Justice for the Palestinians at the UN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(September 19th, 2011)

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

Kadhafi´s warrant of arrest and the Rome Statute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(July 1st, 2011)

The international judicial anarchy and a few confessions

When I was a pre-college student I seriously considered following a diplomatic career. Naively enough, I saw myself in international congresses, getting out of shiny black limousines, carrying briefcases full of important and mysterious documents... In addition to those attractive features, there was also the highly illusory perspective of comfortable overseas trips – travelling by airplane, at that time, was a luxury that only a few could afford. I could live in London, Paris, Amsterdam, Washington, Stockholm, Brussels — a privileged route, ironically known in the diplomatic rounds as the “Elizabeth Arden circuit” — and other cities filled with beautiful blue-eyed Valkyries who would look at me with romantic admiration and welcome me, considering attractive my qualifications as a diplomat and the perspective of having a life full of free tourism and dollars as a diplomat´s wife.

Besides, there was the cultural side: quickly learning new languages; “drinking” from ancient cultures, straight from their sources; reading extensively, without fear of being mistaken as a tramp; dealing with extremely refined and educated people, who would never resort to shouting and insulting in order to express their opinions - which would always be sincere and respectful to the International Law.

In summation, at roughly 17 I imagined diplomacy as a kind of elegant tourism, well-paid, highly intellectualized and submitted to the fair and perfect International Law, working like a Swiss clock in its maximum precision.

However, my “diplomatic illusions” have gradually been rectified. In the last few years, after retiring as a Court of Appeals judge in Brazil, I´ve been lividly following international politics through newspapers, magazines and the internet. Notably, I have been reading between the lines spoken and written by politicians and commentators. As a consequence, I have been gradually noticing that the old and primitive “Mrs. Strength”, along with her faithful companion – “the persistent and elaborate lie” –, still rule the world. They take for granted that readers are mostly uninformed and not so clever; that they are gullible and easily manipulated, only thinking through the crutches of “clichés”. If a small number of voters are not deceived, it doesn´t matter, because these are the minority. “What really matters...” — and what comforts the media owners who are only interested in money—“... are the statistics, the climb or fall in the opinion polls. After all, isn´t democracy based on the majority? And how are majorities formed? With money, advertising and skillful writers who have decided to turn our brains into slot machines”.

My amazement has been growing, appalled by the cynicism of the public announcements made by representatives from some strong governments, who aren´t even trying to disguise their position as defenders of the undefendable. The mere force - political, economical and military —, grounded on interests, is what still prevails in international politics, which causes many distortions. In important decisions, the stronger powers firstly ask the weaker ones to vote in such and such resolution from the UN´s Security Council. If there is any resistance from the weaker ones, the request becomes an order. Otherwise (i.e., if they don´t vote accordingly), they will suffer the consequences - not necessarily military consequences (although those remain implicit, since “all options are still on the table”, an arrogant sentence exhaustively repeated by featherless parrots). The threat of financial non-cooperation may scare some countries even more than the threat of pointing canons towards desperate leaders with a lack of resources. Barack Obama´s current psychological version — that he needs financial support to his reelection plans – doesn´t hesitate to “act firmly” when this means improved chances of a new term.

A few weeks ago, it was revealed that NATO airplanes had bombed the palace where Libyan dictator Khadafi lives, with hopes of killing him. Khadafi, incidentally, wasn´t there. However, one of his sons, along with two grandsons and a few servants, died in the attack. In view of that, the angry part of the population who supports him attacked embassies of western countries which support the rebel movement with weapons, planes and military assistance. As Khadafi didn´t reprimand by force the invaders of those embassies, the same governments which previously had tried to assassinate him felt injured and now intend to sue the dictator in the international courts – solemnly invoking the international right of protection held by the embassies – as well as other retaliations against the “arrogance” of the dictator who escaped from the bombs thrown against him by mere chance. It really requires a great dose of cynicism to expose legal indignation against your intended murder victim.

There is no doubt that Muamar Khadafi is a primitive dictator who doesn´t even bother with appearances anymore. He has refused to vacate his “job” as president because he doesn´t formally see himself as “president” – this position doesn´t even exist in Libya nowadays. Libya doesn´t even have a constitution . It is power, pure and simple. Notwithstanding, there is no certainty on whether the majority of the Libyan population disapproves of his permanence in the position. Oddly enough, it is even possible that a fair public opinion poll, done by trustworthy Western entities, would show that the majority of the population is against an expulsion of Khadafi by force.

It is certain that thousands of opponents manifested on the streets with the intent of deposing him. These thousands – millions, even – may in fact represent a minority. Therefore, respecting the current principle of sovereignty – through which each country decides its own fate — there is no way to consider as legitimate the Western support to the taking down of a governor by force, whether he is a dictator or not - especially through a murder attempt.

Under a legal view, as long as there is no universal Law – or, say, a World Federative Government —, stating that henceforth it is no longer up to the citizens to decide on their own about who should govern them, any action which allows for countries to collaborate with weapons and other resources to depose or assassinate dictators, as unpleasant as they might be, is an insult to international lawfulness. It is up to the people alone to take action against its dictator. And especially considering that any “external collaboration” may very well be in fact covering up a hidden interest – for instance, if the insurgence happens in an oil-filled country.

Let us remind ourselves that Pinochet was a self-confessed dictator and that the “powers that be” never tried to depose him, even in face of his despise to Chileans´ human rights (not to mention the rights of any socialism activist which dared to set foot in Chile). Stalin was a dictator who had the support of the great majority of Russians at his time, notably while resisting the attempted Nazi invasion. Back to Khadafi, the argument that he should be eliminated by NATO because he commits crimes against humanity when he butchers those who try to get rid of him must be put at the margin of the international law, considering the current – even if old-fashioned – concept of sovereignty. It is a fact that this concept must be modified, restricted even, when it is carried out in an uncivil manner. However, this modification must be done in the clear, through serious discussion at the UN, formally regulating the subject – and not through subterfuges which are convenient under a political or economical perspective.

I have absolutely no sympathy at all to the unpleasant and political figure of Khadafi. I would never be sad if he ever suffered a heart attack. I am merely trying to put under attention the need for coherence in international politics.

Another example of mental dishonesty in international politics and its practice is well demonstrated in the long-running conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

For a long time, Israel has created subterfuges for not setting with the Palestinians the borders which would separate both populations, Jews and Arabs, and consequently granting the latter the status of Nation. Without such status, Palestinians are unable to claim anything against eventual abuses from Israel, including territorial ones, because, as we are all well aware of, only proper Nations are capable of proposing anything at the International Court of Justice. The main argument used by Israel to justify not following the peace talks is the fact that the Palestinians are divided into two hostile factions: the “Fatah” in the West Bank and the “Hamas” at the Gaza Strip. Israeli governors argue that “It is not possible to talk to the Palestinians because we can never know who in fact represents them, whether it is Fatah or Hamas”.

At last the Palestinians decided to be sensible and reached an agreement a short time ago, ending the double representation of the Arabs. And what was Israel´s reaction? A fake “indignation”, since Hamas is still hostile to Israel´s own existence - a hostility which is relatively common in the international community, but without annihilating consequences. More calamitous than two Nations separated by a border is for the current conflict to keep going on with isolated Islamic acts of terrorism followed by Israeli retaliation through air attacks, which kill even more that the suicidal explosions.

France, England and Germany were reciprocally hostile to one another for centuries in the past. None of them vanished and nowadays they cohabit wonderfully. The thing is that even if Hamas eventually says that it has abandoned the demagogical rhetoric of “sweeping Israel off the map” — a monumental stupidity, since Israel is incredibly powerful and has the American support— such a declaration from the Arabs would be rejected by Israel with the argument of being a false affirmation. And therefore, being false, deserving of some bombing. To crown Israel´s prepotency, the unbelievable Minister of Foreign Relations, Avigdor Lieberman, has announced the blocking of eight hundred million dollars in taxes which the country annually transfers to the Palestinian Authority. In summation, Avigdor is retaining money which does not belong to the Nation he represents. He wants to massacre through poverty people who have been persecuted and humiliated for too long. The question any sensible person would ask is “how long will the people of Israel — wise people, who have always valued “the Book”, who are morally neither better nor worse than any other people—, tolerate being run by politicians who have absolutely no discernment at all and who stimulate the world´s growing animosity against their own people?

What do the Palestinian refugees think nowadays - people who have been expelled from their homes and have to live in refugee camps? And what will their sons, grandsons and grand grandsons feel? Will they ever think of going back, filled with love in their hearts?

This is where I stop, considering that going further would lead to infinite unfolding.

(June 5th, 2011)

The “theatrics” of Netanyahu: smart but deceiving

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(May 24th, 2011)

WikiLeaks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(6-12-2010)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(5-11-2010)

Faith, Politics, Science: prickly liaisons

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)