Günter Grass Merits a Second Nobel, the Peace Prize

The aforementioned German novelist and poet, winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1989, is being attacked, principally in Germany — and, of course, by the Israeli government and its global ramifications —, because on 4-4-12 he published a poem in a German newspaper with the title “What Must be Said”. I read the entire poem on the site of Luis Nassif and it can also be seen in various newspapers, for example, “The New York Times”, “La Reppublica”(Italian) and “El País”(Spanish). The poem in question is not included in this article as it has almost 3,000 characters and would occupy too much space.

After reading and re-reading the poem, which describes the most elementary truth — although erroneously described in the media as an unjust and anti-semitic attack —, I decided to quickly read the first volume of his novel “The Tin Drum” which, years ago, I purchased in a second-hand book shop. This is because Günter Grass, solely for reason of his poem, would merit even a further Nobel Prize – the Peace Prize. His maligned poem is a warning in favor of peace, nothing more. When he says that an Israeli “preventive attack” — hyper-preventive... — could light the fuse for a Third World War, he is only stating the obvious. Something so evident, however, that it required courage on his part, for reasons that everyone knows and are discussed in further detail below.

Even if Iran eventually manages to fabricate a nuclear bomb, it would not take the initiative of attacking Israel. Why not? Because this would kill — in the explosion or resulting radioactivity — thousands of Palestinians, bearing in mind the physical proximity between the two populations, Jewish and Arab. Besides this, an arbitrary attack by Iran would be its death sentence. Entire cities would be annihilated in two days, given that not only Israel would retaliate with unlimited nuclear and conventional forces, but it would also have the unconditional support of the USA, obliged (!?) to protect Israel even in its most audacious pretentions.

If, in certain aspects, Ahmadinejad has shown himself to be immature — the asinine vote-grabbing statement of “wiping Israel off the map” — a political blessing for Netanyahu, who desperately clings to this disastrous phrase in order to remain in power — the Iranian president would not be so crazy as to bring about the inevitable destruction of his country, his family and himself. It should not be forgotten — with respect to this nonsense of dropping a bomb on Israel — that Ahmadinejad does not decide everything alone. He shares power with ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the rest of the conservative Islamic majority that is in no hurry to be incinerated alive. Therefore, there is no risk of an imminent nuclear attack on Israel. However, I repeat, it is of interest to the Israeli government that this false idea prevails, politically useful as it is backed by a very powerful collective sentiment: fear of going back to an already distant past, when the Jews really were persecuted throughout Europe. This kind of fear no longer exists, although it could come to exist if the Israeli government persists in its bravado and impositions.

The poem is question has shown that Grass is a man of courage, something that should be greatly valued in a writer. If Grass is possibly an anti-semite, I need to verify this aspect in his novels because, in the poem, he shows himself to be neither anti-semitic nor unjust. To the contrary, in the poem he only tells truths that are highly evident to anyone who is politically impartial and accompanies international politics, even if this is only through reading newspapers. And if the trouble is taken to also read books, in addition to his opinion expressed in the poem, such truths are confirmed. Incidentally, in the poem, Günter Grass even shows a certain degree of affection for Israel, on stating “…the state of Israel, to which I am bound and wish to stay bound”.

It is one thing to be anti-semitic — discriminating against a race — and quite another to be against the current policy of the Israeli government, morally indefensible in the treatment that it has given to the Palestinians, principally in the Gaza Strip. Günter Grass mentions this evident inequality that is impossible to hide. The global press, largely influenced by Israel, always shows itself to be demanding with respect to the issue of human rights, although it only occasionally describes how the Palestinian Arabs are treated, expelled from their land, deprived of almost everything, without the most basic human rights and without any possibility of appealing to international justice, as they are not technically part of a State. And if it depends on the current Israeli government, this (i.e., the creation of a Palestinian State) is never going to happen. Why? Because if frontiers were definitively established, there would be limits on the territorial growth of Israel, which would no longer be able to receive the thousands or millions of Jews that still live outside Israel. With well-defined frontiers, how would it be possible for continued occupation of the West Bank?

Governments change, sometimes to the left, sometimes to the right, or even the center. At times they demonstrate solidarity with minorities and weaker neighbors, whereas at others they are tremendously egoistic, clinging like limpets to an arrogant and outdated nationalism, as is currently true in the case of Israel. However — the invitation is open — if Israel had the moral courage to seriously propose that “eternal conflict” with the Palestinians be resolved by an international court — promising, beforehand, to accept and comply with the decision made — this country, Israel, would be remembered, for decades, as a genial innovator in the field of International Justice. Netanyahu himself would be consecrated as a “pioneer of great international vision”.

Evidently, for a decision of such importance to be satisfactory as far as both parties are concerned, the international judges — who, in this case, will not be able to be Arabs or Jews — should be expressly authorized to apply the principle of equity. Not only in delimiting frontiers, but also in establishing territorial and financial compensation that also satisfies those expelled Palestinians who still wish to return to Palestine. It is possible that a certain percentage of these individuals, already integrated into the economy of the countries where they have found refuge — Jordan, for example — prefer reasonable indemnification, rather than “starting all over again”, returning to Palestine.

What is currently lacking on the international justice and politics scene is a leader of exceptional discretion, prestige and persuasion capacity. However, if no name comes easily to mind, it will be necessary to find one. Without delay. There are notable jurists in the international area who could, from an intellectual standpoint, assume this role, but they apparently have qualms concerning the certainly virulent maelstrom in which they would be involved, given that absolute sovereignty is still an addiction that attacks the meninges. Such jurists prefer the studious and respected calm of their private offices. However, it is impossible that, on a planet with almost seven billion inhabitants, there is not a single individual with the authority and desire to grasp, in his bare hands, this torch – or cactus – of an international justice that really functions. In other words, who is able to decide on great conflicts and impose compliance with his decision, without delegating “execution” of the sentence to a Security Council poisoned by dozens of the economic, political and strategic interests of the countries represented therein.

Barack Obama would be a name that initially comes to mind for a mission of this importance, although a disappointment to the most enlightened public opinion because he has shown himself to be incapable of saying “no!” to any request made to him by Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama is tremendously worried about the possibility of losing the financial and media support of the powerful Jewish lobby in the next election. Unfortunately, in a democracy — any democracy — money has an all-too-important bearing on the outcome of every election. It is like a skeptic exclaiming: — “Damn!, up to what point are executive positions bought, via electoral campaigns?!”

Surfing arbitrarily on the internet, in a blog or twitter “Billy Leew...and his fables” — I am a little ignorant of these technologies —, I watched a video of a group of Jews demonstrating, in English, against the Netanyahu government. They were dressed in black, bearded and authentically angered at the course currently taken by Israeli politics. Revolted at the type of treatment imposed on the Palestinians, one of them, on whom the camera specifically focused for him to be heard, even stuttered with emotion. With a high degree of objectivity and convincing sincerity, he insisted, in English, that it is necessary to distinguish between Zionism and Judaism, only the latter being worthy of the support of the Jewish people. He said that Zionism is an adulteration of the Judaism of the Torah, which rejects the domination of other peoples. He went on to say that there are many people in Israel who are against the policies of Netanyahu, although fear prevents them from demonstrating against the government, as there would be reprisals. This distinction between Zionism and Judaism should be well studied and disseminated, in order to prevent the Jewish people from becoming the victim of an error of interpretation by the rest of the world. The German people cannot be identified with Nazi doctrine, or the Italian people with the delirious ideas of “Il Duce” Benito Mussolini.

Following publication of the (“accursed”) poem, the media came to emphasize the “shady past” of Günter Grass because, when an adolescent and up to 17 years of age, he served in the army of his country and, in the last year of the Second World War, was even a member of the Waffen-SS, a type of personal guard of Hitler. Besides this, it is alleged that he had hidden this fact for many years. Data vênia (with due respect) as jurists are accustomed to say, this is nonsense that should not be mentioned by more learned people (they should be forgiven, because miracles do happen...).

Prior to judging someone, it is necessary to study the circumstances in which the person in question was raised and educated; the period, the political regime of the country in which he or she lived, and so on. In the case of Grass, it is necessary to remember that he was born in October 1929. After reaching ten years of age, his childhood was spent under the Nazi regime. This was a dictatorial regime with no freedom of the press, in which Hitler shaped the thinking of a people very bitter at their defeat in the First World War, with the loss of territories and onerous war reparations imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. These were difficult times for the Germans, with spiraling inflation, unemployment and a Nazi propaganda machine that used and abused the “right” to lie. Without putting their life at risk, nobody was able to say anything to the contrary of that imposed by government propaganda.

Just read some of the phrases uttered by Hitler, during the period that he dominated Germany and shaped the thinking of adults, children and adolescents: — “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed” — “It is not truth that matters, but victory” — “Strength lies not in defense but in attack” — “Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong” — “The art of leadership... consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary” (in this case, the Jew – my observation) “and taking care that nothing will divide that attention” — “The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force” — “The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it” — “The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category” (the Jews, Treaty of Versailles, English, Americans, Russians, etc) — “Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live”.

In my opinion, the thoughts outlined above, their content never questioned in the totally subdued press, explain why Günter Grass and almost all his colleagues at the time thought in accordance with that planned by Nazi propaganda. Irrespective of this, there is no evidence that this author personally pushed Jews into the gas chambers to be poisoned.

Why did Grass only reveal this unpleasant past — it was not his fault, but that of the untruthful and unopposed propaganda — a few years after receiving the Nobel Prize? Because he knew that his enemies and those jealous of him would take advantage of this. Now, however, in the month of April 2012, he said what he said in the poem in question because his conscience could no longer be silent in the face of the unjust treatment of the Palestinians. And he said another “irrefutable truth”: that the threat of the Israeli government bombing Iranian nuclear facilities is both pernicious and hazardous for world peace. The danger is remote and a pretext. Genuine fear? No. If Israel has the right to be fearful — of the always idiotic “wiping Israel off the map” — Iran also has the right to be fearful of excessive Israeli force, given that it has conventional and nuclear armaments capable of imposing its will on the entire Middle East.

Now, a few words directed to the German people and government: there is a need, right now, to put an end to this carefully cultivated feeling of blame for that which occurred in a Germany dominated by Hitler. Nazism was a homicidal doctrine. Speaking in public against the regime meant a beating, prison or a bullet in the head, without any legal “frills”. Remorse should be cultivated not by entire nations, but only by those individuals who, by their own free will, actively — and having options —, inflicted suffering on their fellow men.

It is my belief that 80% or more of Germans living today did not experience or participate in any way in crimes perpetrated by the Nazis. The war ended in 1945. There is no reason to feel remorse. Principally when the careful nurturing of this remorse may have political motives, of dubious legitimacy. Of the remaining 20% of Germans, only a few thousand acted with full awareness — and perhaps sick pleasure —, when they committed the atrocities revealed after the end of the war. Yes, these individuals are in need of remorse in order to diminish the burden on their souls. The remainder, no. If the someone’s grandfather was hanged for being a criminal, why should his grandchildren bear the burden of a guilt complex?

In the concentration camps, some Jewish prisoners, in order to eat a little better and not be killed, collaborated with the administration. These individuals, probably with troubled consciences, were known as “kapos”. They did this to avoid death, at least an immediate death. They knew that if the prisoners refused to perform that wretched work, they would be killed anyway, and that the collaborators would be killed with them. It would be a useless kind of heroism. They thought that if they managed to get out of the concentration camp alive, they would at least be able to try to reunite their families, or what remained of them, scatted throughout Germany and the rest of the world. A Jew who is the grandchild of one of these “kapos” also has no need to cultivate remorse. I reiterate: a guilt complex is a personal, individual matter. Countries may even feel better making compensation payments, but they are under no obligation to be eternally burdened by a feeling of blame, automatically endorsing the erroneous policies of the descendents of their victims.

Summing up, there is no need to censure Günter Grass for having kept quiet about what he did when he was an adolescent — at a time when it was practically impossible to express one’s own opinion — and even less need to censure him because, in a poem, he warned the world that a merely “preventive” attack against another country, especially in the Middle East, would significantly increase the danger of a conflict of immense, perhaps global, proportions. Besides this, he should not be censured because he reminded us of the unjust situation suffered by the Palestinians, or because he emphasized the inequality of a country, heavily armed with nuclear weapons, granting itself the right to bomb another only for the reason that, one day, it may possibly produce a nuclear weapon. The stupid phrase of “wiping Israel off the map” is merely a senseless bluff. It would not be totally illogical if a journalist — a little crazy —, were to raise the possibility that Ahmadinejad receives a monthly pension from Netanyahu only to occasionally repeat this phrase that is irresponsible but so politically lucrative for his very-much-alive adversary, although damaging to Iran which, as a result, loses international support.

Finally, Grass deserves praise for wisely suggesting that it is the responsibility of the UN to decide on what to do regarding the “eternal conflict”. For my part, I would like to add that a judicial UN rather than a political body — the Security Council — would be the most recommendable for distancing, once and for all, the danger that threatens all of us, even far from this region that produced three gods. Gods that, although one, became transformed into three mutually hostile enemies from 1948 onwards.

(9-4-2012)

Ear versus elbow in “Ultimate Fighting”

I take the liberty of speaking about a subject which is less intellectual but of a somehow public interest, considering how sports have a reasonable role in the moral education of citizens in general. They help in strengthening character, stimulate self-discipline, trust, tenacity. They serve as a legal escape for the aggressive component which is part of our animal inheritance. And I don´t need to mention their benefits for health, when practiced. An athlete who let´s himself be dominated by gluttony, alcohol, drugs, sloth or uncontrolled sexual activities can say goodbye to his stardom in sports. If he becomes a champion in anything, it will not last long – pretty soon some other athlete, perhaps less talented but more disciplined, will defeat him in the field, court, ring or “octagon” (in the case of “mixed-martial-arts” or, as this sport is commonly referred to, “ultimate fighting”).

I have always enjoyed fighting sports, even though I have practiced them too little and with little talent. My resistance has never been very good, so I got tired very soon – maybe a lack of practice. I tried some boxing when I was in middle school and some judo when I was a judge in the countryside city of Cachoeira Paulista- SP. The judo gym which I attended a few times was located in a neighboring countryside city, Lorena. There, I noticed that some of my rivals fell too easily, possibly to please “Your Excellency”. It was a time when judges were highly respected — a status which I am sure they will regain as soon as the current low tide is gone – an image problem which has been caused by many factors, most of them which cannot be blamed on the magistrates themselves.

Especially because of my appreciation for fighting sports, I feel motivated to exteriorize some concern with the progress — or regress — of martial arts. Everything good can become bad, depending on the path it takes. Balance, in everything, is rare and precarious. In this article I´m going to talk about “ultimate fighting”, a sport which attracts more and more enthusiasts. Even women are now watching and fighting it – something which is rather contrary to the nature of women. I presume, however, that part of these ladies who attend this kind of competition are there only to keep an eye on their boyfriends or husbands, since the competition for men is always fierce, even when it is subtle. I´m only saying this because women in general are less appreciative of scenes full of blood and violence.

Why have I “evolved” to the current “ultimate fighting”, which is much more violent than boxing, judo and other eastern types of fighting? Because “ultimate fighting”, in its initial phase many years ago, was just a show, a simulated fight full of spectacular “flying kicks and scissors”, strikes and somersaults, everything artistically arranged. No punches or kicks were allowed – only soft blows with the forearm were permitted. Using the elbow? Not a chance! And there was always a hero and a villain in the ring – sometimes two of each, considering the artists, I mean fighters, sometimes fought in pairs (two against two). Sometimes there were even dwarves fighting. When it was determined that it was time for the “bad guy” to hit, the “hero” suffered motionless, almost as if he was a sleepy zombie. All of a sudden the “zombie” became a beast, beating the hell out of the “villain”, grabbing him by the beard and submitting him to a much deserved humiliating punishment.

The audience, however, got tired of the joke, which was also something that offended our intelligence. Some Brazilian fighters, the brave Gracie family, decided to roll up the sleeves of their kimonos and give an end to the jokes. One of them went on to live in the USA, opened a gym there and in that place started the real fighting. A Brazilian pioneerism, which was needed because human beings really enjoy watching a good fight. Personally, I am not a big fan of soccer, but every time there is a fight between players I am unable to change channels. The same thing happens when I see a fight among politicians in any country. I bet the ratings increase in direct proportion to the punches and kicks performed by illustrious representatives of the people. On TV news shows, scenes of fighting in congresses are always announced in the beginning of the programs, but only shown in the end – a technique used to keep the audience watching the same channel.

“Ultimate fighting” has won — perhaps it even comes to beat football (soccer) and basketball in number of athletes — because it filled a void which has existed since gladiator fighting was forbidden in ancient Rome, a time when gladiators really killed each other with metallic sharp weapons. With the advancement of Christianity, fights with gladiators were forbidden in the government of Constantino I, in the year 325, although many say that the fights did not stop completely.

More recently, in “ultimate fighting”, a new weapon started being employed, a weapon which can also cut even though it is made of bone. I am referring to the elbows. By the way, archeologists say that Neanderthals used the skeleton´s femur as a weapon in tribal fights, because it was a weapon which combined lightness and toughness. Some blows with a bone in the skull of an adversary would cause instant defeat or at least unconsciousness of the opponent.

A few days ago, going through the website Terra.com, I found an “ultimate fighting” scene where part of an athlete´s ear was actually “cut”, or better yet, maimed by the elbow of the adversary. The repeated and violent blows to the ear acted like gardener´s scissors and a piece of cartilage even flew away, as if it was trying to escape the fury of the murdering elbow. The ears were provided by Nature to help in listening. They act like acoustic shelves and must, therefore, be preserved and never cut or sliced in fights. And the fact – attested by the aforementioned scene – is that an elbow can rip off ears, at least partially. And I am not sure they can be sewed back on. Anyway, that incident must be seen as a warning that the use of the elbow should be banished from “ultimate fighting”, at least when applied against the head and neck. Most of the bleeding which is seen in fights — scenes which unconsciously stimulate barbaric feelings — happen after cuts caused by the tips of bones. And that´s without mentioning the elbow hitting the eye, something which might even cause blindness. If somebody has ever become blind because of a blow by an elbow, such news would probably never be released, since it would affect the dissemination of a sport which grows every day, generating millions of dollars.

Someone might argue that since “ultimate fighting” is a kind of martial art in which everything is allowed, it would be a contradiction to create rules which would diminish the main attraction of such a sport: to reflect real life fighting. When two men fight in real life they don´t care about rules. They simply don´t want to get to the point of killing their opponent, of course, since such occurrence would lead to complications and even prison. Therefore — would say this hypothetical arguer —, why not allow the use of the elbow, even if it causes a more frequent spill of blood?

Against such an argument we can say that “ultimate fighting” is already being partially civilized. Not everything is allowed. Kicks in the genital area; biting; eye poking; pinching; suffocation with the hand; punches in the back of the neck; knee strokes on the head when the opponent is in all fours; all of these kinds of blows have been forbidden for a while. Such restrictions have not turned “ultimate fighting” into a sport of “sissies”. Punches which break noses and high kicks which knock down the opponent are trivial. This form of fighting is much more aggressive than boxing, which has never been accused of being a “sissy” sport and has always been considered violent. The disadvantage that boxing has when compared to “ultimate fighting” lies in the excess of limitations in the former, mainly the prohibition of the use of legs as a weapon and the impossibility of fighting on the ground. Due to creativity and constant innovation, “ultimate fighting” is much less monotonous than boxing and that´s why it is easy to predict that boxing will lose audience to its new main competitor. “Ultimate fighting” is, in summation, much more dynamic and “real”.

The “thirst for blood” or for “hyper-realism” in fights — a presumed justification for the elbow blows on the face and skull — might lead some crazy person to suggest, in the future, that fighters who are really in need of money use knuckedusters or switch-blades – in clandestine spaces – because in “real life” these weapons are actually used. I´m saying this because violence can become an addiction, requiring regular and growing doses of adrenalin.

The daily (or so) vision of blood on television, from fighting, stimulates the use of violence when, for example, there´s an altercation during traffic – or anywhere else. Media often reveals aggressions which happen in nightclubs where a customer is beat up almost to death after arguing about the price of drinks or because he looked in a certain way to an accompanied lady.

I know that in good martial arts gyms the teachers constantly warn the students that they should not fight in the streets. They insist that they are not fighting but in fact playing, and obeying the rules of the sport. The danger of the bloody violence is not, however, in the behavior of students, but in the fact that such fights are seen on television without any supervision from the teachers. Rebellious youngsters — unemployed or who earn an indecent salary —, after watching fighters covered in blood being applauded and admired by their talent may feel stimulated to use violence as a means to be admired and valued – a fair and humane wish, but accomplished in the wrong way.

From 1934 to 1967 cinematic production in the USA was guided by something called the “Hays Code” — the name derived from its creator, William H. Hays, one of the then leaders of the Republican Party. This “code” was conceived by initiative of the association of movie producers because they were worried about the negative influence of movies in the moral formation of the country. Since the “Code” ended up exaggerating in its prohibitions — a natural tendency when it comes to censorship — it started being gradually disobeyed until it was finally replaced by the current “rating by age”, which started in 1967.

Not considering its exaggerations, the “Hays Code” had its good side, so much so that it lasted more than thirty years. Among its prohibitions were the following: it would not be authorized the exhibition of any movie which degraded the morality of the audience, inducing them to be in favor of a crime, evil or “sin” (?!); a murdering technique should be presented in a way which would not allow its replication in real life; no details of brutal murders should be shown; the techniques of thefts, breaking into safes and banks, blowing up of trains, mines and buildings, or some such, should not be detailed; wounds should show just a minimum amount of blood, even in war movies. The list went on and on, extensively and exaggeratedly for modern parameters, but had its positive side: the attempt to rid the audience from the influence of evil, whose existence nobody can deny. The Code, in summation, had the concern – even if admittedly exaggerated – of getting the audience away from vulgarity, the disrespect for the law, religion and family values (it was also advised for the movies not to show adultery under an attractive angle). Even scenes of hanging and electrocution had to be softened, with no attention to detail. Prolonged scenes with blood were generally not well seen by the aforementioned Code – the same thing happened to movies in which criminals got away with crime.

I´m not talking here about reinstating censorship, but instead trying to demonstrate that movies and television can influence a lot, for the good and for the bad, to elevate and to downgrade the tastes and attitudes of the public. And fighters with broken noses and bleeding eyes, mouths and foreheads do not stimulate delicate or civilized feelings. Especially considering that these are the places in which blood is the most abundant and where an opponent will probably focus his blows. The only thing lacking is for the referee to ask the audience whether the defeated fighter should be killed or not by turning their thumbs up or down.

I believe the prestige of every sport, when put on a graph, has a sinuous curve. When it reaches a maximum peak — in a scale of bloody violence — the excess may generate a progressive feeling of repulsiveness (something which already existed even before the use of elbows), leading a more reasonable audience to look for distraction in sports which have a more humane value. Not to mention the physical integrity of the athletes.

Before finishing this article, here´s another suggestion which I´m sure will not be followed: when the athletes are exchanging punches while standing up and one of them is knocked out, it would be fairer — as well as more coherent to the purpose of getting to know who the better fighter is — if the referee stopped the fight and counted up to ten in order to find out if the “knocked-out” fighter is really out of combat. If the athlete was able to get up in reasonable conditions before the end of the countdown, the fight would then continue – such as it is done in boxing fights. This would be good because it is not uncommon for a less strong or less talented fighter to end up hitting the chin of the other fighter when attempting an awkward and reckless series of punches. With such improvement, the “luck factor” would no longer be so important, and the audience would not be so disappointed. After all, the purpose of the fights is to determine the strength and ability of the fighters, and not their luck – good or bad – when exchanging punches and kicks. This suggestion, however, will never be accepted because it would make “ultimate fighting” look like an imitation of boxing, which is an unnamed crime in the sports war.

For now, I´m going to keep on watching my fights. However, I have to say that when the red liquid starts covering an exhausted and almost blind athlete´s face, stimulating the executioner to keep on and on with the punishing, I feel like changing channels.

Everything in excess becomes boring. That´s what happened with the “Hays Code” and might as well happen with this modern version of the gladiators fight.

(March 5th, 2012)

Garzón: punished for the wrong reasons

Garzón: punished for the wrong reasons

The world renowned Spanish judge Baltazar Garzón has been punished by the ultimate sphere of justice from his country. Spain´s Supreme Court has unanimously (a detail which reveals the level of hatred his colleagues feel towards his “celebrity leftism”) forbidden him from performing any activity as a magistrate for eleven years. If the sentence is not overruled or reduced by the Constitutional Court or by the European Court – which I´m not entirely sure is possible – such a prohibition will result in a compulsory retirement for the judge. After all, he is 56 years old and will therefore be nearing seventy when the sentence is served.

Considering, however, the reactions of most organizations which congregate judges, such as the International Committee of Jurists, for example, pretty soon someone will suggest that Garzón is given a seat in some international entity. Someone will probably say: “If Garzón, who was so unfairly punished, cannot be a judge in Spain, then let him be an international one!” Should there be an opening at, say, the International Court of Justice, for instance, it is predictable that influential judges with a propensity to the left shall put all their efforts into taking as their own a judge who works with “such a courage and independence”. If such an opening does not come up, then you can bet that some other international court will remember his name. It is easy to foresee that Garzón will not be unemployed as a judge for long. And if he prefers to resume his duties as a lawyer, clients will certainly not be lacking.

A reader might say that justice cannot – or should not – be politicized, by labeling judges as “leftists” or “rightists”. It certainly should not, but the fact is that it can; even though every judge prefers to deny any ideological influence in their decisions. When forced – after much insistence and polite smiles from a pretty interviewer, for example— to confess a “slight inclination, Your Honor…”, a judge might say he is a “centrist”, which is a usually a good answer. I do believe that most judges in democratic countries are indeed “centrists”. Should, nevertheless, a judge admit, in a rare impulse of honesty, to be a “leftist” or a “rightist”, his decisions would then probably start being seen as suspicious every time a trial had a political connotation. And then, as much as such judge claimed to be judging the case with all necessary fairness, his ideological rivals would never believe such allegation, stressing that the judge´s subconsciousness would be unawarely betraying him and influencing his decision.

It is common in political journalism for a writer to try to predict how this judge and that judge will vote, especially when the subject is of a particular importance to the president who nominated such judge. This is a good reason to put an end to the old constitutional practice of giving the power to nominate superior court judges exclusively to the president of the nation. The nomination should come alternatively from the judges themselves and from the Executive branch, preserving thus the independence and harmony among the powers/branches. The unfortunately correct popular presumption is that gratitude will always have a strong place in a supreme court judge´s decision, according to the nature of each case. And in dictatorial countries – or even semi-dictatorial ones, such predictions are never wrong.

It is normal and expected for the political philosophy to influence opinions – even juridical ones. It is not rare even in the same family that relatives diverge strongly in their political views, whether it regards local, national or international politics. Of course this divergence inside a family is not that important. However, when people from a family become judges and take positions in the high courts, these differences start to have a bigger repercussion. Especially when the “jurisdiction” extends to the entire planet – a consequence of the dissemination of human rights, for example.

In this article´s headline I said that Garzón was punished for the wrong reasons. According to the first media, the accusation against him – the only one which maybe deserved some punishment — was to order the recording (i.e., “wiring”) of conversations between lawyers and their clients accused of illicit acts. The media does not clarify, however, if the judge had ordered the wire on the lawyers or on the clients. As far as I can see, he could not have wired the lawyers´ phones because he would therefore be interfering in the professional secrecy to which lawyers are subject. A lawyer and his client have the right to speak frankly – and if the client cannot talk on the phone with his lawyer, the latter might not be sufficiently informed and therefore might present a weaker defense. He might even lie unnecessarily, trying to defend the person who hired him. And might even be subjected to a vexatious situation, being unaware of facts – and everybody knows a client should not lie to his lawyer.

If, however, Garzón had ordered only the wiring of the phone belonging to the people who were suspect of criminal acts, then there would be nothing to censor in the actions performed by the controversial magistrate. Considering that the wiring of a phone must be “authorized by a judge”, as a judge himself Garzón´s procedure could not be questioned – unless in Spain the law determines that only a few specific judges can authorize the wiring of telephones, which does not seem to be the case. Also, it would not make any sense if details of criminal acts came up on wired conversations and the authorizing judge had to erase any confessions of crimes if a lawyer was on the other line. If, for example, a suspect said that “the money I stole from the government is in my brother´s house” or that “the children I´ve killed are buried in my ranch”, such declarations could never be ignore by justice. The right of privacy cannot be so wide. If the criminal and his lawyer need to speak in all frankness, then let them speak in a far place or inside the lawyer´s office, where there are would be no wiring devices. The comfort of the use of a telephone cannot overcome the need that society has to protect itself against criminal behavior.

Other acts by Garzón which have caused commotion were the following: the arrest of Augusto Pinochet in 1998, when the former dictator was away from his country due to medical treatment; the alleged favoring of a banker who supposedly paid him to perform lectures in New York; and the opening of investigations regarding the Spanish Francoism, object of an amnesty in 1978. The remuneration for the lectures, since not forbidden by Spanish Law, could never be reason enough for his “judicial exile”. A warning should have been sufficient. But if such a procedure became a trend, judges who often appear in the media would be more and more invited to present profitable lectures, “disappearing” from the workplaces. On this subject, it would be convenient that every court prohibited their judges from accepting any kind of payment for classes and lectures. Therefore, judges from the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court, for example, would not be able to teach regular classes and would not be allowed to receive any kind of payment for lectures. Their high salary would be justification enough for such a measure.

Which reason would justify Garzón´s punishment? Only his pretense to become a universal judge without asking permission to do so. Supported by his own conclusion that he was a “special judge”, he started to arrest and sue whoever he wanted, provided the causes were crimes against humanity, human rights violations or similar crimes. Following this same line of thought, even the Pope would be able to be arrested, under the argument that he was not harsh enough when punishing bishops accused of pedophilia, for example. Garzón argued that crimes against humanity are not subject to prescription – which is his own opinion – and that human rights are universally applicable. That is why he, Garzón, had taken the reins of universal justice in his hands and decided to arrest and punish former dictators, ignoring what had been previously accorded after exhaustive discussions in countries which lived under an exception regime. The idea that human rights must be obeyed in every country is excellent, but it is necessary that the United Nations or similar entity determines which judges have the appropriate jurisdiction and competence to impose human rights on a global scale.

The number of human rights – nowadays there are tens of them — varies according to the style (some more concise, others more prolix) of the person who lists them. Only moral idiots can nowadays oppose the enforcement of such rights in every corner of the planet. Still, it is necessary for these rights to be discussed and approved by all countries. In countries which have been through civil wars and have withstood a high level of bloodshed, when the opposing sides reach an agreement and decide to put an end to all quarreling and to mutually erase each other´s respective offences, it is not up to a judge to appoint himself as “universal”, interfering as if he was a “king of the planet” with no restrictions to meddle with everything that was arranged. Closed and cauterized wounds should not be reopened. It is also not possible to ignore the existence of the International Criminal Court and other provisional courts which are responsible for judging crimes against humanity.

The danger in Garzón´s innovations lies also in the fact that his behavior can stimulate other judges to do the same and, exasperated by impunity, sue any politician who is imprudent enough to put his feet outside his own country. And also: if, for example, four Spanish judges start arresting and suing former dictators or even elected presidents, reaching different conclusions regarding their level of guilt, which decision should be considered as the correct, authentic one? The gravest? The softest? And average of all punishments?

I am saying this merely to stress that local judges from any country – Spain, in the present case - cannot be turned into “world judges” out of their own self-proclamation or initiative - even if local law allows for such a freedom of action due to a legal slip or loophole, sufficing for the judge/accuser to stress that there were three or more Spanish people among the people massacred by a current or former dictator. In such long and violent conflicts there are always victims from many different nationalities. Violence fosters violence and cauterized wounds are better left alone. Justice cannot be indifferent to its practical and peacemaking functions. And for a more absolute justice, let the system be disciplined by a world authority and not according to the opinion of each and every judge of the planet.

(February 10, 2012)

The Era of Mediocrity - Part I

The Era of Mediocrity - Part I.

If I pinched myself every time that I felt myself to be a stranger on the planet, I would certainly end up being mistaken for an alien, or an earthling with a repugnant skin disease. On a corporal level, the purplish-blue color and swollen features, the result of pinching myself, would be the equivalent of what I feel inside when I assess, in general, that which occurs in "dignified”, artistic, political and sometimes legal areas. Furthermore, I guarantee that, when reading newspapers or watching television, a good number of the most demanding readers with a craving for information feel the same daily sensation of strangeness. “Could it be that I am dreaming? Did I read or hear correctly that which is in even the most respectable media?”

Decadence hangs in the air, like a fog. Sometimes brilliantly colored, although with a suspicious odor, suggesting that a few cultural sewer rats have not been buried in time. In all likelihood, some of the gravediggers of this drivel are drugged, drunk with an excess of commercial facts and interests tumbling into the braincase, insufficiently spacious to “separate the wheat from the chaff”. It wouldn't surprise me if, very soon, natural product stores come to sell — correcting the aforementioned expression — chaff in capsules, arguing that it is more nutritional and anti-carcinogenic that wheat, this vulgar developer of obesity.

Unfounded generalizations? A crisis of depression with no objective basis? We shall see.

Initially, choosing at random, let us look at the mediocrity that occurs in the cinema, traditionally referred to as the “seventh art”, although it is doubtless the first, in terms of economics and social influence. Most notably, North American cinema.

It is impressive to know that the founders of the “seventh art” — the Lumiére brothers, Auguste and Louis — supposed that the so-called “cinematograph” was only a scientific instrument, without any kind of future commercial use, for demonstrating the unpredictability of all the effects of that which happens in the world. A way of looking, a friendly or brusque gesture, or a tone of voice — at the right or wrong moment — could arouse thoughts and feelings capable of altering the destiny of individuals and even countries. This is due to the fact that something hazardous, treacherous or redeeming exists known as “interpretation”. We interpret everything that we see and hear; however, not always correctly. Legal science has been attempting to create rules regarding the hermeneutics of laws and contracts, although it is never possible to assert that the value of such rules is absolute, given that a simple lapse in the use of a word alters the result. If the word came out by mistake, something that is not easily demonstrable, the interpretation will also be erroneous. And we will stop here, because generalizations are more misleading than concrete situations.

I like action films, which are generally American. Rather, I currently like them less as they are ever more decadent, too interested in box office returns, without any concern for quality. They are exceedingly repetitive in their mediocre plots, exaggeratedly bloody and full of clichés. If, for example, the police officer who is a friend of the hero is mature, good guy and rashly says that he is going to retire in a few days time, you can be sure that a villain's bullet will kill him before the end of the film. Goodbye pension! His own fault! Who made him say that he was going to retire?! The mediocre scriptwriter, even though he does not have a criminal brother in prison — which would partially justify his resentment — seems to think that no police officer deserves the recompense of a tranquil old age.

Another cliché is the harsh manner in which the heroic police officer, without any justification, treats his new work companion, which ends up being transformed into friendship because the rookie saves his life.

In high-speed automobile chases, the director, violating the most elementary laws of physics — and convinced of the stupidity of spectators —, believes it to be indispensable that an automobile, after colliding with another, becomes airborne and, like an ice skater, spins in the air before falling, as if this were possible without the presence of a launching ramp (rather askew) hidden behind a parked vehicle. This is without even mentioning the vehicle that falls into the abyss and explodes before impacting the ground. The special effects technician, positioned at a distance, pressed the explosion button too soon on his remote control. — “Repeat the scene? Of course not! The audience won't even notice! Besides, gasoline is not cheap!”. Is it no wonder, therefore, that the USA has to toughen its foreign policy in the Middle East, thus reducing its dependence on oil, because half of all imported oil is burned in action films. Of course, I am exaggerating, it is necessary to clarify why overall decadence includes the misinterpretation of everything that one reads and hears.

It is taken for granted that, in detective films, it would be difficult to avoid a few violent scenes doused with raspberry syrup or red wine. Where the knife or the bullet goes in, the blood comes out. This is inevitable, normal and befitting in conflicts between law and order and criminality. Crime involving blood is a short-cut taken by a rather desperate — or, more rarely, cold — individual who has neither patience nor discipline to satisfy his need, justifiable or not, for the tiresome traditional approaches. He does not even have the patience for adequate planning of the crime. Eagerness is his downfall; both his and the victim's. When the latter reacts, there is no going back. Hence the blood. A reality of life in any society.

However, the current decadence of this type of film shows itself in its insistence on repeated sadism for endless minutes, with the victim screaming. Criminals in films are no longer solely content with shooting their victims. They submit them to prolonged scenes with electric shocks. They break hands and feet with hammer blows or baseball bats. They pull out nails with pliers. In films, insistent torture seems to meet the supposed "sadism requirement" of the market. It is sufficient to see the success of the “Friday the 13th” series of films, in which a muscular and “unkillable” madman, with a white hockey mask — he never runs, but always catches the victims that run —, experiences pleasure in wantonly cutting off heads and other body parts.

Such deliberate promotion of barbarity is destined for mass consumption, being purchased on DVD, seen in the cinema and on television and even imitated by criminals who are immensely ignorant, or were already born with an extremely low level of compassion, or who have been subject to many hard knocks and privations in life and are eager to avenge themselves. Holding a firearm, in groups, invading residences, they are not simply content to demand money from their victims. The thrill lies in terrorizing. They think that it is “great” or “cool” to do what they have seen in films, threatening to kill and taking pleasure in the terror evident in the eyes of the defenseless “bourgeoisie”. And the climax of the sense of power is reached when they coldly kill, with a shot in the head, the victim who has already handed over everything that it was possible to hand over. The aristocratic chic of elimination, prior to the criminal leaving, lies exactly in the detail of killing on a whim. After all, killing for necessity would be very “vulgar”, expectable. It is not my belief that they kill solely in order to not be recognized, given that the assailant is often masked or wearing a helmet and, even so, ends up killing.

In order to “enrich” the o detective type of film, it is ever more the tendency of the film industry to accept plots in which the criminal is a serial killer, because it would simply be “too reserved” to kill only one person: — “If everything evolves for mass production, why should the screen criminal be an exception?”

Even in secondary details, imitation is the rule. It has become stylish for a character to vomit on seeing the state of the disfigured cadaver. Years ago, girls and hotel chambermaids only gave long and hysterical screams when they came across a dead body, even lying on the ground in a dignified position. A slight wound and the fact of being dead was enough — a reaction that was already far from reality, given that women do not react in this way in real life, giving long piercing screams. Currently, the director requires them to vomit. Preferably, with their faces in the toilet bowl, a requirement of realism. Then they can faint — and so on.

Intellectual infantilism is also being intensely encouraged with films that compensate a lack of coherence and critical sense with an excess of brilliant special effects. Brilliant in technical terms, but stupid and infantile in terms of the storyline. Films that should only be seen by children — for example “Godzilla”, a monster without parents, composed of thousands of tons of protein (around 30 films) — are seen with pleasure by adult men, unaccompanied by their children or grandchildren. Even the box office success “Avatar”, the winner of a large number of awards, is an insult to our intelligence, although well-intentioned in its ecological message and promoting peace among mankind. In my opinion, the director James Cameron deteriorated in his biography, despite gaining awards. I hope that he becomes rehabilitated, as he is a director of great talent and attention to detail. Art is also detail, which is not something said by Picasso, a smart guy who attained success.

The person who directed the masterpiece “Titanic” is capable of producing something much better than those green extraterrestrials with tails that I saw in “Avatar”. I do not remember if, in the film, the creatures used this appendage like small monkeys, in order to grasp branches and avoid falling from the trees. Or if the tail only functioned as a touch of originality. In the case of monkeys, the sole function of the tail is that of safety. In large apes, nature has eliminated this fifth member, as can be seen in the case of gorillas, orangutans and chimpanzees.

Another affront to our intelligence: the “Predators”, extremely strong aliens, with a much more advanced technology that our own, therefore more highly evolved and intelligent — they can become invisible at will —, appear with immense claws, of the kind possessed by more primitive mammals that need to secure their prey like lions or dig the earth like anteaters. “E.T.”, with all its awards, was biologically inconsistent, given that the creature's head did not have sufficient space for a highly evolved brain. It was only eyes. It is not possible that the inhabitants of an advanced civilization had a miniscule brain, as in the case of “E.T.”

Another annoyance with respect to lack of imagination lies in the insistence of oft-repeated “vampires” and “werewolves” transmitting “vampirism” with a bite on the neck. And the films that speak of “black holes”, without the director having the least idea of what they really are? A black hole is a star that has collapsed from its own gravity, forming an object of infinite density. It is certainly not the gateway to “another dimension”. And those “angels” transformed into flesh and blood? At least these absurd beings attempt to transmit ideas of kindness and altruism. And what about those scenes in which two characters, who hate each other, aim their weapons at one another and exchange insults and threats, without either one of them firing a shot? It is difficult to imagine that such a situation would occur in real life. And how is it possible to justify, unless it is just laziness, the practice of the cameraman shaking the camera during the most difficult scenes of violence — confounding the understanding of the spectator — or when the director cannot manage to construct a more convincing “monster” that is not just a copy of the creature in “Alien, the 8th Passenger”?

The reader is likely asking: — “Why are you grumbling so much? People only want to enjoy themselves! Nobody is ignoring the fact that it is all fiction”. Of course they don't believe it. What concerns me is formation of the mental habit of continual acceptance of insults to one's intelligence, with total abdication of a critical spirit. Could it not be that this longstanding practice leaves a certain callus of passive stupidity, principally in young people? It is interesting to note the contrast in reaction between the easy acceptance of such films and the manner in which a person reacts when someone insults their intelligence, trying to deceive them. If a stupid salesman insists on convincing someone to purchase an item that only a half-wit would buy, he or she reacts with indignation. Why is it that a similar reaction does not occur when the same person watches a film?

Finally, a few thoughts on sex in films, abusive and in bad taste, exhibited in an unrequested manner and watched by whoever happens to be present in the room. In order to fill the emptiness of the plot, quasi-explicit sex scenes last too long. Nothing simply suggestive. Wholly explicit, including the vulgar parlance related to use of the mouth for purposes other than the communication of ideas. It cannot be argued that it is only necessary to change the channel. This assumes that the father or mother of the child or adolescent is always at home, which is blatantly not the case.

I am not saying these things with the intention of being an outdated moralist. I am even quite “advanced” in my understanding of relationships between men and women. I am simply describing a fact: decadence in cinematographic art, principally in films produced in America and those European countries that imitate the USA in an ever greater manner. I do not believe that future historians — if there is a future... — will describe current cinema as a period of global progress in the arts.

In much the same way as governments that are concerned with food quality — cholesterol, sugar and salt, together with an infinite number of potentially carcinogenic products in the diet —, it would be recommendable for some kind of concern to be shown regarding so many “poisons” affecting the “mental and moral nutrition” of our population of young people who are arriving in mass at a field of “knowledge” that is evermore simply “visual”, thanks to increased income. And I am not sure whether boys and adolescents, encouraged by the financial success of the bad and smart guys, will know how to distinguish between that which they should imitate or avoid. Principally when felons, young and charming, of both sexes, end up doing very well, heading for Brazil by plane, with a bag full of stolen dollars.

Obviously, it is not up to the government to prohibit the cinematographic industry from producing films with idiotic plots, spreading ignorance or stimulating values of the kind chosen by criminals. It is not suggested here that the government finance films with this concern in mind, as the risk always exists of bad faith, the government losing money and the film never coming to fruition.

In another article, I will address the subject to mediocrity in other areas. The overall feeling is that we live in a world in decadence. Well-made “things” should be the rule, rather than the exception. Perhaps a Third World War, or even the threat of such a war, would come to improve mankind, because it is only in this way — based on suffering and fear — that we, jackasses with two legs, actually manage to learn something.

(16-01-2012)

Silly intuitions or bullseye predictions

Intuition has always intrigued scholars and philosophers, both the deep and the superficial ones, because it offers material to all of them - after all, its “hints” lack rigueur and scientific respectability. However, sometimes it hits bullseye (i.e., it is correct), heading straight to the “Columbus egg” without having to run the bureaucratic (or more “stupid-o-cratic”) way of long and endless researches which lead to nowhere.

But intuition is often wrong. It manifests itself as an impulsive “flash”, not clearly grounded – “something tells me that...” —, something that comes much more from the heart than from the brain. It is more of a feeling, an instinctive reaction, than a logical thought. I won’t go the point of calling it an “animal reaction” because the intuitive “thing” may be of a high ethical, scientific or spiritual nature, such as the case of sudden religious conversions, great scientific discoveries and other “sparks” totally opposed to what the adjective “animal” suggests. When it is right, despite the initial appearance of absurdity, the reaction is a either disconcerting amazement – “who would have thought...?” — or indignation: “I always thought that... I just didn’t say anything because I didn´t want to be ridiculed”.

Even “high” Mathematics — not “low” Maths, where 2+2 shall never be 5 as much as the heart insists on that — values intuition, as revealed by Einstein, a frank admirer of such an elusive faculty. He used to say that “if facts don´t fit the theory, let´s change the facts”. The Theory of Relativity itself owes a lot to the intuition of the great mathematician and scholar. This theory is so abstract, so difficult to explain through a simple mathematical explanation such as “a+b”, that it generated an impasse with the Committee which decided about who to hand the Nobel Prize of Physics in 1921.

With the intention of corresponding to the heated popular pressure in favor of a Nobel Prize to Einstein— for the confirmation of his Theory of Relativity—, the Nobel Committee did not grant him the prize with such a justification because one of its members had the audacity to admit he could not vote for Einstein because he didn´t understand his prestigious theory. How to grant a prize — he asked his colleagues — to a theory which we do not understand? And the other members of the Committee had to admit, against their own will, that they also had no way of understanding the theory. For that reason, they justified the granting of the prize by focusing on the theory´s photo-electric effect, which was something easier to demonstrate. For me, in my utter ignorance of Physics and with a slight suspicion regarding everything derived from the human intellect — as good as it is—, I only believe 99,9% in the acclaimed Theory of Relativity. I don´t think it is impossible that in a few decades, after the appearance of new facts, a new Einstein will explain that “things are not exactly what we thought they were”.

I have always suspected the conclusions of this great man – as a scholar, a scientist and an ethical man — when he affirmed that no speed could be superior than the speed of light. I have always imagined — stubbornness of an intuitive ignorant—, that perhaps it would be possible to activate a rocket through a mere push when the object was already travelling in the abovementioned speed of light.

For the sake of my simple intuition, I have read on the internet that “according to measurements made my specialists of the international experience Opera, neutrinos run the 730 km which separate the headquarters of the European Center of Nuclear Research (Cern), in Geneva, from the underground laboratory of Gran Sasso (in the center of Italy) at a speed of 300.006 km/second, i.e., 6 km/s above the speed of the light”. The same report adds that “This result, which was totally unexpected for the scientists, was verified during six months, but still needs to be confirmed through other experiments, as said by physicist Antonio Ereditato, Opera´s speaker” (Exame Magazine website, 22-set-11, at 5:06 p.m.)

In past decades, there were people who would say that intuition was an inferior faculty, something “typically feminine”. In such misogynous imaginations, intuition would be analogous to the connection of “cause and consequence” elaborated by the brain of a dog who would “feel” that it is going to go for a walk just because its owner got a hold of its dog-collar - a “logical” indication that both were going on their usual walk. In the dog example, the animal was right and was acting by deduction; what offends women is the comparison with the canine primitivism.

It is part of tradition, and not only the popular one, the assertion that intuition is much more present in women than in men. I agree with that. Maybe there is some connection with motherhood, the greatest concern with the future of the offspring and a higher level of sentimentalism. And as much as the tough economical competition has been deforming this nice feminine dimension — seen nowadays as a sign of weakness, which is usually abused by men — I believe that if every country had women as presidents the wars would be much less frequent. No mother accepts easily the idea of seeing their sons in uniforms and going to die in battlefields. The father, on the other hand, the “tough one”, is always proud to see little Junior marching to war. When the typical telegram sent by the government arrives, saying that the kid has died in war, “serving his country”, the father cries with pain and civic pride. Even in business, the woman, perhaps out of shyness, is always more aware, intuitively, to the possibilities of a business working or not. Her intuition also seems more accurate when evaluating the character of her daughter´s boyfriend who proposes marriage. We cannot forget that “deep down inside” the somewhat unorganized intuition there is a mixture of various components, including logic – even if in a secondary position.

Intuition is a synthesis which connects imagination, perception, accumulated facts, memories, prejudice and every other thing which inhabits and co-habit inside the human brain. Being a mental “mix”, with components to which even the “bartender” himself is unaware, the “cocktail” cannot be entirely trustworthy. Its conclusion could never be approved for public consumption by a kind of mental DFA. If, however, the intuitive conclusion is not completely annihilated by logic and specialists´ unquestionable opinions, surviving with a minimal chance of hitting jackpot, then it is a case of accepting and following intuition. Especially because it is “following the heart”, the interested person would act with more enthusiasm. And everyone who acts with enthusiasm works, thinks and articulates more, thus increasing his chances of winning, even if making a theoretically less certain decision. Bad business conducted by an enthusiastic, active and smart entrepreneur can become good business. There are many examples of this, such as bankrupted companies which become prosper with new owners.

In order not to bore the readers with theoretical general stuff of common knowledge, I take the liberty of expressing with extreme brevity – one of the characteristics of intuition— some of those which I still have not seen mentioned in the media. Perhaps they are foolish, perhaps not, but the fear of being ridiculed will not prevent me from expressing what I think – or better yet, not what I think, but what I “feel”. After all, I am not defending an academic thesis. If my intuition is correct, then I will be able to say so in the future, in the “skeleton stage”, with the large smile of a skull, that I saw beyond the others. Those who will be a few feet above my tomb will imagine that the wind is playing a trick, laughing deeply among the eucalyptus. But make no mistake, it will in fact be me, happy with my predictions. But before that, let´s proceed with my intuitions.

The first one is related to the planet Mars. Media often refers to the remote possibility of the planet having enough water in its underground to allow the existence of some simple and already extinct form of life – perhaps bacteria. It is predictable that Nasa and other similar entities will be able to reach, however briefly, the fourth planet with manned spaceships. When that happens, astronauts, scientists and technicians will be able to research what is beyond all that dust accumulated for millions or billions of years. And dust is something that is definitely not lacking in the planet.

From my part, I would bet some money that when deep prospections are finally possible on Martian soil, not only water will be found, but also an entire extinct civilization, a civilization probably much more advanced than ours. On the surface they will find what has already been seen in pictures and analysis. The secret to be revealed is hidden some kilometers deep, under tons of dust which has been accumulated for millions of years. I´ll explain now the reasons for such intuition of mine, which, as I´ve already mentioned, does not derive from a mere imaginative “spark”. Do I need to remind that within the “intuition soup” there is also the spice of logic, of deduction? And what is such logic? That´s what I am going to explain.

Initially, I consider as certain that millions or billions of years ago our Sun was even hotter than it is nowadays. After all, Astronomy says – or suggests – that in every second more than 4 million tons of solar matter are converted into energy. This represents an emptying of the “fireplace”. One day the Sun will extinguish itself by exhaustion – something that the whole Astronomy agrees on – after a sudden growth which will burn our planet. This will be the “swan song” of our star. The Sun, in the beginning of times, was hotter than it is today. It was so hot that our planet could not host life. Mars, on the other hand, at that time was able to flourish a crescent civilization, since it was more distant from the Sun. After that long phase, with the Sun reducing its size and heat, Earth became inhabitable and Mars, as far from the Sun as it was, became too cold, which made it more difficult for it to be a place for intelligent beings with a high level of technology – superior to ours today.

I consider possible for Mars to have had life before it became terribly colder, an intelligent species, perhaps even more intelligent than ours depending on how long the planet benefited from the advantages brought by a friendly Sun. When the cold became extreme, Mars could only survive in underground cities, such was the threat of constant meteor showers and the impossibility of having a breathable atmosphere on the surface. If the Martians reached such level of technology, there would be a possible explanation for the unidentified flying objects which probably exist and are from an extra-terrestrial origin. There are so many reports from serious people that it is questionable to attribute the apparitions of UFOs to madness or an impulse to lie. Let´s say that at least 3% of the reports or films of UFOs are honest. Raquel de Queiroz, a great writer, wrote in a chronicle that she saw a “flying saucer” following for some minutes an airplane in which she was travelling. She was a smart, brave, mentally honest woman and she didn´t report the fact when she was too old.

If the eventual inhabitants of Mars have not reached a level of technology superior to the Earth´s, being unable therefore to avoid their own extinction, future excavations might be able to find, as I´ve said, the remains of a civilization similar to ours, hundreds of meters or kilometers below the dust. Similar because 2+2 will always be 4 and without Mathematics – a universal language — no civilization would be able to flourish. It is even possible that Mars has produced and kept atomic weapons, followed by a total war which contaminated soil and water and ended up extinguishing all life, which would be a good lesson for us. Without life and away from the Sun, there came desertification , with dust always present in huge clouds.

For me it is evident that in every “telluric” planet such as Earth and Mars, for example — i.e., non-gaseous (as Jupiter and Saturn are, for instance) – which keeps an adequate distance from its star (the Sun in our case), being neither too hot nor too cold, life will inevitably flourish. In the presence of light and heat, earth and water, the starting point of life will flourish in there. And life, any life, develops towards more complexity, “upwards”, as if following an inner “intelligence”, proper of this mysterious knowledge which even dismisses the existence of a localized brain. Such is the case, for example, of the intelligence of the plants, something that is considered proved nowadays. A creeper which is planted in a garden grows disoriented when it doesn´t “see”, or better yet, when it doesn´t feel, when it doesn´t have to touch a wall or a stick where it can grab itself, because that is what its nature demands. If, however, the garden´s owner puts a stick not very far from the frustrated creeper, it starts “seeing”, even without eyes, the stick, changing direction and growing towards the stick, to which it will attach itself and grow. This “intelligence” of the living things, with no conscience of themselves, is also proved in bacteria, which modify themselves when attacked by antibiotics which try to kill them. I also don´t believe that the mutations happen by chance. I believe that the need to change in face of the hostility of the environment explains a great number of fast mutations.

In summation, the impulse of life flourishes in any “telluric” planet provided there is a “friendly” Sun to provide it with light and heat in the appropriate amount. And life starts growing in complexity and intelligence when it isn´t interrupted, this normal impulse, by a cataclysmic event coming from space, from abroad or from its own madness, including a nuclear source or the destruction of the environment. That´s why it is necessary that every war on Earth is prohibited, although in order for that to happen there should be a democratic central power monopolizing the use of force. The weapons available today no longer advice their use by individual initiative of all the governors of all countries. And we´d better stop right here, before the reader starts getting nervous. Let us proceed.

In this probable evolution, Mars, with a strong level of probability, has known the immense potential of nuclear fission and fusion. Martian life, in its period of warm Sun, must have produced its equivalent “Martian Einstein”, or similar scientists. It is absurd to imagine that if Einstein and other Physics geniuses had never been born, then humankind would have never been able to know the nuclear secret, for bad or for good.

To summarize it, future excavations in Mars, if they find anything “interesting”, it will not be only water or extinct forms of microbial life. What they will find are burried constructions, remains of an extinct civilization or — perhaps more difficultly—, evidence of an “advanced underground civilization”, intelligent and pacific because it was too advanced. I piously believe that the more advanced the civilization is, the more understanding and ethical it becomes, which would explain the lack of an attempt by the Martians to dominate the Earth using the advantage of their technological advancements. I just don´t formalize my financial bet — that future excavations will find organized and intelligent life under the dust — because I´m no longer a young man who can wait for decades the perforations in the Red Planet. I won´t be able get the dividends of my bet after I am dead anyway.

Another intuition, closer to the ground and less speculative, refers to the climatic change that everybody correctly relates to global warming, which would follow the melting of the polar caps and frozen mountains and the elevation in the level of the seas. Everybody, or almost everybody, agrees that the increase in global warming is responsible not only for the elevation of the level of the seas but also to the increased occurrence of hurricanes, storms, droughts etc. What I never see mentioned, however, is an explanation as to why the melting of ice causes different modifications in the temperatures of the countries in the planet. Countries are not uniformly warmer, as logical as it might sound. Some of them get colder, in a paradox.

The explanation I dare give is that with the melting of the polar caps and frozen mountains, the water of the planet is being distributed differently than what happened in the past, generating a slight modification in the axis of the Earth. There is an accumulation in the Ecuador layer, for instance. Earth, which turns around itself like a slightly inclined top — which explains the alternation of the seasons in both hemispheres —, is starting to turn in a different way, altering the rhythm of the seasons in all countries. That would explain why, in a time of so much warming, countries traditionally cold are getting warmer and vice-versa. The interesting thing is that if the weather treaties are able to revert global warming, the water which has poured from the icy mountains and polar caps will not return to their place of origin. The ice will accumulate in neighboring areas. Thus, if we stop global warming, some countries which up until now have been considered as “very warm” will start being “less warm” and cold countries “less cold”. This permanent weather change will have a big influence on civilization. Less energetic people will become more energetic when the heat diminishes, thanks to the weather. People who are more energetic might become less efficient because the heat causes a relaxation, which is compensated with the air conditioning equipments in offices and stores but with no big effect on outdoors work.

I could mention other intuitions, but they are too daring, dealing with some delicate subjects, so I´d better keep silent for now because they might cause unnecessary coyness. After studying these new subjects I might be able to return with full charge to my “cavalleria rusticana”. Even though I know the limitations of intuition, I can say that it has helped me a lot in life, at least with joy. Every time I was in a dilemma and didn’t follow my crazy intuition, I didn´t do well.

Happy 2012.

(13-12-2011)

Politically incorrect conclusions extracted from Kadhafi´s death

Mohammad Gadhafi was undoubtedly an unpleasant despot — there are a few tyrants who are “nice” — , vengeful, not in the least enlightened. When I was a kid, in my History classes, I used to find the expression “enlightened despot” very funny. Full of whims, Gadhafi always gave a lot of work to the ceremonial and security services of the First World countries which he visited as an official guest. He demanded to sleep in tents, outdoors, even in cities like Rome, New York and Paris. He was not afraid to affront the representatives from the world´s biggest powers or the CEOs from very rich Western oil companies – even though he was fully conscious that money is power. And power gets everything it wants when it has, by itself, the privilege to mold the public opinion at will. Gadhafi dared – some say – to tear the United Nations Charter in half in the middle of the UN´s General Assembly. Notwithstanding the theatrics of such an act, he had his reasons, considering such Letter was not conceived to impose governing styles. It was made to force equally every nation, weak or strong, to respect the others, without interfering in their internal affairs.

As informed by the media, Gadhafi kept billions of dollars abroad, in accounts from the Libyan Central Bank and other governmental institutions. As his decisions could not be contested by anybody, the money deposited in such accounts could be – in theory – withdrawn by Gadhafi himself for his or his family´s personal use. On the other hand, as those accounts were under the name of governmental institutions, this fact ended up being beneficial to Libya, which was able to keep the money reserves deposited abroad. Had the money been deposited in banks located inside Libya, such wealth would have already been stolen during the many months of intense and confuse conflict.

As mere intuition from an amateur psychologist, I risk “diagnosing” — future biographers might say whether I am right or wrong — that Gadhafi took anphetamins, a kind of drug which, when used without restrictions, may cause a “persecution complex” once the initial euphoria fades away. In his case, by the way, the paranoia was highly recommendable because it kept him in constant alert against a plethora of enemies who wanted his place. Having taken hold of power illegally in 1969 at the age of 27, he knew he could only count on force and intimidation because it was through such components of the political fight — in a country with little alphabetizing — that he became Libya´s “strong man”. He achieved such status in September of 1969 through a “coup d’etat”. Leading a group of military officials, he took power while the king, Idris — the first and only Libyan king —, was away from the country. Idris, a religious monarch with a fragile health, was taken in by Egypt after his deposition, and lived in that country – apparently very comfortably – until he passed away in 1983. There was no drop of blood in the 1969 “coup”.

Notwithstanding his numerous bad qualities — not even the Devil himself is perfect in his evilness—, Gadhafi benefitted the Libyan people when, right after becoming the country´s “owner”, he demanded a higher share for the country in the profits derived from the oil extracted by the powerful Western companies as a counterpart for them to be able to continue operating in his land. He knew the companies had no other choice than to accept that condition, as it ended up happening – it would have been an economical suicide to abandon the profitable investment they had already done. And his boldness started being imitated in the other countries of the Middle East which were equally rich in oil and gas, which partly explains why Gadhafi was so hated by the rich countries from the West.

With the Arab nations unified in such interests – i.e., oil – the price of the barrel started increasing, which caused consternation among the Western countries which were, up to that point, used to giving Libya and the other Middle East countries only the crumbles of their profits. Such raises in prices seemed to the West as an authentic extortion, taking advantage of a source of energy which was impossible to replace. They swore that one day Gadhafi would pay for such stimulation to “blackmail”.

And he finally paid in October 20, 2011, even though it was stealthily through the hands of others: Libya´s own people, revolting against years of tyranny. To save the appearances it was necessary that the Libyan rebels, and not NATO, did the “dirty work”. It is important to notice that NATO pilots, aware or assuming that Gadhafi was in the car convoy which was fleeing the city, did not bomb nor shot the vehicles — as they had been constantly doing before — in order to avoid the risk of killing the dictator. The order to the pilots — or the flight controllers for that matter – was probably something like the following: “Just stop him from escaping! Do not kill him! Once the convoy is stopped, it will be reached by the rebels who will surely kill him, something much more practical than a public trial – after all, who knows what he would have said as his defense in a trial? If NATO planes kill him directly, we will be violating the Geneva Convention. That would be an act of war. And in this war it is a crime to kill an enemy who has surrendered. Legally, we are not “at war”, we are only favoring one of the sides, protecting Libyan population”. And so it happened. The rebels got hold of Gadhafi, lynched him and killed him. It would have sounded really bad, legally and politically, if foreign powers, NATO members, had killed a chief of state in his own country. Such a maneuver has a very popular metaphor: “pull the sardine with the cat´s hand” (or simply use someone else´s hand to do what you want to be done).

Analyzing the subject through an International Law angle, it is important to state that the United Nations Charter does not authorize the assassination of Chiefs of State on behalf of other States, be it under their own name or through military organizations such as NATO. And what happened in Libya was exactly the use of what is forbidden: foreign air force shooting and bombing the military forces of a country which was surrounded and was not accused of aggression. Gadhafi had attacked neither the US, nor the UK, nor France. An article written by a specialist in the subject, Roberto Godoy, published in “O Estado de S. Paulo” from last October 21, pg A-24, reveals that NATO was providing cover for the advancement of the rebels, “assured by intense and daily air bombings from the 180 airplanes provided by an international coalition”.

If this does not represent a disrespect to the free determination of the people, a clear act of war, there is no way to know what is a war. In order to be characterized as such, an aggression doesn´t have to be made with troops marching on land. If that was the case, strong nations would be able to throw nuclear bombs to crush any country without being accused of aggression. A single plane could do the “job”, much more devastatingly than millions of soldiers on foot. And in Libya there were tens of planes attacking the governmental forces. It is too much innocence, or else interpretative malice, to say that the presence of foot soldiers is indispensable to characterize the use of force under an International Law perspective. The use of air force is decisive to win wars nowadays. There was, in the Libyan case, a powerful and lethal interference from other countries, NATO members, to depose a governor. And this is without mentioning the presence, on land, of tens of foreign advisors guiding the rebels on how to articulate the attacks against the tyrant – as well as the supply of weapons.

About tyrannies, International Law has not reached yet the point of allowing countries to invade others in order to remove governors which they deem as tyrants, with reason or not. If the people are sovereign, as doctrine says, they can support a dictator which seems beneficial to them, even fairer than paper democracies. It is certain that democracy, in theory, is better than a dictatorship, but that does not authorize nations or coalitions to invade countries in order to remove non-democratic governors.

Someone could say that NATO interfered with the aerial attacks for a noble reason, defending human rights, because the dictator had been killing rebels, his own citizens — who, it is fair to say, were also willing to spank and kill the tyrant.

If the argument of “nobility” is worth anything in theory, let´s imagine the following scenario: suppose a million Americans meet in front of the White House, in Washington D.C., protesting against Barack Obama´s economical policies. Over-excited, the rioters threaten to invade the gardens of the White House. The police intervenes with tear gas and rubber bullets. Two rioters die and the even angrier crowd tries to enter the building. The police starts shooting real bullets. Then there is a massacre. If the conflict spreads to other cities, we can ask: would China, for example, have the “humanitarian” right to give aerial support to the “massacred population”, bombing the White House and the Pentagon? Wouldn´t this hypothetical Chinese attitude be a distortion on the “human rights protection”? Economical and diplomatic sanctions are acceptable under the international human rights perspective, but intense bombings mean a clear bellicose interference in other countries´ internal affairs, which is something forbidden – at least in theory. Therefore, Gadhafi had his rights when he allegedly tore the United Nations Charter in half.

A detail to which public opinion must remain alert in the future – in order to find out the real motivations behind the bellicose aerial support against Gadhafi — is whether the new Libyan government will owe money to the NATO countries or not. I reckon that the “oil factor” is at the top of the reasons for the aerial invasion and the lynching —“ by proxy”— of the tyrant.

Here´s an important question: will, by any chance, the new Libyan government have to pay for the weapons received from the Americans, French and British? Will NATO´s expenses with airplanes, bombs, ammunition and military assistance on land be reimbursed? If that occurs – which would be extremely cynical — the hidden intentions for the aerial and tactical support to the rebels will be proved: oil! And with Libya´s finances as unorganized as they currently are after months of anarchy, the country will probably only be able to pay such debts with oil drilling grants. In addition to oil, what other way would Libya have to pay the debt? It is still unknown whether Libyan´s deposited money abroad would be enough to pay for the expenses incurred by the NATO countries.

Chinese companies (as well as companies from other non-NATO countries) also drill the Libyan oil. Will they be able to resume their operations in Libya when the country is under a new government – or will only the USA, France and the UK be able to handle Libyan oil? This detail is very important to verify if the fall of Gadhafi was motivated only by the defense of the human rights or if there are any “oily” political ambitions behind it.

Murder – whether it is direct or by Power-of-Attorney – still impregnate international politics, a practice that was imagined to be “out-of-fashion”. On the other hand, Gadhafi´s assassination is an alert for tyrants that they are no longer able to defend themselves with the old day´s efficiency.

The exercise of power is pleasant. And when power is absolute — as in Kadhafi´s case — it is extremely pleasant. Which explains why every governor — even presidents of Western democracies — wants to remain in power till he dies. And sometimes even after that, through a son or other successor, which proves that the “monarchy gene” still impregnates the human genetic code.

Every governor would like to be the founder of an infinite dynasty. “Never for the love of power, of course. I love my people when they praise me!” It is very rare for a president not to want to return to power. Even Barack Obama himself wants to keep his job for as long as the law allows him to, which explains his sudden change of mentality regarding international situations. In a matter of weeks he changed from a “pigeon” into a “falcon”. If the electors want more toughness, let´s be “really tough”, “otherwise I might lose the election”. Putin left when it was impossible for him to continue in power, but his intention is to get it back as soon as he can. The same is true in the whole planet. And tyrants have no longer the luxury of leaving, because the chances of being murdered are really high. That is one of the reasons why democracy - even when corrupted – are superior to dictatorships. In the latter, whoever gets to a power position doesn´t want and can´t leave, at a risk of death. In democracies, no one wants to leave, but at least they can do that.

To the Libyans, in a long term, Gadhafi´s demise was beneficial, but things will get worse before improving, for months or even years. People of normal sensibility did not enjoy the brutality in which the fall of the tyrant happened. It would have been better if his demise had happened in a more civilized way. In a court of Law, he might have revealed more interesting things, scaring other Chiefs of State.

This article´s considerations also have the aim to suggest that readers in general are fully aware of the clever maneuvers of international politics, which deems itself smarter than it really is.

(October 23, 2011)

Timely Initiative of a Newspaper

On page A18 of the “O Estado de S.Paulo” newspaper dated 25-9-11, there is a short text that can be considered an innovation to be followed — or amplified, if such a practice already exists — by all newspapers not exclusively destined for readers that are specialized in a particular area. The article is not concerned with narrating an event currently developing in international politics — the normal task of newspapers. It was written with the objective of enlightening readers with respect to a relevant topic which, in general, is not widely known to the public. The text to which I am referring is a “mini-lesson” in Public International Law.

Without including any brief pedagogical “help” — and the article in question was a clear example of this —, columns of printed news lose a lot of their usefulness. Of course, they are understood by professionals in the area — who are already familiar with the topic, probably more so than the author of the material — but the absence of a timely theoretical explanation makes the “non-initiated” steer clear of that page of the newspaper. An absence of such explanation is to the cultural detriment of ordinary citizens, who come to see the world in an incomplete or distorted manner. One day, such ill-informed citizens make their opinions known in petitions, become members of NGOs, form the majority in public opinion and vote in elections — getting it right less often, because they do not sufficiently understand how far-reaching their votes are. Only by chance is ignorance a good counselor.

This is very common in the field of Economics, principally when the topic concerns foreign exchange, the stock exchange, overseas trade and inflation. Many readers think: “I sometimes attempt to read such news and articles, although I frequently cannot understand the meaning of some technical terms. Please excuse my ignorance, but I am not going to read these articles with the help of an Economics dictionary. And even with a dictionary, I will likely continue to remain “in the dark”, as the author does not “come down to my level” to explain why a certain consequence — for example, valuation or devaluation of a given currency, for example, is the “inevitable” result of a particular event, as the author of the news or article gives one to understand, without providing a clear basis as to why he or she thinks in this way”. On television, this occurs in an even more evident manner. An example is the reporter who speaks with impressive “professional self-assuredness”, like a lecturing parrot, on a cause-and-effect relationship that he himself would not know how to explain in his own words. The cliché is elegant, but to me it seems like deception.

If the mission of the newspaper, any newspaper, is that of informing, and informing well — if it is that of falsifying the truth, may it soon go bankrupt — the omission of a quick and timely “technical” explanation results in a double prejudice: cultural (as I already mentioned) and commercial (for the newspaper). Its readers remain “excluded”, perplexed. Although curious, many come to avoid certain sections — or the whole newspaper — supposing that they will be incapable, as they would like, of forming their own opinion. Therefore, even from a business point of view — losing regular readers or occasional purchasers of copies — it would be advisable for newspapers to introduce short explanations when news reports involve topics in such specialized areas as Economics, Information Technology, Science, Law and International Relations. The editors of these specialized sections normally have sufficient awareness to judge whether or not such and such a technical term or relationship between phenomena needs a little “help” in order to ensure clear understanding on the part of the reader. When in doubt, it would be best to explain.

What is impressive and shows just how much the intellectual can be contaminated by universal vanity is that the parts that are most difficult to understand — “deep, mysterious and sophisticated’ — are really neither “deep” nor “mysterious”. They are only sophisticated. More an “affectation” than inherent complexity. If a professional feels some kind of understandable pleasure in being “inaccessible”— “After all, why did I study so much? I need to show off!” — it is necessary to remind him that his opinions and messages will only be of use if the listener or reader manages to adequately understand them. Nourishment, physical and mental, can only be assimilated after being chewed and digested by the acid of critical judgment. Even this should be mistrusted, given that a certain amount of deceit impregnates all activities. Without it, however, richness withers.

The article that led me to write these lines is undersigned by Bruna Ribeiro and is entitled “A state does not need the UN in order to exist”. As I had never heard or read anything by this columnist, I conducted a search on the internet in order to obtain some information about her. After some time — there are numerous homonyms —, I found that the Bruna in question is a very young, objective and active person. On 22-05-11, she interviewed Prof. Francisco Rezek, ex-chancellor and ex-judge of the International Court of Justice, for the “O Estado de S.Paulo” newspaper, and this interview comes with the following title: “The war on terror violates international law”. It should be read by all those interested in International Politics, given that political reality is frequently in conflict, in an open or disguised manner, with International Law. In all certainty, there is no Law more fickle, susceptible to dual interpretation of the facts, than International Law, where the raw reality of strength — political, diplomatic, economic and military — both uses and abuses in the elaboration of sophisms.

Aggressor governments never admit to be aggressors. Hitler never confessed to being an unprovoked invader. Every attack is a “just defense reaction”, “correction of a historical injustice” or defense against an imminent future attack, detected by the “intelligence service” — far too smart. Each “sovereignty”, being absolute — an authentic “vice” that is still not perceived as such — encourages the strong to abuse the weak, sometimes without any kind of sovereignty as they are not even States. Only “entities”. And “entities” do not enjoy sovereignty. Any protest, verbal or physical, made by the citizens of a fully-fledged State, or entity, is labeled as an insult or terrorism, requiring “exemplary punishment” that is much harsher than the damage incurred. Exaggerated punishment is dependent upon likely international impunity, nurtured by disinformation on the part of media organizations that are actually directed to mislead. Hence it is the desire of every country that values truth to have a press that is concerned with adequately enlightening the public. And, as I have already indicated, for this to occur, there is also a need to explain that which is published, when necessary. It is the case of the possibility, or impossibility, of the existence of a new State, even without its formal admission by the United Nations.

As Bruna Ribeiro’s article explained — perhaps with a few pedagogic suggestions on the part of Francisco Rezek —, a State does not need the UN in order to exist. It is one thing to actually exist; however, it is another to obtain legal recognition of its existence by an important international agency. In 1945, if the world had not created the United Nations, would current states not exist? Of course they would. Individuals whose birth has never been recorded at a registry office do not therefore cease to exist. Such people are not phantoms. They have their rights recognized in a court of law.

If I retain a caretaker to look after my ranch, and the birth of this caretaker has never been recorded at a registry office, such an omission does not mean that I am not obliged to pay his salary. An international example, purely theoretical: if member countries of the UN were to decide, even unanimously, to exclude China from its list of countries — due to its invasion of markets with low prices, or violation of human rights — would this State cease to exist? Of course not. It would become a somewhat “pariah” State, although it would continue to be a State, unless China itself renounces its status in a “sovereign” manner. And any other country would have the right to change its mind, always in a “sovereign” manner, and recognize China as a State, maintaining the same relations with it as those maintained with other member countries of the UN.

According to the information provided by Bruna Ribeiro, Taiwan is recognized by 22 countries. It will be difficult for this enormous island to gain recognition at UN level in the near future, given that China, with the power of veto, will not allow it, as it considers Taiwan to be part of continental China. Even though it is not a “registered” State, such a lack of “registration” does not prevent Taiwan from having an important role to play in industry, commerce, science and even international relations. In addition, the explicatory article in question informs us that Israel, although a full member of the UN, is not recognized by 22 States - obviously, for political reasons.

Elementary, isn’t it? However, in millions of minds the notion exists, albeit rather ill-founded, that without a bid on the part of Palestine for full UN membership, the Palestinian State will only “exist” if a prior agreement is reached with Israel, the country that has the greatest interest in the Arab population not being able to enjoy full member status. If, theoretically, Israel never agrees to a Palestinian State, would such a decision, based on force, merit universal approval?

It is therefore appropriate that many countries have now decided to recognize the existence of the Palestinian State, or whatever other name it may come to have. The fact that it does not have delimited borders — because its arch-enemy is opposed to this — results in serious administrative problems, although such problems do not diminish the existence of a people, with a common language, inhabiting a territory for centuries, however difficult their day-to-day lives may be. Israel, a member State of the UN, also does not have fixed borders on its eastern side. Given that, in 1948, the State of Israel dispensed with any need for the agreement of Arabs in the region in order to proclaim itself a State, there is nothing that prevents the Palestinians from doing the same thing.

Irrespective of the extent to which they bring problems, uncertain disputed boundaries cannot be allowed to prevail over the greater principle of the right of peoples to self-determination. If — another mere example —, a conflict were to arise between Mexico and the United States and the latter were to achieve the exclusion of Mexico at the UN — because it is unable to control illegal immigration and drug trafficking at the border — would a State called Mexico simply “disappear”?

It is paradoxical that the precise branch of Law that is most important for the future of humanity is the most ignored by the inhabitants of the planet, perhaps due to it being “something remote and rarely complied with”. Here one is dealing with a branch of Law that is apparently ignored (?!) even by those responsible, at the highest level, for the international relations of their countries. Iran is a case in question, as it could have withdrawn decades ago from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), — signed in 1968 by the government of the Shah of Persia, Mohamed Reza Pahlavi —, although it has not done so to date. Issue of an official document would suffice to confirm its withdrawal. The Israeli government makes great political use of this “bureaucratic” omission, stating that Iran does not “fulfill its international treaty obligations”. Given that Israel, shrewdly, has not even signed the treaty, it has been free to do whatever it so desires, building and storing nuclear weapons.

According to the aforementioned NPT, whoever has signed the treaty is able to withdraw from it as long as prior notice is given of ninety (90) days. In the withdrawal notice, it is sufficient for the signatory to the treaty to state that it wishes to withdraw for reasons of threats to its national security. And there is no lack of public threats, on the part of Israel, of bombing Iranian nuclear facilities.

Three months after withdrawing from the NPT, Iran would be free from inspections in the nuclear area. The development of its nuclear capabilities would not be infringing the terms of any treaty whatsoever. It should be noted that the five permanent members of the Security Council are nuclear powers, together with India, Pakistan and Israel. The Iranian omission of requesting its withdrawal from the NPT — as North Korea has already done — is something inexplicable. Could it be that Iran is apprehensive that its withdrawal, at the present time, would seem to be a confession that it intends to build nuclear weapons? It would be sufficient to state that this is not its intention. Following a request by Iran for withdrawal from the NPT, the USA and its allies would need to invent many legal artifices to justify the argument that “earlier, whoever signed could withdraw; now it is no longer possible to do so! They forget that which is explicitly written in the treaty!”

Am I, by chance, in favor of the increased risk of destruction of mankind, via nuclear conflict and radioactive contamination? Certainly not. I am only a realist who believes that fear can be used for both good and evil. I am of the same opinion as the Swede Alfred Nobel, when reasoning with a woman in favor of universal disarmament, when he said that “Perhaps my factories will put an end to war even sooner than your congresses. On the day when two army corps may mutually annihilate each other in a second, probably all civilized nations will recoil with horror and disband their troops” (initial page of the book “Human Smoke”, by Nicholson Baker).

Without mutual fears — of the same dimensions —, the aggressive beast man cannot resist the temptation of swaggering and dominating. Although a great speaker, it is a pity that Barack Obama has neither exceptional familiarity with the twin topics “world peace and order”, nor sufficient intellectual audacity to promote, at the UN, the possibility of the Israel-Palestine conflict being resolved by an international court. Without an external solution to this issue, the world will continue to be confronted by imminent catastrophe.

In closing, I would like to point out that International Law is ill-understood and, for this reason, newspapers should make an effort to educate their readers. Newspapers are also devastated by wars. How many newspapers existed in Germany when it signed its surrender in 1945? Perhaps a handful of journalists writing in the midst of the rubble.

(1º-10-2011)

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