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)
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
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)
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)
Friday, January 29, 2010
USA in Afghanistan: relentless persistence
An alternative title would be: “What is the USA doing in Afghanistan?” And the reply would be: erring more than getting things right, despite good intentions. Even the normally praiseworthy virtue of persistence depends on the best possible evaluation of a variety of factors, in order to not be damaging to the community and the actual entity demonstrating persistence, functioning as its coffin. In the world of business, such a distinction is particularly evident, given that the almighty dollar is not greatly given to philosophy and forgiveness. It is unmerciful on those who do not know how to shrewdly assess all the “pros” and “cons” of any business transaction. Someone once said that money and health do not tolerate effrontery.
According to the article “Vietnam replay: A war that can’t be won”, written by William P. Polk, professor of history at Chicago University and president of the Adlai Stevenson Institute of International Affairs, published in Portuguese, under the title “Lições do Vietnã”, in “Le Monde Diplomatique, Brasil” on 28-11-09 (page 21), it is calculated that the overall cost of the Afghan war - which has already lasted eight years - will cost the US economy between $3 and $6 trillion, in other words, more than 25% of the US gross domestic product.
With just half of this spending, poor Africa (the adjective is really unnecessary) would take a great leap forward in terms of quality. With the essential prerequisite that the use of such resources allocated to the continent be closely scrutinized by the donors themselves, or by a reliable international agency. This is because a common practice among some governors of destitute countries is that of diverting a large portion of such assistance to their personal bank accounts situated in Switzerland or other Tax Havens. This problem will only be resolved when there is more flexibility regarding use of the term “sovereignty”. At the present time, as a rule, the crooked politician says, in a firm voice: “We do not allow foreigners to come snooping into the accounts of our country!” A mere excuse for preventing generous donors, generally Americans and Europeans, from overseeing use of the considerable amounts involved. However, I will not go into this aspect any further here, as it strays from the main topic of this article. I only wish to add that, at the time of the Marshall Plan, destined for European recovery following the Second World War, a large portion of the money sent by the American government in order to boost the south Italian economy ended up returning to banks in the United States - in the current accounts of Mafiosi of all types and styles.
According to the aforementioned William P. Polk, comparing the current conflict in Afghanistan with the situation found during the Vietnam War, (...) “The corruption of the South Vietnamese government” (supported by the Americans) “was monumental. Officials stole aid money and food given to their people; and they sold to the enemy Viet Minh equipment and arms given as war material by the US”. He adds that “In Afghanistan, the government we condoned and effectively installed is involved in the drug traffic, sells offices in the police, army and civil service, decides law cases by the size of bribes, steals everything its officials touch, and has been caught selling ammunition to the Taliban. Everything is for sale. The re-election of Hamid Karzai was not a travesty; it was a joke...”
How does so much investment in Afghanistan (in money and lives) benefit the USA, if local government is evidently not reliable and currently detested to an ever greater extent by the Afghans themselves? And the hatred shown by the population for its own government ends up extending to its “sponsor”, the USA, considered to be a “foreign occupying force”, irrespective of the reason for its presence. The people of no country whatsoever can tolerate living under military occupation.
History demonstrates that there is an instinctive reaction against foreign troops “assuming control in our country”. The only exception of which I an aware - and I am not well-versed in history - occurred in Japan, following its defeat by the USA. This is due to the fact that the Japanese had a certain degree of guilt regarding the attack on Pearl Harbor, without a prior declaration of war. Besides this, the American government did not abuse its power as an occupying force. Certainly due to the fact that I was born with a mysterious and instinctive propensity to consider myself a kind of “world citizen”, I have never really understood why such a violent aversion exists to the presence of foreigners. In general, I even find their presence pleasing, if they show themselves to be friendly and “non-superior”. However, this is not the usual instinctive reaction. And the USA encourages such Afghan aversion when, attacking strongholds allegedly held by terrorists, it ends up involuntarily killing civilians, including children, given that many of these strikes are performed by unmanned drones.
Why did the USA invade Afghanistan soon after 11-9-01? Because it was there that Osama Bin Laden, the architect of the attacks, was to be found. And the Taliban supported him, or at least did not restrict his actions. However, one can be sure that Bin Laden is no longer to be found in Afghanistan and that he left the country a long time ago. It is said that he is hiding in the tribal zones of neighboring Pakistan. This finding led the Americans to bomb locations in Pakistan where Bin Laden and his followers could have found a safe haven. Conclusion: more deaths, now Pakistani casualties, the majority of whom are non-combatant civilians. Thus a further source of anti-western hatred is born. Before long, the USA will be at war with Pakistan, or at least “half” of the country. And Pakistan, although a relatively underdeveloped country, is in possession of nuclear weapons.
A few days ago, the USA started to use aircraft to attack Bin Laden’s followers in Yemen, an established breeding ground for terrorists. As far as I remember, around half of the terrorists that were on the hijacked passenger planes on 11-9-01 were of this nationality. If a large number of Yemeni civilians are killed as a result of such bombing, the possibility cannot be ignored of the Americans becoming involved in a “fourth war” (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen). And perhaps others, if the terrorists migrate to neighboring Arab countries - not to mention Iran, in view of the danger of this country developing nuclear weapons.
By way of parenthesis, I would venture to say that Iran likely has the “secret” (not so secret really....) objective of developing a nuclear weapon, but not to use it against Israel. Its intention is dissuasive, in order to create something like a balance of power in the region. This is because if it ever used its bomb, Israeli and even American retaliation would incinerate Iran on the very same day, or the following day. Ahmadinejad would be a cadaver and the grave digger of his country, hated for various generations - and he is aware of this. What the bold-faced Iranian president really desires is that Israel and the international community believe that it is not possible to toy with Iran and that the country deserves to be respected, as it already has, or is close to having the power of nuclear armament. And his argumentative defense will always be the following: “If Israel has, or suggests that it has nuclear weapons, and is not harassed on this account, why is it that only Iran will be subject to sanctions even when there is no certainty that the nuclear power in question is not strictly destined for peaceful purposes?” In my opinion, there is a certain degree of bluff in the firmness and mystery shown by the Iranian president.
Before the four small fires spread, forming a single large conflagration, it would be more prudent for Barack Obama to follow his natural vocation - not that of his Secretary of Defense - in order to confront important international problems with the intelligent understanding and pacificism that he demonstrated during his electoral campaign and during the first few months of his government. As William Polk says, “Terrorists do not need Afghanistan, remote and poorly served by communications and transport: the 9/11 attackers were based in Europe, and future terrorists could attack from anywhere”. So, I ask, why remain in Afghanistan?
After a turbulent occupation for ten years, the Soviet Union ended up withdrawing from Afghanistan, and with losses of all kinds. In all certainty, it was this useless war that was the final blow to the dream of implementing socialism on a global scale. Socialist countries do not become rich. They may even be fair and just, but not rich. And the scanty resources that the Soviet Union had available ended up going down a drain represented by a counterproductive conflict of long duration.
Does that stated above mean to say that we should leave those engaging in terrorism to freely act in a destructive manner? The obvious answer to this question is “no”. It is up to the western world to remain alert, on the defensive rather than the attack, led by the most powerful and organized nation in the world - for the time being... Together with such vigilance, there is a need to place the greatest possible emphasis on the task of convincing the populations of invaded countries that the western world does not intend to crush them or dominate them indefinitely. And such assurance should be sincere.
Principally, encourage debates on television between followers of Islam and the western world, but prohibiting mutual offenses and only permitting arguments. In these debates concerning opinion, even members of the Taliban and those engaging in “jihad” would be able to participate, with diplomatic immunity, guaranteeing their return to their respective countries following the debates. Such a policy is already being cautiously put into practice in Afghanistan, with a large number of American civilians making contact with the local population. It should not be forgotten that Muslims are fiercely indoctrinated from their first years of life. Whoever is the son or daughter of a Muslim becomes a Muslim. Whoever is the son or daughter of a Christian becomes a Christian. Only a constant exchange of points of view can change this, little by little, breaking down prejudices on both sides. The BBC and some other television stations, including Al Jazira, could transmit the debates. It is possible that the basis for a single religion could arise from such an exchange of points of view - something that would be a huge step forward in the direction of world peace.
Prior to Moses, the world was inhabited by many gods. Apparently, monotheism was an advance. However, so many “monotheisms” arose (e.g., Christianity and Islam) that, in a certain way, polytheism returned to the planet, although in the form of a smaller number of deities. Jehovah, Christ and Mohammed represent the same single god; however, their followers battle against the “other” gods, which are basically one and the same “god”. They argue that there are many representatives, but only one god.
There is a great deal of inconsistency in these contests. If such inconsistencies were limited to pious prayers, there would not be any problem. The danger is that such beliefs become transformed into ideologies and even bloody territorial disputes. Israel insists that Jerusalem is its city, for both religious and historical reasons. The Palestinians make the same claim. And both worship a single god. How one asks, if both sides guarantee that there is only one god? Does this not, it is argued, allow the conclusion to be drawn that polytheism has returned to civilization in another guise, while refusing to admit the obvious?
There is much more that could be said regarding this topic, but the reader has now earned a well-deserved rest.
(7-1-10)
According to the article “Vietnam replay: A war that can’t be won”, written by William P. Polk, professor of history at Chicago University and president of the Adlai Stevenson Institute of International Affairs, published in Portuguese, under the title “Lições do Vietnã”, in “Le Monde Diplomatique, Brasil” on 28-11-09 (page 21), it is calculated that the overall cost of the Afghan war - which has already lasted eight years - will cost the US economy between $3 and $6 trillion, in other words, more than 25% of the US gross domestic product.
With just half of this spending, poor Africa (the adjective is really unnecessary) would take a great leap forward in terms of quality. With the essential prerequisite that the use of such resources allocated to the continent be closely scrutinized by the donors themselves, or by a reliable international agency. This is because a common practice among some governors of destitute countries is that of diverting a large portion of such assistance to their personal bank accounts situated in Switzerland or other Tax Havens. This problem will only be resolved when there is more flexibility regarding use of the term “sovereignty”. At the present time, as a rule, the crooked politician says, in a firm voice: “We do not allow foreigners to come snooping into the accounts of our country!” A mere excuse for preventing generous donors, generally Americans and Europeans, from overseeing use of the considerable amounts involved. However, I will not go into this aspect any further here, as it strays from the main topic of this article. I only wish to add that, at the time of the Marshall Plan, destined for European recovery following the Second World War, a large portion of the money sent by the American government in order to boost the south Italian economy ended up returning to banks in the United States - in the current accounts of Mafiosi of all types and styles.
According to the aforementioned William P. Polk, comparing the current conflict in Afghanistan with the situation found during the Vietnam War, (...) “The corruption of the South Vietnamese government” (supported by the Americans) “was monumental. Officials stole aid money and food given to their people; and they sold to the enemy Viet Minh equipment and arms given as war material by the US”. He adds that “In Afghanistan, the government we condoned and effectively installed is involved in the drug traffic, sells offices in the police, army and civil service, decides law cases by the size of bribes, steals everything its officials touch, and has been caught selling ammunition to the Taliban. Everything is for sale. The re-election of Hamid Karzai was not a travesty; it was a joke...”
How does so much investment in Afghanistan (in money and lives) benefit the USA, if local government is evidently not reliable and currently detested to an ever greater extent by the Afghans themselves? And the hatred shown by the population for its own government ends up extending to its “sponsor”, the USA, considered to be a “foreign occupying force”, irrespective of the reason for its presence. The people of no country whatsoever can tolerate living under military occupation.
History demonstrates that there is an instinctive reaction against foreign troops “assuming control in our country”. The only exception of which I an aware - and I am not well-versed in history - occurred in Japan, following its defeat by the USA. This is due to the fact that the Japanese had a certain degree of guilt regarding the attack on Pearl Harbor, without a prior declaration of war. Besides this, the American government did not abuse its power as an occupying force. Certainly due to the fact that I was born with a mysterious and instinctive propensity to consider myself a kind of “world citizen”, I have never really understood why such a violent aversion exists to the presence of foreigners. In general, I even find their presence pleasing, if they show themselves to be friendly and “non-superior”. However, this is not the usual instinctive reaction. And the USA encourages such Afghan aversion when, attacking strongholds allegedly held by terrorists, it ends up involuntarily killing civilians, including children, given that many of these strikes are performed by unmanned drones.
Why did the USA invade Afghanistan soon after 11-9-01? Because it was there that Osama Bin Laden, the architect of the attacks, was to be found. And the Taliban supported him, or at least did not restrict his actions. However, one can be sure that Bin Laden is no longer to be found in Afghanistan and that he left the country a long time ago. It is said that he is hiding in the tribal zones of neighboring Pakistan. This finding led the Americans to bomb locations in Pakistan where Bin Laden and his followers could have found a safe haven. Conclusion: more deaths, now Pakistani casualties, the majority of whom are non-combatant civilians. Thus a further source of anti-western hatred is born. Before long, the USA will be at war with Pakistan, or at least “half” of the country. And Pakistan, although a relatively underdeveloped country, is in possession of nuclear weapons.
A few days ago, the USA started to use aircraft to attack Bin Laden’s followers in Yemen, an established breeding ground for terrorists. As far as I remember, around half of the terrorists that were on the hijacked passenger planes on 11-9-01 were of this nationality. If a large number of Yemeni civilians are killed as a result of such bombing, the possibility cannot be ignored of the Americans becoming involved in a “fourth war” (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen). And perhaps others, if the terrorists migrate to neighboring Arab countries - not to mention Iran, in view of the danger of this country developing nuclear weapons.
By way of parenthesis, I would venture to say that Iran likely has the “secret” (not so secret really....) objective of developing a nuclear weapon, but not to use it against Israel. Its intention is dissuasive, in order to create something like a balance of power in the region. This is because if it ever used its bomb, Israeli and even American retaliation would incinerate Iran on the very same day, or the following day. Ahmadinejad would be a cadaver and the grave digger of his country, hated for various generations - and he is aware of this. What the bold-faced Iranian president really desires is that Israel and the international community believe that it is not possible to toy with Iran and that the country deserves to be respected, as it already has, or is close to having the power of nuclear armament. And his argumentative defense will always be the following: “If Israel has, or suggests that it has nuclear weapons, and is not harassed on this account, why is it that only Iran will be subject to sanctions even when there is no certainty that the nuclear power in question is not strictly destined for peaceful purposes?” In my opinion, there is a certain degree of bluff in the firmness and mystery shown by the Iranian president.
Before the four small fires spread, forming a single large conflagration, it would be more prudent for Barack Obama to follow his natural vocation - not that of his Secretary of Defense - in order to confront important international problems with the intelligent understanding and pacificism that he demonstrated during his electoral campaign and during the first few months of his government. As William Polk says, “Terrorists do not need Afghanistan, remote and poorly served by communications and transport: the 9/11 attackers were based in Europe, and future terrorists could attack from anywhere”. So, I ask, why remain in Afghanistan?
After a turbulent occupation for ten years, the Soviet Union ended up withdrawing from Afghanistan, and with losses of all kinds. In all certainty, it was this useless war that was the final blow to the dream of implementing socialism on a global scale. Socialist countries do not become rich. They may even be fair and just, but not rich. And the scanty resources that the Soviet Union had available ended up going down a drain represented by a counterproductive conflict of long duration.
Does that stated above mean to say that we should leave those engaging in terrorism to freely act in a destructive manner? The obvious answer to this question is “no”. It is up to the western world to remain alert, on the defensive rather than the attack, led by the most powerful and organized nation in the world - for the time being... Together with such vigilance, there is a need to place the greatest possible emphasis on the task of convincing the populations of invaded countries that the western world does not intend to crush them or dominate them indefinitely. And such assurance should be sincere.
Principally, encourage debates on television between followers of Islam and the western world, but prohibiting mutual offenses and only permitting arguments. In these debates concerning opinion, even members of the Taliban and those engaging in “jihad” would be able to participate, with diplomatic immunity, guaranteeing their return to their respective countries following the debates. Such a policy is already being cautiously put into practice in Afghanistan, with a large number of American civilians making contact with the local population. It should not be forgotten that Muslims are fiercely indoctrinated from their first years of life. Whoever is the son or daughter of a Muslim becomes a Muslim. Whoever is the son or daughter of a Christian becomes a Christian. Only a constant exchange of points of view can change this, little by little, breaking down prejudices on both sides. The BBC and some other television stations, including Al Jazira, could transmit the debates. It is possible that the basis for a single religion could arise from such an exchange of points of view - something that would be a huge step forward in the direction of world peace.
Prior to Moses, the world was inhabited by many gods. Apparently, monotheism was an advance. However, so many “monotheisms” arose (e.g., Christianity and Islam) that, in a certain way, polytheism returned to the planet, although in the form of a smaller number of deities. Jehovah, Christ and Mohammed represent the same single god; however, their followers battle against the “other” gods, which are basically one and the same “god”. They argue that there are many representatives, but only one god.
There is a great deal of inconsistency in these contests. If such inconsistencies were limited to pious prayers, there would not be any problem. The danger is that such beliefs become transformed into ideologies and even bloody territorial disputes. Israel insists that Jerusalem is its city, for both religious and historical reasons. The Palestinians make the same claim. And both worship a single god. How one asks, if both sides guarantee that there is only one god? Does this not, it is argued, allow the conclusion to be drawn that polytheism has returned to civilization in another guise, while refusing to admit the obvious?
There is much more that could be said regarding this topic, but the reader has now earned a well-deserved rest.
(7-1-10)
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Ahmadinejad and the global nuclear issue
There was agitation in the media with the brief stay of the president of Iran in Brazil. Obviously, the national and international Jewish community did everything (it has its political reasons) to pressure the Brazilian government to avoid this meeting. In all likelihood, the main intention of the visit, days before, of the polite and persuasive Israeli president, Shimon Peres, had been to attempt to cancel reception of the Iranian. He did not succeed - in this respect, our government was correct - because if it had given in to such pressure, it would be relinquishing its own sovereignty with respect to something of use that it still possesses, namely: the right to maintain contact with any country whatsoever, without having to request permission from the visitor’s enemies. It is only countries that are totally defenseless and without strong allies that allow, when coerced - fearful of stifling commercial or even military reprimands - other countries to exercise control over their foreign contacts, even at the level of ordinary conversation.
In this article, I will not be making an analysis of what is currently the best interpretation of sacrosanct “sovereignty”, which can not only be useful and beneficial, but also damaging to good international relations. It is even damaging to the actual countries that make abusive use of it. Drunken with euphoria, irresponsible, demented or ignorant governors, hypnotized by the abstract notion that “they can do anything because they are sovereign” (imagining themselves to be “kings”), forget that their folly generates consequences that are not solely internal, given the fact of globalization. This, however, will be left for another occasion. The topic of this article is the nuclear issue, seen as a global problem and not only associated with Iran and North Korea. Sooner or later, will be tempted (like Adam in the Bible) to take a bite of the forbidden fruit of nuclear knowledge for some kind of purpose. If the approach adopted in this article causes uneasiness or even repulsion, the blame is not mine but that of the current global reality, which should never be ignored like, unfortunately, any and all reality.
Paradoxically, the “nuclear threat” has been and still will be of enormous use for our planet to make advances, globally, in terms of security, justice and effectiveness. Without it, and its two “camouflaged allies” - environmental pollution and the irresponsibility of large American banks - our future would be more depressing. Analogously, snake venom, at the right dose and scientifically manipulated, saves lives. And not only the lives of those bitten by snakes; it “thins the blood” according to scientists. Somewhat intimidated, as long as George W. Bush did not see, on television, the floods in the south of his country and the roofs of houses ripped off by the force of hurricanes, he was not convinced that Mother Nature does not tolerate effrontery.
With the recent global economic crisis, leaving millions of workers unemployed, various leaders (for example, Gordon Brown) concluded that large banks cannot act in an irresponsible manner, confidant in future government support, inevitable for maintaining public confidence in the banking system. This is because avarice, in any sector, is only concerned with the present; however, “someone” - in this case the State (not necessarily socialist)) - has to be concerned with the future. It is fear of the atomic bomb, together with fears regarding global warming and financial anarchy - with unemployment and protectionism - that will force humanity to think seriously of setting up a world federation, or an equivalent entity, in which all nations feel themselves to be adequately protected against the ambitions of other countries. Currently, this situation does not exist. It’s “every man for himself”. All nations arm themselves, in the best possible manner, because no system exists that provides them all with real security. And this generalized lack of confidence represents an outlay of trillions of dollars - wasted wealth, diverted from being used for more useful purposes.
Due to the simple fear of their use, nuclear weapons could prevent long-lasting and no less deadly conventional wars. Despite the fact that the global atomic arsenal is estimated in thousands of nuclear warheads, only two bombs have been dropped in wartime to date: in Japan in 1945. Other bombs exploded, but in tests, without any victims. Fear is a negative and wretched feeling; however, at the right moment, it can save millions of lives. Throughout the world, Criminal Law has been aware of this for centuries. Rather than offer advice, it threatens punishment. The same can be said for the Highway Code. Authorities in the health area conduct their anti-smoking campaigns invoking a fear of cancer and pulmonary emphysema.
During the “very hot” time of the Cold War, with Stalin demonstrating ambitions of dominating as much of Europe as possible, the only reason that there was not a war between the Soviet Union and the USA (despite no lack of tension) was due to the fact that, if such a conflict occurred, it would not be conventional. Both sides would suffer devastation capable of incinerating and sterilizing their own countries. There would be no victors. The wars in Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia were prolonged because the combatants knew that nuclear weapons would not be used, bearing in mind the possibility of fearsome retaliation. At the time, the USA did not accept the suggestions of “hawks”, including General Douglas MacArthur, who favored the use of a few atomic bombs in Vietnam. It was not fear of aircraft, tanks, machine guns and bayonets that avoided a Third World War. It was a vision of a “mushroom cloud” that forcibly led to mutual and indigestible tolerance. “Small” fears cannot hold back our warmongering impulses. Only “gigantic” fears activate mechanisms of necessary restraint.
In conventional wars, princes, presidents and generals, as well as their families, are practically free from personal physical danger. It is for this reason that the history of mankind has been so “rich” in wars. In nuclear wars, fear is democratized. Even if they find refuge in shelters, those in power (who send out young people to fight for them) will be poisoned by radiation if they leave their lairs. And they cannot remain in them indefinitely. Hence the paradoxical use, favoring peace, of the feeling that the “other side” is also in possession of nuclear arms. All valor has its limits.
We insist in demonstrating the use of and even the need for fear, in order for mankind to be, at least, more “cooperative”.
What is it that originally explains, in part, the creation of the most powerful nation on the planet, the USA? The fear of thirteen American colonies of losing the war of independence. Alone and in isolation, these colonies were aware that they would not be able to free themselves from British domination. United, they would perhaps achieve their goal, as in fact occurred. Ultimately, fear of probable defeat led the colonies to unite, although they had to renounce several of the privileges of so-called sovereignty (for example, in foreign policy), which would have to be unique. In international politics, it is an undeniable fact that only interest and fear force countries to become united and behave in a civilized manner. In addition, the more nations are united, the better the global security climate. When one speaks of “interest”, this is implicitly understood to be a form of fear, the dread of “losing” something.
Like a parenthesis, the then American president, Harry S. Truman, has been the object of much censure to date with respect to his decision to drop two atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima e Nagasaki, on August 6th and 9th 1945. Nevertheless, if such extremely deadly weapons had not been used, it is likely that the Japanese empire would have continued fighting to the end, given the fact that it was the military, not civilians, who decided at the time regarding surrender or continuation of the war. When the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan did not surrender. It was not convinced that the war was lost. It was necessary for a second bomb, three days later, together with the American threat (via radio) that it was in possession of other weapons of the same type, which - according to historians - was not true.
According to the web-based encyclopedia known as “Wikipedia”, the day after the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, President Truman issued a radio warning that he could repeat the crushing castigation used on the previous day. What was the response of the Japanese high command? They stated that the warning was “allied propaganda”. On this topic, the then United States Secretary of Defense, Henry L. Stimson, afterwards explained that “the two atomic bombs which we had dropped were the only ones we had ready, and our rate of production at the time was very small”.
The Japanese people have always been extremely proud and combative (was it not they who invented the kamikaze?) and it is more than likely that, if it were not for fear of the successive dropping of atomic bombs, the Japanese would have continued fighting for may months, even finally to the point of hand-to-hand combat in the streets of Japan, after devastating American bombing had reduced the main cities to rubble. At the time, Japanese patriotism would not accept surrender unless drowned in blood - its own and that of Americans. Even today, in Japan, the descendents of samurai enjoy a high degree of social prestige. As far as I know, even greater than that of the status of the most important captains of industry. Brazilians living in Japan and practicing the “vale tudo” variety of martial arts are surprised, when walking through the streets, by the prestige that they enjoy, simply due to the fact that they are professional fighters.
Atomic weapons are undeniably a tragedy; however, without them, there would be even more bloodshed, with millions dying not in a few minutes, but daily or over a period of months or years. They are useful precisely for the psychological effect of “prohibition of use’. This should be taking into account when the one examines the stance adopted by North Korea and Iran, who can always ask, based on the assumption of equal rights: “Why is it only us that do not have the right to not be fearful of countries that are already in possession of atomic weapons?” North Korea has already been a signatory of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It ended up withdrawing in 2003, as the actual treaty permits, as long as three month’s notice is given of intention to withdraw. Furthermore, according to the treaty, it is sufficient to allege that withdrawal is in the “supreme interest of the country”, according to its own criteria and not those of other signatories of the treaty. This treaty is not considered to be a model of legal precision regarding the rights of countries that adhere to it or withdraw. If North Korea withdrew from the treaty, in accordance with its terms, why has it subsequently been subjected to threats due to the fact of possessing nuclear weapons? Israel has not even signed the treaty, implies that it has the atomic bomb and has never been bothered as a result of this. It is impossible for many to understand such inequality of treatment, if one supposes that all countries should have the same rights. It is simply a question of international coercion, not of legal or political prevention against one State or another.
According to the same treaty, Iran could also withdraw from this commitment, escaping the stigma of a treaty breaker; however, it is foreseeable that, even if it withdrew, it would continue to be pressured, this being a peculiar characteristic of our imperfect international system, which tends to make decisions based on political convenience rather than legal precepts.
Ahmadinejad is unreserved in his use of words and it is this that is his main problem. A few years ago, he made two big mistakes that he likely regretted but does not have the courage to admit, in order not to show “weakness”. The first of these was to completely deny the Holocaust, without giving any further explanation. The second was to say that Israel, a country with around seven or eight million inhabitants, should be “wiped off the map” - something that is evidently inconceivable and impracticable. As a result of these statements, he became the involuntary worst enemy of his own country, given that he legitimized the attempt of its greatest adversary (Israel) to obtain the sympathy of the international community and act with extreme aggressiveness against the Palestinians.
With regard to the Holocaust, if Ahmadinejad had limited himself to casting doubt on the number of Jews really exterminated, his opinion - although accused of being “churlish” by the Israelis - he would have been much less repudiated. It would be a tolerable, theoretical, historical, quantitative, statistical doubt, subject to the meticulous scrutiny of those historians more concerned with precision, or seeking notoriety. I think that the strange decision taken by the European Parliament of “criminalizing negation of the Holocaust” would not reach the point of prohibiting examination of the topic. Even if, eventually, there is found to be a smaller number of victims, use of such a forceful term as “Holocaust” would not be inappropriate to describe the extermination of a significant proportion. At least hundreds of thousands or even a few million lost their lives as a result of such persecution.
If Ahmadinejad were a better strategist, or perceptive, or at least prudent, He would currently say the following in front of the microphones:
“I have always been against the creation of the State of Israel in Palestine, occupied for almost twenty centuries by Palestinian Arabs, who were not those originally responsible for expulsion of the Jews. Sooner or later, considering its volume such a “return” would inevitably result in the unjust expulsion of local populations, as in fact occurred. However, I currently recognize that Israel has become a consummated historical, political and geographic fact that should be accepted, as long as such acceptance is accompanied by political and economic compensation as justice for those expelled”.
“This - Justice! - will henceforth be our foreign political struggle, without violence, presuming that the major powers act with a minimum of honesty and spirit of equality. When I denied the Holocaust, I was referring to the possible occurrence of quantitative exaggeration in its evaluation, as a mere topic of historical interest. With regard to doubts concerning our intention to use nuclear energy, for peaceful or military purposes, I can confirm that our intentions are peaceful; however, we also have the right to be fearful of the aggressiveness of neighboring or distant countries that are politically aligned with our greatest enemy, which does not hide the fact that it is in possession of nuclear weapons, but does not allow its facilities to be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The obligations concerned have to be the same”.
“Finally, we do not accept the recent proposal of sending our nuclear fuel for treatment in Russia, then France, before being eventually returned to Iran, given that there are no firm guarantees that, if such shipment occurs, our uranium will not end up being retained in these countries for some kind of reason or pretext. In the event that this occurs, we would have our hands tied, prevented from mastering nuclear technology that is necessary because petroleum resources are finite and we do not have sufficient hydrographic resources. From what we have seen to date, the policy adopted by states is not reliable and international justice, despite the good intentions of its judges, still does not have statutes capable of treating, on an equal basis, all nations and peoples that do not yet have the status of a State. If our “legal failing” is that of not complying with the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it will be easy for us to resolve such a failing by simply stating that we have withdrawn from it, as permitted by its article X. Anyway, we still have the right to equal treatment of all nations, without the current privileges. This is our stance. The Security Council should provide us with a reply”.
With the evaporation of any legal basis for international sanctions, given that the 1968 treaty can no longer be considered to have been violated by Iran, I am wondering where the Security Council would find legal justification for the announced sanctions.
(30-11-09)
_______________________________________________________
In this article, I will not be making an analysis of what is currently the best interpretation of sacrosanct “sovereignty”, which can not only be useful and beneficial, but also damaging to good international relations. It is even damaging to the actual countries that make abusive use of it. Drunken with euphoria, irresponsible, demented or ignorant governors, hypnotized by the abstract notion that “they can do anything because they are sovereign” (imagining themselves to be “kings”), forget that their folly generates consequences that are not solely internal, given the fact of globalization. This, however, will be left for another occasion. The topic of this article is the nuclear issue, seen as a global problem and not only associated with Iran and North Korea. Sooner or later, will be tempted (like Adam in the Bible) to take a bite of the forbidden fruit of nuclear knowledge for some kind of purpose. If the approach adopted in this article causes uneasiness or even repulsion, the blame is not mine but that of the current global reality, which should never be ignored like, unfortunately, any and all reality.
Paradoxically, the “nuclear threat” has been and still will be of enormous use for our planet to make advances, globally, in terms of security, justice and effectiveness. Without it, and its two “camouflaged allies” - environmental pollution and the irresponsibility of large American banks - our future would be more depressing. Analogously, snake venom, at the right dose and scientifically manipulated, saves lives. And not only the lives of those bitten by snakes; it “thins the blood” according to scientists. Somewhat intimidated, as long as George W. Bush did not see, on television, the floods in the south of his country and the roofs of houses ripped off by the force of hurricanes, he was not convinced that Mother Nature does not tolerate effrontery.
With the recent global economic crisis, leaving millions of workers unemployed, various leaders (for example, Gordon Brown) concluded that large banks cannot act in an irresponsible manner, confidant in future government support, inevitable for maintaining public confidence in the banking system. This is because avarice, in any sector, is only concerned with the present; however, “someone” - in this case the State (not necessarily socialist)) - has to be concerned with the future. It is fear of the atomic bomb, together with fears regarding global warming and financial anarchy - with unemployment and protectionism - that will force humanity to think seriously of setting up a world federation, or an equivalent entity, in which all nations feel themselves to be adequately protected against the ambitions of other countries. Currently, this situation does not exist. It’s “every man for himself”. All nations arm themselves, in the best possible manner, because no system exists that provides them all with real security. And this generalized lack of confidence represents an outlay of trillions of dollars - wasted wealth, diverted from being used for more useful purposes.
Due to the simple fear of their use, nuclear weapons could prevent long-lasting and no less deadly conventional wars. Despite the fact that the global atomic arsenal is estimated in thousands of nuclear warheads, only two bombs have been dropped in wartime to date: in Japan in 1945. Other bombs exploded, but in tests, without any victims. Fear is a negative and wretched feeling; however, at the right moment, it can save millions of lives. Throughout the world, Criminal Law has been aware of this for centuries. Rather than offer advice, it threatens punishment. The same can be said for the Highway Code. Authorities in the health area conduct their anti-smoking campaigns invoking a fear of cancer and pulmonary emphysema.
During the “very hot” time of the Cold War, with Stalin demonstrating ambitions of dominating as much of Europe as possible, the only reason that there was not a war between the Soviet Union and the USA (despite no lack of tension) was due to the fact that, if such a conflict occurred, it would not be conventional. Both sides would suffer devastation capable of incinerating and sterilizing their own countries. There would be no victors. The wars in Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia were prolonged because the combatants knew that nuclear weapons would not be used, bearing in mind the possibility of fearsome retaliation. At the time, the USA did not accept the suggestions of “hawks”, including General Douglas MacArthur, who favored the use of a few atomic bombs in Vietnam. It was not fear of aircraft, tanks, machine guns and bayonets that avoided a Third World War. It was a vision of a “mushroom cloud” that forcibly led to mutual and indigestible tolerance. “Small” fears cannot hold back our warmongering impulses. Only “gigantic” fears activate mechanisms of necessary restraint.
In conventional wars, princes, presidents and generals, as well as their families, are practically free from personal physical danger. It is for this reason that the history of mankind has been so “rich” in wars. In nuclear wars, fear is democratized. Even if they find refuge in shelters, those in power (who send out young people to fight for them) will be poisoned by radiation if they leave their lairs. And they cannot remain in them indefinitely. Hence the paradoxical use, favoring peace, of the feeling that the “other side” is also in possession of nuclear arms. All valor has its limits.
We insist in demonstrating the use of and even the need for fear, in order for mankind to be, at least, more “cooperative”.
What is it that originally explains, in part, the creation of the most powerful nation on the planet, the USA? The fear of thirteen American colonies of losing the war of independence. Alone and in isolation, these colonies were aware that they would not be able to free themselves from British domination. United, they would perhaps achieve their goal, as in fact occurred. Ultimately, fear of probable defeat led the colonies to unite, although they had to renounce several of the privileges of so-called sovereignty (for example, in foreign policy), which would have to be unique. In international politics, it is an undeniable fact that only interest and fear force countries to become united and behave in a civilized manner. In addition, the more nations are united, the better the global security climate. When one speaks of “interest”, this is implicitly understood to be a form of fear, the dread of “losing” something.
Like a parenthesis, the then American president, Harry S. Truman, has been the object of much censure to date with respect to his decision to drop two atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima e Nagasaki, on August 6th and 9th 1945. Nevertheless, if such extremely deadly weapons had not been used, it is likely that the Japanese empire would have continued fighting to the end, given the fact that it was the military, not civilians, who decided at the time regarding surrender or continuation of the war. When the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan did not surrender. It was not convinced that the war was lost. It was necessary for a second bomb, three days later, together with the American threat (via radio) that it was in possession of other weapons of the same type, which - according to historians - was not true.
According to the web-based encyclopedia known as “Wikipedia”, the day after the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, President Truman issued a radio warning that he could repeat the crushing castigation used on the previous day. What was the response of the Japanese high command? They stated that the warning was “allied propaganda”. On this topic, the then United States Secretary of Defense, Henry L. Stimson, afterwards explained that “the two atomic bombs which we had dropped were the only ones we had ready, and our rate of production at the time was very small”.
The Japanese people have always been extremely proud and combative (was it not they who invented the kamikaze?) and it is more than likely that, if it were not for fear of the successive dropping of atomic bombs, the Japanese would have continued fighting for may months, even finally to the point of hand-to-hand combat in the streets of Japan, after devastating American bombing had reduced the main cities to rubble. At the time, Japanese patriotism would not accept surrender unless drowned in blood - its own and that of Americans. Even today, in Japan, the descendents of samurai enjoy a high degree of social prestige. As far as I know, even greater than that of the status of the most important captains of industry. Brazilians living in Japan and practicing the “vale tudo” variety of martial arts are surprised, when walking through the streets, by the prestige that they enjoy, simply due to the fact that they are professional fighters.
Atomic weapons are undeniably a tragedy; however, without them, there would be even more bloodshed, with millions dying not in a few minutes, but daily or over a period of months or years. They are useful precisely for the psychological effect of “prohibition of use’. This should be taking into account when the one examines the stance adopted by North Korea and Iran, who can always ask, based on the assumption of equal rights: “Why is it only us that do not have the right to not be fearful of countries that are already in possession of atomic weapons?” North Korea has already been a signatory of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It ended up withdrawing in 2003, as the actual treaty permits, as long as three month’s notice is given of intention to withdraw. Furthermore, according to the treaty, it is sufficient to allege that withdrawal is in the “supreme interest of the country”, according to its own criteria and not those of other signatories of the treaty. This treaty is not considered to be a model of legal precision regarding the rights of countries that adhere to it or withdraw. If North Korea withdrew from the treaty, in accordance with its terms, why has it subsequently been subjected to threats due to the fact of possessing nuclear weapons? Israel has not even signed the treaty, implies that it has the atomic bomb and has never been bothered as a result of this. It is impossible for many to understand such inequality of treatment, if one supposes that all countries should have the same rights. It is simply a question of international coercion, not of legal or political prevention against one State or another.
According to the same treaty, Iran could also withdraw from this commitment, escaping the stigma of a treaty breaker; however, it is foreseeable that, even if it withdrew, it would continue to be pressured, this being a peculiar characteristic of our imperfect international system, which tends to make decisions based on political convenience rather than legal precepts.
Ahmadinejad is unreserved in his use of words and it is this that is his main problem. A few years ago, he made two big mistakes that he likely regretted but does not have the courage to admit, in order not to show “weakness”. The first of these was to completely deny the Holocaust, without giving any further explanation. The second was to say that Israel, a country with around seven or eight million inhabitants, should be “wiped off the map” - something that is evidently inconceivable and impracticable. As a result of these statements, he became the involuntary worst enemy of his own country, given that he legitimized the attempt of its greatest adversary (Israel) to obtain the sympathy of the international community and act with extreme aggressiveness against the Palestinians.
With regard to the Holocaust, if Ahmadinejad had limited himself to casting doubt on the number of Jews really exterminated, his opinion - although accused of being “churlish” by the Israelis - he would have been much less repudiated. It would be a tolerable, theoretical, historical, quantitative, statistical doubt, subject to the meticulous scrutiny of those historians more concerned with precision, or seeking notoriety. I think that the strange decision taken by the European Parliament of “criminalizing negation of the Holocaust” would not reach the point of prohibiting examination of the topic. Even if, eventually, there is found to be a smaller number of victims, use of such a forceful term as “Holocaust” would not be inappropriate to describe the extermination of a significant proportion. At least hundreds of thousands or even a few million lost their lives as a result of such persecution.
If Ahmadinejad were a better strategist, or perceptive, or at least prudent, He would currently say the following in front of the microphones:
“I have always been against the creation of the State of Israel in Palestine, occupied for almost twenty centuries by Palestinian Arabs, who were not those originally responsible for expulsion of the Jews. Sooner or later, considering its volume such a “return” would inevitably result in the unjust expulsion of local populations, as in fact occurred. However, I currently recognize that Israel has become a consummated historical, political and geographic fact that should be accepted, as long as such acceptance is accompanied by political and economic compensation as justice for those expelled”.
“This - Justice! - will henceforth be our foreign political struggle, without violence, presuming that the major powers act with a minimum of honesty and spirit of equality. When I denied the Holocaust, I was referring to the possible occurrence of quantitative exaggeration in its evaluation, as a mere topic of historical interest. With regard to doubts concerning our intention to use nuclear energy, for peaceful or military purposes, I can confirm that our intentions are peaceful; however, we also have the right to be fearful of the aggressiveness of neighboring or distant countries that are politically aligned with our greatest enemy, which does not hide the fact that it is in possession of nuclear weapons, but does not allow its facilities to be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The obligations concerned have to be the same”.
“Finally, we do not accept the recent proposal of sending our nuclear fuel for treatment in Russia, then France, before being eventually returned to Iran, given that there are no firm guarantees that, if such shipment occurs, our uranium will not end up being retained in these countries for some kind of reason or pretext. In the event that this occurs, we would have our hands tied, prevented from mastering nuclear technology that is necessary because petroleum resources are finite and we do not have sufficient hydrographic resources. From what we have seen to date, the policy adopted by states is not reliable and international justice, despite the good intentions of its judges, still does not have statutes capable of treating, on an equal basis, all nations and peoples that do not yet have the status of a State. If our “legal failing” is that of not complying with the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it will be easy for us to resolve such a failing by simply stating that we have withdrawn from it, as permitted by its article X. Anyway, we still have the right to equal treatment of all nations, without the current privileges. This is our stance. The Security Council should provide us with a reply”.
With the evaporation of any legal basis for international sanctions, given that the 1968 treaty can no longer be considered to have been violated by Iran, I am wondering where the Security Council would find legal justification for the announced sanctions.
(30-11-09)
_______________________________________________________
Friday, October 16, 2009
Grave diggers of Capitalism
According to newspapers, the managing director of IIF – Institute of International Finances, which represents world’s major banks, during an interview held on September, 14, 2009, declared to be against a “fixed limit” of indebtedness, enforced by government, for banks. He suggested this limit to be variable, depending on assets risks, according to the subjective opinion of bankers themselves, which implies on difficulty or no alertness. To acclaim his “advanced” or “ultra comfortable” opinion that banks cannot have any governmental really limiting control, concluded giving a crowning touch on contributor’s shoulders, saying “not being desirable to use moralist behavior to approach the payment problem” of bank top executives. It is really audacious on nowadays circumstances.
In other words, according to him, “no moralist behavior” because “war is war”, “ the squeaky wheel gets the grease”, “finance is a subject for real males”, “ without competence one cannot settle”.
What happens is that, when things go wrong and boat begins to sink, those fearless supporters of the slogan “only a competent person can survive”, they are not ashamed of crying, run to government’s “mother lap”, asking for a help of trillions of dollars. This money at the end will come from idiot contributors’ patrimony. But, not as could be right, from the patrimony of those hasty executives, not so “competent” as demonstrated, and who enriched with the generous bonuses self given before the facts demonstrated that they were right on loan policy.
Why did they have the courage to risk? Because they knew that if something would get wrong, government could not deny the “safeguarding” loans and donations. On the contrary, it would happen a collapse with unimaginable consequences, demoralizing banking system and, consequently, all the rest of American economy, reflecting internationally. Authentic blackmailing, with chances of succeeding, as really happened.
However, after reaching the top of tidal wave, loaded, “risk” supporters (in theory), they attack once more, arrogantly, pleading that government does not have to be concerned with this story of risks of bank loans and bonus immediately paid to executives. That’s why the mentioned speech of the managing director of the Institute of International Finance is understandable, because each representative from any group feels the necessity of “call to his side or to himself” for his peers benefit. The problem is that, in the case of being analyzed, financial power behind IIF is so, that many heads, in the political and media areas, will hurry, as is happening, to launch doubts to the public about the necessity of imposing limits and responsibilities to the handling of money deposits on banks which cannot allow the luxury of “bankrupting”. They know that medium reader has not much time, or sometimes even cultural conditions, to distinguish with absolute certainty right from wrong.
This article’s title talks about “grave digger”. Could be an exaggeration? Let’s see.
Socialism supports the wonderful ideal of promoting solidarity, enlarged planning, and equality among human beings. The problem is that behind the theoretical and sincere intention of most idealists, some of them murdered by tough realistic ones, also existing, perhaps mixed with the equalitarian ideal, the purest selfishness and power sickness of the “boss”, Stalin, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez, etc. and their minor partners in their power enjoyment. This group, due to an impressing “coincidence” “do not leave the sugary”, sorry for the expression, used only because of its force. When strong opposition exists, brutal repression becomes almost inevitable against those who think differently and oppose to the lifetime staying of the “leader”.
The one that is occupying the “democratic throne” knows that if he would leave power and stay in the country could be assassinated. The dictator of the left, or even the one of the right, concludes that there is no “healthy” back path. The eagerness for revenge observes him at each corner. Maintain himself as lifetime dictator becomes, after some years on office, kind of legitimate body self-defense.
The basic failure of “real Socialism” is in restraining citizens’ creativity which all together, summing up individual intelligences, can see better and farther than a bunch of autocrats. Even if among these exist brilliant minds, they suffocate some own ideas, pretty good ones…, because they fear to arise the jealousy of the “big boss”. He will not approve the contrast between his mediocrity and the special intelligence of some subordinates who can ambition his place.
In summary, only a really democratic Socialism, but responsible, with free initiative stimulus, will allow future generations the union of entrepreneurs creativity anxious for some security or protection that saturates all citizens souls. They want the State to take care of them from birth to death, since they work well and obey the laws enforced from their representatives. I do not feel anything wrong on it. Wrong is the State ignoring the necessity of security in unemployment, old age and illness for all hand or intellectual laborers.
With Capitalism, the spontaneous individual creativity even originated at mean greed, or wished of having and being better than the neighbor, meets a favorable field to generate richness which can benefit all, even if this benefit is not in the beginning plans of the “selfish”. The general benefit, though unintentional is a useful collateral effect that justifies the maintenance of Capitalist system. This happens because generates jobs and taxes. But, the legislation must impose limits to human being’s greed, a powerful psychological force, ubiquitous and useful, since being watched or maintained under the limits, as happens with all forces being of any type. If it would not be controlled, apparently, as the IIF intends, it is feared and demoralized. That’s why, the word “grave digger” was used.
By the way, one of the smartest inventions of Capitalism was the creation of the “corporate entity”, namely corporation, a legal fiction at the same time useful and “smart” as it allows the intelligent and balanced entrepreneur to earn unlimitedly when his company has earnings and to loose in a moderate way when there are losses, unless the stockholder would be very careless investing all his money in stocks of the only company which did not work.
When a corporation goes bankrupt, bankrupt is the company, the partnership, the abstract entity, not flesh and blood. The stockholders never become “bankrupt”. Only the bankrupt entity’s properties, when something remains, are seized and sold, for the profit of creditors. The alert, precautious stockholder when previews that the company is going to bankruptcy sells his stocks and does not loose or loose less. Anyhow, his personal status is not affected by the bankruptcy. When the company has earnings, these earnings totally go to stockholders, of course, discounting the taxes that everybody has to pay, rich or poor. In the case of large banks which gave origin to the present situation, one might ask, it was by chance examined if CEOs were much affected by bankruptcy in terms of patrimony?
Such elementary notions, well-known by the reader, are remembered here to stress that judicial world already allows this great privilege of allowing unlimited earnings when the corporation has no problems or minimum losses, or even none, at the moment of business liquidation. And now they want the growth of the irresponsible bonuses?
Ralph Byron Perry, a famous American philosopher, dead in 1957, president of the American Association of Philosophy and Pulitzer prize holder for Biographies and Autobiographies, objectively defined where is the legitimacy for moral support to Capitalism. He said in other words that the fundamental idea of modern Capitalism is not only on the individual right of owning and enjoying what he earned, but on the thesis that exercising this right benefits everybody.
In the case of bankers who rushed to receive high bonuses, before their policies correctness were verified, there were not of general benefit. And now, they want us to allow them to once again go ahead. Another crisis like this and Socialism will feel recovered from the economical failure of the Soviet Union. Therefore, the “grave diggers” of the title, is a relevant qualification. Unless they prove, in a great trial, not necessarily judiciary, that they were victims of fate, an apparently impossible mission. A good criterion to know if there were acting in bad faith or frivolously when verifying this little detail: when crisis became clear, top executives, who earned the bonuses, lost money at the bank they administrated? If they lost plenty, they have acted on good faith. If they would not have lost anything or very little, they deserved to receive an economical punishment.
However, it is not all lost defending, when brightly, Capitalism. The German magazine “Der Spiegel” published an interview with Dominique Strauss-Kahn, managing director of , IMF, that appeared in the “O Estado de São Paulo” newspaper on September15, 2009, B3, where the experienced economist contests Goldman Sachs executive director’s arguments after the crisis. The banker would have said that the “crisis” was inevitable; a “perfect storm” there weren’t any ways to protect from it. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, an expert on the topic, disagreed: “It is a mistaken metaphor. Human society is not a force of Nature. The financial crisis was a catastrophic event, but an event created by human action. The lesson which all of us must learn is that even an economy needs some kind of regulation, on the contrary, its functioning is compromised”.
As can be seen, the opinion of some grave diggers of the system itself can be neutralized by bright minds that can, in this case an obstinacy of Nature, be at any place, even in the polemic International Monetary Fund so many times in the past, attacked by us, Brazilians.
09/18/2009
In other words, according to him, “no moralist behavior” because “war is war”, “ the squeaky wheel gets the grease”, “finance is a subject for real males”, “ without competence one cannot settle”.
What happens is that, when things go wrong and boat begins to sink, those fearless supporters of the slogan “only a competent person can survive”, they are not ashamed of crying, run to government’s “mother lap”, asking for a help of trillions of dollars. This money at the end will come from idiot contributors’ patrimony. But, not as could be right, from the patrimony of those hasty executives, not so “competent” as demonstrated, and who enriched with the generous bonuses self given before the facts demonstrated that they were right on loan policy.
Why did they have the courage to risk? Because they knew that if something would get wrong, government could not deny the “safeguarding” loans and donations. On the contrary, it would happen a collapse with unimaginable consequences, demoralizing banking system and, consequently, all the rest of American economy, reflecting internationally. Authentic blackmailing, with chances of succeeding, as really happened.
However, after reaching the top of tidal wave, loaded, “risk” supporters (in theory), they attack once more, arrogantly, pleading that government does not have to be concerned with this story of risks of bank loans and bonus immediately paid to executives. That’s why the mentioned speech of the managing director of the Institute of International Finance is understandable, because each representative from any group feels the necessity of “call to his side or to himself” for his peers benefit. The problem is that, in the case of being analyzed, financial power behind IIF is so, that many heads, in the political and media areas, will hurry, as is happening, to launch doubts to the public about the necessity of imposing limits and responsibilities to the handling of money deposits on banks which cannot allow the luxury of “bankrupting”. They know that medium reader has not much time, or sometimes even cultural conditions, to distinguish with absolute certainty right from wrong.
This article’s title talks about “grave digger”. Could be an exaggeration? Let’s see.
Socialism supports the wonderful ideal of promoting solidarity, enlarged planning, and equality among human beings. The problem is that behind the theoretical and sincere intention of most idealists, some of them murdered by tough realistic ones, also existing, perhaps mixed with the equalitarian ideal, the purest selfishness and power sickness of the “boss”, Stalin, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez, etc. and their minor partners in their power enjoyment. This group, due to an impressing “coincidence” “do not leave the sugary”, sorry for the expression, used only because of its force. When strong opposition exists, brutal repression becomes almost inevitable against those who think differently and oppose to the lifetime staying of the “leader”.
The one that is occupying the “democratic throne” knows that if he would leave power and stay in the country could be assassinated. The dictator of the left, or even the one of the right, concludes that there is no “healthy” back path. The eagerness for revenge observes him at each corner. Maintain himself as lifetime dictator becomes, after some years on office, kind of legitimate body self-defense.
The basic failure of “real Socialism” is in restraining citizens’ creativity which all together, summing up individual intelligences, can see better and farther than a bunch of autocrats. Even if among these exist brilliant minds, they suffocate some own ideas, pretty good ones…, because they fear to arise the jealousy of the “big boss”. He will not approve the contrast between his mediocrity and the special intelligence of some subordinates who can ambition his place.
In summary, only a really democratic Socialism, but responsible, with free initiative stimulus, will allow future generations the union of entrepreneurs creativity anxious for some security or protection that saturates all citizens souls. They want the State to take care of them from birth to death, since they work well and obey the laws enforced from their representatives. I do not feel anything wrong on it. Wrong is the State ignoring the necessity of security in unemployment, old age and illness for all hand or intellectual laborers.
With Capitalism, the spontaneous individual creativity even originated at mean greed, or wished of having and being better than the neighbor, meets a favorable field to generate richness which can benefit all, even if this benefit is not in the beginning plans of the “selfish”. The general benefit, though unintentional is a useful collateral effect that justifies the maintenance of Capitalist system. This happens because generates jobs and taxes. But, the legislation must impose limits to human being’s greed, a powerful psychological force, ubiquitous and useful, since being watched or maintained under the limits, as happens with all forces being of any type. If it would not be controlled, apparently, as the IIF intends, it is feared and demoralized. That’s why, the word “grave digger” was used.
By the way, one of the smartest inventions of Capitalism was the creation of the “corporate entity”, namely corporation, a legal fiction at the same time useful and “smart” as it allows the intelligent and balanced entrepreneur to earn unlimitedly when his company has earnings and to loose in a moderate way when there are losses, unless the stockholder would be very careless investing all his money in stocks of the only company which did not work.
When a corporation goes bankrupt, bankrupt is the company, the partnership, the abstract entity, not flesh and blood. The stockholders never become “bankrupt”. Only the bankrupt entity’s properties, when something remains, are seized and sold, for the profit of creditors. The alert, precautious stockholder when previews that the company is going to bankruptcy sells his stocks and does not loose or loose less. Anyhow, his personal status is not affected by the bankruptcy. When the company has earnings, these earnings totally go to stockholders, of course, discounting the taxes that everybody has to pay, rich or poor. In the case of large banks which gave origin to the present situation, one might ask, it was by chance examined if CEOs were much affected by bankruptcy in terms of patrimony?
Such elementary notions, well-known by the reader, are remembered here to stress that judicial world already allows this great privilege of allowing unlimited earnings when the corporation has no problems or minimum losses, or even none, at the moment of business liquidation. And now they want the growth of the irresponsible bonuses?
Ralph Byron Perry, a famous American philosopher, dead in 1957, president of the American Association of Philosophy and Pulitzer prize holder for Biographies and Autobiographies, objectively defined where is the legitimacy for moral support to Capitalism. He said in other words that the fundamental idea of modern Capitalism is not only on the individual right of owning and enjoying what he earned, but on the thesis that exercising this right benefits everybody.
In the case of bankers who rushed to receive high bonuses, before their policies correctness were verified, there were not of general benefit. And now, they want us to allow them to once again go ahead. Another crisis like this and Socialism will feel recovered from the economical failure of the Soviet Union. Therefore, the “grave diggers” of the title, is a relevant qualification. Unless they prove, in a great trial, not necessarily judiciary, that they were victims of fate, an apparently impossible mission. A good criterion to know if there were acting in bad faith or frivolously when verifying this little detail: when crisis became clear, top executives, who earned the bonuses, lost money at the bank they administrated? If they lost plenty, they have acted on good faith. If they would not have lost anything or very little, they deserved to receive an economical punishment.
However, it is not all lost defending, when brightly, Capitalism. The German magazine “Der Spiegel” published an interview with Dominique Strauss-Kahn, managing director of , IMF, that appeared in the “O Estado de São Paulo” newspaper on September15, 2009, B3, where the experienced economist contests Goldman Sachs executive director’s arguments after the crisis. The banker would have said that the “crisis” was inevitable; a “perfect storm” there weren’t any ways to protect from it. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, an expert on the topic, disagreed: “It is a mistaken metaphor. Human society is not a force of Nature. The financial crisis was a catastrophic event, but an event created by human action. The lesson which all of us must learn is that even an economy needs some kind of regulation, on the contrary, its functioning is compromised”.
As can be seen, the opinion of some grave diggers of the system itself can be neutralized by bright minds that can, in this case an obstinacy of Nature, be at any place, even in the polemic International Monetary Fund so many times in the past, attacked by us, Brazilians.
09/18/2009
Wouldn’t the equivalent of a Brazilian “Sorbonne” be useful?
(Word 2003)
Our esteemed President Lula intends to acquire 36 Rafale fighter aircraft, 4 submarines, the hull (how?!) of a nuclear submarine and 50 helicopters, besides other associated items. By all accounts, total spending amounts to 12 billion euros. For the time being. Costs to be paid by future governments. Just what is happening with Brazil?
In all certainty, many Brazilians - or even foreigners - feel perplexed, asking themselves what is the possible explanation of such bellicose concern (far from modest) when there are so many non-military and urgent needs that have not yet been addressed. Could it be that this is the inevitable result of some kind of “thinking big”? Is it to protect us when the “pre-salt” is closer to becoming concrete wealth from which it is possible to reap benefits?
It is difficult to reply with certainty, given that I lack specialized information in this field. For a long time, the Brazilian armed forces - which need to be valued as they are really comprised of people who are capacitated, patriotic and underpaid - have been insisting on the need for modernizing our means of defense, currently almost reduced to scrap. If the defenseless and ill-policed Amazon region were not enough, a black goldmine - the pre-salt - has now appeared on the horizon. This something new that will result in our country being seen in a new light, as in the case of other countries with significant oil reserves. If Iran, Iraq and Libya were only rich in rocks and sand, with no oil, they would not have appeared in international news with the same polemic intensity.
In summary, we should give a vote of confidence in the common sense of our Armed Forces and the President of the Republic regarding the need for so much spending on defense. If in doubt, pro-government. There being, as promised, effective technology transfer, our engineers and technicians will learn - in practice and not just from books - how to penetrate the complicated secrets of a technology that has always been too distant from developing countries. Besides this, jobs will be created. Our country appears to be taking its first steps towards becoming a great power. Let it be so; however, it is to be hoped that Brazil continues to maintain it current pacifist aura.
A possible undesirable side effect of the acquisition of these modern arms - in such quantity - is that of providing an incentive for an arms race in South America. In fact, this has already been initiated by Hugo Chaves, with a treasury full of oil money and constantly worried about a non-existent or remote real American threat. In addition, some more competitive Argentines will certainly come to put pressure on the government in Buenos Aires in order to not be left behind, also purchasing aircraft and submarines. Those who, in theory, may come to suffer indirectly from this policy are the poorest sectors of both countries, in the event that the jobs created do not compensate for such high spending.
With a view to compensating for this apparent “warlike spirit” of our president (only apparent, as Lula is patient, does not lose his temper easily and is a diplomat by temperament), I would like to take the liberty of suggesting to Your Excellency, or the next president, whoever he or she may be, an idea which would not involve such significant expense and would neutralize the somewhat bellicose aspect of the acquisition in progress (although no contract has as yet been signed). Once transformed into reality, this “idea” would give a great deal of impetus to establishing the presence of Brazil on the international stage, in a rare combination of events so favorable to my country.
I refer to the creation of a kind of Brazilian “Sorbonne”, so to speak. With another name, of course. An International Relations and Law study center that would not only be a “first” in the Southern Hemisphere, but which could have an “edge” over its equivalents in the Northern Hemisphere (Sorbonne, Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard and wherever there are similar study centers). For example, in Tokyo there is a center that prepares young people for working at the UN - something that we do not have here in South America.
What would this “edge” be? A greater emphasis on well-founded studies and suggestions for remediating, to the greatest possible extent, current deficiencies in international justice and the actual United Nations Organization.
In respectable circles, there are thoughts, and not only at the present time, of reforming the UN. Perhaps a contingent of “new blood” - not actual blood, spilt in battles and terrorism - composed of Brazilians and South-Americans - can help to convince the world that current Public International Law has already become a little outdated and, for this reason, needs to be rejuvenated. There is no lack of examples of this lack of modernization of international norms: uncontrolled immigration of the destitute from Africa and Eastern Europe, forcing the European Union to close borders, giving rise to racism of economic origin; Jews and Palestinians who cannot manage to come to an agreement, meaning that an international decision is desirable - “coming from outside”. It should be remembered that, as a Palestinian State does not exist, they cannot bring proceedings against Israel at the International Court of Justice. This court, which unites the world’s best judicial minds, has its hands tied, as its judges cannot alter its statutes, established based on political criteria by the UN. In addition, it would not look good, morally, if its magistrates, after being nominated, came to claim greater decision making powers.
This evident international legal inadequacy encourages, for example, some bad Israeli politicians (the good ones, being more discerning, have not yet managed to attain positions of power) to create obstacles in peace negotiations with the Palestinians, tolerating amplification of settlements. Besides this, even if a Palestinian State does come to be created, proceedings can only be brought against countries at the International Court if they have agreed to this. Knowing that they are not in the right, they obviously do not agree. How, in legal terms, is something so grotesque still permissible in a century so advanced in learning?
Another issue that is evidence of a need for changes in the existing model of international justice is that regarding the current prohibition of advances in nuclear knowledge in the case of certain states, whereas others are not subject to any restrictions. The USA, France, England, Russia, China, India and Pakistan openly admit to possessing nuclear arms and could, in all certainty, augment their destructive power. In the case of Israel, everyone knows that it is in possession of nuclear arms, but the Israelis do not confirm or deny this and they do not allow inspectors to enter the country to investigate the situation. It is simply inferred that Israel is in possession of “the bomb”, allegedly as a means of protecting itself from Arab resentment. It is clearly stated that, if the western world does not act against Iran, Israel will conduct the necessary aerial attacks, according to its own particular understanding of the situation. And it is easy to imagine what could result from “preventive strikes”, without the prior authorization of international justice.
The Security Council demands that North Korea and Iran not only be prohibited from manufacturing atomic weapons, but also that they open up their nuclear facilities to international agency inspections, in order to accompany the way in which the technology used is evolving, and with a view to ensuring that they do not manufacture - now or ever - “elementary” atomic bombs which, much more advanced, can be stockpiled in their hundreds or thousands in the arsenals of great powers. Such countries, quite rightly, feel that they are the victims of a double standard. They think: “It is only us that do not have the right to fear the possibility of aggression?” Because the principal underlying reason or excuse for possession of nuclear weapons lies in the need for defense.
Kenneth Waltz, a highly respected “neorealist” professor at the University of Columbia, USA, says that “the world exists in a perpetual state of international anarchy”. Without a “central enforcer”, means that states must act in a way that ensures their security above all, or else risk falling behind. “This is a fundamental fact of political life faced by democracies and dictatorships alike: except in rare cases, they cannot count on the good will of others to help them, so they must always be ready to fend for themselves”. In summary, in the case of the Iranians and North Koreans, it is difficult to understand why they are prohibited to do what others, who are stronger, do without any kind of hesitancy. If nuclear proliferation is unadvisable, which it obviously is, it becomes necessary to create international mechanisms that provide absolute security for weaker countries, even though they may make a verbal show of force. Such total security still does not exist and is something that needs to be thought about. Perhaps in greater depth at the possible Brazilian “Sorbonne”.
This article would become too long if one continued to expose all the weak points of our international regulation. To give another example, the World Trade Organization cannot manage to prevent the USA and France from protecting their farmers. Commercial “reprisals” (or what other name they may have) could be taken, but everything requires a lot of time, in a highly changeable market. For its part, accepting a denouncement, the International Criminal Court ordered that the president of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, be apprehended in view of an accusation of several massacres. However, it is unlikely that such an order will be fulfilled, given that he has the support of neighboring countries. If, eventually, the ICC authorizes a “commando” operation (perhaps not established in the Court statute) in order to kidnap the accused, it is difficult to foresee what would happen afterwards, with a possible terrorist “reprisal” by his followers. The current impasse will likely end up in cancellation of the arrest order, with a view to preserving the prestige of an institution that could still come to represent an immense and effective advance in global criminal justice. Another case: Cesare Battisti is currently a thorn in the side of the Brazilian justice system. There is a subjective margin for completely opposite interpretations.
The “edge” over its equivalents of the Brazilian “Sorbonne” suggested above, would be that of studying, in greater depth, possible and necessary modifications regarding international justice, obviously without neglecting the usual curriculum of subjects studied at the University of Paris and other centers. This “home-grown Sorbonne” (so to speak) will not have any political connotation of the “leftist” kind or opposition to currently existing universities established for the same purpose. It will be just one more university teaching International Law and Relations, although the first, as I have already said, in the Southern Hemisphere.
Another, practical, objective of the Brazilian “Sorbonne” would be that of allowing not only Brazilians, but also other South Americans (especially the sons and daughters of more modest families) to acquire preparation, without having to live in more distant countries, that enables them to work at the UN headquarters, its agencies and in various international agencies.
Some will say that several Brazilian universities have professors of International Law who are versed in, for example, North American Law as well as or even better than many attorneys in that country, the same occurring with respect to International Law.
This cannot be denied. However, such professors, or attorneys, are knowledgeable in International Law in Portuguese. This makes a difference, as Portuguese is not the language officially used at the UN. When and if it does become the official language, it will be less necessary to have an understanding of new languages. In Spanish-speaking countries, there are moves with respect to also making Spanish an official language at UN level. If the most competent monolingual Brazilian professor in International Law wishes to orally defend the interests of a client at international courts, he will have to delegate his mandate to a foreign colleague who speaks English or French fluently.
In the case of those who wish to work at the International Red Cross, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, UN Headquarters, etc, it is not enough to present oneself with in-depth knowledge - solely in Portuguese - of the necessary topics.
Hence the need for the suggested Brazilian “Sorbonne” to also hold its classes in English and/or French. Besides this, ordinary “tourist-level” English is not sufficient to work abroad in really important centers.
Some may say: “If the language is so necessary, it would be easier and more practical for the father of the student to send his son or daughter to study in Europe or the USA”. It may be practical, but it is not always easy in economic terms. More wealthy families already do this, and are likely to continue, given that it is possible to learn the language more quickly. However, more modest families cannot give themselves the luxury of this option, due to a scarcity of financial resources. Private universities are costly and there are the problems of accommodation and sundry expenses. Promising talents lose the opportunity of projecting the image of Brazil abroad, for reasons associated with a lack of family resources.
The Brazilian “Sorbonne” could invite several foreign lecturers of particular prestige in order to give classes, which would be recorded and made into DVDs (with payment of copyright fees) and subsequently used to accustom the “ear” of students to understanding that which they perhaps already know in Portuguese. Perhaps it would be advantageous to first attend the class in Portuguese “live”, given by Brazilian lecturers, and then listen to the “English or French version” of the same topic, with the lecturer present to “pause” the DVD when necessary in order to explain, in Portuguese, anything that has not been well understood.
As this article is only an exemplification of what the Brazilian “Sorbonne” could come to be, I will not go further into the matter.
Let’s see whether the government, or some educational entrepreneur of greater vision, reacts to this suggestion, which could not be outlined in greater detail for reasons of space.
(21-9-09)
Our esteemed President Lula intends to acquire 36 Rafale fighter aircraft, 4 submarines, the hull (how?!) of a nuclear submarine and 50 helicopters, besides other associated items. By all accounts, total spending amounts to 12 billion euros. For the time being. Costs to be paid by future governments. Just what is happening with Brazil?
In all certainty, many Brazilians - or even foreigners - feel perplexed, asking themselves what is the possible explanation of such bellicose concern (far from modest) when there are so many non-military and urgent needs that have not yet been addressed. Could it be that this is the inevitable result of some kind of “thinking big”? Is it to protect us when the “pre-salt” is closer to becoming concrete wealth from which it is possible to reap benefits?
It is difficult to reply with certainty, given that I lack specialized information in this field. For a long time, the Brazilian armed forces - which need to be valued as they are really comprised of people who are capacitated, patriotic and underpaid - have been insisting on the need for modernizing our means of defense, currently almost reduced to scrap. If the defenseless and ill-policed Amazon region were not enough, a black goldmine - the pre-salt - has now appeared on the horizon. This something new that will result in our country being seen in a new light, as in the case of other countries with significant oil reserves. If Iran, Iraq and Libya were only rich in rocks and sand, with no oil, they would not have appeared in international news with the same polemic intensity.
In summary, we should give a vote of confidence in the common sense of our Armed Forces and the President of the Republic regarding the need for so much spending on defense. If in doubt, pro-government. There being, as promised, effective technology transfer, our engineers and technicians will learn - in practice and not just from books - how to penetrate the complicated secrets of a technology that has always been too distant from developing countries. Besides this, jobs will be created. Our country appears to be taking its first steps towards becoming a great power. Let it be so; however, it is to be hoped that Brazil continues to maintain it current pacifist aura.
A possible undesirable side effect of the acquisition of these modern arms - in such quantity - is that of providing an incentive for an arms race in South America. In fact, this has already been initiated by Hugo Chaves, with a treasury full of oil money and constantly worried about a non-existent or remote real American threat. In addition, some more competitive Argentines will certainly come to put pressure on the government in Buenos Aires in order to not be left behind, also purchasing aircraft and submarines. Those who, in theory, may come to suffer indirectly from this policy are the poorest sectors of both countries, in the event that the jobs created do not compensate for such high spending.
With a view to compensating for this apparent “warlike spirit” of our president (only apparent, as Lula is patient, does not lose his temper easily and is a diplomat by temperament), I would like to take the liberty of suggesting to Your Excellency, or the next president, whoever he or she may be, an idea which would not involve such significant expense and would neutralize the somewhat bellicose aspect of the acquisition in progress (although no contract has as yet been signed). Once transformed into reality, this “idea” would give a great deal of impetus to establishing the presence of Brazil on the international stage, in a rare combination of events so favorable to my country.
I refer to the creation of a kind of Brazilian “Sorbonne”, so to speak. With another name, of course. An International Relations and Law study center that would not only be a “first” in the Southern Hemisphere, but which could have an “edge” over its equivalents in the Northern Hemisphere (Sorbonne, Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard and wherever there are similar study centers). For example, in Tokyo there is a center that prepares young people for working at the UN - something that we do not have here in South America.
What would this “edge” be? A greater emphasis on well-founded studies and suggestions for remediating, to the greatest possible extent, current deficiencies in international justice and the actual United Nations Organization.
In respectable circles, there are thoughts, and not only at the present time, of reforming the UN. Perhaps a contingent of “new blood” - not actual blood, spilt in battles and terrorism - composed of Brazilians and South-Americans - can help to convince the world that current Public International Law has already become a little outdated and, for this reason, needs to be rejuvenated. There is no lack of examples of this lack of modernization of international norms: uncontrolled immigration of the destitute from Africa and Eastern Europe, forcing the European Union to close borders, giving rise to racism of economic origin; Jews and Palestinians who cannot manage to come to an agreement, meaning that an international decision is desirable - “coming from outside”. It should be remembered that, as a Palestinian State does not exist, they cannot bring proceedings against Israel at the International Court of Justice. This court, which unites the world’s best judicial minds, has its hands tied, as its judges cannot alter its statutes, established based on political criteria by the UN. In addition, it would not look good, morally, if its magistrates, after being nominated, came to claim greater decision making powers.
This evident international legal inadequacy encourages, for example, some bad Israeli politicians (the good ones, being more discerning, have not yet managed to attain positions of power) to create obstacles in peace negotiations with the Palestinians, tolerating amplification of settlements. Besides this, even if a Palestinian State does come to be created, proceedings can only be brought against countries at the International Court if they have agreed to this. Knowing that they are not in the right, they obviously do not agree. How, in legal terms, is something so grotesque still permissible in a century so advanced in learning?
Another issue that is evidence of a need for changes in the existing model of international justice is that regarding the current prohibition of advances in nuclear knowledge in the case of certain states, whereas others are not subject to any restrictions. The USA, France, England, Russia, China, India and Pakistan openly admit to possessing nuclear arms and could, in all certainty, augment their destructive power. In the case of Israel, everyone knows that it is in possession of nuclear arms, but the Israelis do not confirm or deny this and they do not allow inspectors to enter the country to investigate the situation. It is simply inferred that Israel is in possession of “the bomb”, allegedly as a means of protecting itself from Arab resentment. It is clearly stated that, if the western world does not act against Iran, Israel will conduct the necessary aerial attacks, according to its own particular understanding of the situation. And it is easy to imagine what could result from “preventive strikes”, without the prior authorization of international justice.
The Security Council demands that North Korea and Iran not only be prohibited from manufacturing atomic weapons, but also that they open up their nuclear facilities to international agency inspections, in order to accompany the way in which the technology used is evolving, and with a view to ensuring that they do not manufacture - now or ever - “elementary” atomic bombs which, much more advanced, can be stockpiled in their hundreds or thousands in the arsenals of great powers. Such countries, quite rightly, feel that they are the victims of a double standard. They think: “It is only us that do not have the right to fear the possibility of aggression?” Because the principal underlying reason or excuse for possession of nuclear weapons lies in the need for defense.
Kenneth Waltz, a highly respected “neorealist” professor at the University of Columbia, USA, says that “the world exists in a perpetual state of international anarchy”. Without a “central enforcer”, means that states must act in a way that ensures their security above all, or else risk falling behind. “This is a fundamental fact of political life faced by democracies and dictatorships alike: except in rare cases, they cannot count on the good will of others to help them, so they must always be ready to fend for themselves”. In summary, in the case of the Iranians and North Koreans, it is difficult to understand why they are prohibited to do what others, who are stronger, do without any kind of hesitancy. If nuclear proliferation is unadvisable, which it obviously is, it becomes necessary to create international mechanisms that provide absolute security for weaker countries, even though they may make a verbal show of force. Such total security still does not exist and is something that needs to be thought about. Perhaps in greater depth at the possible Brazilian “Sorbonne”.
This article would become too long if one continued to expose all the weak points of our international regulation. To give another example, the World Trade Organization cannot manage to prevent the USA and France from protecting their farmers. Commercial “reprisals” (or what other name they may have) could be taken, but everything requires a lot of time, in a highly changeable market. For its part, accepting a denouncement, the International Criminal Court ordered that the president of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, be apprehended in view of an accusation of several massacres. However, it is unlikely that such an order will be fulfilled, given that he has the support of neighboring countries. If, eventually, the ICC authorizes a “commando” operation (perhaps not established in the Court statute) in order to kidnap the accused, it is difficult to foresee what would happen afterwards, with a possible terrorist “reprisal” by his followers. The current impasse will likely end up in cancellation of the arrest order, with a view to preserving the prestige of an institution that could still come to represent an immense and effective advance in global criminal justice. Another case: Cesare Battisti is currently a thorn in the side of the Brazilian justice system. There is a subjective margin for completely opposite interpretations.
The “edge” over its equivalents of the Brazilian “Sorbonne” suggested above, would be that of studying, in greater depth, possible and necessary modifications regarding international justice, obviously without neglecting the usual curriculum of subjects studied at the University of Paris and other centers. This “home-grown Sorbonne” (so to speak) will not have any political connotation of the “leftist” kind or opposition to currently existing universities established for the same purpose. It will be just one more university teaching International Law and Relations, although the first, as I have already said, in the Southern Hemisphere.
Another, practical, objective of the Brazilian “Sorbonne” would be that of allowing not only Brazilians, but also other South Americans (especially the sons and daughters of more modest families) to acquire preparation, without having to live in more distant countries, that enables them to work at the UN headquarters, its agencies and in various international agencies.
Some will say that several Brazilian universities have professors of International Law who are versed in, for example, North American Law as well as or even better than many attorneys in that country, the same occurring with respect to International Law.
This cannot be denied. However, such professors, or attorneys, are knowledgeable in International Law in Portuguese. This makes a difference, as Portuguese is not the language officially used at the UN. When and if it does become the official language, it will be less necessary to have an understanding of new languages. In Spanish-speaking countries, there are moves with respect to also making Spanish an official language at UN level. If the most competent monolingual Brazilian professor in International Law wishes to orally defend the interests of a client at international courts, he will have to delegate his mandate to a foreign colleague who speaks English or French fluently.
In the case of those who wish to work at the International Red Cross, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, UN Headquarters, etc, it is not enough to present oneself with in-depth knowledge - solely in Portuguese - of the necessary topics.
Hence the need for the suggested Brazilian “Sorbonne” to also hold its classes in English and/or French. Besides this, ordinary “tourist-level” English is not sufficient to work abroad in really important centers.
Some may say: “If the language is so necessary, it would be easier and more practical for the father of the student to send his son or daughter to study in Europe or the USA”. It may be practical, but it is not always easy in economic terms. More wealthy families already do this, and are likely to continue, given that it is possible to learn the language more quickly. However, more modest families cannot give themselves the luxury of this option, due to a scarcity of financial resources. Private universities are costly and there are the problems of accommodation and sundry expenses. Promising talents lose the opportunity of projecting the image of Brazil abroad, for reasons associated with a lack of family resources.
The Brazilian “Sorbonne” could invite several foreign lecturers of particular prestige in order to give classes, which would be recorded and made into DVDs (with payment of copyright fees) and subsequently used to accustom the “ear” of students to understanding that which they perhaps already know in Portuguese. Perhaps it would be advantageous to first attend the class in Portuguese “live”, given by Brazilian lecturers, and then listen to the “English or French version” of the same topic, with the lecturer present to “pause” the DVD when necessary in order to explain, in Portuguese, anything that has not been well understood.
As this article is only an exemplification of what the Brazilian “Sorbonne” could come to be, I will not go further into the matter.
Let’s see whether the government, or some educational entrepreneur of greater vision, reacts to this suggestion, which could not be outlined in greater detail for reasons of space.
(21-9-09)
Thursday, August 20, 2009
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)
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)