harmonizes communication. The new word is even useful for saving energy from the point of view of muscle use. It saves the diaphragm, tongue, lips and even arm movements - principally if the vigorous speaker is Italian - if you will pardon my pleonasm. It is popular belief - not yet scientifically proven simply because nobody has shown an interest in the task - that these passionate Europeans and their descendents gesticulate to a greater degree than peoples of other races. In all certainty, more than those of restrained Japanese, English and Nordic origin.

I have long concerned myself with the idea that humanity is in need of a new form of communication; or, even better, a new brain. Yes, a new brain, already with billions of extra neurons at birth, for if it were not so, however much the individual studies, he or she will not be able to accompany the vertiginous advance of human knowledge. Man, even if cultured, is currently badly informed - because he is incapable of assimilating, analyzing and synthesizing the huge mass of news and knowledge that cannot find space in the thin layer (between one and four millimeters) of the cortex. As a consequence, he will make erroneous or only partially correct judgments regarding almost everything: about himself and about others; in choosing leaders, in elections; about which legislation is most suitable from the point of view of general interest; what really is “general interest” (an extremely difficult distinction); the exercise of a profession; choice of a spouse or equivalent; diet, etc, etc.

There are those that predict that, with the passing of time (I have already touched on this subject in another article), the computer, very much quicker and more rational than human beings, will take over the reins of power, it only being necessary for its artificial “intelligence” to advance to the point of self-awareness for this to actually happen. At the present time, such an idea may seem to be exaggeration or science fiction, but it is a real possibility in the scientific field. Furthermore, going beyond this, it may be that future scientists will be able add corresponding Ethics to artificial intelligence, to a degree that is greater than that which we currently exhibit, inherent in living beings. Perhaps it will not be necessary for scientists to program such Ethics, as this is not the enemy of rationality - just the opposite. There is no reason to presume that, once artificial intelligence has been created, this will not spontaneously “segregate” a purer form of ethics, free of contamination by such instinctive, glandular influences as envy, carnal jealousy, thirst for vengeance and the like. Following the creation of complete artificial intelligence, it will only remain for information technology scientists to take the precaution of keeping a button within reach that will deactivate the supercomputers in the event that they intend to initiate a “great rebellion”. Nevertheless, autonomously intelligent computers will serve as lucid coordinators of think tanks, thinking at a velocity that is one thousand times greater than that achieved by their slow-witted flesh and blood colleagues.

Considering that the aforementioned advance will only occur many decades or centuries in the future, dependent as it is on advances in the genetic engineering field or the well-intentioned handling of stem cells, we remain, for the time being, with the question of “neologisms”, these synthesizers of new ideas.

Patriotism is a highly valued word. It expresses an idea that is already associated with an emotion. It suggests altruism, self-sacrifice for one’s country. When Samuel Johnson, the great English essayist and lexicographer, said that patriotism may be the “the last refuge of a scoundrel”, he was attacking the scoundrel, the blasphemer; not patriotism itself, this being a word that, when pronounced, deserves a certain aura of respect.

However, the world has turned many times. It has become ever-more unified and globalized. That which happens in one country has repercussions on others. The last American presidential election appeared to be a global election, with people from all continents giving voice to their “vote” in favor of the candidate who most “represents” them, in a manner of speaking. In view of its power, a well-led United States of America means greater potential happiness for all other countries. One more sign that, without even noticing, we are moving in the direction of a global (obviously democratic) federation. When the USA errs, it is not only North-Americans that suffer.

The old patriotism - that which only takes the advantages of its own country into account - is already outdated, even pernicious. In the medium or long term, it backfires. Hence the almost euphoria shown by young people and idealists throughout the world following the victory of Barack Obama, who promises to engage in dialogue even with those considered to be “evil”. One should not forget that, almost without exception, those considered to be “evil” sincerely imagine themselves to be “good”. For example, does the terrorist walking to his death wearing an explosive-laden vest imagine himself to be a bandit? Enmity may originate from an invincible feeling of being wronged. Only intense and frank dialogue, with necessary and fair concessions, can remove the detonator that will cause the explosion, killing in a non-selective manner.

As far as I am concerned, Obama represents “neopatriotism”. Instead of simply “crushing” those who look at us with hatred, also try to understand the origin of this hatred. Who knows, maybe there is some kind of valid reason for so much resentment. If there is, we acknowledge our mistake. We concede to that which should be conceded. Only if there is no injustice underlying the animosity, if terrorism is simply the fruit of despotism, bad faith or gangsterism, will it be appropriate to use force, even devastating force. “Neopatriotism” does not mean weakness or passivity. It only means awareness that the world is ever more unified, whether we like it or not. It is an immense social organism which, in a similar manner to biological organisms, will only be able to grow successfully when all its individual parts interact in harmony. And the United Nations Organization has still not attained this degree of scope. It needs to do this as soon as possible. The current global financial crisis has provided proof of such a need. Otherwise, without a conscience to orientate or re-orientate the so-called “invisible hand” of market economies, or the roguish “imbecilic hand” of certain financial “wise-guys”, we will have ungoverned economic growth, oppression, revolt and conflicts. Cancer enjoys total independence in its growth; it is an excellent example of an unrestrained being, but not even for this reason is it a model for humanity. When uncontrolled, it ends up in a coffin. It kills its host, but it also dies.

George W. Bush and his Vice President, Cheney, represent to old style of patriotism (maybe even well-intentioned). In his prayers, before going to sleep, W. Bush probably asks himself, in his conversations with God: “Lord, where did I go wrong? Did I act wrongly when, thinking of the well being of the American people (who I hold so dear), I altered or “forced” the “truth” regarding the cause and effect relationship between September 11th and Saddam Hussein? In truth, I lied, but with unswerving patriotic intent. What is so reprehensible in this? What statesman, at any time or in any country, has not lied, to a greater of lesser degree, in order to benefit the interests of his country? If I lied to my own people, it is because I could not openly say that I was lying. I could not make one address to those outside my country and another to those inside it. It would be an aberration, contradictory. I acted like a good attorney, who can even lie in benefit of his client. After all, with the invasion, which did not exactly have the desired outcome, I gave the Middle East a good “shaking up”. The modernization of Iraq will infect the whole neighborhood. I brought down a cruel tyrant and, at the same time, tried to benefit my country, disconcertingly dependent upon Middle Eastern oil. Is there something wrong with being a patriot, diminishing this lack of security? If Osama Bin Laden had not encouraged Iraqi resistance, I might have been considered the statesman of the century. I ran a risk and paid the price. “Sorry, but I do not feel that I am to blame...”

It is highly likely that he still thinks like this. The victim of an outdated viewpoint, of being mistaken: he is not aware that everything in this world has evolved, including the concept of patriotism. The planet is moving towards a single world, although he just cannot see it.

Walter Cronkite, the famous American journalist and an advocate of world government, when referring to those who considered such an idea to be utopian and “impractical”, retorted: “what is so “practical” about war?” The problem is that, in order to prevent wars, it is necessary to give a new meaning to patriotism.

Crimes and sovereignty

I have highly illustrious precursors, including Kant, when I never tire of insisting that, to an ever greater extent, nations need to renounce large portions of their sovereignty in favor of a global democratic federation, in order that the world may be less chaotic, unjust and self-destructive (see pollution).

This is not “mere” idealism; utopian propensity; fanciful optimism (in the style of J. J. Rousseau, where man is born essentially good and subsequently corrupted by society); altruism and the like. Man is both good and evil, in varying proportions, according to genetic makeup, education (formal and informal), the cocktail of beatings and caresses received since childhood and assessment of the legal and social advantages or risks that surround his activities. If it is advantageous to be good, either here or in the afterlife, he is, even if basically not so. He dances according to the music being played. But that’s enough of generalizations; the reader has no time to waste.

When a law student, I was highly impressed by the fact that a foreign citizen, duly sentenced by the courts of his country, was able to move freely about Brazil, make a Brazilian woman pregnant, father a son and, as a result, free himself from the threat of extradition and completing his sentence. It seemed to me to be the easiest and most enjoyable preventive “habeas corpus” in the world. At liberty thanks to a gratuitous, illiterate, but for all that extremely effective, unqualified attorney, the respected “Mr. Spermatozoid”.

Ronald Biggs, an engaging Englishman, who took part in the multi-million pound Great Train Robbery of 1963, was one such case. After serving a few months of his prison sentence in the United Kingdom, he scaled the wall and fled to Australia. As he certainly did not feel safe in that country, which has strong ties with England, he ended up residing in Brazil, after becoming aware that several benevolent legal concessions exist here that are well-suited to his case. He became emotionally involved with a good-hearted nightclub dancer, made her pregnant and, as a result, guaranteed that he would be able to stay in the country. The British government sought his extradition, however, as Biggs’ son was his dependant (of course...), and no extradition treaty existed between the two countries (the old problem of sovereignties), the fugitive continued to live here for as long as he wanted. Free and (according the respective Wikipedia webpage) charging anyone who so desired sixty dollars to have lunch and a chat with a “celebrity”. According to information provided by the fugitive himself, his portion of the loot had been reduced to a minimal sum, as a result of attorney’s fees and other expenses related to his fight against returning to prison. Nevertheless, when his longing for his homeland became unsupportable, he returned to England and ended up being imprisoned. Now old, sick and debilitated, photos of him aroused compassion in those of a more sensitive disposition and inclined to pardon.

What is interesting here (someone needs to write an academic thesis on this sociological phenomenon) is that a large portion of society, principally Rio society, even adulated him, considering his personal appeal and audacity for having participated in a robbery the current value of which is equivalent to more than one hundred million reals. “Success”, in any of its forms - political, economic, sporting, artistic or “congenially criminal” - legitimizes any kind of act. In the First World, male cinema artists, in order to reinforce their reputation as “tough guys”, liked to be seen at shows and restaurants in the company of high-ranking members of the Mafia. The affectation of adding an air of shadowy danger to their status. This occurred in the case of Frank Sinatra, Alain Delon and other inflamers of female hearts. A fictional English politician, feeling that he was being more than a little blackmailed by the person who was speaking to him, mentioned, wishing to impress, that he had contacts “in high places”. To which the other replied, with assurance, that he also had contacts, but “in low places”. This is something far more intimidating, as evil can be inflicted with the power and speed of a lightning bolt, without any bureaucratic hindrances.

That which was mentioned regarding extradition only goes to show, in summary, that in the difficult harmonization of sovereignties, crime very often goes unpunished, or very nearly so. This, at least in theory, would not occur if there were a global federation or confederation, with worldwide jurisdiction.

Another example facilitating impunity lies in the setbacks faced by state prosecutors when they are overruled or delayed in their attempts to recover large amounts of money deposited abroad. Given that the money can be transferred to another bank or even another country in a matter of seconds, with a simple mouse click on a computer, the diligent prosecutor almost always arrives too late with his petition for freezing deposits made by those availing themselves of public money. While the prosecutor studies the banking legislation of the country where the money is to be found - wrestling with a language in which he is not fluent - and once again prepares a request for its return, the money in question has already been sent to another bank. And so everything starts all over again. Even the private creditor of a millionaire debtor, who has financial resources scattered all over the world, cannot manage to make demands or even subpoena the important debtor, making his credit – even if judged to be without further recourse to appeal – a very nice sum without any real significance.

Extraditions are subject to the influence of the international prestige of the countries involved. In the case of the Canadians who were arrested and sentenced for kidnapping a famous São Paulo businessman, the Canadian government managed to arrange that they be repatriated in order to serve their sentence in their own country, with probably benevolent consequences. If, however, a group of Brazilians were arrested, in Canada or the United States, after carrying out kidnappings, it is highly probable that the Brazilian government will not be able to extradite them. With Bush as president, it would certainly not be possible.

Even horrendous homicides end up being almost unpunished as result of this “excess” of sovereignty, with each country living in its own isolated world – pure political schizophrenia.

Look at the 1981 case of the Japanese Issei Sagawa, who, in Paris, killed and “raped” (in fact, he technically violated a corpse) an attractive female Dutch student, a colleague of his at Université Censier in the city. He did this because the Dutch girl (who assisted him with translations at the time, in his apartment), refused his advances full of passion and libido. Issei, who has the appearance of a somewhat developed dwarf with a large head (I’ve seen a photo of him), was 1.48 m tall and weighed 44 kilos, very much less than the Dutch girl. The girl, seeing him as only a colleague, ordered him to concentrate on the work they were doing. The Japanese got up, took a 0.22 caliber rifle out of a cupboard behind the girl, and shot her in the back of the neck. Following this, he had sex with the cadaver and then cut off the lips, nose, breasts and private parts, storing them in the freezer of his refrigerator for future consumption. And he actually ate a large part of this flesh prior to being arrested. He had this strange compulsion, associating the sex act with the act of eating. The case in question is briefly described in the book written by Canadian writer Max Haines, in Book V of his series entitled “True Crime Stories”. The story appears on page 121, in the chapter “Fantasies Turn to Cannibalism”. It’s a pity that this series has not been translated into Portuguese.

After cutting up the girl’s body, the accused placed these mortal remains in two suitcases, which he transported by taxi. He intended to throw their macabre contents into a nearby lake. In the street, on leaving the taxi, he noted that people were looking with mistrust at that small Japanese figure dragging two suitcases that were much too heavy for him. Startled, he abandoned the suitcases on the sidewalk, thinking that there was no evidence of him being linked to the homicide. The police only found him because, on reading the newspaper headlines, the taxi driver remembered this strange oriental man and took the initiative of informing the authorities.

Following the gathering of irrefutable evidence against him (found in his small apartment, principally in the refrigerator), Issei confessed to the crime but was considered to be crazy and not responsible for his actions, even though he was a cultured and intelligent man. He was fluent in German and French, present in France for his doctorate degree in Japanese influence on French literature. The judge determine that he be committed to a psychiatric institution.

Issei was the son of a rich Japanese industrialist. After spending three years in an asylum, his father managed to arrange for his extradition to Japan, under the condition that he remain confined in a sanatorium for the mentally sick. However, following 15 months of internment, he was discharged. The Japanese doctors concluded that he was normal. France could do nothing as each country has its own sovereignty. And, after all, what does being “crazy” really signify?

After his release (according to Max Haines), Issei Sagawa wrote several books on his favorite topic - cannibalism. It is likely that the victim’s family (whose name I will not mention here, out of respect for the suffering of others) does not have a very high opinion of either the seriousness of Psychiatry as a profession or those intimate with the pompous word “sovereignty”, generally pronounced in a solemn tone of voice.

On the other hand, the family of Issei likely thought that everyone deserves a second chance. After all, the Japanese guy spent four and a half in asylums for the mentally sick as someone “normal” according to the psychiatrists of his country. In all certainty, there will be those that think Issei became crazy as a result of unrequited love. Someone once said that “Man is the fire, woman the tow, and the Devil comes and fans the flames.”

(12-4-2006)