Traditional wisdom recommends that one should not discuss, compare, prognosticate and much less criticize - this would be the horror of horrors! - such topics as religion, politics and even football. Principally religion, a veritable minefield in which it is possible to lose more than one’s legs... -, suitable for the formation of legions showing outrage against any kind of minimal critical remark - “Be careful what you say, brother!”
Despite the risk, how is it possible to deny the immense influence of religious beliefs on the life of entire peoples? How many millions have already died and are yet to perish - perhaps incinerated by nuclear weapons -, not by natural causes, but as a closely associated or remote consequence of philosophies or proselytisms arising from texts perceived as scared? In the as yet insoluble Arab-Jewish conflict in Palestine, there is more than a little latent religious content in this impasse. One of the parties involved, or both - objections shift around like the sands of the desert, blown by politicians - believe that the sanctity of Jerusalem cannot be divided and humanity has not yet advanced sufficiently to impose an “external” ruling, made by an international court of justice, as would be both logical and natural when two parties are unable to reach an agreement.
For thousands of years, mental clouds charged with electricity have hung over the heads of humans magnetized by supposedly logical and moral religious convictions, suggesting that the “enemies of our faith, for reasons of being absurdly ‘wrong’, should be excluded from the roll of the living”. Such elimination would only involve “moral prophylaxis”. For those obsessed in this way, it would be a sin, a crime and cowardice to come to terms with the “error” and its consequent “evil”.
From the outset, I am removing football from the scope of this text concerning dominating passions, this being a sport that, to my perplexity, is capable of leading individuals - well-balanced in all other respects - to tears, heart attacks, the ecstasy of victory, incendiary vandalism, skull fractures and even homicide. All this, amazingly, when the team of the exuberant supporter loses, wins or even draws; in joy or sadness, it does not matter which. The gluttonous “devil”, in the guise of a ball, does not choose situations. He only wants to crazily cackle with laughter, with a delirious gaze, using human blows and kicks, preferably in the midst of cars in flames, his natural habitat. This is further proof that so-called civilized man has not managed to free himself from his more ancestral instincts, including the desire to be admired for acts of violence.
With regard to religions, always impregnated with strong emotions - although of a different nature, being theoretically focused on good rather than evil - there are those that are more and less serene. More and less concerned with the financial returns of preaching. A concern that is based - sometimes to an exaggerated extent - on the practical need for cash in order to spread beliefs that will resolve all the health, financial and even love problems of their followers.
Leaving aside sporadic individual cases of abuse by those spreading the faith - most adherents are sincere and well-intentioned -, it is an undeniable fact that, for thousands of years, man has felt the need for an infinitely intelligent, ubiquitous, powerful, generous, understanding, just and instantly accessible protector - via prayer -, without the well-known bureaucratic middlemen that torment those that ask somebody, a government or company for something. Whoever has faith converses directly with their god, without risk of phone tapping and demands as to whether they have done their homework.
From this viewpoint, of spiritual support, faith is irreplaceable, regardless of its authentic correspondence with scientific reality. Self-help that comforts us and provides something of extremely great value: hope. How is it possible, one may ask, to pitilessly wrench the only piece of wood from the grasp of the desperate shipwreck victim that prevents him from drowning in his own anguish? How is it possible to tell the father of the child with cancer, the mature unemployed professional, or the elderly person with the initial symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease, that it is better to put aside all illusions and face harsh reality: the death of the child, permanent unemployment and the insanity of the old person? Furthermore, don’t forget that all religions worthy of the name are stamped with a moral code that has been or still is useful to humanity.
As the great Brazilian jurist Rui Barbosa once said, the criminal code deals with public crimes, whereas religion takes care of private crimes. I presume that, on average, the Italian Mafioso - with some remnant of the Christianity infused into his soul when a child - is less perverse than the Russian gangster, or Japanese Yakuza member, raised from the cradle with strictly materialistic views. The mortally wounded Mafioso, lying in a pool of blood and feeling his life ebbing away, likely fears some kind of final judgment. Perhaps he even prays. Professional Russian and Japanese convicts, convinced that they are nothing more than organized flesh and blood, are only sorry that they will not continue to live.
Sincerely religious people, as long as they are peaceful and tolerant - if they were not so, they would be more likely to be soldiers, guerrillas or terrorists - should not, ever, be intellectually attacked or despised for being as such, even when there is an ingenuous basis for their faith. The reason for this is that an authentic believer, even if illiterate, reveals - simply by believing in God - , something morally precious: the spirit of justice. — “How is it possible”, the authentic believer asks himself, “for there to not be a God, when it can be seen that some evil and deceitful people go through life solely taking advantage and abusing, whereas millions of others only suffer, carrying the crosses of poverty, ignorance, disease, misfortune and injustices of all kinds? It would be unjust, ‘illogical’, for there not to be a final judgment, with punishment or reward, according to the past of each individual”. He is revolted by the mere possibility that both the good and the bad have the same appalling end: nothingness!
Confronted by arguments of this type, agnostics reply that logic, science and harsh reality have nothing to do with aspirations of justice. Technically, I agree. Facts are facts; however, compassion - elephants have been filmed making hopeless and desperate efforts to free a female with a leg accidentally caught in a suspended tire - is an immensely useful quality for the preservation and spiritual comfort of the human race. As somebody once said, a starving person does not need to know about the scientific phenomenon of digestion in order to satisfy his hunger. The ordinary person is much more interested in happiness - his own and that of his family -, than an in-depth knowledge of science, accessible to a microscopic minority. According to yesterday’s newspaper (“Estadão, page A17), the BBC in London stated that, in 2009, 32,000 people committed suicide in Japan. And the level of culture of the Japanese is one of the highest. If there is no error in the aforementioned number, we tacitly accept that it represents too many people tortured by a lack of perspective. A higher level of general and scientific culture did not save them from voluntary death.
Currently, certain North-American authors make a great deal of effort to demonstrate that God does not exist. From a logical point of view, their argument is irresistible. In fact, as they say, religions are not exactly “chosen” by their followers. They are received from parents. It is not mere coincidence that, in Christian countries, children become Christian adults, the same occurring in the case of Jews and Muslims. Another significant argument put forward by atheists is that of criticizing those who say that they have been “saved by a miracle” in a disaster that killed dozens or even hundreds of people. Such critics consider that an impartial God would not have any reason for such favoritism and could even prevent the disaster. Furthermore, the same authors argue that if there were an impartial God - and an unjust God would really negate the idea of a deity - there would not be so many harmful diseases and organisms. They ask: what is the benefit to man - God’s masterpiece - of verminoses, leprosy, tuberculosis, parasites, mental debility, physical deformities, insanity and deficiencies in general?
I am saying all this solely as a criticism of the somewhat aggressive “tone” of atheist preaching. In the same “manner” as indoctrination. There is no need for haste in convincing millions of people that they simply praying to themselves. I would not feel morally good if I were capable of convincing - principally an elderly person - that he cannot expect anything after death. Let him change his opinion, when and if he so desires. The reason for this is that proud Science cannot boast that it only brings certainties. Commonplace phenomena still have no explanation: for example, why do bodies attract one another instead of repelling? That which is still unknown to us is a thousand times greater than that which is already known. Only the future will tell. Ten years ago, did anyone talk about “dark matter” in the universe?
With a certain frequency, scientific opinions established as incontestable or auspicious are replaced by others of opposite meaning. The “Big Bang” hypothesis still does not appear to me to be convincing. Who knows, cosmologists will soon be telling us that perhaps there was no kind of “initial explosion” at all; that the universe only “heaving”, like a tired lung, with heavenly bodies getting closer and further away from one another. Despite this, attempts to search for truth should be encouraged, without any political or religious interference, given that the more man gets to know the environment in which he lives - including himself -, the principal actor in the tragicomedy -, the better he will overcome the obstacles that limit and torment him. If, at certain times, Science comes up against Faith on the same narrow sidewalk, it is Faith that should cede the right of way, not the opposite. Although painful in doctrinal terms, such a gesture on the part of Faith will certainly benefit the human condition. It will allow for improvement of religion itself, in that part where it is best: its acceptance of truth. All living beings - and religions are also “living” in a certain sense - need to evolve in order to not perish. I am sorry to say, rightly or wrongly, that the decline of certain religions in attracting new followers is due to the erroneous “wisdom” of doctrinal rigidity. If the entire universe is in a constant process of change, why would religions be the only exception?
Almost coming to an end, I risk saying, as an ordinary “amateur philosopher”, that over the next few decades science will thoroughly investigate the innate spontaneous “intelligence” built into all living things; irrespective of whether or not they have a brain. Such “diffuse” intelligence - probably not bestowed by any kind of supernatural power, as it is completely amoral, explains the anatomical and functional perfection of all life, including the AIDS virus, pathogenic bacteria, venomous scorpions, spiders and snakes, blood-sucking bats, mammals in general and even poisonous plants. With no brain, plants know what they are doing when they bend towards a ray of sunlight that is passing nearby. Biologists say that plants weep when they are cut down. In my opinion, apparently, such intelligence does not originate from a god; it is simply the consequence of the growing complexity of all living things, a promising field of research for biologists. However, if somebody says that this diffuse intelligence is God himself, I have nothing against such an assertion. It is a question of nomenclature.
It is my understanding that religions - much like science, politics and the rest -, if manipulated by fanatical minds, can suffer enormous blunders and downfalls, as in the case of the American pastor who intended to burn 200 copies of the Qur’an on September 11th. Fortunately, he quickly gave up the idea, under pressure brought to bear by the American government. He blundered, but avoided a downfall. The incident reminds me of an amusing fictional story, which I am reproducing here in order to calm any agitation of the spirit of those readers extremely sensitive to debates on religion.
During his discourse, a preacher, fervent but with little sense - something rare in the real world -said that everything that exists on the face of the earth is perfect, because the Creator would not accept any kind of imperfection in His work. At this moment, a voice at the back of the room protested in an indignant tone. It was a man with a spinal deformity who, argumentative, stood up, turned to display his profile and asked the preacher: — “Are you sure? What do you think of my hunchback?”
The speaker replied, without hesitation: - “What are you complaining about? Congratulations! I have never seen such a perfect hunchback as yours!”
Being serious once again, this article can be summarized in the following words: each one of us should do that which brings about greater inner satisfaction. Believing or not believing. Tolerate contrary beliefs. Who knows, you might think in the same way if you were in the place of the other person, with a past and a genetic makeup different from your own. In addition, if you were a highly cultured atheist, you would not be annoyed by the supposed “illusions” of believers. Illusions are also useful, if they are not aggressive. All the arts are nothing more than illusions and nobody has ever thought of eliminating them because they are essentially “fantasies”. These also have their rights, if they benefit mankind in some way. Only defend the right of Science to continue in its search for the elusive truth, although sometimes Science also blunders.
(10-9-2010)
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Sunday, September 19, 2010
L´ indomptable courage - (in French)
Ce n'est pas le titre d´un film de western...
Il est, parfois peut-être admis, dans des sites sérieux et spécialisés en Droit et Rapports Internationaux — surtout si on est en vacances —, d’échapper un peu à ses thémes spécifiques.Surtout lorsque l´auteur décrit comment certains êtres humains, parfaitement moyens, ont supplanté, dans la vie réelle, avec un singulier sang-froid, la peur, la douleur et l´handicape. Comme l'homme appartient à une espèce unique, imprévisible, mais potentiellement vaillante, — lorsqu’elle est correctement motivée — davantage que “sapiens”, ne variant que dans le format et la couleur de la peau, ce sera utile de connaître quelques exemples de fermeté qui stimulent, pour émulation, notre fibre morale lorsque des « malheurs” et des accidents sérieux nous arrivent. Étant donné la vague courante de “dépression”, que je considère plutôt un sentiment d´impuissance pour affronter un monde trop complexe qu`une maladie — justifiable... — Il est peut-être stimulant de vérifier chez certains gens comment ils réagissent dans des situations innatendues de désespoir. Leur réaction est une preuve de nos réserves de force, endormies, mais capables de sauter du lit, attentives, mais tranquilles lorsqu´elles sont éveillées par le son de la trompette du danger. Et je dis cela sans aucune intention de copier un genre littéraire (des livre sur l´aide de soi même) que je considère utile seulement dans trois finalités: consoler les misérables, encourager les découragés et recompenser financièrement ceux qui font des efforts professionels appliqués aux lettres. Ceux-ci, enfin, et tant mieux ! ils peuvent se débarrasser de la presque obligation d´être vulgaires pour attirer les lecteurs. L'aide de soi, au moins, a cela de bien: c'est pudique et regarde soit vers le haut, soit au dedans de soi-même.
Dans de très brefs récits, mentionnons trois cas. Le premier s'est passé en Afrique, ayant comme victime une fille blanche américaine que s'y trouvait parcequ´elle était la nounou des enfants d'un scientifique également américain qui vivait avec sa famille en dehors de la zone urbaine. L'esprit d'aventure de cette jeune fille dont je ne me souviens plus le nom, mais qui a elle même raconté son odyssée dans le magazine “Seleções” (Digest Readers) prouve qu'il existe encore des jeunes motivés par des choses bien au-dessus de l'argent, le sexe et le confort. La fille en question, n´étant pas très pauvre — pour ce dont je me rappelle — elle pourrait limiter ses ambitions à la joie du confort de vivre dans un pays riche, “se marier bien” ou lutter pour une carrière. Mais non, elle a préféré connaître “de près” la vie pénible de l´Afrique noire, avec tous les risques decoulants de cette décision.
Dans une fin d´après-midi, la jeune-fille qui avait à peu près 20 ans, a voulu se rafraîchir, en tenue appropriée, dans une petite rivière proche de la maison où elle travaillait. Elle a fait cela accompagnée des deux enfants dont elle s´occupait, et d'un jeune homme qui travaillait, lui aussi, pour le scientifique. D'après les résidents locaux, la rivière n'offrait pas de risques quant à la présence de crocodiles, au contraire d´autres cours d’eau plus éloignés. Faisant confiance à cette rassurante « jurisprudence crocodilienne », elle s´est baignée pendant que les enfants jouaient dans les rivages.
Après quelques plongeons, sans trop s´éloigner de la rive, tout en faisant attention aux enfants, elle s'est mise debout, avec l'eau à la hauteur de la taille. Quand elle a essoré ses longs cheveux pour les libérer de l'excès d'eau, elle s´est rendue compte que quelque chose la touchait légèrement au coude. Cependant, avant même de pouvoir savoir qu´est-ce qui la touchait, elle a senti les mâchoires d'un énorme crocodile se fermer sur son bras. La bête a essayé de la traîner dans la partie la plus profonde de la rivière, en suivant le comportement habituel de noyer la proie avant de la dévorer. Elle y a résisté en essayant de sortir de l´eau en traînant son agresseur pendant que, en criant « crocodile ! » elle prévenait le jeune homme. Lui, cependant, le dos tourné, sûr qu'il n'y avait pas de crocodiles dans la région, a crû que c´était une blague, et sans se retourner vers elle lui a même dit de ne pas jouer avec ça pour ne pas faire peur aux enfants.
Pendant qu'il pensait cela, le crocodile a commencé à tourner vigoureusement sur lui-même comme il le fait habituellement, deux ou trois fois, sur le point d´arracher le bras de sa proie. Sentant qu´elle était incapable d´empêcher cette violente bousculade — parce que si elle continuait, elle aurait pû perdre son membre —, elle s´est laissée entraîner passivement dans la rotation. Si vite que dans les brefs pauses, prise de vertige, submergée, lorsqu´elle ouvrait les yeux elle ne savait pas où était la surface de l´eau qui lui permettrait de respirer. Tout ce qu´elle savait c´est qu´elle était dans l´eau, parce qu'elle y voyait des bulles d'air qui montaient.
Avec cette agitation le jeune homme s´est rendu compte et a essayé de l´aider, sans savoir comment. Il a essayé d'attraper la queue du reptile, avec l'intention de le tirer vers la plage, mais il a bien vu qu'il n'avait pas assez de forces pour cela. Il a essayé d'introduire ses pouces dans les yeux de la bête, mais il a constaté que ce serait inutile, parce que c'était équivalent— l´a-t-il expliqué après — à mettre les doigts dans un pneu de voiture, telle la dure consistance des deux ou trois paupières. Pour terminer, le saurien, avec un nouveau tour, a fini par arracher le bras, qu´il avait dans sa machoire. La courageuse jeune fille a vu son ennemi se déplacer lentement, la tête levée de façon à pouvoir avaler entiérement son goûter américain.
La victime a reçu les secours d´urgence. On lui a appliqué un garot dans ce qui est resté de son bras après l'amputation. Ammené en hélicoptère à l´hôpital, elle a réussi à survivre. Après, qu’elle se soit rétablie, les journalistes lui ont demandé ce qui lui était passé par la tête lorsqu´elle s´est vue attaquer. Elle a répondu rapidement qu`elle s´était inquiétée de la sécurité des enfants et elle ne pouvait pas accepter de venir de si loin pour mourir en Afrique, dans l'estomac d'un crocodile. Elle serait prête à se battre jusqu'au bout. Dans le magazine il y a sa photo. toute calme, je ne me souviens pas si elle sourit. Elle porte un pullover et on y peut voir l’absence d'un bras. Et, plus impressionnant: elle a promis de revenir en Afrique pour continuer ce qu'elle faisait, en se disant fascinée par ce continent imprévisible et tragique. Il n'y a certainement eu aucun mérite de sa part. Elle n´a évidemment pas choisi d´être attaquée par un crocodile qui n’avait rien à faire dans ces environs. Son mérite est dans le calme et la tenacité pour ne pas perdre son bras, malgré que cela soit arrivé.
Un autre cas d'héroïsme dans la lutte pour survivre s´est passé aussi avec un américain — sauf erreur de ma part, ayant aussi environ vingt ans —, il a décidé d'explorer tout seul le Grand Canyon. À un certain moment, il s´est approché du bord de l'abîme pour voir combien il était profond. Ayant peur de tomber, il s´est agrippé à une énorme pierre arrondie, sur le bord, mais la pierre, de façon inattendue, s´est détachée et bloqué son bras. Après des heures ou des jours — je raconte de mémoire — essayant sans succès de se libérer le bras, il s´est vu face à un choix très douloureux: où bien il s´ amputerait le bras, sans anesthésie, en utilisant un couteau, ou bien il mourrait de soif et de faim, parce qu´il était trop distant de la civilisation. Connaisseur de la région, il savait que ce serait unitile de crier. Après avoir beaucoup réflechit, souffrant depuis deux ou trois jours, déjà sans espoir d'un coup de chance, _ l´apparition de quelqu´un au hasard — il a conclu qu´il ne pouvait pas attendre davantage. Ses force le quittaient. En ce moment il a choisi la vie, à n´importe quel prix. Il a commencé l'opération grotesque, chirurgien improvisé, avec une seule main.
Il a raconté plus tard, que se couper le bras a été, évidemment, très douloureux, mais rien n´est comparable à la douleur, infiniment plus grande, de couper un grand nerf qui passe par le bras. Impossible de trouver des mots pour décrire le moment où le couteau a dû sectionner ce nerf. Ses cris, j´imagine, ont dû terrifiés même les scorpions du désert. Mais il a réussi. Il a laissé son bras dans la jonction des pierres et il a utilisé la ceinture comme garot dans ce qui est resté. Il a marché, avec les forces qui lui restaient, jusqu`à une autoroute éloignée. Il est intéressant de remarquer que quelques mois plus tard, rétabli, il disait qu'il continuerait à pratiquer son sport favori.
Finalement, je rapporte quelque chose de beaucoup plus dramatique, qui se passe maintenant au Brésil, si je me souviens bien, à Goiás, raconté par la victime, elle même, à un de mes ami, opticien à l'intérieur de l'Etat de São Paulo. Cet ami, un jour, se trouvant dans son magasin, a été abordé par un homme au visage très bizarre, je ne trouve pas d’autres mots pour le décrire. Cet étranger au visage déformé lui a susurré, d´une voix difficile à comprendre, s'il le reconnaissait. Mon ami a dit non. Le visiteur lui a expliqué qu'il avait été son client il y a quelque temps. Et il a raconté son drame que maintenant je transmets au lecteur par son simple témoignage oral. Impossible de réjoindre ce citoyen pour avoir davantage de détails à raconter dans cet article, parce qu'il est parti vivre dans un autre Etat, et je ne connais pas son adresse. Et ce n’est pas à moi d’embaucher un détective seulement pour enrichir le présent texte avec des détails.
Voilà ce que s´est passé: Il conduisait sa voiture, une nouvelle voiture, très chère, dans une autoroute, lorsqu´il a été obligé de s´arrêter, pour faire le plein ou autre chose. C´est alors qu´il a été attaqué par des bandits armés, interessés certainement par sa nouvelle belle voiture. Dépouillé de ses biens et attaché à un arbre, il croyait que son cauchemard serait bientôt fini parce que les bandits emportaient son argent et tout ce qu’il avait avant de partir.
Alors qu’ils partaient du local, un des bandits pris d’un doute « Que va t’on faire de lui ? Il va nous reconnaître et nous dénoncer ». C’est alors que l’un d’eux , certainement un assassin, résolva rapidement le problème : il a détaché la victime de l’arbre pour la coucher parterre, l’a réattachée et a pointé son calibre 12 sur sa face. La victime s’est naturellememt recroquevillée. A ce momemt il y eu un coup de feu. De toute façon la victime a eu de la chance que le tire soit parti de si près. Parce qu’ainsi il n’ y a pas eu assez de distance pour que les plombs se dispersent et le tuent sur le coup.
La charge de plombs a pratiquement arraché la maxillaire de ce malheureux voyageur, elle a enlevé une bonne partie de ses dents, lui a tranché la langue, et lui a percé la voûte du palais et l'a laissé sourd d'une oreille. Malgré cela il n'est pas mort. Il a fait approximativement trente operations — je ne me rappelle pas le nombre exact. Une particularité tragique, mais quelque chose de comique, était que quand la victime buvait une bonne partie du liquide lui sortait des oreilles. Cela ne jaillissait pas, comme dans les sources de jardin, c'était juste suintant. Cela a duré longtemps alors que le trou de la voûte du palais n'était pas fermée par une chirurgie, une de plus. L'explication est dans l'anatomie de la tête, dans la communication des conduits qui relient le nez, la bouche et les oreilles. La langue, progressivememt, du être recomposée, suite à grand nombre d'interventions. Néanmoins, ses paroles étaient sifflantes, entravant la compréhension.
Laissez-nous continuer. Les fripouilles sont parties, en pensant que la victime était morte, suite à ces riffles de plomb. Cette déduction trompeuse l'a sauvé. Quelque temps après un chauffeur routier qui passait plus tard, a arrêté le camion pour soulager sa vessie derrière un buisson. En faisant ceci, il a observé quelque chose d'étrange. Quelque chose, a gémi et a remué un peu. Curieux, il s’est approché et il a vu la scène de la victime avec la tête entière enflée, son visage déchiré et beaucoup de sang coagulé. Il a cherché d'autres gens, la police a été appelée et, a vérifié les documents, sa famille a été informée, en prenant toutes les mesures imaginables.
Transporté, paraît-il, par hélicoptère à São Paulo, pour être opéré dans un hôpital bien équipé, la victime, dans l'ambulance, dans l'Avenue Paulista, a commencé à suffoquer. Sa tête, très enflée, et le sang coagulé l'empêchant de respirer. Sentant qu'il mourrait en suffoquant, et ne pouvant pas articuler les mots, il a balbutié quelque chose proche de “... bouchon de Bic...”, il a pointé le stylo de l'infirmière, ou de l’auxiliaire médical qu'il a vu dans la poche de la blouse. Il a aimé ceci parce qu'il savait que s'il n'avait pas de trachéotomie sa mort serait certaine, parce que l'hôpital était encore distant. Ceci fait: l'infirmière a utilisé le bouchon de Bic pour faire un trou en dessous de la pomme d'Adam. Sans anesthésie. Le citoyen a pû respirer.
Pour moi, ce citoyen est un héros anonyme. Je ne sais pas si j'aurais le courage de, me sentant suffoquer, demander cette improvisation douloureuse de me voir percer la trachée par un bouchon de stylo. Et son courage a aussi été révélé, après des douzaines de chirurgies, par sa façon d’envisager le monde. Il a raconté, chez l’opticien, que c'était déjà si bon qu'il ait dompté des chevaux farouches, probablement pour le sport. Il était très heureux en mariage parce que sa fidèle épouse n'avait pas éte importunée par son changement d’apparence, après tant de chirurgies. Il a supporté avec élégance la routine découragée de douzaines d'opérations et, comme il dit, “il s’en est bien sorti.”
Ce citoyen devrait être cherché par Fernando Morais, notre grand biographe. Son odyssée – qu’il n'a pas cherché mais qu’il a supporté courageusement —, mériterait un petit livre. Au moins comme un exemple de patience, d’insistance de vivre et d’optimisme. Je sais qu’il n'est pas devenu un homme triste et amer. Il a prouvé que ténacité et joie peuvent aller ensemble.
(16-7-08)
Il est, parfois peut-être admis, dans des sites sérieux et spécialisés en Droit et Rapports Internationaux — surtout si on est en vacances —, d’échapper un peu à ses thémes spécifiques.Surtout lorsque l´auteur décrit comment certains êtres humains, parfaitement moyens, ont supplanté, dans la vie réelle, avec un singulier sang-froid, la peur, la douleur et l´handicape. Comme l'homme appartient à une espèce unique, imprévisible, mais potentiellement vaillante, — lorsqu’elle est correctement motivée — davantage que “sapiens”, ne variant que dans le format et la couleur de la peau, ce sera utile de connaître quelques exemples de fermeté qui stimulent, pour émulation, notre fibre morale lorsque des « malheurs” et des accidents sérieux nous arrivent. Étant donné la vague courante de “dépression”, que je considère plutôt un sentiment d´impuissance pour affronter un monde trop complexe qu`une maladie — justifiable... — Il est peut-être stimulant de vérifier chez certains gens comment ils réagissent dans des situations innatendues de désespoir. Leur réaction est une preuve de nos réserves de force, endormies, mais capables de sauter du lit, attentives, mais tranquilles lorsqu´elles sont éveillées par le son de la trompette du danger. Et je dis cela sans aucune intention de copier un genre littéraire (des livre sur l´aide de soi même) que je considère utile seulement dans trois finalités: consoler les misérables, encourager les découragés et recompenser financièrement ceux qui font des efforts professionels appliqués aux lettres. Ceux-ci, enfin, et tant mieux ! ils peuvent se débarrasser de la presque obligation d´être vulgaires pour attirer les lecteurs. L'aide de soi, au moins, a cela de bien: c'est pudique et regarde soit vers le haut, soit au dedans de soi-même.
Dans de très brefs récits, mentionnons trois cas. Le premier s'est passé en Afrique, ayant comme victime une fille blanche américaine que s'y trouvait parcequ´elle était la nounou des enfants d'un scientifique également américain qui vivait avec sa famille en dehors de la zone urbaine. L'esprit d'aventure de cette jeune fille dont je ne me souviens plus le nom, mais qui a elle même raconté son odyssée dans le magazine “Seleções” (Digest Readers) prouve qu'il existe encore des jeunes motivés par des choses bien au-dessus de l'argent, le sexe et le confort. La fille en question, n´étant pas très pauvre — pour ce dont je me rappelle — elle pourrait limiter ses ambitions à la joie du confort de vivre dans un pays riche, “se marier bien” ou lutter pour une carrière. Mais non, elle a préféré connaître “de près” la vie pénible de l´Afrique noire, avec tous les risques decoulants de cette décision.
Dans une fin d´après-midi, la jeune-fille qui avait à peu près 20 ans, a voulu se rafraîchir, en tenue appropriée, dans une petite rivière proche de la maison où elle travaillait. Elle a fait cela accompagnée des deux enfants dont elle s´occupait, et d'un jeune homme qui travaillait, lui aussi, pour le scientifique. D'après les résidents locaux, la rivière n'offrait pas de risques quant à la présence de crocodiles, au contraire d´autres cours d’eau plus éloignés. Faisant confiance à cette rassurante « jurisprudence crocodilienne », elle s´est baignée pendant que les enfants jouaient dans les rivages.
Après quelques plongeons, sans trop s´éloigner de la rive, tout en faisant attention aux enfants, elle s'est mise debout, avec l'eau à la hauteur de la taille. Quand elle a essoré ses longs cheveux pour les libérer de l'excès d'eau, elle s´est rendue compte que quelque chose la touchait légèrement au coude. Cependant, avant même de pouvoir savoir qu´est-ce qui la touchait, elle a senti les mâchoires d'un énorme crocodile se fermer sur son bras. La bête a essayé de la traîner dans la partie la plus profonde de la rivière, en suivant le comportement habituel de noyer la proie avant de la dévorer. Elle y a résisté en essayant de sortir de l´eau en traînant son agresseur pendant que, en criant « crocodile ! » elle prévenait le jeune homme. Lui, cependant, le dos tourné, sûr qu'il n'y avait pas de crocodiles dans la région, a crû que c´était une blague, et sans se retourner vers elle lui a même dit de ne pas jouer avec ça pour ne pas faire peur aux enfants.
Pendant qu'il pensait cela, le crocodile a commencé à tourner vigoureusement sur lui-même comme il le fait habituellement, deux ou trois fois, sur le point d´arracher le bras de sa proie. Sentant qu´elle était incapable d´empêcher cette violente bousculade — parce que si elle continuait, elle aurait pû perdre son membre —, elle s´est laissée entraîner passivement dans la rotation. Si vite que dans les brefs pauses, prise de vertige, submergée, lorsqu´elle ouvrait les yeux elle ne savait pas où était la surface de l´eau qui lui permettrait de respirer. Tout ce qu´elle savait c´est qu´elle était dans l´eau, parce qu'elle y voyait des bulles d'air qui montaient.
Avec cette agitation le jeune homme s´est rendu compte et a essayé de l´aider, sans savoir comment. Il a essayé d'attraper la queue du reptile, avec l'intention de le tirer vers la plage, mais il a bien vu qu'il n'avait pas assez de forces pour cela. Il a essayé d'introduire ses pouces dans les yeux de la bête, mais il a constaté que ce serait inutile, parce que c'était équivalent— l´a-t-il expliqué après — à mettre les doigts dans un pneu de voiture, telle la dure consistance des deux ou trois paupières. Pour terminer, le saurien, avec un nouveau tour, a fini par arracher le bras, qu´il avait dans sa machoire. La courageuse jeune fille a vu son ennemi se déplacer lentement, la tête levée de façon à pouvoir avaler entiérement son goûter américain.
La victime a reçu les secours d´urgence. On lui a appliqué un garot dans ce qui est resté de son bras après l'amputation. Ammené en hélicoptère à l´hôpital, elle a réussi à survivre. Après, qu’elle se soit rétablie, les journalistes lui ont demandé ce qui lui était passé par la tête lorsqu´elle s´est vue attaquer. Elle a répondu rapidement qu`elle s´était inquiétée de la sécurité des enfants et elle ne pouvait pas accepter de venir de si loin pour mourir en Afrique, dans l'estomac d'un crocodile. Elle serait prête à se battre jusqu'au bout. Dans le magazine il y a sa photo. toute calme, je ne me souviens pas si elle sourit. Elle porte un pullover et on y peut voir l’absence d'un bras. Et, plus impressionnant: elle a promis de revenir en Afrique pour continuer ce qu'elle faisait, en se disant fascinée par ce continent imprévisible et tragique. Il n'y a certainement eu aucun mérite de sa part. Elle n´a évidemment pas choisi d´être attaquée par un crocodile qui n’avait rien à faire dans ces environs. Son mérite est dans le calme et la tenacité pour ne pas perdre son bras, malgré que cela soit arrivé.
Un autre cas d'héroïsme dans la lutte pour survivre s´est passé aussi avec un américain — sauf erreur de ma part, ayant aussi environ vingt ans —, il a décidé d'explorer tout seul le Grand Canyon. À un certain moment, il s´est approché du bord de l'abîme pour voir combien il était profond. Ayant peur de tomber, il s´est agrippé à une énorme pierre arrondie, sur le bord, mais la pierre, de façon inattendue, s´est détachée et bloqué son bras. Après des heures ou des jours — je raconte de mémoire — essayant sans succès de se libérer le bras, il s´est vu face à un choix très douloureux: où bien il s´ amputerait le bras, sans anesthésie, en utilisant un couteau, ou bien il mourrait de soif et de faim, parce qu´il était trop distant de la civilisation. Connaisseur de la région, il savait que ce serait unitile de crier. Après avoir beaucoup réflechit, souffrant depuis deux ou trois jours, déjà sans espoir d'un coup de chance, _ l´apparition de quelqu´un au hasard — il a conclu qu´il ne pouvait pas attendre davantage. Ses force le quittaient. En ce moment il a choisi la vie, à n´importe quel prix. Il a commencé l'opération grotesque, chirurgien improvisé, avec une seule main.
Il a raconté plus tard, que se couper le bras a été, évidemment, très douloureux, mais rien n´est comparable à la douleur, infiniment plus grande, de couper un grand nerf qui passe par le bras. Impossible de trouver des mots pour décrire le moment où le couteau a dû sectionner ce nerf. Ses cris, j´imagine, ont dû terrifiés même les scorpions du désert. Mais il a réussi. Il a laissé son bras dans la jonction des pierres et il a utilisé la ceinture comme garot dans ce qui est resté. Il a marché, avec les forces qui lui restaient, jusqu`à une autoroute éloignée. Il est intéressant de remarquer que quelques mois plus tard, rétabli, il disait qu'il continuerait à pratiquer son sport favori.
Finalement, je rapporte quelque chose de beaucoup plus dramatique, qui se passe maintenant au Brésil, si je me souviens bien, à Goiás, raconté par la victime, elle même, à un de mes ami, opticien à l'intérieur de l'Etat de São Paulo. Cet ami, un jour, se trouvant dans son magasin, a été abordé par un homme au visage très bizarre, je ne trouve pas d’autres mots pour le décrire. Cet étranger au visage déformé lui a susurré, d´une voix difficile à comprendre, s'il le reconnaissait. Mon ami a dit non. Le visiteur lui a expliqué qu'il avait été son client il y a quelque temps. Et il a raconté son drame que maintenant je transmets au lecteur par son simple témoignage oral. Impossible de réjoindre ce citoyen pour avoir davantage de détails à raconter dans cet article, parce qu'il est parti vivre dans un autre Etat, et je ne connais pas son adresse. Et ce n’est pas à moi d’embaucher un détective seulement pour enrichir le présent texte avec des détails.
Voilà ce que s´est passé: Il conduisait sa voiture, une nouvelle voiture, très chère, dans une autoroute, lorsqu´il a été obligé de s´arrêter, pour faire le plein ou autre chose. C´est alors qu´il a été attaqué par des bandits armés, interessés certainement par sa nouvelle belle voiture. Dépouillé de ses biens et attaché à un arbre, il croyait que son cauchemard serait bientôt fini parce que les bandits emportaient son argent et tout ce qu’il avait avant de partir.
Alors qu’ils partaient du local, un des bandits pris d’un doute « Que va t’on faire de lui ? Il va nous reconnaître et nous dénoncer ». C’est alors que l’un d’eux , certainement un assassin, résolva rapidement le problème : il a détaché la victime de l’arbre pour la coucher parterre, l’a réattachée et a pointé son calibre 12 sur sa face. La victime s’est naturellememt recroquevillée. A ce momemt il y eu un coup de feu. De toute façon la victime a eu de la chance que le tire soit parti de si près. Parce qu’ainsi il n’ y a pas eu assez de distance pour que les plombs se dispersent et le tuent sur le coup.
La charge de plombs a pratiquement arraché la maxillaire de ce malheureux voyageur, elle a enlevé une bonne partie de ses dents, lui a tranché la langue, et lui a percé la voûte du palais et l'a laissé sourd d'une oreille. Malgré cela il n'est pas mort. Il a fait approximativement trente operations — je ne me rappelle pas le nombre exact. Une particularité tragique, mais quelque chose de comique, était que quand la victime buvait une bonne partie du liquide lui sortait des oreilles. Cela ne jaillissait pas, comme dans les sources de jardin, c'était juste suintant. Cela a duré longtemps alors que le trou de la voûte du palais n'était pas fermée par une chirurgie, une de plus. L'explication est dans l'anatomie de la tête, dans la communication des conduits qui relient le nez, la bouche et les oreilles. La langue, progressivememt, du être recomposée, suite à grand nombre d'interventions. Néanmoins, ses paroles étaient sifflantes, entravant la compréhension.
Laissez-nous continuer. Les fripouilles sont parties, en pensant que la victime était morte, suite à ces riffles de plomb. Cette déduction trompeuse l'a sauvé. Quelque temps après un chauffeur routier qui passait plus tard, a arrêté le camion pour soulager sa vessie derrière un buisson. En faisant ceci, il a observé quelque chose d'étrange. Quelque chose, a gémi et a remué un peu. Curieux, il s’est approché et il a vu la scène de la victime avec la tête entière enflée, son visage déchiré et beaucoup de sang coagulé. Il a cherché d'autres gens, la police a été appelée et, a vérifié les documents, sa famille a été informée, en prenant toutes les mesures imaginables.
Transporté, paraît-il, par hélicoptère à São Paulo, pour être opéré dans un hôpital bien équipé, la victime, dans l'ambulance, dans l'Avenue Paulista, a commencé à suffoquer. Sa tête, très enflée, et le sang coagulé l'empêchant de respirer. Sentant qu'il mourrait en suffoquant, et ne pouvant pas articuler les mots, il a balbutié quelque chose proche de “... bouchon de Bic...”, il a pointé le stylo de l'infirmière, ou de l’auxiliaire médical qu'il a vu dans la poche de la blouse. Il a aimé ceci parce qu'il savait que s'il n'avait pas de trachéotomie sa mort serait certaine, parce que l'hôpital était encore distant. Ceci fait: l'infirmière a utilisé le bouchon de Bic pour faire un trou en dessous de la pomme d'Adam. Sans anesthésie. Le citoyen a pû respirer.
Pour moi, ce citoyen est un héros anonyme. Je ne sais pas si j'aurais le courage de, me sentant suffoquer, demander cette improvisation douloureuse de me voir percer la trachée par un bouchon de stylo. Et son courage a aussi été révélé, après des douzaines de chirurgies, par sa façon d’envisager le monde. Il a raconté, chez l’opticien, que c'était déjà si bon qu'il ait dompté des chevaux farouches, probablement pour le sport. Il était très heureux en mariage parce que sa fidèle épouse n'avait pas éte importunée par son changement d’apparence, après tant de chirurgies. Il a supporté avec élégance la routine découragée de douzaines d'opérations et, comme il dit, “il s’en est bien sorti.”
Ce citoyen devrait être cherché par Fernando Morais, notre grand biographe. Son odyssée – qu’il n'a pas cherché mais qu’il a supporté courageusement —, mériterait un petit livre. Au moins comme un exemple de patience, d’insistance de vivre et d’optimisme. Je sais qu’il n'est pas devenu un homme triste et amer. Il a prouvé que ténacité et joie peuvent aller ensemble.
(16-7-08)
Crimes et souveraineté - (in French)
Maintenant, je ne suis plus timide — j'ai des prédécesseurs très illustres, tel que Kant — pour insister sur les besoins des nations qui, de plus en plus abandonent une part de leur souveraineté au profit d´une fédération démocratique mondiale afin que le monde soit moins chaotique, moins injuste et moins auto-destructeur (voir la pollution).
Il ne s'agit pas d´un simple idéalisme en regard à l'Utopie, optimisme imaginatif (selon la pensée de J. J. Rousseau lorsqu´il dit que « l'homme naît essentiellement bon et devient perverti par la société), altruisme et choses similaires. L'homme est bon et mauvais, selon des proportions variées, d'après son heritage génétique, son éducation — formelle ou informelle - avantage cérémonieux et non officiel , la part des coups et des caresses reçus dès le moindre âge et la somme des avantages et des risques légaux et sociaux qui l´ entourent dans sa performance. S´il est avantageux d´être bon, ici ou dans l´au-delà, il le sera, bien que au fond de soi-même il ne l´est pas. On danse d'après la musique. Mais, laissons là ces généralisations, le lecteur n'a pas de temps à perdre.
Dès que j´étais étudiant de Droit ça m'a déjà impressionné du fait qu'un citoyen étranger, condamné par la justice de son pays, s´est empressé de venir au Brésil a mis enceinte une Brésilienne pour se libérer l´extradiction et l´accomplissement de la peine. Il me semblait qu´on avait l’habeas corpus préventif le plus facile et le plus plaisant de ce monde. Libre de la prison grâce à un avocat comis d´office, incompétent, un « avocaillon » illettré, néanmoins extrêmement efficace — “docteur du spermatozoïde.”
Ronald Biggs, un sympathique Anglais, participant au fameux « vol du train payant » en 1963, fut l´ un de ces cas. Après avoir accompli quelques mois dans une prison du Royaume-Uni, il s´est échappé des murs carcéraux et s’est évadé en Australie. Certainement, ne se sentant pas en securité dans un pays qui maintient de si forts liens avec l’ Angleterre, il fini par se fixer au Brésil après avoir découvert qu´ici il y avait des “bienveillances” légales, appropriées à son cas. Il s`engage alors dans une affaire sentimentale avec une danseuse de bonne foi, la met enceinte, et voilà tout ce qu´il lui fallait pour garantir sa permanence dans le pays. La justice anglaise essaya sans succès son extradiction, mais, comme le fils de Biggs dépendait de lui (bien entendu...), et il n´y avait pas, non plus, d´accord d´extradition entre les deux pays — le vieux problème des souverainetés... —le fugitif est resté ici tout le temps qu´il le voulut. Libre et d'après la Wikipedia sur l'internet—, et se faisant payer soixante dollars de tous ceux qui voulaient déjeuner ou bavarder avec une “célébrité.” D’après lui sa part du butin dans le vol a été minimale, tellement il a eu des frais avec des avocats et d´autres dépenses decourantes de la lutte pour ne pas revenir en prison. Cependant la nostalgie et le mal du pays sont devenus si insupportables, qu´il est retourné en Angleterre où il a fini par être encarceré.Vieux, malade, affaibli... ses photos ont éveillé la compassion auprès des personnes les plus sensibles et prédisposées à pardonner.
L'intéret — quelqu'un doit soutenir une thèse académique sur ce phénomène sociologique — c`est qu´une part importante de la société, surtout la carioca (personne née à Rio de Janeiro), qui jusque là l`avait adulé, éprouve pour lui de la considération avant tout pour sa sympathie personnele et son audace d’avoir participé à un vol donc la valeur actuelle est estimée à plus de cent millions de reais. Le “succès”, que ce soit politique, économique, sportif, artistique ou “sympathiquement criminel” — légitime n´importe quel acte. Dans le Premier Monde, les artistes de cinéma, pour renforcer leur renommeé de “durs”, aimaient être vus dans les restaurants et les spéctacles, en compagnie des maffieux de haute lignée. Le raffinement était d´ajouter à leur statut le frisson du danger. Cela se produisit avec Frank Sinatra, Alain Delon et d`autres incendiaires des coeurs féminins. Un politicien anglais, dans la fiction se sentant extorqué par son interlocuteur, a mencioné, pour l`impressioner, qu’il avait des rapports avec “les hautes sphères.” L'autre lui a répondu en toute confiance, que lui aussi, il avait des relations, mais “dans les basses sphères.” Ce qui était bien plus intimidant, parce que le mal peut être infligé avec la force et la vitesse d’un éclair, sans soufir des empêchements bureaucratiques.
Ce qui a été dit à propos d'extradition ne montre qu`un bref résumé qui, dans la difficile harmonisation des souverainetés, le crime reste très souvent impuni, ou quasiment. Ce qui ne se passerait pas, au moins en théorie, avec une fédération ou confédération mondiale, ayant pour juridiction la planète entière.
Un autre exemple en faveur de l'impunité réside dans la lenteur de remise de l'accusation par l’Etat qui se trouve soit déroutée soit en retard en raison des complications pour recupérer les sommes importantes déposées hors du pays. Comme l'argent peut, en à peine quelques secondes, changer de banque et de pays, avec un simple clic d’ordinateur, l`appliqué representant de la Justice arrive presque toujours en retard pour demander le gel les depôts effectués par les profiteurs de l’argent publique. Pendant que le representant judiciaire étudie — en duel avec la langue qu´il ne connait pas très bien, la législation bancaire des differents pays où l'argent a été transferé et qu`il écrit la demande de gel ou de retour de la somme, l’argent a déjà été envoyé dans une autre Banque, dans un autre pays. Et tout recommence depuis le debut. Même le créancier privé du débiteur millionnaire dont les ressources sont dispersées partout au monde ne réussit pas à se faire payer un joli chiffre mais sans signification réelle.
Les extraditions souffrent l'influence du prestige international des pays engagés. Dans le cas des Canadiens qui ont été arrêtés et puis condamnés par la séquestration d’un fameux entrepreneur de São Paulo, leur gouvernement a obtenu le repatriment des condamnés pour effectuer la peine dans leur pays. Très intéresant pour eux. Si jamais un groupe de Brésiliens se faisait arrêter au Canada ou aux Etats Unis suite à un kidnapping il est fort problable que le gouvernement brésilien n'obtiendrait pas leur extradition. Avec Bush, il est certain qu´il ne l´obtiendrait pas.
Même les homicides les plus atroces se soldent par l´impunité, vu l’“excès” de souveraineté, chaque pays se cachant dans un monde isolé, enfermé dans sa propre schizophrénie politique, sans aucun besoin de donner excessivement satisfaction.
Le cas japonais d'Issei Sagawa Japonais, 1981, qui, à Paris, a tué, et violé — en realité, techniquement, “il a violé le cadavre” — une belle étudiante hollandaise, qui était une de ses collègues à l’Université de Censier, de Paris. Il a fait ça parce que la Hollandaise qui l´aidait dans les traductions en ce moment lá, dans son studio, a refusé ses propositions pleines de passion et libidineuses, de natures sexuelles. Issei, qui a l’apparence d´un nain devellopé, avec une grande tête — j'ai vu une photo de lui—, il faisait 1,48 m et il pesait 44 kilos, bien moins que la Hollandaise. Celle-ci, qui ne voiait à cet asiatique que comme un collègue et ordonna qu´il se concentre sur le travail qu'ils étaient en train de faire. Le Japonais s´est lévé, prit un fusil calibre 0.22 que était dans une armoire, derrière la jeune fille et lui tira une balle dans la nuque. Ensuite il a fait l'amour avec le cadavre et en plus, il a coupé ses lèvres, son nez, ses seins et ses parties génitales, et les a gardées dans un congelateur pour une consommation future. Et vraiment il a mangé une bonne partie de cette viande avant d’être arrêté. Il avait cette compulsion étrange, en liant l’acte sexuel à l’acte de manger. Le cas est décrit brievement dans le livre de l'écrivain canadien, Max Haines, dans le “Book V” de ses séries “True Crime Stories.” Le rapport est à la page 121, dans le chapitre “Fantasies Turn to Cannibalism”. Dommage que cette série n'a pas été traduite en portugais.
L’accusé, après avoir écartelé le cadavre, a mis les dépouilles dans deux valises, qu'il a transportées en taxi. Il avait l´intention d´attirer le fardeau macabre dans un lac prochain. Dans la rue, lorqu´il a congedié le taxi, il a remarqué que les gens le regardaient avec méfiance, ce petit Japonais trainant deux valises bien trop lourdes pour lui. Effrayé, il a abandonné les volumes dans le trottoir, pensant qu’il n’y aurait pas de preuve de son lien avec l'homicide. La police n´est arrivée à lui que parce que le chauffeur du taxi, en lisant les titres des journaux, s´est souvenu de cet étrange oriental et prit l'initiative de prévenir les autorités.
Après avoir rassemblé des preuves irréfutables contre lui — trouvées dans son petit appartement, principalement dans le réfrigérateur —, Issei avoua le crime mais il était considérè comme irresponsable, fou, bien qu`il soit un homme instruit et intelligent. Il parlait bien le français et l'allemand, il étudiait en France dans le cadre d´un doctorat sur l'influence japonaise dans la littérature française. Le juge français prononça son internement dans une institution psychiatrique.
Issei était fils d'un riche industriel japonais. Après trois ans dans un asile français son père a obtenu qu'il fut extradé au Japon, sous condition de rester enfermé dans un sanatorium pour malades mentaux. Néanmoins, après 15 mois d'internement il fut dispensé. Les médecins japonais ont conclu qu'il était normal. La France ne pouvait rien faire car chaque pays possède sa propre souveraineté. Et finalement, qu´est-ce que c’est “être fou?”
Après sa libération — dit par Max Haines — , Issei Sagawa a écrit plusieurs livres sur son sujet favori — le cannibalisme. “Une connaissance par expérience ”. La famille de la victime — donc je n`ai pas spécifié le nom ici par respecte de la douleur pour les membres de la famille — elle ne devait pas avoir une bonne opinion ni sur le sérieux de la Psychiatrie, ni sur les coulisses de ce pompeux terme, généralement prononcé avec fierté: souveraineté.
Finalement l`asiatique a passé quatre ans et demi dans des asiles tout en étant « normal » selon les psychiatres de son pays. Certainement il y aura des gens, la famille d’Issei y compris, qui doivent penser que chaque l’homme mérite une deuxième chance. Il y en aura ausi qui penseront qu´il devint fou à cause d´une passion refusée. Quelqu'un a déjá dit que “l'homme est le feu et la femme, l´étoupe. Le diable vient et il souffle.”
(4-12-2006)
Il ne s'agit pas d´un simple idéalisme en regard à l'Utopie, optimisme imaginatif (selon la pensée de J. J. Rousseau lorsqu´il dit que « l'homme naît essentiellement bon et devient perverti par la société), altruisme et choses similaires. L'homme est bon et mauvais, selon des proportions variées, d'après son heritage génétique, son éducation — formelle ou informelle - avantage cérémonieux et non officiel , la part des coups et des caresses reçus dès le moindre âge et la somme des avantages et des risques légaux et sociaux qui l´ entourent dans sa performance. S´il est avantageux d´être bon, ici ou dans l´au-delà, il le sera, bien que au fond de soi-même il ne l´est pas. On danse d'après la musique. Mais, laissons là ces généralisations, le lecteur n'a pas de temps à perdre.
Dès que j´étais étudiant de Droit ça m'a déjà impressionné du fait qu'un citoyen étranger, condamné par la justice de son pays, s´est empressé de venir au Brésil a mis enceinte une Brésilienne pour se libérer l´extradiction et l´accomplissement de la peine. Il me semblait qu´on avait l’habeas corpus préventif le plus facile et le plus plaisant de ce monde. Libre de la prison grâce à un avocat comis d´office, incompétent, un « avocaillon » illettré, néanmoins extrêmement efficace — “docteur du spermatozoïde.”
Ronald Biggs, un sympathique Anglais, participant au fameux « vol du train payant » en 1963, fut l´ un de ces cas. Après avoir accompli quelques mois dans une prison du Royaume-Uni, il s´est échappé des murs carcéraux et s’est évadé en Australie. Certainement, ne se sentant pas en securité dans un pays qui maintient de si forts liens avec l’ Angleterre, il fini par se fixer au Brésil après avoir découvert qu´ici il y avait des “bienveillances” légales, appropriées à son cas. Il s`engage alors dans une affaire sentimentale avec une danseuse de bonne foi, la met enceinte, et voilà tout ce qu´il lui fallait pour garantir sa permanence dans le pays. La justice anglaise essaya sans succès son extradiction, mais, comme le fils de Biggs dépendait de lui (bien entendu...), et il n´y avait pas, non plus, d´accord d´extradition entre les deux pays — le vieux problème des souverainetés... —le fugitif est resté ici tout le temps qu´il le voulut. Libre et d'après la Wikipedia sur l'internet—, et se faisant payer soixante dollars de tous ceux qui voulaient déjeuner ou bavarder avec une “célébrité.” D’après lui sa part du butin dans le vol a été minimale, tellement il a eu des frais avec des avocats et d´autres dépenses decourantes de la lutte pour ne pas revenir en prison. Cependant la nostalgie et le mal du pays sont devenus si insupportables, qu´il est retourné en Angleterre où il a fini par être encarceré.Vieux, malade, affaibli... ses photos ont éveillé la compassion auprès des personnes les plus sensibles et prédisposées à pardonner.
L'intéret — quelqu'un doit soutenir une thèse académique sur ce phénomène sociologique — c`est qu´une part importante de la société, surtout la carioca (personne née à Rio de Janeiro), qui jusque là l`avait adulé, éprouve pour lui de la considération avant tout pour sa sympathie personnele et son audace d’avoir participé à un vol donc la valeur actuelle est estimée à plus de cent millions de reais. Le “succès”, que ce soit politique, économique, sportif, artistique ou “sympathiquement criminel” — légitime n´importe quel acte. Dans le Premier Monde, les artistes de cinéma, pour renforcer leur renommeé de “durs”, aimaient être vus dans les restaurants et les spéctacles, en compagnie des maffieux de haute lignée. Le raffinement était d´ajouter à leur statut le frisson du danger. Cela se produisit avec Frank Sinatra, Alain Delon et d`autres incendiaires des coeurs féminins. Un politicien anglais, dans la fiction se sentant extorqué par son interlocuteur, a mencioné, pour l`impressioner, qu’il avait des rapports avec “les hautes sphères.” L'autre lui a répondu en toute confiance, que lui aussi, il avait des relations, mais “dans les basses sphères.” Ce qui était bien plus intimidant, parce que le mal peut être infligé avec la force et la vitesse d’un éclair, sans soufir des empêchements bureaucratiques.
Ce qui a été dit à propos d'extradition ne montre qu`un bref résumé qui, dans la difficile harmonisation des souverainetés, le crime reste très souvent impuni, ou quasiment. Ce qui ne se passerait pas, au moins en théorie, avec une fédération ou confédération mondiale, ayant pour juridiction la planète entière.
Un autre exemple en faveur de l'impunité réside dans la lenteur de remise de l'accusation par l’Etat qui se trouve soit déroutée soit en retard en raison des complications pour recupérer les sommes importantes déposées hors du pays. Comme l'argent peut, en à peine quelques secondes, changer de banque et de pays, avec un simple clic d’ordinateur, l`appliqué representant de la Justice arrive presque toujours en retard pour demander le gel les depôts effectués par les profiteurs de l’argent publique. Pendant que le representant judiciaire étudie — en duel avec la langue qu´il ne connait pas très bien, la législation bancaire des differents pays où l'argent a été transferé et qu`il écrit la demande de gel ou de retour de la somme, l’argent a déjà été envoyé dans une autre Banque, dans un autre pays. Et tout recommence depuis le debut. Même le créancier privé du débiteur millionnaire dont les ressources sont dispersées partout au monde ne réussit pas à se faire payer un joli chiffre mais sans signification réelle.
Les extraditions souffrent l'influence du prestige international des pays engagés. Dans le cas des Canadiens qui ont été arrêtés et puis condamnés par la séquestration d’un fameux entrepreneur de São Paulo, leur gouvernement a obtenu le repatriment des condamnés pour effectuer la peine dans leur pays. Très intéresant pour eux. Si jamais un groupe de Brésiliens se faisait arrêter au Canada ou aux Etats Unis suite à un kidnapping il est fort problable que le gouvernement brésilien n'obtiendrait pas leur extradition. Avec Bush, il est certain qu´il ne l´obtiendrait pas.
Même les homicides les plus atroces se soldent par l´impunité, vu l’“excès” de souveraineté, chaque pays se cachant dans un monde isolé, enfermé dans sa propre schizophrénie politique, sans aucun besoin de donner excessivement satisfaction.
Le cas japonais d'Issei Sagawa Japonais, 1981, qui, à Paris, a tué, et violé — en realité, techniquement, “il a violé le cadavre” — une belle étudiante hollandaise, qui était une de ses collègues à l’Université de Censier, de Paris. Il a fait ça parce que la Hollandaise qui l´aidait dans les traductions en ce moment lá, dans son studio, a refusé ses propositions pleines de passion et libidineuses, de natures sexuelles. Issei, qui a l’apparence d´un nain devellopé, avec une grande tête — j'ai vu une photo de lui—, il faisait 1,48 m et il pesait 44 kilos, bien moins que la Hollandaise. Celle-ci, qui ne voiait à cet asiatique que comme un collègue et ordonna qu´il se concentre sur le travail qu'ils étaient en train de faire. Le Japonais s´est lévé, prit un fusil calibre 0.22 que était dans une armoire, derrière la jeune fille et lui tira une balle dans la nuque. Ensuite il a fait l'amour avec le cadavre et en plus, il a coupé ses lèvres, son nez, ses seins et ses parties génitales, et les a gardées dans un congelateur pour une consommation future. Et vraiment il a mangé une bonne partie de cette viande avant d’être arrêté. Il avait cette compulsion étrange, en liant l’acte sexuel à l’acte de manger. Le cas est décrit brievement dans le livre de l'écrivain canadien, Max Haines, dans le “Book V” de ses séries “True Crime Stories.” Le rapport est à la page 121, dans le chapitre “Fantasies Turn to Cannibalism”. Dommage que cette série n'a pas été traduite en portugais.
L’accusé, après avoir écartelé le cadavre, a mis les dépouilles dans deux valises, qu'il a transportées en taxi. Il avait l´intention d´attirer le fardeau macabre dans un lac prochain. Dans la rue, lorqu´il a congedié le taxi, il a remarqué que les gens le regardaient avec méfiance, ce petit Japonais trainant deux valises bien trop lourdes pour lui. Effrayé, il a abandonné les volumes dans le trottoir, pensant qu’il n’y aurait pas de preuve de son lien avec l'homicide. La police n´est arrivée à lui que parce que le chauffeur du taxi, en lisant les titres des journaux, s´est souvenu de cet étrange oriental et prit l'initiative de prévenir les autorités.
Après avoir rassemblé des preuves irréfutables contre lui — trouvées dans son petit appartement, principalement dans le réfrigérateur —, Issei avoua le crime mais il était considérè comme irresponsable, fou, bien qu`il soit un homme instruit et intelligent. Il parlait bien le français et l'allemand, il étudiait en France dans le cadre d´un doctorat sur l'influence japonaise dans la littérature française. Le juge français prononça son internement dans une institution psychiatrique.
Issei était fils d'un riche industriel japonais. Après trois ans dans un asile français son père a obtenu qu'il fut extradé au Japon, sous condition de rester enfermé dans un sanatorium pour malades mentaux. Néanmoins, après 15 mois d'internement il fut dispensé. Les médecins japonais ont conclu qu'il était normal. La France ne pouvait rien faire car chaque pays possède sa propre souveraineté. Et finalement, qu´est-ce que c’est “être fou?”
Après sa libération — dit par Max Haines — , Issei Sagawa a écrit plusieurs livres sur son sujet favori — le cannibalisme. “Une connaissance par expérience ”. La famille de la victime — donc je n`ai pas spécifié le nom ici par respecte de la douleur pour les membres de la famille — elle ne devait pas avoir une bonne opinion ni sur le sérieux de la Psychiatrie, ni sur les coulisses de ce pompeux terme, généralement prononcé avec fierté: souveraineté.
Finalement l`asiatique a passé quatre ans et demi dans des asiles tout en étant « normal » selon les psychiatres de son pays. Certainement il y aura des gens, la famille d’Issei y compris, qui doivent penser que chaque l’homme mérite une deuxième chance. Il y en aura ausi qui penseront qu´il devint fou à cause d´une passion refusée. Quelqu'un a déjá dit que “l'homme est le feu et la femme, l´étoupe. Le diable vient et il souffle.”
(4-12-2006)
Monday, August 09, 2010
A Critical View of Saramago
I hesitated for a few hours before starting to write about José Saramago, who passed away so recently. There was no lack of advice against my “heresy” and lack of “timing” - “Don’t be so bold, my friend, as to criticize such a universally acclaimed Nobel Prize winner! With so many people praising him, it is just not possible that they are all wrong! It’s even cowardice to criticize someone who cannot defend himself. If you didn’t like him, why didn’t you attack him when he was still alive? At least wait until his body is cold!” - I was told by some of my acquaintances.
One of them, more frank in his approach, warned me: - “They are going to say that you, an unknown petty author, ignored by publishers - excuse my sincerity, you provoked it... -, feel slighted by the success of such a great man of letters! Don’t forget that he was the only writer of the Portuguese language to receive the greatest literary honor, breaking with the prejudice shown by the Nobel Foundation (certainly political in nature) against our mother tongue! Besides this, you once told me that you couldn’t manage to read his work. So, how do you have the courage to criticize a writer who, by your own confession, you cannot manage to read? “I haven’t read it and didn’t like it”, is this the superficial catchphrase you use when judging the talent of others?”
Despite facing this moral firing squad - censuring recently deceased individuals really isn’t good manners, especially if they are famous and well-loved -, I would like to be so bold as to put forward a reservation, perhaps only “graphical”, against the only Nobel received by a writer of our language. Why am I doing this?
First, because I am an unconditional admirer of clarity, truth and, its twin sister, sincerity. Even when painful to the ears - of course, respecting courteous social conventions. Perhaps this fondness for truth is a sign of innate ingenuity - or even mental laziness - , considering that a lie requires mental effort that is exempt from the mere presentation of facts as they are, a characteristic of “dullards’. And don’t forget that imaginative work requires a good memory. Maxim Gorki, the great Russian writer who lived for a while among vagabonds and petty criminals, on describing a particularly unfortunate character in one of his stories, said that he was not sufficiently clever to be a thief. Thieves are usually astute. The professional exercise of evil requires much more gray matter than the easy utterance of sincere opinions. On the other hand, sticking to the truth - as an option rather than a defect - is the golden seal of moral greatness.
As far as this, strictly ethical, aspect is concerned, I am part of the group of admirers of Saramago, as the Portuguese writer was always a frank, intellectually courageous man and, I suppose, even physically dauntless. When he was around fifty years old and unemployed, he took an extremely bold decision: he dedicated himself exclusively to literature, full-time, risking his future. Instead of starting up some kind of small business capable of guaranteeing a living, he gambled on “all or nothing” and ended up winning, writing extensively, even at an advanced age.
In favor of the Nobel prize-winning writer, it is also necessary to recognize that he was always an intellectual sensitive to the suffering of those less fortunate in life. In addition, those who were intimate with him affirm that he was a pleasant sociable man, even if he did not desist from his opinions, which were sometimes harsh and uncompromising. Summing up, a “forceful personality” was something not lacking in this outstanding winner of the cerebral marathon race known as the Nobel Prize in Literature.
Incidentally, I ought to mention here that, in the first will of Alfred Nobel - the chemist and industrialist who invented dynamite - Literature was not established as an award category. There were doubts regarding its inclusion. Alfred Nobel only initially considered chemistry, physics, medicine and other more “objective” fields. However, as he had to distance himself from business activities for two years, he resolved to occupy his time writing plays for the theater. He thus found how something that appeared to be easy was in fact difficult, namely: writing well. And in this I include punctuation. Hence a new will and the explicit obligatory inclusion of Literature - “of idealistic content” - in the annual list of coveted Prizes. Prizes that would not be so earnestly desired if the financial reward were only symbolic: a gold medal and a diploma. It should be remembered that this does not diminish the merit of those receiving such an honor - to the contrary, it increases it, due to the fierce competition - but it does provide a clue regarding the underlying motivation of human beings. Including that of “spiritualized men of letters”, which was not the case of Saramago, a committed materialist. Alfred Nobel, an extremely intelligent businessman, knew what he was dealing with - the human race - when he created the Nobel Foundation, with its coveted cash award.
Now that these considerations have been made, I will explain why I have not managed - and still cannot manage - to read Saramago’s books: in the first place, due to his aversion, apparently uncontrollable, to beginning new paragraphs, transforming pages into “walls of text” that are far from attractive for voluntary reading. Something like the proclamations of state governors, which commence with “In witness thereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the Executive Department to be affixed this 1st day of December in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, etc.”
Following this discouraging finding, I only purchased two volumes by the author in question and practically forgot the matter, always promising myself to read, one day, a book by the Portuguese writer. I considered myself culturally guilty for not managing to feel comfortable with such a highly acclaimed author.
With the news of his death and reading, in newspapers, the extremely complementary declarations of well-known people in intellectual circles, I was impressed by my “evident” cultural backwardness, failing to appreciate such an important thinker. So I went back to his two volumes and once again tried to read them. To no avail. I discovered that Saramago not only detested starting new paragraphs, but also challenged normal standards of punctuation. He also did not like full stops. His text is a torrent of associations of ideas, with scant concern for order, coherence and punctuation. He typed or wrote whatever came into his head. It seems that he thought: -“It’s up to the reader to organize what I’ve written; I’m not going to waste my time with such trifles”.
In the case of any author, this method of working has the advantage of allowing for very much more extensive output, given that it saves time. A good portion of the job of writing - as any responsible author or journalist knows - is dedicated to the task of punctuating the text, thus facilitating the understanding of ideas on the part of the reader. Writing an immense and graphically dense “draft”, registering unconnected ideas without self-censorship, as they come to mind, does not seem to me to be a recommendable practice. Not even Nobel prize-winners should afford themselves the luxury of showing such discourtesy to their readers. And the great danger of this practice lies in the appearance of others imitating this style. With an involuntary incentive for expositive indiscipline, our language, currently little known internationally, will likely be less admired.
I was a judge for just over twenty-two years and, as such, accustomed - as in the case of attorneys and prosecutors - to living with a certain degree of objectivity and order in the narration of facts and law. Attempting to read books written by the author in question, I thought to myself: “An initial suit written in this manner would be summarily rejected as “inept”, according to procedural law nomenclature. Much too confused, although it may perhaps contain interesting ideas. Any kind of text in the fields of medicine, geography, economics, philosophy or politics - it does not matter which -, requires a degree of mental and graphic discipline. Thoughts, spoken or written, require order. Punctuation rules do not exist by mere chance. They are even requirements of civilization. Why cast aside the cultural conquests of humanity?
It seems to me that, in the long term, awarding the Nobel Prize to Saramago will not be conducive to promoting literature in the Portuguese language. I will explain: when a writer receives such an award, there is an automatic demand for his work, translated, throughout the whole world. And, in the case of Saramago, what is likely to occur? The foreign reader, perusing a text that has almost no paragraphs or full stops, with no great concern for the strict arrangement of ideas, will think that all writers in the language of the new Nobel prize-winner are somewhat “disorganized”. As a result, the overall image of authors of the country in question is prejudiced. In this case, Portuguese and Brazilian writers and those of former Portuguese colonies in Africa.
The great danger of acclaiming “graphically disorganized” writers lies in the involuntary encouragement of imitation. Aspiring writers who wish to “shine” in this area will no longer feel a need to re-write texts in which there is a total lack of concern for order in their train of thought. Even in the case of school compositions, students who write in any manner whatsoever, if reprimanded by the teacher for their lack of order and punctuation, will be able to defend themselves by saying that the teacher is “out of date” and that their school work adopts the “Saramago style”, already sanctioned by the Nobel Prize.
With the best intentions, perhaps the Nobel Foundation did a disservice to the Portuguese language when it awarded the prize to a writer who, although morally irreproachable - according to what people say who knew him - did not treat the language with the usual reverence. Foreign publishers will seek to translate the works of the author in question into their respective languages, although it is certain that they will only do this due to the fact that the author received a great honor, a guarantee of good sales on the publishing market.
There are times when I ask myself whether Saramago - a man of unparalleled intelligence and a committed communist -, was not unconsciously “cocking a snook” at the most “respected” institutions when he wrote his books after the award. He took pleasure in “demolishing the false idols” of capitalism. And the Nobel Prize is seen by some as rather “impregnated” with capitalist values, including emphasis on the high value of the financial award. Awarding the Nobel Prize for not very comprehensible texts would not bring prestige to the famous institution.
With respect to “understanding the works of prizewinners”, it is worth remembering that which occurred when the Nobel Foundation concerned itself with the “need” to award the Physics prize to Albert Einstein. The great German Jew - one of the greatest moral and intellectual geniuses of mankind - had just witnessed the scientific approval, through direct observation of a certain cosmic phenomenon, of his famous Theory of Relativity. In a way, international public opinion “demanded” that Einstein be awarded the prize. Once the commission of judging scientists gathered, its members immediately agreed - with one exception, whose name I cannot remember - to award the Nobel Prize in Physics to the young scientist and mathematician. However, the person who disagreed was firm in his opposition to awarding the honor to Einstein, saying that he could not manage to understand his famous Theory of Relativity, the same occurring in the case of the remaining commission members. He queried: - “How are we going to award a prize for a study that even we physicists do not understand?” The commission got around this problem, awarding the prize to Einstein, by means of another discovery related to photoelectric effects. In this way, public opinion was satisfied and the Nobel Prize in Physics commission could not be accused of granting the prize for something that its members did not understand.
If Alfred Nobel were alive, I do not know whether he would approve of awarding the Nobel prize to an author who, although intelligent and mentally courageous, left the extremely important task of putting his thoughts in order to the reader. Only Spiritism would be able to resolve this question. My humble opinion is that Alfred would be more cautious. At least he would tell the candidate: “Please include all the necessary punctuation and come back, if you wish, for a further assessment. The ways things are at present, you would only be being judged on your good character and occasional opinions expressed in newspapers, not on that which is written in your books. My foundation only examines works, not reputations.”
I am imagining, hypothetically, what Alfred Nobel would think, given that I consider him to be a highly interesting personality who deserves to have his biography more widely known. Unmarried, timid in the presence of women, he was once given up for dead in the explosion of one of his factories. In fact, it was his brother who died. Reading comments in the press regarding his supposed death, he was rather unpleasantly surprised at what people thought about him. This had a positive effect, as it served for his self-improvement. A remote analogy can be made between this fact - the false death of Alfred - and this partial criticism of the works of Saramago after receiving the Nobel Prize.
If the publishers of José Saramago had taken the trouble of re-editing his books, with normal punctuation, the valiant writer would really be read by a much larger number of readers. Not solely admired for his reputation. I could even become a great fan of his works. For the time being, my hands are immobile, suspended in the air, awaiting permission to applaud - but sincerely...
Of course, there is no doubt that the works of Saramago will not be re-edited, with normal punctuation. Neither the author’s publishers nor his family would agree to such a step. To the international prejudice of the Portuguese language. Incidentally, it is a pity that the Nobel Foundation has not adopted the practice of also awarding the prize to deceased writers. Machado de Assis, Eça de Queiroz and dozens of other authors would promote the riches of our language to an extraordinary extent.
Finally, I beg the pardon of admirers - when sincere - of the courageous writer who, if he were alive, would perhaps appreciate my frankness, although he was certainly more forthright than me in expressing his opinions. He would understand that if I respected a good-mannered period of “quarantine” with respect to his death, prior to making my opinions known, I would end up forgetting the matter. Reading my criticism, he would give me a clip on the ear and say, even laughing: “Read what I wrote again, you ass!”
(21-6-10)
One of them, more frank in his approach, warned me: - “They are going to say that you, an unknown petty author, ignored by publishers - excuse my sincerity, you provoked it... -, feel slighted by the success of such a great man of letters! Don’t forget that he was the only writer of the Portuguese language to receive the greatest literary honor, breaking with the prejudice shown by the Nobel Foundation (certainly political in nature) against our mother tongue! Besides this, you once told me that you couldn’t manage to read his work. So, how do you have the courage to criticize a writer who, by your own confession, you cannot manage to read? “I haven’t read it and didn’t like it”, is this the superficial catchphrase you use when judging the talent of others?”
Despite facing this moral firing squad - censuring recently deceased individuals really isn’t good manners, especially if they are famous and well-loved -, I would like to be so bold as to put forward a reservation, perhaps only “graphical”, against the only Nobel received by a writer of our language. Why am I doing this?
First, because I am an unconditional admirer of clarity, truth and, its twin sister, sincerity. Even when painful to the ears - of course, respecting courteous social conventions. Perhaps this fondness for truth is a sign of innate ingenuity - or even mental laziness - , considering that a lie requires mental effort that is exempt from the mere presentation of facts as they are, a characteristic of “dullards’. And don’t forget that imaginative work requires a good memory. Maxim Gorki, the great Russian writer who lived for a while among vagabonds and petty criminals, on describing a particularly unfortunate character in one of his stories, said that he was not sufficiently clever to be a thief. Thieves are usually astute. The professional exercise of evil requires much more gray matter than the easy utterance of sincere opinions. On the other hand, sticking to the truth - as an option rather than a defect - is the golden seal of moral greatness.
As far as this, strictly ethical, aspect is concerned, I am part of the group of admirers of Saramago, as the Portuguese writer was always a frank, intellectually courageous man and, I suppose, even physically dauntless. When he was around fifty years old and unemployed, he took an extremely bold decision: he dedicated himself exclusively to literature, full-time, risking his future. Instead of starting up some kind of small business capable of guaranteeing a living, he gambled on “all or nothing” and ended up winning, writing extensively, even at an advanced age.
In favor of the Nobel prize-winning writer, it is also necessary to recognize that he was always an intellectual sensitive to the suffering of those less fortunate in life. In addition, those who were intimate with him affirm that he was a pleasant sociable man, even if he did not desist from his opinions, which were sometimes harsh and uncompromising. Summing up, a “forceful personality” was something not lacking in this outstanding winner of the cerebral marathon race known as the Nobel Prize in Literature.
Incidentally, I ought to mention here that, in the first will of Alfred Nobel - the chemist and industrialist who invented dynamite - Literature was not established as an award category. There were doubts regarding its inclusion. Alfred Nobel only initially considered chemistry, physics, medicine and other more “objective” fields. However, as he had to distance himself from business activities for two years, he resolved to occupy his time writing plays for the theater. He thus found how something that appeared to be easy was in fact difficult, namely: writing well. And in this I include punctuation. Hence a new will and the explicit obligatory inclusion of Literature - “of idealistic content” - in the annual list of coveted Prizes. Prizes that would not be so earnestly desired if the financial reward were only symbolic: a gold medal and a diploma. It should be remembered that this does not diminish the merit of those receiving such an honor - to the contrary, it increases it, due to the fierce competition - but it does provide a clue regarding the underlying motivation of human beings. Including that of “spiritualized men of letters”, which was not the case of Saramago, a committed materialist. Alfred Nobel, an extremely intelligent businessman, knew what he was dealing with - the human race - when he created the Nobel Foundation, with its coveted cash award.
Now that these considerations have been made, I will explain why I have not managed - and still cannot manage - to read Saramago’s books: in the first place, due to his aversion, apparently uncontrollable, to beginning new paragraphs, transforming pages into “walls of text” that are far from attractive for voluntary reading. Something like the proclamations of state governors, which commence with “In witness thereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the Executive Department to be affixed this 1st day of December in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, etc.”
Following this discouraging finding, I only purchased two volumes by the author in question and practically forgot the matter, always promising myself to read, one day, a book by the Portuguese writer. I considered myself culturally guilty for not managing to feel comfortable with such a highly acclaimed author.
With the news of his death and reading, in newspapers, the extremely complementary declarations of well-known people in intellectual circles, I was impressed by my “evident” cultural backwardness, failing to appreciate such an important thinker. So I went back to his two volumes and once again tried to read them. To no avail. I discovered that Saramago not only detested starting new paragraphs, but also challenged normal standards of punctuation. He also did not like full stops. His text is a torrent of associations of ideas, with scant concern for order, coherence and punctuation. He typed or wrote whatever came into his head. It seems that he thought: -“It’s up to the reader to organize what I’ve written; I’m not going to waste my time with such trifles”.
In the case of any author, this method of working has the advantage of allowing for very much more extensive output, given that it saves time. A good portion of the job of writing - as any responsible author or journalist knows - is dedicated to the task of punctuating the text, thus facilitating the understanding of ideas on the part of the reader. Writing an immense and graphically dense “draft”, registering unconnected ideas without self-censorship, as they come to mind, does not seem to me to be a recommendable practice. Not even Nobel prize-winners should afford themselves the luxury of showing such discourtesy to their readers. And the great danger of this practice lies in the appearance of others imitating this style. With an involuntary incentive for expositive indiscipline, our language, currently little known internationally, will likely be less admired.
I was a judge for just over twenty-two years and, as such, accustomed - as in the case of attorneys and prosecutors - to living with a certain degree of objectivity and order in the narration of facts and law. Attempting to read books written by the author in question, I thought to myself: “An initial suit written in this manner would be summarily rejected as “inept”, according to procedural law nomenclature. Much too confused, although it may perhaps contain interesting ideas. Any kind of text in the fields of medicine, geography, economics, philosophy or politics - it does not matter which -, requires a degree of mental and graphic discipline. Thoughts, spoken or written, require order. Punctuation rules do not exist by mere chance. They are even requirements of civilization. Why cast aside the cultural conquests of humanity?
It seems to me that, in the long term, awarding the Nobel Prize to Saramago will not be conducive to promoting literature in the Portuguese language. I will explain: when a writer receives such an award, there is an automatic demand for his work, translated, throughout the whole world. And, in the case of Saramago, what is likely to occur? The foreign reader, perusing a text that has almost no paragraphs or full stops, with no great concern for the strict arrangement of ideas, will think that all writers in the language of the new Nobel prize-winner are somewhat “disorganized”. As a result, the overall image of authors of the country in question is prejudiced. In this case, Portuguese and Brazilian writers and those of former Portuguese colonies in Africa.
The great danger of acclaiming “graphically disorganized” writers lies in the involuntary encouragement of imitation. Aspiring writers who wish to “shine” in this area will no longer feel a need to re-write texts in which there is a total lack of concern for order in their train of thought. Even in the case of school compositions, students who write in any manner whatsoever, if reprimanded by the teacher for their lack of order and punctuation, will be able to defend themselves by saying that the teacher is “out of date” and that their school work adopts the “Saramago style”, already sanctioned by the Nobel Prize.
With the best intentions, perhaps the Nobel Foundation did a disservice to the Portuguese language when it awarded the prize to a writer who, although morally irreproachable - according to what people say who knew him - did not treat the language with the usual reverence. Foreign publishers will seek to translate the works of the author in question into their respective languages, although it is certain that they will only do this due to the fact that the author received a great honor, a guarantee of good sales on the publishing market.
There are times when I ask myself whether Saramago - a man of unparalleled intelligence and a committed communist -, was not unconsciously “cocking a snook” at the most “respected” institutions when he wrote his books after the award. He took pleasure in “demolishing the false idols” of capitalism. And the Nobel Prize is seen by some as rather “impregnated” with capitalist values, including emphasis on the high value of the financial award. Awarding the Nobel Prize for not very comprehensible texts would not bring prestige to the famous institution.
With respect to “understanding the works of prizewinners”, it is worth remembering that which occurred when the Nobel Foundation concerned itself with the “need” to award the Physics prize to Albert Einstein. The great German Jew - one of the greatest moral and intellectual geniuses of mankind - had just witnessed the scientific approval, through direct observation of a certain cosmic phenomenon, of his famous Theory of Relativity. In a way, international public opinion “demanded” that Einstein be awarded the prize. Once the commission of judging scientists gathered, its members immediately agreed - with one exception, whose name I cannot remember - to award the Nobel Prize in Physics to the young scientist and mathematician. However, the person who disagreed was firm in his opposition to awarding the honor to Einstein, saying that he could not manage to understand his famous Theory of Relativity, the same occurring in the case of the remaining commission members. He queried: - “How are we going to award a prize for a study that even we physicists do not understand?” The commission got around this problem, awarding the prize to Einstein, by means of another discovery related to photoelectric effects. In this way, public opinion was satisfied and the Nobel Prize in Physics commission could not be accused of granting the prize for something that its members did not understand.
If Alfred Nobel were alive, I do not know whether he would approve of awarding the Nobel prize to an author who, although intelligent and mentally courageous, left the extremely important task of putting his thoughts in order to the reader. Only Spiritism would be able to resolve this question. My humble opinion is that Alfred would be more cautious. At least he would tell the candidate: “Please include all the necessary punctuation and come back, if you wish, for a further assessment. The ways things are at present, you would only be being judged on your good character and occasional opinions expressed in newspapers, not on that which is written in your books. My foundation only examines works, not reputations.”
I am imagining, hypothetically, what Alfred Nobel would think, given that I consider him to be a highly interesting personality who deserves to have his biography more widely known. Unmarried, timid in the presence of women, he was once given up for dead in the explosion of one of his factories. In fact, it was his brother who died. Reading comments in the press regarding his supposed death, he was rather unpleasantly surprised at what people thought about him. This had a positive effect, as it served for his self-improvement. A remote analogy can be made between this fact - the false death of Alfred - and this partial criticism of the works of Saramago after receiving the Nobel Prize.
If the publishers of José Saramago had taken the trouble of re-editing his books, with normal punctuation, the valiant writer would really be read by a much larger number of readers. Not solely admired for his reputation. I could even become a great fan of his works. For the time being, my hands are immobile, suspended in the air, awaiting permission to applaud - but sincerely...
Of course, there is no doubt that the works of Saramago will not be re-edited, with normal punctuation. Neither the author’s publishers nor his family would agree to such a step. To the international prejudice of the Portuguese language. Incidentally, it is a pity that the Nobel Foundation has not adopted the practice of also awarding the prize to deceased writers. Machado de Assis, Eça de Queiroz and dozens of other authors would promote the riches of our language to an extraordinary extent.
Finally, I beg the pardon of admirers - when sincere - of the courageous writer who, if he were alive, would perhaps appreciate my frankness, although he was certainly more forthright than me in expressing his opinions. He would understand that if I respected a good-mannered period of “quarantine” with respect to his death, prior to making my opinions known, I would end up forgetting the matter. Reading my criticism, he would give me a clip on the ear and say, even laughing: “Read what I wrote again, you ass!”
(21-6-10)
Sunday, June 27, 2010
The UN Security Council has become a Chamber of Commerce
The title is not simply a catchphrase. It is the harsh reality of a troubled world, led by grown-up “children” who are already mature or even old. Frightened “children” who are, at the same time, ferocious, astute - some are dangerously intelligent - afflicted with a well-nourished cocktail of moral deficiencies: irresponsible egoism, envy, uncontrolled greed, insane vanity and a sincere enthusiasm for lying - generally more lucrative than telling the truth. At a moral level, and at any given moment in history, there is not much difference between a caveman and a large number of government leaders. Such “leaders”, at base infantile and shortsighted, guide their peoples to happiness or disaster, with a predominance of the latter. Sometimes, a trivial, mediocre governor of limited “creativity” is found to be more useful to his people than a virulent “patriot” - Hitler, for example, and several others that I dare not mention, fearing covert revenge, full of “grandiose projects” in favor of their beloved country. At least the lackluster leader does not hinder the normal growth of his community and leaves neighboring countries to live in peace.
Ordinary individuals - the governed - are more restricted by moral standards, fear of the police or neighborhood gossip. They are concerned with upholding their promises. However, when transformed into government leaders, they re-write the moral code, adopting more “flexible” standards. This is justified by saying: - “We have reached a new threshold... Adopting an overview, looking into the future, it is necessary to sacrifice many ‘things’ previously considered as correct”. They rise in status but fall in character. Forced by a need (or mere economic convenience) to protect their subjects from external egoism, they also start to lie and hatch plots, bringing cunning to bear against cunning. They defend themselves in this manner: - “If I do not defend my country, even by lying and using fallacious reasoning, from this arrogant and untruthful mob of foreign enemies or false friends, nobody will. Not even God, in His divine loathing of international intrigues, will lift a finger to save the weakest peoples. Perhaps it is because He sees that suffering is the surest way to purify the soul, His only interest in mankind. If He did not protect the Jews during the Holocaust, He will certainly not protect the Iranians now from the approaching massacre, planned by the descendents of the survivors of the aforementioned Holocaust. We will back the likely winners, after all, we will profit from them! Nobody ever got rich by backing the weakest runner”.
I would like to ask you - the reader - if I am exaggerating with respect to that which has happened recently in the international arena? I do not think so. Whatever your “leaning” in the conflict (which has not yet reached the level of aggression) between the Israel-USA consortium and Iran, it cannot be denied that the Security Council has become a kind of Chamber of Commerce, where all votes have a price. A price, really, and I am not speaking figuratively. “Money, business”.
Even though a reasonable accord was reached - thanks to Turkey and Brazil - in which Iran agreed with the American proposal (put forward several months ago) of delivering, under the responsibility of a European country, a large portion of its nuclear fuel for enrichment to 20%, for clearly non-military purposes (in order to fabricate a bomb, enrichment would have to attain a level of 90%), the USA immediately requested a meeting of the Security Council for imposition of further sanctions, without giving Iran time to discuss or even think about these new requirements. It is the wish of the “heavyweight USA-Israel duo” (although I am not saying this explicitly), that Iran totally interrupt any advance in its development of nuclear technology, for either peaceful or military purposes. It is alleged that they fear that the current Iranian president could, within a few months or years, come to fabricate nuclear weapons, a privilege which, from the point of view of the “darned duo”, can only be and should only be the right of a few “superior countries” (including the aforementioned pair), which are already tremendously powerful in terms of conventional and atomic weapons. In justifying this inequality of treatment, the duo alleges that the current Iranian government is dictatorial and primitive, to the point of allowing the lashing of thieves in public squares, the stoning of adulterers and other really primitive practices, although such practices are still part of the ancestral (and even religious) Islamic tradition. Criticism of such customs is justified, but it is necessary to consider that here one is dealing with a culture that is not going to disappear overnight, even though it should disappear.
As this article does not intend to discuss the origins and variants of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Iran is a mere metastasis of the political cancer that has never been excised), I am going to limit myself to demonstrating that the Security Council is becoming a Chamber of Commerce.
All those who accompany international news regarding the “Iranian threat” are reminded that China and Russia showed themselves to be against the use of further sanctions against Iran. Suddenly, on the eve of the voting session for further sanctions, China changed its stance. Why? Clarification is provided by the more courageous media, indicating that this abrupt turnaround occurred because the Israeli government explained in sobering detail to China that it intends to attack and destroy Iranian facilities used for extracting oil. With such a perspective, China would lose this precious source of oil for a long period. For this reason, Beijing thought that it would be more prudent to approve the new Security Council sanctions and maintain its supply of oil, which will not be affected by such sanctions. “Just business, nothing against Iran”. The sudden change of stance by the Chinese is thus explained.
Now, let us examine the Russian explanation. Everyone knows that Russia signed a contract with Iran for the sale of ground-to-air S-300 missiles. It was only necessary to deliver such missiles, which are solely a means of defense, destined to bring down aircraft and rockets in the event of an attack on the country. The Russian government, even after the Security Council decision to create further sanctions, stated that such ground-to-air missiles would be delivered, as they could not be classified as “offensive weapons” and that the contracts should be honored. There followed secret talks and Putin changed his stance, saying that the missiles would no longer be delivered. I do not know whether some kind of advance payment had been made.
Why did the Putin administration decide to change its mind? Because if Russia delivered the aforementioned defensive missiles to Iran, Sarkozy’s France (discreetly pro-Israel) would cease to provide Russia with something that is greatly desired in order to combat Chechen separatists: Mistral class amphibious assault ships, which can get very close to the beach, each vessel carrying 16 attack helicopters, 4 landing craft, 70 combat vehicles, 13 tanks and 450 soldiers. Such amphibious vessels even have 69 hospital beds. The sale of one Mistral class ship was already agreed and the sale of another four was being considered. Faced with perspective of losing the deal with the French, if he vetoed sanctions, or did not fulfill them, Putin changed his mind. “Sorry, business..”, he must have said to the Iranians, who will be less protected from aerial attacks against their most vital facilities. Foreseeing American support for a preemptive strike as inevitable (around thirty years ago, Israel bombed Saddam Hussein’s Osirak nuclear reactor) it is quite likely that the dose comes to be repeated. This time against Iran, effectively putting an end to any development in the nuclear field by this country, irrespective of whether it is for peaceful or military purposes.
Brazil courageously maintained its opposition to further sanctions, even losing money by adopting this stance. It insists on the existence of a principle that will never be able to be swept under the carpet (probably already well rumpled) of the Security Council meeting room, namely: if all nations have equal rights, there is no reason to impede the right of Iran to develop nuclear technology, as the five permanent members of the Security Council are already in possession of nuclear weapons and do not oppose the existence of such arsenals in India, Pakistan and Israel. The latter is an arch enemy of Iran and has not even taken the trouble to become a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, being “consequently” and “legally” able to fabricate nuclear weapons as it sees fit, free from inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The Brazilian government has undertaken to sell alcohol to Tehran, as well as food products, items that are not explicitly included in the embargo. Nevertheless, it will not manage to sell the alcohol because UNICA, the entity that represents ethanol producers, is aware that if alcohol is sold to Iran, it will be subject to reprisals in the form of tariffs imposed by the American government. Consequently, as a UNICA representative has already stated, not “a drop” will be sold. The ethanol producers will say: “We have nothing against the Iranians, its “just business”. Even those Brazilian companies interested in selling food products to the Iranians will tire of swimming against the financial current, given that export business dealings are performed by means of bank transactions and the “all-powerful duo” has already made it clear that banks maintaining transactions with Iran are on the black list. “Just business...”, the ethanol producers will say.
Of course, I have nothing against private companies always seeking the easiest pathway to do business. I also have nothing against Chambers of Commerce being used for business transactions. They were instituted for this very purpose. What is evidently wrong is seeing an extremely powerful global agency - the UN Security Council, created for another, supposedly more noble, purpose - in “competition” with real Chambers of Commerce. The intended goals of each institution are quite different. Ideally, the Security Council should address global friction, possibly leading to imminent armed conflict, taking a preponderantly moral standpoint, analyzing not only the economic interests of its members, but also their ethical opinions, avoiding or diminishing, as far as possible, any instances of injustice and abuse. Each “sanction” has an ethical component. It is not solely the result of an economic accounting exercise.
When the Security Council clearly perceives that the vote has been expressed solely in Exchange for an economic advantage on the part of the voting country - as has frequently been the case - such a vote would be invalidated or at least demoralized by public opinion. The so-called “economic deterrent vote” needs to disappear in decisions made by the Security Council. The rationale adopted as a basis for the vote of each member should be obligatorily published and widely disseminated, with a view to ensuring that international public opinion, as well as that of each country, is fully aware of the degree of intellectual honesty of its UN representatives and respective heads of state.
The reader can imagine what kind of justification would be put forward, in all sincerity, as a basis for voting at the present time. The representative of China would say: “Mr. Secretary General: I am really against further sanctions against Iran, but China needs Iranian oil. As it is highly likely - almost guaranteed - that bombing raids will be carried out by Israel or the United states on the oil facilities of this important supplier (and in this case, China will be without oil for a long time), I find myself obliged, for practical reasons, to vote in favor of further sanctions. This is my vote, Mr. Secretary”.
As far as the vote of the Russian representative is concerned, he would say the following: “Mr. Secretary: like China, I am also against further sanctions, which will only increase the suffering of the Iranian population and, indirectly, that of Gaza, deprived of almost everything. Nevertheless, my country is already counting on the acquisition of amphibious ships manufactured in France that will be very useful for combating Chechen separatists. And we have not been able to identify another potential supplier. The fact is that, if I do not support further sanctions, the Sarkozy administration will go back on its commitment and no longer sell us the ships, thus impeding our struggle against Chechen terror. With the French vessels in mind, I vote in favor of further sanctions. I would like to add that Russia has undertaken to sell ground-to-air missiles to Iran, for defense against any aircraft or missiles that come to attack the country in question. I am going to try to fulfill our contractual obligations; however, if France requires that I breach the agreement, I will breach it, because the amphibious ships are more important to Russia than any rights or wrongs against such a country as Iran, highly disliked”.
Some other countries that support sanctions would certainly say something similar, citing pending transactions.
It could be said that it is the responsibility of the International Court of Justice and not the Security Council to conduct a judicial analysis of unresolved disputes. However, it is the case that, according to the statutes of the aforementioned court, solely States - and the Palestinians do not constitute a State - can make claims against expulsion, with no compensation, from an area that has been occupied for almost two millennia. The root of the animosity that exists between Israel and Iran lies in the Palestinian issue, without any chance of being formally resolved by a Court. Hence the need for the Security Council to decide on the issue of sanctions, taking moral criteria of justice or injustice into account.
I have no real prejudice against any race. I consider them to be more or less equal in terms of innate natural capabilities and character trends. There is the same degree of variation regarding individual moral standpoints within each race. There are excellent individuals, authentic human gems, in all peoples. There are also astute gangsters in the guise of politicians. The problem is associated with good or bad luck in choosing the “bosses” and the kinds of trauma suffered, in the recent and/or remote past, and not forgotten by each people.
I am no admirer of Ahmadinejad - who all too often has a habit of saying the wrong thing at the wrong time, which will likely be the death of him - but I cannot ignore the fact that Iran has been the only country that rolled up its sleeves to defend, with a crazy kind of courage, the Palestinians, a people who have been tormented and expelled, without any blame on their part for imperial Roman injustice committed two thousand years ago.
Some readers may consider the opinions expressed in this article as ingenuous. “Ingenuous”, bearing in mind the real world, at the present time. But is it not a fact that civilization has grown attempting to implement “ingenuity”? There was a time when discussions focused on whether women had a “soul”. If they had such a thing, there was not guarantee that they had sufficient sense to choose a candidate during elections. They could not vote. Become judges? No chance! Besides this, Indians were not considered to be complete human beings -and so on.
Sooner or later, with a view to preserving its theoretical mission (ever more criticized in practice), the Security Council will have to step up to a higher level, no longer acting like a Chamber of Commerce. Those well-versed in International Law exist in their hundreds; however, it seems that they are afraid of freely expressing their negative impressions. They do not wish to put their academic careers at risk.
(14-6-2010)
Ordinary individuals - the governed - are more restricted by moral standards, fear of the police or neighborhood gossip. They are concerned with upholding their promises. However, when transformed into government leaders, they re-write the moral code, adopting more “flexible” standards. This is justified by saying: - “We have reached a new threshold... Adopting an overview, looking into the future, it is necessary to sacrifice many ‘things’ previously considered as correct”. They rise in status but fall in character. Forced by a need (or mere economic convenience) to protect their subjects from external egoism, they also start to lie and hatch plots, bringing cunning to bear against cunning. They defend themselves in this manner: - “If I do not defend my country, even by lying and using fallacious reasoning, from this arrogant and untruthful mob of foreign enemies or false friends, nobody will. Not even God, in His divine loathing of international intrigues, will lift a finger to save the weakest peoples. Perhaps it is because He sees that suffering is the surest way to purify the soul, His only interest in mankind. If He did not protect the Jews during the Holocaust, He will certainly not protect the Iranians now from the approaching massacre, planned by the descendents of the survivors of the aforementioned Holocaust. We will back the likely winners, after all, we will profit from them! Nobody ever got rich by backing the weakest runner”.
I would like to ask you - the reader - if I am exaggerating with respect to that which has happened recently in the international arena? I do not think so. Whatever your “leaning” in the conflict (which has not yet reached the level of aggression) between the Israel-USA consortium and Iran, it cannot be denied that the Security Council has become a kind of Chamber of Commerce, where all votes have a price. A price, really, and I am not speaking figuratively. “Money, business”.
Even though a reasonable accord was reached - thanks to Turkey and Brazil - in which Iran agreed with the American proposal (put forward several months ago) of delivering, under the responsibility of a European country, a large portion of its nuclear fuel for enrichment to 20%, for clearly non-military purposes (in order to fabricate a bomb, enrichment would have to attain a level of 90%), the USA immediately requested a meeting of the Security Council for imposition of further sanctions, without giving Iran time to discuss or even think about these new requirements. It is the wish of the “heavyweight USA-Israel duo” (although I am not saying this explicitly), that Iran totally interrupt any advance in its development of nuclear technology, for either peaceful or military purposes. It is alleged that they fear that the current Iranian president could, within a few months or years, come to fabricate nuclear weapons, a privilege which, from the point of view of the “darned duo”, can only be and should only be the right of a few “superior countries” (including the aforementioned pair), which are already tremendously powerful in terms of conventional and atomic weapons. In justifying this inequality of treatment, the duo alleges that the current Iranian government is dictatorial and primitive, to the point of allowing the lashing of thieves in public squares, the stoning of adulterers and other really primitive practices, although such practices are still part of the ancestral (and even religious) Islamic tradition. Criticism of such customs is justified, but it is necessary to consider that here one is dealing with a culture that is not going to disappear overnight, even though it should disappear.
As this article does not intend to discuss the origins and variants of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Iran is a mere metastasis of the political cancer that has never been excised), I am going to limit myself to demonstrating that the Security Council is becoming a Chamber of Commerce.
All those who accompany international news regarding the “Iranian threat” are reminded that China and Russia showed themselves to be against the use of further sanctions against Iran. Suddenly, on the eve of the voting session for further sanctions, China changed its stance. Why? Clarification is provided by the more courageous media, indicating that this abrupt turnaround occurred because the Israeli government explained in sobering detail to China that it intends to attack and destroy Iranian facilities used for extracting oil. With such a perspective, China would lose this precious source of oil for a long period. For this reason, Beijing thought that it would be more prudent to approve the new Security Council sanctions and maintain its supply of oil, which will not be affected by such sanctions. “Just business, nothing against Iran”. The sudden change of stance by the Chinese is thus explained.
Now, let us examine the Russian explanation. Everyone knows that Russia signed a contract with Iran for the sale of ground-to-air S-300 missiles. It was only necessary to deliver such missiles, which are solely a means of defense, destined to bring down aircraft and rockets in the event of an attack on the country. The Russian government, even after the Security Council decision to create further sanctions, stated that such ground-to-air missiles would be delivered, as they could not be classified as “offensive weapons” and that the contracts should be honored. There followed secret talks and Putin changed his stance, saying that the missiles would no longer be delivered. I do not know whether some kind of advance payment had been made.
Why did the Putin administration decide to change its mind? Because if Russia delivered the aforementioned defensive missiles to Iran, Sarkozy’s France (discreetly pro-Israel) would cease to provide Russia with something that is greatly desired in order to combat Chechen separatists: Mistral class amphibious assault ships, which can get very close to the beach, each vessel carrying 16 attack helicopters, 4 landing craft, 70 combat vehicles, 13 tanks and 450 soldiers. Such amphibious vessels even have 69 hospital beds. The sale of one Mistral class ship was already agreed and the sale of another four was being considered. Faced with perspective of losing the deal with the French, if he vetoed sanctions, or did not fulfill them, Putin changed his mind. “Sorry, business..”, he must have said to the Iranians, who will be less protected from aerial attacks against their most vital facilities. Foreseeing American support for a preemptive strike as inevitable (around thirty years ago, Israel bombed Saddam Hussein’s Osirak nuclear reactor) it is quite likely that the dose comes to be repeated. This time against Iran, effectively putting an end to any development in the nuclear field by this country, irrespective of whether it is for peaceful or military purposes.
Brazil courageously maintained its opposition to further sanctions, even losing money by adopting this stance. It insists on the existence of a principle that will never be able to be swept under the carpet (probably already well rumpled) of the Security Council meeting room, namely: if all nations have equal rights, there is no reason to impede the right of Iran to develop nuclear technology, as the five permanent members of the Security Council are already in possession of nuclear weapons and do not oppose the existence of such arsenals in India, Pakistan and Israel. The latter is an arch enemy of Iran and has not even taken the trouble to become a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, being “consequently” and “legally” able to fabricate nuclear weapons as it sees fit, free from inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The Brazilian government has undertaken to sell alcohol to Tehran, as well as food products, items that are not explicitly included in the embargo. Nevertheless, it will not manage to sell the alcohol because UNICA, the entity that represents ethanol producers, is aware that if alcohol is sold to Iran, it will be subject to reprisals in the form of tariffs imposed by the American government. Consequently, as a UNICA representative has already stated, not “a drop” will be sold. The ethanol producers will say: “We have nothing against the Iranians, its “just business”. Even those Brazilian companies interested in selling food products to the Iranians will tire of swimming against the financial current, given that export business dealings are performed by means of bank transactions and the “all-powerful duo” has already made it clear that banks maintaining transactions with Iran are on the black list. “Just business...”, the ethanol producers will say.
Of course, I have nothing against private companies always seeking the easiest pathway to do business. I also have nothing against Chambers of Commerce being used for business transactions. They were instituted for this very purpose. What is evidently wrong is seeing an extremely powerful global agency - the UN Security Council, created for another, supposedly more noble, purpose - in “competition” with real Chambers of Commerce. The intended goals of each institution are quite different. Ideally, the Security Council should address global friction, possibly leading to imminent armed conflict, taking a preponderantly moral standpoint, analyzing not only the economic interests of its members, but also their ethical opinions, avoiding or diminishing, as far as possible, any instances of injustice and abuse. Each “sanction” has an ethical component. It is not solely the result of an economic accounting exercise.
When the Security Council clearly perceives that the vote has been expressed solely in Exchange for an economic advantage on the part of the voting country - as has frequently been the case - such a vote would be invalidated or at least demoralized by public opinion. The so-called “economic deterrent vote” needs to disappear in decisions made by the Security Council. The rationale adopted as a basis for the vote of each member should be obligatorily published and widely disseminated, with a view to ensuring that international public opinion, as well as that of each country, is fully aware of the degree of intellectual honesty of its UN representatives and respective heads of state.
The reader can imagine what kind of justification would be put forward, in all sincerity, as a basis for voting at the present time. The representative of China would say: “Mr. Secretary General: I am really against further sanctions against Iran, but China needs Iranian oil. As it is highly likely - almost guaranteed - that bombing raids will be carried out by Israel or the United states on the oil facilities of this important supplier (and in this case, China will be without oil for a long time), I find myself obliged, for practical reasons, to vote in favor of further sanctions. This is my vote, Mr. Secretary”.
As far as the vote of the Russian representative is concerned, he would say the following: “Mr. Secretary: like China, I am also against further sanctions, which will only increase the suffering of the Iranian population and, indirectly, that of Gaza, deprived of almost everything. Nevertheless, my country is already counting on the acquisition of amphibious ships manufactured in France that will be very useful for combating Chechen separatists. And we have not been able to identify another potential supplier. The fact is that, if I do not support further sanctions, the Sarkozy administration will go back on its commitment and no longer sell us the ships, thus impeding our struggle against Chechen terror. With the French vessels in mind, I vote in favor of further sanctions. I would like to add that Russia has undertaken to sell ground-to-air missiles to Iran, for defense against any aircraft or missiles that come to attack the country in question. I am going to try to fulfill our contractual obligations; however, if France requires that I breach the agreement, I will breach it, because the amphibious ships are more important to Russia than any rights or wrongs against such a country as Iran, highly disliked”.
Some other countries that support sanctions would certainly say something similar, citing pending transactions.
It could be said that it is the responsibility of the International Court of Justice and not the Security Council to conduct a judicial analysis of unresolved disputes. However, it is the case that, according to the statutes of the aforementioned court, solely States - and the Palestinians do not constitute a State - can make claims against expulsion, with no compensation, from an area that has been occupied for almost two millennia. The root of the animosity that exists between Israel and Iran lies in the Palestinian issue, without any chance of being formally resolved by a Court. Hence the need for the Security Council to decide on the issue of sanctions, taking moral criteria of justice or injustice into account.
I have no real prejudice against any race. I consider them to be more or less equal in terms of innate natural capabilities and character trends. There is the same degree of variation regarding individual moral standpoints within each race. There are excellent individuals, authentic human gems, in all peoples. There are also astute gangsters in the guise of politicians. The problem is associated with good or bad luck in choosing the “bosses” and the kinds of trauma suffered, in the recent and/or remote past, and not forgotten by each people.
I am no admirer of Ahmadinejad - who all too often has a habit of saying the wrong thing at the wrong time, which will likely be the death of him - but I cannot ignore the fact that Iran has been the only country that rolled up its sleeves to defend, with a crazy kind of courage, the Palestinians, a people who have been tormented and expelled, without any blame on their part for imperial Roman injustice committed two thousand years ago.
Some readers may consider the opinions expressed in this article as ingenuous. “Ingenuous”, bearing in mind the real world, at the present time. But is it not a fact that civilization has grown attempting to implement “ingenuity”? There was a time when discussions focused on whether women had a “soul”. If they had such a thing, there was not guarantee that they had sufficient sense to choose a candidate during elections. They could not vote. Become judges? No chance! Besides this, Indians were not considered to be complete human beings -and so on.
Sooner or later, with a view to preserving its theoretical mission (ever more criticized in practice), the Security Council will have to step up to a higher level, no longer acting like a Chamber of Commerce. Those well-versed in International Law exist in their hundreds; however, it seems that they are afraid of freely expressing their negative impressions. They do not wish to put their academic careers at risk.
(14-6-2010)
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
“Freedom Flotilla”. Who is Right?
An intellectualized humorist once supposed that the Law is like the handle of a teacup: you can hold it with the right or the left hand, according to the individual taste of the “customer”, or should I say client - a necessary correction in order to avoid excessively hurting the feelings of the defender of a cause incapable of being defended. If interpretive distortions occur on invoking the Law, in general, such calculating distorted interpretations are multiplied thrice-fold in the field of International Law. The reason for this is that, at global level, justice-politics reveals symptoms of split personality: crawling and stammering when the defendant is strong, and speaking out harshly and imperiously when the defendant is weak.
In the case being examined here, it is Israel that is strong, scorning international sanctions. Strictly speaking, in legal terms, Israel cannot even plead “defense of its sovereignty”, given that the Gaza Strip has never been subject to its sovereignty. It has only been an area under military occupation. And it is not even this at the present time. As far as I know, years ago, the UN considered occupation of the Gaza Strip to be illegal - lamentably, without any kind of practical consequence... “Sovereignty” implies peaceful possession, accepted by the majority of the local population. This is obviously not the case with respect to Israel which, by the way, has already recognized such occupation as only an intrusion, to the extent that it withdrew from the area, despite the violent protests of hundreds of its settlers.
At the weak end of the spectrum are the Arabs who inhabit this small coastal rectangle, the victims of a blockade that has lasted for around three years. Apparently, the leaders of the current Israeli government do not remember the suffering of their parents or grandparents when the Nazis forced the Polish Jews to miserably live surrounded in the Warsaw ghetto. The suffering was so intense that the wretched population — starving, humiliated and convinced that they would end up in the gas chambers anyway — cast all caution aside and revolted, being crushed without pity, as they had foreseen. The world was duly moved by this heroic revolt. Notable literary pages arose as a result (e.g.: “Mila 18”, by Leon Uris, himself a Jew), inspired by the bravery of those who, fighting, knew they were going to die. In “normal” or “civilized” wars, combatants believe in the possibility of returning alive, which was obviously not an option in the case of the aforementioned revolt.
It is true that the current siege of Gaza is less virulent than that which existed in the Warsaw ghetto. The Palestinian ghetto is more “modest”, although it is still a ghetto. Photographs in international magazines show the city of Gaza to be under a stranglehold, surrounded by refuse, discomfort and poverty. Israel prohibits the entry of almost everything. It is a more “modest” ghetto because if it were the same as that which existed in Warsaw, the horror would provoke such an international scandal that any remaining international solidarity that benefits Israel, as a consequence of Nazi persecution, would disappear. An article in the São Paulo newspaper “O Estado de S. Paulo” (edition dated 3-6-10, on page A12) states that “only 16% of non-orthodox Jews in the USA, under 40 years of age, feel themselves to be very close to Israel”. In other words, 84% of American non-orthodox Jews (i.e., those who await the Messiah) already feel disappointed with Israeli policy, at least with respect to the Palestinians expelled from their lands. In addition, the entity providing this information is not an anti-Jewish organization; it is the American Jewish Committee. Furthermore, according to the same newspaper article, the current editor of Foreign Affairs magazine stated that “this new generation, 20 to 30 years of age, no longer identifies itself with certain Israeli policies and no longer envisages Israel as a moral actor”.
Jurists, with or without inverted commas, and more sophisticated journalists argue for or against the intervention measures and behavior shown by the Israeli commandos. The arguments vary widely but, if reduced to the most basic terms, it is easy to see who has the better judgment - legally and politically speaking - in the incident that resulted in the death of nine activists, without any Israeli casualties. There were wounded on both sides. As I said at the beginning of this article, legal texts always lend themselves - even more so in the field of International Law - to interpretations according to “individual taste”. Let us look at an example.
International waters. The invasion of the ship occurred in international waters, far from territorial waters under the solely de facto control of the Israelis. It should be remembered that the UN already decided, years ago, that the occupation of the Gaza Strip is illegal. If the occupation is illegal, in the last analysis, this area should not be policed and isolated by Israel, as that which is illegal does not merit legal protection. This is an important point in favor of the activists. Principally considering that there was no news or reasonable suspicion (Israeli intelligence would have easily gathered all necessary information during the preparatory phase of the marine flotilla) indicating that there were arms amongst the food and other items sent with a view to alleviating the situation of the besieged population.
The invasion of the vessel that led the small flotilla occurred at 04:00 hrs in the morning - “pirate tactics”, making the most of the slumber of those on board. If there was resistance on the part of the activists, this was perfectly natural and legitimate for the following reasons: firstly, because they were in international waters; and, secondly, because the mission of the flotilla was one of charity and solidarity, without any intention of violently taking possession of the lands of others, or any belligerent purposes. The physical resistance of a few was improvised, using chairs, iron rods, catapults and other fragile means of defense. If, eventually - and it is difficult to believe in the Israeli version... - one of the activists managed to gain possession of the weapon of an inattentive rather “half-witted” commando, this would be an act of defense rather than aggression, as in the case of someone who, in his own home, confronts thieves and manages to gain possession of the weapon of one of his assailants. Commandos are highly trained and certainly not inexperienced to the extent of losing possession of their weapons in moments of conflict.
In an article dated 4-6-10, on page A11 of the aforementioned newspaper, the writer Linda Grant reminds us of that which happened regarding the vessel “Exodus” in the summer of 1947. She draws an analogy between the two situations, although the respective positions are reversed, as the Exodus incident involved Jews attempting to break through a blockade. The ship in question carried 4,500 Holocaust survivors and left France destined for Palestine. It intended to run the blockade established by the British, who were quite rightly concerned with the incessant flow of Jews who had been, in the author’s own words, “rotting in displaced persons camps since the end of the war.” The English knew that the Palestinians would react against a mass “return” of Israelites after an absence of almost two thousand years. Linda Grant says that the Jews “didn't expect to be able to land, but they knew that the rickety vessel with its pitiful human cargo of refugees would show up the British as cold-hearted colonial masters. As the ship approached Haifa, the commander received a radio signal from the Zionist leadership not to risk the lives of the passengers by a confrontation. But the incalcitrant Polish captain refused to turn back. Hemmed in by three British destroyers, the crew and passengers found themselves boarded, and retaliated (very much like that which occurred in the case of the pro-Palestinian activists) with whatever weapons came to hand – a consignment of cans of kosher corned beef. The British killed three people.” The passengers were unable to disembark and were returned to refugee camps in Germany. This incident helped the Jewish cause tremendously, in terms of international sympathy. Any similarity to that which occurred regarding the “Freedom Flotilla” is not mere coincidence. It is a maritime precedent demonstrating that the violent reaction of a few individuals against the armed boarding of a vessel is perfectly normal. In addition, as far as I can gather from the above account, in the case of the “Exodus”, the vessel was not in international waters. Besides this, at the time, the United Kingdom had very much more legitimacy than Israel, today, with respect to impeding the progress of the 4,500 passengers who had come to settle in Palestine - a source of friction with Arab residents - , this being the opposite of the situation involving the “Free Gaza” activists, who only intended to deliver their humanitarian cargo and then return.
I have already read arguments, in favor of the Israelis, saying that the flotilla had been invited to sail to the Israeli port of Ashdod, further to the south, where its cargo would be handed over to the local authorities, who would assume responsibility for transporting it to the city of Gaza after completing detailed inspection. Such an argument has little credibility, given that the Israelis remain firm in their resolve to maintain a “stranglehold” on the Hamas government in Gaza, depriving the population of basic items necessary for its daily existence. It is not easy to believe that the Israelis would act to the contrary, demonstrating their good faith by “forwarding” ten tons of humanitarian aid. Why should the pro-Palestinian activists believe in such a promise? If Israel intended to ensure that this aid arrived in Gaza, why did it not allow it to be unloaded in the port of Gaza, as the flotilla organizers had in mind, under close inspection by the Israeli army? Everything indicates that here one is dealing with an argument fabricated at the last moment, given the international fiasco resulting from violent interception of the flotilla.
With regard to this event, the ambivalent reaction shown by the government of Barack Obama is lamentable, considering that he is a president in whom I still persist in having great hopes. Initially, Obama requested that an investigation be performed by the Israelis themselves, acting on their own behalf - an absurd degree of naivety. Fortunately, following this, he suggested that an impartial international investigation be conducted. The meek American reaction can likely be explained by the imperious necessity of financial support by the American Jewish lobby in the next round of US legislative elections.
As everyone knows, even the most well-meaning democracies do not dispense with campaign financing. In a manner of speaking, the highest political positions are “purchased”, in part, via electoral propaganda. Success does not solely depend on the ideas and character of candidates. In addition, aggravating the difficult stance maintained by Obama, there is evident divergence between the views and sympathies of the president and his secretary of state with respect to the Middle East problem. It is difficult to imagine that the defeat of that valiant lady - within her own party, at the time of choosing the person who would be the democratic candidate during the last presidential election - has not left a significant degree of residual resentment which, like a volcano, lies dormant but not extinct, awaiting the right moment to erupt.
In today’s press, Prime Minister Netanyahu, somewhat surprised with the repercussions of his “disastrous piracy” said that he was seeking “creative solutions”. Netanyahu is really a patriot. However, he is a patriot of the old school, outdated and narrow minded, founded solely on egoism, only concerned about the happiness of his fellow citizens and indifferent to the suffering of other peoples.
“Creative solutions” always exist. The problem is that they require sacrifices to be made. One of these is that of sitting down at the negotiating table with the Palestinians and confronting the issue of creating a Palestinian State, with at least a wide highway connecting the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, as it makes no sense to maintain these two regions separate. In the event that agreement is not possible, the parties should “wash their hands” of the issue, requesting that an international court decide, via arbitration, the future boundaries between the two states, because everyone has had enough of blood, anguish and suffering. With regard to the return of Palestinian refugees - thousands of them, crowded together in camps scattered throughout the Arab world - a possible proposal would be that of compensating each displaced Palestinian family and asking the UN to provide a large area (in Africa, for example) where such Palestinians could settle and prosper. I vouch that, in a few decades, this “second Palestine”, perhaps African, would be able to attain an equal standing, in terms of progress, with the Israel of Netanyahu, already deceased and remembered with hatred or affectionately missed, depending on his behavior from this time onwards. And Africa would profit from this.
I remembered Africa in the above suggestion because if the Zionist Movement had accepted the offer made by the British in 1903 to install the Jewish State in a region that then corresponded to Uganda (currently Kenya), with a relatively mild climate - an offer refused on the grounds of wild animals and the proximity of African tribes - Israel would have become a respected and tranquil power, rather than a hated one. I do not know whether the mass transfer of Palestinians would be possible at the present time, although virtually uninhabited lands exist that are capable of providing a home for new nations.
What is the difference between Hamas and the Palestinian National Authority? The latter, weary of fighting, became resigned to accepting the existence of Israel. It only wants to be a state, with the sovereign status enjoyed by other states. Hamas, on the other hand, found it difficult to “swallow” expulsion of the Palestinians by the “intruders” and, for this reason, does not accept the State of Israel. Ousting the “intruders” has become an impossible and impractical option. Even less so, an inhuman massacre of Homeric proportions, which would never even come to occur, given the economic, military, nuclear and political might of Israel. Hamas needs to convince itself of this evident reality, accept the real world and do the only thing possible: claim reasonable compensation for the displaced, and ask the UN for sufficient space where Palestinian refugees could settle, prosper and subsequently constitute a state.
If the European Union is able to designate billions of euros in order to save Greek finances, and the USA billions of dollars with a view to saving American banks and industries, with a much smaller amount of cash it would be possible to “acquire” a more or less suitable area in some continent, for settlement by the new “errant Jews” who currently answer to the name of “Palestinian refugees”. Hamas might consider this to be unjust, but it needs to be convinced that perfect Justice does not exist in any part of the planet.
Think about this, Mr. Netanyahu, and strive to leave your good name on the Earth before being consumed by worms. Save the small critters from indigestion. Your biography could still be augmented, transforming you into a true statesman. And please, Mr. President Barack Obama, think of American relief when the great wound that contaminates the Middle East, and which could spread to other areas, is finally healed. Once the principal source of rancor - the Palestinian situation - has disappeared, terrorism, if it persists, will be the mere activity of gangsters, much more easily controlled.
(5-6-10)
In the case being examined here, it is Israel that is strong, scorning international sanctions. Strictly speaking, in legal terms, Israel cannot even plead “defense of its sovereignty”, given that the Gaza Strip has never been subject to its sovereignty. It has only been an area under military occupation. And it is not even this at the present time. As far as I know, years ago, the UN considered occupation of the Gaza Strip to be illegal - lamentably, without any kind of practical consequence... “Sovereignty” implies peaceful possession, accepted by the majority of the local population. This is obviously not the case with respect to Israel which, by the way, has already recognized such occupation as only an intrusion, to the extent that it withdrew from the area, despite the violent protests of hundreds of its settlers.
At the weak end of the spectrum are the Arabs who inhabit this small coastal rectangle, the victims of a blockade that has lasted for around three years. Apparently, the leaders of the current Israeli government do not remember the suffering of their parents or grandparents when the Nazis forced the Polish Jews to miserably live surrounded in the Warsaw ghetto. The suffering was so intense that the wretched population — starving, humiliated and convinced that they would end up in the gas chambers anyway — cast all caution aside and revolted, being crushed without pity, as they had foreseen. The world was duly moved by this heroic revolt. Notable literary pages arose as a result (e.g.: “Mila 18”, by Leon Uris, himself a Jew), inspired by the bravery of those who, fighting, knew they were going to die. In “normal” or “civilized” wars, combatants believe in the possibility of returning alive, which was obviously not an option in the case of the aforementioned revolt.
It is true that the current siege of Gaza is less virulent than that which existed in the Warsaw ghetto. The Palestinian ghetto is more “modest”, although it is still a ghetto. Photographs in international magazines show the city of Gaza to be under a stranglehold, surrounded by refuse, discomfort and poverty. Israel prohibits the entry of almost everything. It is a more “modest” ghetto because if it were the same as that which existed in Warsaw, the horror would provoke such an international scandal that any remaining international solidarity that benefits Israel, as a consequence of Nazi persecution, would disappear. An article in the São Paulo newspaper “O Estado de S. Paulo” (edition dated 3-6-10, on page A12) states that “only 16% of non-orthodox Jews in the USA, under 40 years of age, feel themselves to be very close to Israel”. In other words, 84% of American non-orthodox Jews (i.e., those who await the Messiah) already feel disappointed with Israeli policy, at least with respect to the Palestinians expelled from their lands. In addition, the entity providing this information is not an anti-Jewish organization; it is the American Jewish Committee. Furthermore, according to the same newspaper article, the current editor of Foreign Affairs magazine stated that “this new generation, 20 to 30 years of age, no longer identifies itself with certain Israeli policies and no longer envisages Israel as a moral actor”.
Jurists, with or without inverted commas, and more sophisticated journalists argue for or against the intervention measures and behavior shown by the Israeli commandos. The arguments vary widely but, if reduced to the most basic terms, it is easy to see who has the better judgment - legally and politically speaking - in the incident that resulted in the death of nine activists, without any Israeli casualties. There were wounded on both sides. As I said at the beginning of this article, legal texts always lend themselves - even more so in the field of International Law - to interpretations according to “individual taste”. Let us look at an example.
International waters. The invasion of the ship occurred in international waters, far from territorial waters under the solely de facto control of the Israelis. It should be remembered that the UN already decided, years ago, that the occupation of the Gaza Strip is illegal. If the occupation is illegal, in the last analysis, this area should not be policed and isolated by Israel, as that which is illegal does not merit legal protection. This is an important point in favor of the activists. Principally considering that there was no news or reasonable suspicion (Israeli intelligence would have easily gathered all necessary information during the preparatory phase of the marine flotilla) indicating that there were arms amongst the food and other items sent with a view to alleviating the situation of the besieged population.
The invasion of the vessel that led the small flotilla occurred at 04:00 hrs in the morning - “pirate tactics”, making the most of the slumber of those on board. If there was resistance on the part of the activists, this was perfectly natural and legitimate for the following reasons: firstly, because they were in international waters; and, secondly, because the mission of the flotilla was one of charity and solidarity, without any intention of violently taking possession of the lands of others, or any belligerent purposes. The physical resistance of a few was improvised, using chairs, iron rods, catapults and other fragile means of defense. If, eventually - and it is difficult to believe in the Israeli version... - one of the activists managed to gain possession of the weapon of an inattentive rather “half-witted” commando, this would be an act of defense rather than aggression, as in the case of someone who, in his own home, confronts thieves and manages to gain possession of the weapon of one of his assailants. Commandos are highly trained and certainly not inexperienced to the extent of losing possession of their weapons in moments of conflict.
In an article dated 4-6-10, on page A11 of the aforementioned newspaper, the writer Linda Grant reminds us of that which happened regarding the vessel “Exodus” in the summer of 1947. She draws an analogy between the two situations, although the respective positions are reversed, as the Exodus incident involved Jews attempting to break through a blockade. The ship in question carried 4,500 Holocaust survivors and left France destined for Palestine. It intended to run the blockade established by the British, who were quite rightly concerned with the incessant flow of Jews who had been, in the author’s own words, “rotting in displaced persons camps since the end of the war.” The English knew that the Palestinians would react against a mass “return” of Israelites after an absence of almost two thousand years. Linda Grant says that the Jews “didn't expect to be able to land, but they knew that the rickety vessel with its pitiful human cargo of refugees would show up the British as cold-hearted colonial masters. As the ship approached Haifa, the commander received a radio signal from the Zionist leadership not to risk the lives of the passengers by a confrontation. But the incalcitrant Polish captain refused to turn back. Hemmed in by three British destroyers, the crew and passengers found themselves boarded, and retaliated (very much like that which occurred in the case of the pro-Palestinian activists) with whatever weapons came to hand – a consignment of cans of kosher corned beef. The British killed three people.” The passengers were unable to disembark and were returned to refugee camps in Germany. This incident helped the Jewish cause tremendously, in terms of international sympathy. Any similarity to that which occurred regarding the “Freedom Flotilla” is not mere coincidence. It is a maritime precedent demonstrating that the violent reaction of a few individuals against the armed boarding of a vessel is perfectly normal. In addition, as far as I can gather from the above account, in the case of the “Exodus”, the vessel was not in international waters. Besides this, at the time, the United Kingdom had very much more legitimacy than Israel, today, with respect to impeding the progress of the 4,500 passengers who had come to settle in Palestine - a source of friction with Arab residents - , this being the opposite of the situation involving the “Free Gaza” activists, who only intended to deliver their humanitarian cargo and then return.
I have already read arguments, in favor of the Israelis, saying that the flotilla had been invited to sail to the Israeli port of Ashdod, further to the south, where its cargo would be handed over to the local authorities, who would assume responsibility for transporting it to the city of Gaza after completing detailed inspection. Such an argument has little credibility, given that the Israelis remain firm in their resolve to maintain a “stranglehold” on the Hamas government in Gaza, depriving the population of basic items necessary for its daily existence. It is not easy to believe that the Israelis would act to the contrary, demonstrating their good faith by “forwarding” ten tons of humanitarian aid. Why should the pro-Palestinian activists believe in such a promise? If Israel intended to ensure that this aid arrived in Gaza, why did it not allow it to be unloaded in the port of Gaza, as the flotilla organizers had in mind, under close inspection by the Israeli army? Everything indicates that here one is dealing with an argument fabricated at the last moment, given the international fiasco resulting from violent interception of the flotilla.
With regard to this event, the ambivalent reaction shown by the government of Barack Obama is lamentable, considering that he is a president in whom I still persist in having great hopes. Initially, Obama requested that an investigation be performed by the Israelis themselves, acting on their own behalf - an absurd degree of naivety. Fortunately, following this, he suggested that an impartial international investigation be conducted. The meek American reaction can likely be explained by the imperious necessity of financial support by the American Jewish lobby in the next round of US legislative elections.
As everyone knows, even the most well-meaning democracies do not dispense with campaign financing. In a manner of speaking, the highest political positions are “purchased”, in part, via electoral propaganda. Success does not solely depend on the ideas and character of candidates. In addition, aggravating the difficult stance maintained by Obama, there is evident divergence between the views and sympathies of the president and his secretary of state with respect to the Middle East problem. It is difficult to imagine that the defeat of that valiant lady - within her own party, at the time of choosing the person who would be the democratic candidate during the last presidential election - has not left a significant degree of residual resentment which, like a volcano, lies dormant but not extinct, awaiting the right moment to erupt.
In today’s press, Prime Minister Netanyahu, somewhat surprised with the repercussions of his “disastrous piracy” said that he was seeking “creative solutions”. Netanyahu is really a patriot. However, he is a patriot of the old school, outdated and narrow minded, founded solely on egoism, only concerned about the happiness of his fellow citizens and indifferent to the suffering of other peoples.
“Creative solutions” always exist. The problem is that they require sacrifices to be made. One of these is that of sitting down at the negotiating table with the Palestinians and confronting the issue of creating a Palestinian State, with at least a wide highway connecting the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, as it makes no sense to maintain these two regions separate. In the event that agreement is not possible, the parties should “wash their hands” of the issue, requesting that an international court decide, via arbitration, the future boundaries between the two states, because everyone has had enough of blood, anguish and suffering. With regard to the return of Palestinian refugees - thousands of them, crowded together in camps scattered throughout the Arab world - a possible proposal would be that of compensating each displaced Palestinian family and asking the UN to provide a large area (in Africa, for example) where such Palestinians could settle and prosper. I vouch that, in a few decades, this “second Palestine”, perhaps African, would be able to attain an equal standing, in terms of progress, with the Israel of Netanyahu, already deceased and remembered with hatred or affectionately missed, depending on his behavior from this time onwards. And Africa would profit from this.
I remembered Africa in the above suggestion because if the Zionist Movement had accepted the offer made by the British in 1903 to install the Jewish State in a region that then corresponded to Uganda (currently Kenya), with a relatively mild climate - an offer refused on the grounds of wild animals and the proximity of African tribes - Israel would have become a respected and tranquil power, rather than a hated one. I do not know whether the mass transfer of Palestinians would be possible at the present time, although virtually uninhabited lands exist that are capable of providing a home for new nations.
What is the difference between Hamas and the Palestinian National Authority? The latter, weary of fighting, became resigned to accepting the existence of Israel. It only wants to be a state, with the sovereign status enjoyed by other states. Hamas, on the other hand, found it difficult to “swallow” expulsion of the Palestinians by the “intruders” and, for this reason, does not accept the State of Israel. Ousting the “intruders” has become an impossible and impractical option. Even less so, an inhuman massacre of Homeric proportions, which would never even come to occur, given the economic, military, nuclear and political might of Israel. Hamas needs to convince itself of this evident reality, accept the real world and do the only thing possible: claim reasonable compensation for the displaced, and ask the UN for sufficient space where Palestinian refugees could settle, prosper and subsequently constitute a state.
If the European Union is able to designate billions of euros in order to save Greek finances, and the USA billions of dollars with a view to saving American banks and industries, with a much smaller amount of cash it would be possible to “acquire” a more or less suitable area in some continent, for settlement by the new “errant Jews” who currently answer to the name of “Palestinian refugees”. Hamas might consider this to be unjust, but it needs to be convinced that perfect Justice does not exist in any part of the planet.
Think about this, Mr. Netanyahu, and strive to leave your good name on the Earth before being consumed by worms. Save the small critters from indigestion. Your biography could still be augmented, transforming you into a true statesman. And please, Mr. President Barack Obama, think of American relief when the great wound that contaminates the Middle East, and which could spread to other areas, is finally healed. Once the principal source of rancor - the Palestinian situation - has disappeared, terrorism, if it persists, will be the mere activity of gangsters, much more easily controlled.
(5-6-10)
Friday, May 28, 2010
What now, Messrs. Wolves?
For those of you who do not remember how La Fontaine, in his fable “The Wolf and the Lamb”, portrayed the constant prevalence of the arguments of the strongest party, I will repeat it here, with discreet embellishments (literary freedom...), showing its analogous pertinence to the reaction of the great powers to the nuclear agreement signed by Iran, Turkey and Brazil on 17-5-2010.
The fable states that a lamb was drinking water from a stream that flowed on sloping terrain, when it saw a wolf approaching to quench its thirst. The wolf was on a level higher than that occupied by the lamb. The defenseless herbivore tried to hide, but had already been seen by the wolf. The latter, scowling, in all certainty already salivating at the though of an imminent meal, initiates the following dialogue with the lamb:
— What makes you so bold as to dirty the water that I am drinking? — I am not dirtying anything, because water flows from high to low and you are upstream from me — This does not matter, because you said bad things about me a year ago! — But, Mr. Wolf, I had not been born a year ago! — Well, if it was not you, cheeky lamb, it must have been your brother! — That cannot be, because I have no brothers... — Then it must have been another lamb - a friend of yours, or the dog that guards the flock, or even the shepherd - such rabble. The fact is that I feel judicially offended!
With this haughty argument, the wolf considered the artificial polemic to be closed, carrying its prey in its mouth in order to devour it in some quiet place. While chewing on the now defunct debater, the wolf was perhaps thinking: “Shut up, conscience! Wolves are also “human beings”. God did not create me to eat vegetables. If anyone is to blame for the lame sophisms that I invented at the time, it is not me”.
Mention has already been made at the beginning of this article of the moral of this story: it is not difficult to forge “arguments” in order to justify the interests of the strongest. At the present moment in time in international politics, power is in complete favor of those countries that sympathize politically with Israel - a notable possessor of atomic weapons, without being bothered on this account - and fear, or pretend to fear, that Iran is planning to fabricate atomic bombs in order to drop them on Israel; even acknowledging that Iran itself knows that it would be crushed and incinerated in a nuclear inferno, soon after or even at the same time as any ill-advised attack.
The perspective of armed conflict is like a dream come true for the lucrative armament industries of several countries. Furthermore, it serves the political interests of Iran’s great enemy in the region, which is none too satisfied with the perspective of having to re-start disagreeable bilateral talks that attempt to discuss the creation of a neighboring Palestinian state, with a growth in population that is far greater than that of Israel. Following the agreement signed on May 17th 2010, the “wolves”, unhappy with the decreased risk of armed conflict, need to invent new arguments in order to stir up mud in the water; and, according to media reports today (19-05-10), it appears that that they are doing just that.
With a view to clearly and globally understanding the “Middle East problem” (without an overview of the problem, it is difficult to understand its component parts), it is necessary to persevere with a synthetic view regarding the origins of the Palestinian issue and subsequent developments up to the date of the nuclear agreement mentioned at the beginning of this article. This short simplified explanation will be considered as “simplistic” or “naive” by those interested in maintaining a pre-conflict or openly warlike climate; however, the author still trusts in the existence of intellectual honesty and intelligence on the part of the majority of those who read articles concerning this controversial issue. I will make an extremely brief summary of the festering sore that has potential for transforming the planet into an enormous open wound, infected with hatred and with presentiments of burned flesh.
As mentioned above, there follows a highly simplified “primer”, in order to allow for a rapid understanding of the topic in question.
In year 70 of the Christian era, Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans. The Jews found themselves forced to abandon Israel - the so-called “second diaspora” - without even surmising any incentive or participation on the part of Palestinian Arabs in this expulsion. Up to then, Arabs and Jews had lived together reasonably peacefully. Most of the Jews became scattered throughout the south of Europe, although slowly moving in a northerly direction. Despite this diaspora, the Jews, zealously maintaining their customs and religious traditions, mixed little with the Europeans and were persecuted in various manners, including - in some countries - the prohibition of acquiring land for cultivation.
As a result of this prohibition and needing to earn a living, the Jews specialized in the only options open to them, namely: business and finance, becoming very skilled in matters of money and business in general. To a greater extent than the Christians, given that Christianity did not look kindly on “vulgar” and earthly mercantile activities. The eyes of Christians were fixed on the infinite - spiritualism is all well and good but, as everyone knows, it does not pay the bills. When there was a shortage of money, some Christian governors requested loans from the Jews; however, when the time came for payment, if this was not possible, a “pogrom” was invented, alleging that the Jews were the assassins of Jesus Christ. And the masses, jealous of Jewish wealth, gave vent to their repressed feelings. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Jews, as a result of their business dealings with other peoples, cultivated the art of learning foreign languages, a powerful tool that maintained them, on average, much better informed than those practicing other religions.
As victims of regular “pogroms” (massacres), confiscations and humiliations, it would be only natural for the Jews to yearn for a “homeland”, a country that was their own, not as mere guests tolerated to a greater of lesser extent. But which country would it be, after nearly two millennia scattered throughout the world?
In Germany, with the rise to power of Adolf Hitler - a powerful speaker, but a mediocre thinker, violently anti-Semitic -, the European Jews attempted to obtain the authorization of other countries for a mass migration, fleeing from the Nazi threat. However, despite formal declarations of solidarity, such countries, including the USA, did not agree to receiving millions of German Jews, it being the case that the same occurred in the case of other nations, apparently sympathetic (paying lip service only) to the yearning of the Semites to live in safety.
In 1902, long before Hitler, the British Colonial Secretary even offered the Jews an area of 5,000 square miles known as “Mau Plateau” in Uganda (this area is currently part of Kenya); however, the offer was rejected on the grounds that there were many wild animals in the region, as well as the presence of Masai tribespeople, which could represent a problem. The actual climate was not bad, as the plateau was situated at a reasonable altitude, being similar to that found in the south of Europe. This proposal ended up being rejected at a Zionist congress. In my humble opinion, this was the wrong decision, due to the fact that, with the passage of time, Israel would have become a powerful nation, with its inhabitants free from the concerns inherent to every country that is transformed into an occupying force, as in the case of Palestine. The most that could occur would be some kind of revolt on the part of the local natives, in the event that they were not treated with respect.
Ultimately, with an incessant influx of Jews to Israel, coming from all parts of the world, without a cry of “enough!” on the part of successive Israeli governments, the mere number of people occupying the same space resulted in that which would be inevitable, namely: the pure and simple expulsion, with no right to compensation, of the weakest - in this case, the Palestinians. Here the great sore, infected to an ever greater extent and expressed in the form of “suicide bombers” and rockets that are little more than home-made which, for the time being, generate more noise than deaths. They do not kill to a great extent, but serve as a pretext for interrupting talks held with a view to dividing Palestine into two states. This is something which, at base, the current Israeli government does not accept at all, although it does not say so in an explicit manner, fearful of losing international support.
Where does “nuclear Iran” come into all this? Could it be that there is only expression of solidarity with the suffering of the Palestinians or, as Israel alleges, is there a desire for increased power in the region? I would risk stating that solidarity is likely the preponderant factor, due the fact that a mere desire for increased influence, through growth in nuclear capabilities, has shown itself to be immensely counterproductive, actually reducing influence, a shot in the foot, extremely dangerous for the future of Iran itself. Through the works and grace of its enemies, the country has become an international villain, suffering progressive sanctions - with a further batch on the horizon, according to newspapers on May 19th. Hillary Clinton has already made it clear that the Security Council is not going to take account of the agreement signed, days previously, by Iran, Turkey and Brazil. Hillary is re-writing the fable of the wolf and the lamb, “If it was not you, Iran, that muddied the water, it was a relative of yours, your dog or your shepherd”. The order of the day is to devour Iran, on whatever pretext, making the most of current circumstances surrounding its current president, Ahmadinejad, showing him to be a big mouth who uttered a few stupid phrases in the past and is afraid of being seen as a coward - by his citizens - if he recants on his misguided statement regarding the non-existence of the Holocaust and the infantile promise of wiping Israel off the map.
Several decades ago, the Shah of Persia signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; however, Article X allows any signatory state to withdraw from the treaty, by alleging, for example, security reasons (in this case, in relation to its enemy Israel). On the Internet, it is possible to access the aforementioned Non-Proliferation Treaty and see how easy it is, at least from a legal point of view, to become free from International Atomic Energy Agency criticism and inspections.
Three months after submitting a request for withdrawal from the treaty, Iran would be free of the possibility of being accused of non-compliance with any international standard. It would be in the same position as Israel, which has always makes it implicit that it is in possession of nuclear weapons and does not wish to sign the NPT, remaining exempt from inspections. I do not know whether Iran did not request withdrawal from the NPT for reasons of incompetence - forgetfulness on the part of its Foreign Relations Ministry - or whether it did not make such a request because, if it did so now, the “wolf” of the fable, or the subservient pack, would say that making such a request now is an implicit confession that Iran is fabricating nuclear weapons, there being an urgent need for invasion of the country, prior to the end of the three-month period.
Whoever accompanies, on a day-to-day basis, media reports on what is happening with respect to the “Iran problem”, can only be amazed that almost no mention is made of the inequality of international treatment of the “nuclear” stances adopted by Israel and Iran. The former, I repeat, has not signed anything and enjoys the luxury of fabricating nuclear weapons to its heart’s content, despite the fact that it has the best-equipped armed forces in the Middle East. Iran is the “villain” (although it could cease to be one in three months), despite the fact that it has now agreed to hand over part of its uranium for enrichment in Turkey. Even if Iran does this, it will still be subject to further sanctions, because it still has many kilos of this material, necessary for normal activities performed for peaceful purposes. It should be emphasized that, if Iran hands over all its uranium for enrichment in another country, it would have to deactivate its facilities for a long period of time. Perhaps decades, as nobody can guarantee what will happen in the future. In addition, Iran is very astute in developing its knowledge regarding use of the atom, given that oil is a finite asset, it pollutes, and it even encourages the occult energy ambitions of powers that imagine themselves to be “smart”. “Pero no mucho”, because there are still many thousands of intelligent readers who are not easily deceived and understand the moral of the fable, and how it is just as applicable today as when it was originally published by Fontaine.
(19-5-2010)
The fable states that a lamb was drinking water from a stream that flowed on sloping terrain, when it saw a wolf approaching to quench its thirst. The wolf was on a level higher than that occupied by the lamb. The defenseless herbivore tried to hide, but had already been seen by the wolf. The latter, scowling, in all certainty already salivating at the though of an imminent meal, initiates the following dialogue with the lamb:
— What makes you so bold as to dirty the water that I am drinking? — I am not dirtying anything, because water flows from high to low and you are upstream from me — This does not matter, because you said bad things about me a year ago! — But, Mr. Wolf, I had not been born a year ago! — Well, if it was not you, cheeky lamb, it must have been your brother! — That cannot be, because I have no brothers... — Then it must have been another lamb - a friend of yours, or the dog that guards the flock, or even the shepherd - such rabble. The fact is that I feel judicially offended!
With this haughty argument, the wolf considered the artificial polemic to be closed, carrying its prey in its mouth in order to devour it in some quiet place. While chewing on the now defunct debater, the wolf was perhaps thinking: “Shut up, conscience! Wolves are also “human beings”. God did not create me to eat vegetables. If anyone is to blame for the lame sophisms that I invented at the time, it is not me”.
Mention has already been made at the beginning of this article of the moral of this story: it is not difficult to forge “arguments” in order to justify the interests of the strongest. At the present moment in time in international politics, power is in complete favor of those countries that sympathize politically with Israel - a notable possessor of atomic weapons, without being bothered on this account - and fear, or pretend to fear, that Iran is planning to fabricate atomic bombs in order to drop them on Israel; even acknowledging that Iran itself knows that it would be crushed and incinerated in a nuclear inferno, soon after or even at the same time as any ill-advised attack.
The perspective of armed conflict is like a dream come true for the lucrative armament industries of several countries. Furthermore, it serves the political interests of Iran’s great enemy in the region, which is none too satisfied with the perspective of having to re-start disagreeable bilateral talks that attempt to discuss the creation of a neighboring Palestinian state, with a growth in population that is far greater than that of Israel. Following the agreement signed on May 17th 2010, the “wolves”, unhappy with the decreased risk of armed conflict, need to invent new arguments in order to stir up mud in the water; and, according to media reports today (19-05-10), it appears that that they are doing just that.
With a view to clearly and globally understanding the “Middle East problem” (without an overview of the problem, it is difficult to understand its component parts), it is necessary to persevere with a synthetic view regarding the origins of the Palestinian issue and subsequent developments up to the date of the nuclear agreement mentioned at the beginning of this article. This short simplified explanation will be considered as “simplistic” or “naive” by those interested in maintaining a pre-conflict or openly warlike climate; however, the author still trusts in the existence of intellectual honesty and intelligence on the part of the majority of those who read articles concerning this controversial issue. I will make an extremely brief summary of the festering sore that has potential for transforming the planet into an enormous open wound, infected with hatred and with presentiments of burned flesh.
As mentioned above, there follows a highly simplified “primer”, in order to allow for a rapid understanding of the topic in question.
In year 70 of the Christian era, Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans. The Jews found themselves forced to abandon Israel - the so-called “second diaspora” - without even surmising any incentive or participation on the part of Palestinian Arabs in this expulsion. Up to then, Arabs and Jews had lived together reasonably peacefully. Most of the Jews became scattered throughout the south of Europe, although slowly moving in a northerly direction. Despite this diaspora, the Jews, zealously maintaining their customs and religious traditions, mixed little with the Europeans and were persecuted in various manners, including - in some countries - the prohibition of acquiring land for cultivation.
As a result of this prohibition and needing to earn a living, the Jews specialized in the only options open to them, namely: business and finance, becoming very skilled in matters of money and business in general. To a greater extent than the Christians, given that Christianity did not look kindly on “vulgar” and earthly mercantile activities. The eyes of Christians were fixed on the infinite - spiritualism is all well and good but, as everyone knows, it does not pay the bills. When there was a shortage of money, some Christian governors requested loans from the Jews; however, when the time came for payment, if this was not possible, a “pogrom” was invented, alleging that the Jews were the assassins of Jesus Christ. And the masses, jealous of Jewish wealth, gave vent to their repressed feelings. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Jews, as a result of their business dealings with other peoples, cultivated the art of learning foreign languages, a powerful tool that maintained them, on average, much better informed than those practicing other religions.
As victims of regular “pogroms” (massacres), confiscations and humiliations, it would be only natural for the Jews to yearn for a “homeland”, a country that was their own, not as mere guests tolerated to a greater of lesser extent. But which country would it be, after nearly two millennia scattered throughout the world?
In Germany, with the rise to power of Adolf Hitler - a powerful speaker, but a mediocre thinker, violently anti-Semitic -, the European Jews attempted to obtain the authorization of other countries for a mass migration, fleeing from the Nazi threat. However, despite formal declarations of solidarity, such countries, including the USA, did not agree to receiving millions of German Jews, it being the case that the same occurred in the case of other nations, apparently sympathetic (paying lip service only) to the yearning of the Semites to live in safety.
In 1902, long before Hitler, the British Colonial Secretary even offered the Jews an area of 5,000 square miles known as “Mau Plateau” in Uganda (this area is currently part of Kenya); however, the offer was rejected on the grounds that there were many wild animals in the region, as well as the presence of Masai tribespeople, which could represent a problem. The actual climate was not bad, as the plateau was situated at a reasonable altitude, being similar to that found in the south of Europe. This proposal ended up being rejected at a Zionist congress. In my humble opinion, this was the wrong decision, due to the fact that, with the passage of time, Israel would have become a powerful nation, with its inhabitants free from the concerns inherent to every country that is transformed into an occupying force, as in the case of Palestine. The most that could occur would be some kind of revolt on the part of the local natives, in the event that they were not treated with respect.
Ultimately, with an incessant influx of Jews to Israel, coming from all parts of the world, without a cry of “enough!” on the part of successive Israeli governments, the mere number of people occupying the same space resulted in that which would be inevitable, namely: the pure and simple expulsion, with no right to compensation, of the weakest - in this case, the Palestinians. Here the great sore, infected to an ever greater extent and expressed in the form of “suicide bombers” and rockets that are little more than home-made which, for the time being, generate more noise than deaths. They do not kill to a great extent, but serve as a pretext for interrupting talks held with a view to dividing Palestine into two states. This is something which, at base, the current Israeli government does not accept at all, although it does not say so in an explicit manner, fearful of losing international support.
Where does “nuclear Iran” come into all this? Could it be that there is only expression of solidarity with the suffering of the Palestinians or, as Israel alleges, is there a desire for increased power in the region? I would risk stating that solidarity is likely the preponderant factor, due the fact that a mere desire for increased influence, through growth in nuclear capabilities, has shown itself to be immensely counterproductive, actually reducing influence, a shot in the foot, extremely dangerous for the future of Iran itself. Through the works and grace of its enemies, the country has become an international villain, suffering progressive sanctions - with a further batch on the horizon, according to newspapers on May 19th. Hillary Clinton has already made it clear that the Security Council is not going to take account of the agreement signed, days previously, by Iran, Turkey and Brazil. Hillary is re-writing the fable of the wolf and the lamb, “If it was not you, Iran, that muddied the water, it was a relative of yours, your dog or your shepherd”. The order of the day is to devour Iran, on whatever pretext, making the most of current circumstances surrounding its current president, Ahmadinejad, showing him to be a big mouth who uttered a few stupid phrases in the past and is afraid of being seen as a coward - by his citizens - if he recants on his misguided statement regarding the non-existence of the Holocaust and the infantile promise of wiping Israel off the map.
Several decades ago, the Shah of Persia signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; however, Article X allows any signatory state to withdraw from the treaty, by alleging, for example, security reasons (in this case, in relation to its enemy Israel). On the Internet, it is possible to access the aforementioned Non-Proliferation Treaty and see how easy it is, at least from a legal point of view, to become free from International Atomic Energy Agency criticism and inspections.
Three months after submitting a request for withdrawal from the treaty, Iran would be free of the possibility of being accused of non-compliance with any international standard. It would be in the same position as Israel, which has always makes it implicit that it is in possession of nuclear weapons and does not wish to sign the NPT, remaining exempt from inspections. I do not know whether Iran did not request withdrawal from the NPT for reasons of incompetence - forgetfulness on the part of its Foreign Relations Ministry - or whether it did not make such a request because, if it did so now, the “wolf” of the fable, or the subservient pack, would say that making such a request now is an implicit confession that Iran is fabricating nuclear weapons, there being an urgent need for invasion of the country, prior to the end of the three-month period.
Whoever accompanies, on a day-to-day basis, media reports on what is happening with respect to the “Iran problem”, can only be amazed that almost no mention is made of the inequality of international treatment of the “nuclear” stances adopted by Israel and Iran. The former, I repeat, has not signed anything and enjoys the luxury of fabricating nuclear weapons to its heart’s content, despite the fact that it has the best-equipped armed forces in the Middle East. Iran is the “villain” (although it could cease to be one in three months), despite the fact that it has now agreed to hand over part of its uranium for enrichment in Turkey. Even if Iran does this, it will still be subject to further sanctions, because it still has many kilos of this material, necessary for normal activities performed for peaceful purposes. It should be emphasized that, if Iran hands over all its uranium for enrichment in another country, it would have to deactivate its facilities for a long period of time. Perhaps decades, as nobody can guarantee what will happen in the future. In addition, Iran is very astute in developing its knowledge regarding use of the atom, given that oil is a finite asset, it pollutes, and it even encourages the occult energy ambitions of powers that imagine themselves to be “smart”. “Pero no mucho”, because there are still many thousands of intelligent readers who are not easily deceived and understand the moral of the fable, and how it is just as applicable today as when it was originally published by Fontaine.
(19-5-2010)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)