Francisco César Pinheiro Rodrigues
Lawyer, retired principal judge and writer. He’s a member of IASP Institute of Lawyers of São Paulo.
What should be done with Kim Jong II? Nothing.
The ambitious, intelligent and persuasive global arms industry should be extremely excited with the challenges or “follies” (what else to call them?) of Kim Jong Il, the North-Korean dictator.
In abstract terms, the client adored by the arms industry is fear. Without it, there would be generalized insolvency in the cannon industry. Even worse than General Motors. On the other hand, the client respected in flesh and blood is any head of state or government sufficiently unscrupulous or courageous in resolving the problems of their country (principally those of an economic nature) by avoiding them through emotional saber-rattling.
This is exactly the case of Kim Jong Il, the son of another dictator and likely the father of a third. This will only not happen if his son refuses the post. If this occurs, another family member will probably be proclaimed “king”. A strange case of royalty, of blue blood (or, in this instance, yellow) in a type of regime whose very essence (communism) resides in the closest kind of identification between leaders and led. Given that, in North Korea, there is no free press or free elections, the masses - lean, but not by choice - support the orders handed down by their irrevocable “father”, without further analysis.
Considering that there is not even a shadow of democracy in North Korea and that its future (and that of the whole region) depends on just one man, and this depends on that which occurs in his mind, the best solution regarding the Korean nuclear threat lies in patiently awaiting a biological decision to be made. In the case in question, concerning his health. After he is gone, we will see what needs to be done. Attack North Korea? Only if the country attacks first, and in a concrete manner. This means without even considering so-called “preventive attacks’, which would have extremely serious consequences in terms of destruction, deaths and radioactive contamination.
Given that world government, or some semblance of such government, does not yet exist (this is something that needs to be changed as a matter of urgency), with powers, accepted by all countries, of immediate intervention for “confiscation” or “extraction” (as in the case of a rotten tooth) of dictators who are putting various other countries at risk, and even those who are under their domination (as in the case of Robert Mugabe, in Zimbabwe), the wisest solution is not to encourage the warmongering of a head of state who may not be in full control of his mental faculties for physical (stroke) or psychological reasons.
In the 1930s, if Hitler (after arming Germany with the largest war machine ever seen - externalizing his intention to dominate the world) had been “extracted” from power by a democratic world government, we would not have had the widespread slaughter that was the Second World War. Not even its consequence, the so-called “Cold War”, which nearly became transformed into an atomically “hot” war in 1962, at the time of the Cuban missile crisis. This did not result in nuclear conflict solely because Nikita Khrushchev, a simple-minded man (on one occasion, in the middle of a UN session, he removed a shoe and began hammering it on the table, demanding attention), but a man of great vision, had the good sense and moral courage to make an about-turn, ordering the return of ships that were transporting nuclear missiles destined for Cuba.
In fact, this gesture of courageous prudence, which saved humanity from a war that was likely to be nuclear, did not save the prestige of Khrushchev within the Soviet Union. Russian generals thought that he was “soft” in dealing with the incident. Instead of being thankful for not being incinerated, the star-studded and medal-bedecked generals criticized the retreat. They did not understand the reach of this heroic gesture precisely because it was not “heroic”, i.e., accompanied by the beat of drums. As a result, Khrushchev lost his hold on power in his country. With the return of the missiles, international headlines remained fully focused on John Kennedy. This is just another example that “taking a hard-line standpoint” is of “greater value” to the masses than acting in an intelligent and discerning manner. Being fully aware of this, dictators generally rely on shows of force - and it is the people who end up being hurt. Just as in the case of the Falklands, a small-scale war destined to distract attention from the problems that afflicted Argentina at the time.
Any kind of military measures - “other options” - against Kim Jong Il, with a view to bringing his nuclear activities to a halt or destroying them would be counterproductive. Such military measures are unthinkable, given that North Korea has a numerous and powerful army. In addition, in an extreme situation, it could launch missiles with nuclear warheads. That would lead to chaos. There is no guarantee that the country would be flattened before pressing the launch buttons. Even if this occurred, following a sudden and precise attack by the USA, such a preventive attack would be an act of cowardice against a population that cannot be blamed for the foolishness of its head of government, the “master” and architect of public opinion. In a land where there is no freedom of the press, few think differently from their leader.
Besides this, “hard-line economic sanctions” also do not function, as they augment the poverty of countries governed by dictators if such leaders are, rightly or wrongly, supported by the populace. It is only the poorest sectors of society that suffer. There will be no lack of food and other indispensible goods on the table of those in government and their supporters. And when hunger is a threat, there is an increase in the proportion of “friends of the ruler”, whose interest is that of getting enough to eat, this being a primary drive embedded in all living beings. A lack of food in the stomach can have immense persuasive force.
However, an irrefutable argument that reinforces popular support for Kim Jong Il has a factual basis: there is currently unequal treatment among countries. The UN Security Council requires that North Korea interrupt its nuclear program destined for arms production. The problem is that, for this to occur, it would have to maintain inspectors within its nuclear facilities, constantly checking whether the activities in question are solely being developed for peaceful purposes. This is very irritating for the country being inspected.
I doubt (a normal reaction) that Israel would allow international inspectors, with Arab surnames, to scrutinize its nuclear installations. However, the five permanent members of the aforementioned Security Council (USA, United Kingdom, Russia, China and France) are free to have as many nuclear arms as they wish. Together, they could destroy the Earth many times over. Besides the five permanent members, India, Pakistan and Israel also have their nuclear arsenals, without any opposition on the part of the Security Council. What is the conclusion drawn by the North Koreans (the same applies in the case of Iranians) as a result of this evident inequality? Are the North Koreans in some way “inferior” or congenitally imbalanced? In theory, is it not the case that all countries have equal rights?
An article entitled “Que tal a velha diplomacia?” (Bush’s Best Example), by Norman Dombey, Emeritus Professor of Theoretical Physics at Sussex University, Great Britain, published in “The Guardian” and reproduced, in Portuguese, in the “O Estado de S. Paulo” newspaper on 31-5-09, in the supplement entitled “Aliás”, J5, specifies the breaking of several promises made by the George W. Bush government to Kim Jong Il, resulting in retaliation on the part of the dictator. The aggressiveness ingrained in Bush by the well known “hawks” that surrounded him made a significant contribution to the exaggerated reactions of the North Korean president, someone already exaggerated in nature. He concluded that it was no longer possible to trust the Americans. Thence the conclusion drawn by the aforementioned author of the article that the Obama administration “blundered into sanctions and threats”. For reasons of space, it is not possible to transcribe all the arguments put forward in the article, but these can be read in the publication in question. Well worth the effort.
Another article, in the same Brazilian newspaper, dated June 1st 2009, on page A12 (this time by Seumas Milne, previously published in “The Guardian”), under the title of “Hipocrisia estimula proliferação” (Hypocrisy encourages proliferation), also draws conclusions regarding hypocrisy and double standards in the international field, allowing some countries to fabricate nuclear weapons and prohibiting others. In other words, the permanent members of the UN Security Council and a few “allies” (Israel, India and Pakistan) have the “right to have fear”. On the other hand, North Korea and Iran have no such right. How is it possible to explain this inequality, without “shame”, in a world that reaffirms the existence of something that does not exist, i.e., equality? The explanation lies in the title of the aforementioned article: “Hypocrisy”.
Nuclear weapons states are generally more respected than those not attributed with equal powers. This is a factor that also motivates Kim Jong Il. Given that the USA invaded Iraq, based solely on “mistrust” (in fact, just another pretext) regarding the existence of weapons of mass destruction, and Bush broke agreements and confronted the UN, Kim considered it safer to emphasize, through a loud-speaker, that his country was really in possession of nuclear power, albeit incipient. Apparently, Kim is afraid and knows that enemies of countries with nuclear arsenals think more carefully before attacking.
Clearly, the more widespread nuclear proliferation, the greater the danger for all mankind. Proliferation should be avoided at all costs, but nota t the cost of a war that could become nuclear. It would be a case of contradicting purposes.
Innumerous more prudent countries are not bothered, diplomatically, by this inequality. For example, Sweden, which already has the technology necessary for construction of atomic weapons, has explicitly decided not to construct them. Perhaps knowing that, as it stands, the country will not become the target of mistrust and hostilities. Brazil, which could construct such arms within a few years, has also preferred to follow a more peaceful path, if only due to the fact that it does not feel threatened. If atomic energy were to be developed for military rather than peaceful purposes, such a move would likely lead to rivalry on the part of Argentina. On the other hand, North Korea and Iran could argue that they indeed consider themselves to be in potential imminent danger, if they continue to be “weaker” than their neighbors. Hence the union of fear and arrogance and, in the case of Iran, the need to impress the electorate.
Summing up: what should be done in order to resolve the current impasse? The reply to this question seems simple: Obama and his allies work, diplomatically, with a view to gaining the confidence of North Korea, Iran and Israel, with the urgent signing of a treaty guaranteeing that none of these three countries will be attacked, unless they are considered to be evident aggressors by a majority decision by the UN Security Council, without any right to veto in this case. A treaty without conditions and without inspections of any nature whatsoever.
In the meantime, considering the current state of the world, there is no way of impeding nuclear proliferation, the fruit of fear and/or arrogance. Nevertheless, with the exception of some kind of insanity, no country, of whatever kind, is going to want to initiate a nuclear war, which would also end up incinerating the actual aggressor. Once such a treaty has been signed by Obama, North Korea would have more confidence in “pieces of paper”. In all certainty, the new American president would not be subject to demoralization, for example, coming to be known as an “international trickster” or even a “sluggard”.
With peace ensured, albeit in a provisory manner, the world will be at leisure to deal with other matters. Such “other matters” will have to include the establishment of a new world order, more effective than that which currently exists. The immediate total abolition of nuclear arms is an illusion. The USA is fearful of the growing power of China, and vice-versa. Israel is fearful of Iran, and vice-versa. Even if all countries were to sign a treaty eliminating their nuclear arsenals, there would be no guarantee that a few warheads would not remain hidden, “just in case”. However, a new world order, which definitively resolves the matter, is a topic that cannot be dealt with here.
(2-6-09
Francisco César Pinheiro Rodrigues,
Lawyer, retired principal judge and writer. He’s a member of IASP Institute of Lawyers of São Paulo.
Vargas Llosa, Gideon Levy and Gaza
Mario Vargas Llosa is a notable writer. Both inside and outside, that is to say, due to the intelligent and judicious fluidity of his prose and his moral integrity. Someone once said that behind a great writer “a man” should exist, in other words, a character. How is it possible to admire, without a bitter taste (in the soul and even the mouth), a writer who is highly intelligent but false, deceiving, tremendously egoistic and indifferent to the suffering of others? In truth, a “monster”. A moral abortion, flashy diarrhea of nature, only interested in earning money and duping those more ingenuous readers (thousands of them) who think that they are now part of the so-called “intelligentsia” - such an elegant term! - just because they bought and perhaps partially read the most recent best seller? By the way, not really sold in such great numbers. In a large book store, if someone were to take the time to examine the dust-jackets of pocketbooks and add up the “millions of copies sold” (as editors exaggerate on the flaps) the conclusion drawn would be that the world is drowning in books. The great enemy of the environment would not be oil, but the book industry, responsible for devastating forests.
If superior intelligence were a gift granted by God strictly for personal and egoistic use - which it is not, as some are born without it and one cannot presume nepotism on the part of the Creator - He is likely thinking: “Please, don’t interpret My work badly...” As the old saying goes, “to err is human”. Never divine.
Returning once again to the esteemed Peruvian writer, yesterday (Monday), on page A-11, the O Estado de S. Paulo newspaper published an article of his entitled “O fim moral da política israelense” (The end of moral values in Israeli politics), although this article would have been accessed to a greater extent had it been published on Sunday. The texts is a balanced, sincere and eloquent assessment of the air and land incursion made by the well-equipped and extremely highly trained Israeli army into the Gaza Strip, with the alleged intention of solely bringing an end to the firing of rockets and mortars against areas of Israel near the borders. As the author says (seconding the vast majority of international commentators of non-Jewish surname), if it is the intention of Israel to reduce Hamas to total passivity, such an objective will not be attained, because any independent person who has traveled through towns in the Gaza Strip can see that this region has become a type of ghetto, due to the bureaucratic and military “fence” erected by the Israelis. The removal of Jewish settlers was to little avail if, in the words of Vargas, Llosa, “implacable quarantine - prohibiting the possibility of import and export, closing off the use of air and sea routes, allowing its inhabitants to only leave this ghetto in a limited manner, after being subject to oppressive and humiliating official formalities” continues in Gaza. The objective of this policy has been that of “proving” that “the Palestinians are incompetent as far as governing themselves is concerned”.
It is not difficult to foresee the short, medium and long term consequences of this short-sighted, not highly intelligent and ultimately brutal and election orientated policy that goes against the recognized culture of the Israeli people which, paradoxically, benefitted intellectually from the second diaspora - not brought about by the Palestinians, but by the Romans.
Based on my modest knowledge of History, several European countries prohibited the acquisition of land by Jews. Finding it impossible to cultivate land, they returned to those activities that were not prohibited, namely: finance, commerce, goldsmithery, philosophy, sciences, the arts and knowledge of foreign languages. Scattered throughout the world, most notably in the USA, their commercial and financial know how brought them wealth and power, in fields that include the media. It is exactly this force, this support on the part of Jews residing abroad (free from immediate personal danger) that encourages the aggressiveness shown by Israel’s current leaders, who are not only interested in protecting their nation, but also their own personal interests in the political dispute with other leaderships.
It should not be forgotten that public opinion in any country is molded by the media. If the media is prejudiced and aggressive, such characteristics are transferred to ordinary citizens, who do not have time to keep reading and analyzing that which is really happening behind the news - which is served up to them as a “ready-to-eat” dish.
I have already recommended the reading of Vargas Llosa’s text (a courageous summary of what is happening in Palestine), but even more surprising - almost incredible - is the boldness shown by an Israeli journalist, Gideon Levy, who, even living and working in Israel, has the courage to proclaim the bitter and undeniable truth regarding that which is occurring in the Gaza Strip. He manages to be fair even when the majority of his fellow countrymen, uneasy about the future, think or feel to the contrary (more feel than think).
Reading the biography of this journalist (who, due to his dark-skinned physical appearance, looks more like an Arab than a Jew, despite being an “authentic” Jew) on the Internet, the first and refreshing impression of any reader, if he or she is really honest, is that the human species still deserves credibility and hope. Levy, when adequately understood, deserves a Nobel Peace Prize.
Gideon Levy, 54, the son of European immigrants, is an important journalist working for the Israeli Haaretz newspaper. He worked for Shimon Peres from 1978 to 1972 (and therefore has inside knowledge of politics) and has already been given an award for his defense of human rights. Irrespective of being a Jew and a great patriot (in the more intelligent and ethical sense of the term), he did not content himself with forming a mental image of the life of Palestinians according to descriptions disseminated by the Israeli media. He resolved to personally investigate the way in which the Palestinians were being treated by the all-powerful State of Israel. With this intent, he traveled through areas inaccessible to ordinary Israeli citizens. And what he saw horrified his indisputable sense of justice.
His quest to discover what reality was like for the Palestinians almost cost him his life. On one occasion, intending to visit a Palestinian town named Tukarem, he made a request to the Israeli army for issue of all the necessary authorizations. After obtaining them, following a long wait and many inquiries, he took an Israeli taxi (white in color with yellow license plates) to a military post of his own country, in all certainty for further authorizations. However, when at a distance of around 150 meters from his destination, he was startled by five shots - three bullets hitting the front windshield and the remaining two other parts of the vehicle. The journalist and the taxi driver only escaped death because the windshield was bulletproof.
When interviewed (see Wikipedia on the Internet) some time after this incident, Levy did not show himself to have any doubt whatsoever regarding the real intent of this “mistake”, when he had already provided the military authorities with all necessary clarification, obtaining a permit to visit the area in question. Besides this, he was in a taxi that was clearly Israeli. The army later apologized for the attack and punished the soldier who fired the shots, if only because the media brought the fact to light, requesting explanations.
Gideon Levy’s articles do not divert their focus (for convenience - in order to remain “dear” to his fellow citizens) from the great political wound that is the expulsion, pure and simple, by force, threats or cunning, of Palestinians from lands that they have occupied for almost two thousand years. It is this that explains the revolt of many Arabs who feel that they have been treated unfairly. Almost as extraordinary as the courage of the aforementioned journalist is the moral (and even financial) courage shown by the editor of Haaretz, Amos Schockem, who loses readers of his newspaper by publishing articles by Levy. Editors of periodicals are generally subservient to the opinion of majorities, even when they believe that such majorities are mistaken and incomplete. What they are generally interested in is selling newspapers. By adopting such spiritual submission, they strengthen the errors of the country in which they are active, contributing to its eventual ruin in the future. With the ruin of the country, their own ruin follows. If the source dries up, the newspaper also falters. Truly independent newspapers, with no internal censure, certainly have a longer duration. They are more reliable.
Irit Linur, an Israeli novelist, cancelled her subscription alleging that Levy had adopted the ideology of Israel’s enemies. I am not familiar with any of the works of this novelist, but even if I were not familiar with them, I can prophesize that - unless she changes her opinion - she will never be a great writer. Either for reasons of lacking a spirit of justice (essential for the survival of literary prestige), or for not having the courage to say what she thinks, even at the cost of losing readers.
Why do I say that Israeli public opinion has been wrong with respect to Gaza? Because it has avoided facing the basic, primary, essential, unpleasant and unconcealable fact that drives the firing of rockets (obviously foolish, as it “authorizes” massacre-type reprisals): the Palestinians were expelled, without prior consultation and with no compensation, from an area that they had occupied for almost two centuries. If the Jews were treated unfairly by the Romans, with the destruction of Jerusalem, obliged to become scattered throughout the world, and suffering, furthermore, persecutions and massacres, it was not the Palestinians who were the authors of this injustice. This being the case, the international community should also have been concerned with them, when the Jews wanted a “homeland”. This was granted to the persecuted sons of Israel, but the wound of forced relocation remained, palpitating and infected with hatred. Such Jewish intellectuals as Gideon Levy are unable to “turn a blind eye” to this basic side of the conflict.
Obviously, it is not possible to go back in History. Israel is a country with around seven million inhabitants. It makes no moral, economic or any other kind of sense to “wipe it off the map” - the foolish flight of fancy of the braggart. And if the two neighboring peoples are unable to reach an agreement soon, creating two sovereign states (I have no great hopes of this happening), the only rational solution - much too late! - is for the international community to take a step forward - after all, it is not an incurable paralysis - attributing responsibility for resolving the issue of frontiers to an independent agency. Whoever loses land will gain the equivalent in financial compensation, as well as the possibility of starting life again, decently, in other countries. No longer in refugee camps or ghettos. The burden of compensation payments will be much less than that spent on armed conflicts, humanitarian assistance, the building of high walls and a troubled spirit.
Current international rules are no longer the same as those that existed one thousand years ago. They are able to be modified. If they are not, the World Bank will have to deal with financing the widespread construction of nuclear shelters, as there remains an irritating question, as yet unanswered, in the minds of those in weaker countries: “Why is it that some countries can possess nuclear weapons, whereas others cannot do so?”
Barack Obama will go down in History as one who is foreordained, if he manages to convince his country to agree with several modifications to the United Nations Charter, and related texts, attributing the mission of resolving conflicts with the potential of setting the whole world ablaze to an independent international agency. Widespread fires almost always start in small areas.
(13-1-09)
Lawyer, retired principal judge and writer. He’s a member of IASP Institute of Lawyers of São Paulo.
What should be done with Kim Jong II? Nothing.
The ambitious, intelligent and persuasive global arms industry should be extremely excited with the challenges or “follies” (what else to call them?) of Kim Jong Il, the North-Korean dictator.
In abstract terms, the client adored by the arms industry is fear. Without it, there would be generalized insolvency in the cannon industry. Even worse than General Motors. On the other hand, the client respected in flesh and blood is any head of state or government sufficiently unscrupulous or courageous in resolving the problems of their country (principally those of an economic nature) by avoiding them through emotional saber-rattling.
This is exactly the case of Kim Jong Il, the son of another dictator and likely the father of a third. This will only not happen if his son refuses the post. If this occurs, another family member will probably be proclaimed “king”. A strange case of royalty, of blue blood (or, in this instance, yellow) in a type of regime whose very essence (communism) resides in the closest kind of identification between leaders and led. Given that, in North Korea, there is no free press or free elections, the masses - lean, but not by choice - support the orders handed down by their irrevocable “father”, without further analysis.
Considering that there is not even a shadow of democracy in North Korea and that its future (and that of the whole region) depends on just one man, and this depends on that which occurs in his mind, the best solution regarding the Korean nuclear threat lies in patiently awaiting a biological decision to be made. In the case in question, concerning his health. After he is gone, we will see what needs to be done. Attack North Korea? Only if the country attacks first, and in a concrete manner. This means without even considering so-called “preventive attacks’, which would have extremely serious consequences in terms of destruction, deaths and radioactive contamination.
Given that world government, or some semblance of such government, does not yet exist (this is something that needs to be changed as a matter of urgency), with powers, accepted by all countries, of immediate intervention for “confiscation” or “extraction” (as in the case of a rotten tooth) of dictators who are putting various other countries at risk, and even those who are under their domination (as in the case of Robert Mugabe, in Zimbabwe), the wisest solution is not to encourage the warmongering of a head of state who may not be in full control of his mental faculties for physical (stroke) or psychological reasons.
In the 1930s, if Hitler (after arming Germany with the largest war machine ever seen - externalizing his intention to dominate the world) had been “extracted” from power by a democratic world government, we would not have had the widespread slaughter that was the Second World War. Not even its consequence, the so-called “Cold War”, which nearly became transformed into an atomically “hot” war in 1962, at the time of the Cuban missile crisis. This did not result in nuclear conflict solely because Nikita Khrushchev, a simple-minded man (on one occasion, in the middle of a UN session, he removed a shoe and began hammering it on the table, demanding attention), but a man of great vision, had the good sense and moral courage to make an about-turn, ordering the return of ships that were transporting nuclear missiles destined for Cuba.
In fact, this gesture of courageous prudence, which saved humanity from a war that was likely to be nuclear, did not save the prestige of Khrushchev within the Soviet Union. Russian generals thought that he was “soft” in dealing with the incident. Instead of being thankful for not being incinerated, the star-studded and medal-bedecked generals criticized the retreat. They did not understand the reach of this heroic gesture precisely because it was not “heroic”, i.e., accompanied by the beat of drums. As a result, Khrushchev lost his hold on power in his country. With the return of the missiles, international headlines remained fully focused on John Kennedy. This is just another example that “taking a hard-line standpoint” is of “greater value” to the masses than acting in an intelligent and discerning manner. Being fully aware of this, dictators generally rely on shows of force - and it is the people who end up being hurt. Just as in the case of the Falklands, a small-scale war destined to distract attention from the problems that afflicted Argentina at the time.
Any kind of military measures - “other options” - against Kim Jong Il, with a view to bringing his nuclear activities to a halt or destroying them would be counterproductive. Such military measures are unthinkable, given that North Korea has a numerous and powerful army. In addition, in an extreme situation, it could launch missiles with nuclear warheads. That would lead to chaos. There is no guarantee that the country would be flattened before pressing the launch buttons. Even if this occurred, following a sudden and precise attack by the USA, such a preventive attack would be an act of cowardice against a population that cannot be blamed for the foolishness of its head of government, the “master” and architect of public opinion. In a land where there is no freedom of the press, few think differently from their leader.
Besides this, “hard-line economic sanctions” also do not function, as they augment the poverty of countries governed by dictators if such leaders are, rightly or wrongly, supported by the populace. It is only the poorest sectors of society that suffer. There will be no lack of food and other indispensible goods on the table of those in government and their supporters. And when hunger is a threat, there is an increase in the proportion of “friends of the ruler”, whose interest is that of getting enough to eat, this being a primary drive embedded in all living beings. A lack of food in the stomach can have immense persuasive force.
However, an irrefutable argument that reinforces popular support for Kim Jong Il has a factual basis: there is currently unequal treatment among countries. The UN Security Council requires that North Korea interrupt its nuclear program destined for arms production. The problem is that, for this to occur, it would have to maintain inspectors within its nuclear facilities, constantly checking whether the activities in question are solely being developed for peaceful purposes. This is very irritating for the country being inspected.
I doubt (a normal reaction) that Israel would allow international inspectors, with Arab surnames, to scrutinize its nuclear installations. However, the five permanent members of the aforementioned Security Council (USA, United Kingdom, Russia, China and France) are free to have as many nuclear arms as they wish. Together, they could destroy the Earth many times over. Besides the five permanent members, India, Pakistan and Israel also have their nuclear arsenals, without any opposition on the part of the Security Council. What is the conclusion drawn by the North Koreans (the same applies in the case of Iranians) as a result of this evident inequality? Are the North Koreans in some way “inferior” or congenitally imbalanced? In theory, is it not the case that all countries have equal rights?
An article entitled “Que tal a velha diplomacia?” (Bush’s Best Example), by Norman Dombey, Emeritus Professor of Theoretical Physics at Sussex University, Great Britain, published in “The Guardian” and reproduced, in Portuguese, in the “O Estado de S. Paulo” newspaper on 31-5-09, in the supplement entitled “Aliás”, J5, specifies the breaking of several promises made by the George W. Bush government to Kim Jong Il, resulting in retaliation on the part of the dictator. The aggressiveness ingrained in Bush by the well known “hawks” that surrounded him made a significant contribution to the exaggerated reactions of the North Korean president, someone already exaggerated in nature. He concluded that it was no longer possible to trust the Americans. Thence the conclusion drawn by the aforementioned author of the article that the Obama administration “blundered into sanctions and threats”. For reasons of space, it is not possible to transcribe all the arguments put forward in the article, but these can be read in the publication in question. Well worth the effort.
Another article, in the same Brazilian newspaper, dated June 1st 2009, on page A12 (this time by Seumas Milne, previously published in “The Guardian”), under the title of “Hipocrisia estimula proliferação” (Hypocrisy encourages proliferation), also draws conclusions regarding hypocrisy and double standards in the international field, allowing some countries to fabricate nuclear weapons and prohibiting others. In other words, the permanent members of the UN Security Council and a few “allies” (Israel, India and Pakistan) have the “right to have fear”. On the other hand, North Korea and Iran have no such right. How is it possible to explain this inequality, without “shame”, in a world that reaffirms the existence of something that does not exist, i.e., equality? The explanation lies in the title of the aforementioned article: “Hypocrisy”.
Nuclear weapons states are generally more respected than those not attributed with equal powers. This is a factor that also motivates Kim Jong Il. Given that the USA invaded Iraq, based solely on “mistrust” (in fact, just another pretext) regarding the existence of weapons of mass destruction, and Bush broke agreements and confronted the UN, Kim considered it safer to emphasize, through a loud-speaker, that his country was really in possession of nuclear power, albeit incipient. Apparently, Kim is afraid and knows that enemies of countries with nuclear arsenals think more carefully before attacking.
Clearly, the more widespread nuclear proliferation, the greater the danger for all mankind. Proliferation should be avoided at all costs, but nota t the cost of a war that could become nuclear. It would be a case of contradicting purposes.
Innumerous more prudent countries are not bothered, diplomatically, by this inequality. For example, Sweden, which already has the technology necessary for construction of atomic weapons, has explicitly decided not to construct them. Perhaps knowing that, as it stands, the country will not become the target of mistrust and hostilities. Brazil, which could construct such arms within a few years, has also preferred to follow a more peaceful path, if only due to the fact that it does not feel threatened. If atomic energy were to be developed for military rather than peaceful purposes, such a move would likely lead to rivalry on the part of Argentina. On the other hand, North Korea and Iran could argue that they indeed consider themselves to be in potential imminent danger, if they continue to be “weaker” than their neighbors. Hence the union of fear and arrogance and, in the case of Iran, the need to impress the electorate.
Summing up: what should be done in order to resolve the current impasse? The reply to this question seems simple: Obama and his allies work, diplomatically, with a view to gaining the confidence of North Korea, Iran and Israel, with the urgent signing of a treaty guaranteeing that none of these three countries will be attacked, unless they are considered to be evident aggressors by a majority decision by the UN Security Council, without any right to veto in this case. A treaty without conditions and without inspections of any nature whatsoever.
In the meantime, considering the current state of the world, there is no way of impeding nuclear proliferation, the fruit of fear and/or arrogance. Nevertheless, with the exception of some kind of insanity, no country, of whatever kind, is going to want to initiate a nuclear war, which would also end up incinerating the actual aggressor. Once such a treaty has been signed by Obama, North Korea would have more confidence in “pieces of paper”. In all certainty, the new American president would not be subject to demoralization, for example, coming to be known as an “international trickster” or even a “sluggard”.
With peace ensured, albeit in a provisory manner, the world will be at leisure to deal with other matters. Such “other matters” will have to include the establishment of a new world order, more effective than that which currently exists. The immediate total abolition of nuclear arms is an illusion. The USA is fearful of the growing power of China, and vice-versa. Israel is fearful of Iran, and vice-versa. Even if all countries were to sign a treaty eliminating their nuclear arsenals, there would be no guarantee that a few warheads would not remain hidden, “just in case”. However, a new world order, which definitively resolves the matter, is a topic that cannot be dealt with here.
(2-6-09
Francisco César Pinheiro Rodrigues,
Lawyer, retired principal judge and writer. He’s a member of IASP Institute of Lawyers of São Paulo.
Vargas Llosa, Gideon Levy and Gaza
Mario Vargas Llosa is a notable writer. Both inside and outside, that is to say, due to the intelligent and judicious fluidity of his prose and his moral integrity. Someone once said that behind a great writer “a man” should exist, in other words, a character. How is it possible to admire, without a bitter taste (in the soul and even the mouth), a writer who is highly intelligent but false, deceiving, tremendously egoistic and indifferent to the suffering of others? In truth, a “monster”. A moral abortion, flashy diarrhea of nature, only interested in earning money and duping those more ingenuous readers (thousands of them) who think that they are now part of the so-called “intelligentsia” - such an elegant term! - just because they bought and perhaps partially read the most recent best seller? By the way, not really sold in such great numbers. In a large book store, if someone were to take the time to examine the dust-jackets of pocketbooks and add up the “millions of copies sold” (as editors exaggerate on the flaps) the conclusion drawn would be that the world is drowning in books. The great enemy of the environment would not be oil, but the book industry, responsible for devastating forests.
If superior intelligence were a gift granted by God strictly for personal and egoistic use - which it is not, as some are born without it and one cannot presume nepotism on the part of the Creator - He is likely thinking: “Please, don’t interpret My work badly...” As the old saying goes, “to err is human”. Never divine.
Returning once again to the esteemed Peruvian writer, yesterday (Monday), on page A-11, the O Estado de S. Paulo newspaper published an article of his entitled “O fim moral da política israelense” (The end of moral values in Israeli politics), although this article would have been accessed to a greater extent had it been published on Sunday. The texts is a balanced, sincere and eloquent assessment of the air and land incursion made by the well-equipped and extremely highly trained Israeli army into the Gaza Strip, with the alleged intention of solely bringing an end to the firing of rockets and mortars against areas of Israel near the borders. As the author says (seconding the vast majority of international commentators of non-Jewish surname), if it is the intention of Israel to reduce Hamas to total passivity, such an objective will not be attained, because any independent person who has traveled through towns in the Gaza Strip can see that this region has become a type of ghetto, due to the bureaucratic and military “fence” erected by the Israelis. The removal of Jewish settlers was to little avail if, in the words of Vargas, Llosa, “implacable quarantine - prohibiting the possibility of import and export, closing off the use of air and sea routes, allowing its inhabitants to only leave this ghetto in a limited manner, after being subject to oppressive and humiliating official formalities” continues in Gaza. The objective of this policy has been that of “proving” that “the Palestinians are incompetent as far as governing themselves is concerned”.
It is not difficult to foresee the short, medium and long term consequences of this short-sighted, not highly intelligent and ultimately brutal and election orientated policy that goes against the recognized culture of the Israeli people which, paradoxically, benefitted intellectually from the second diaspora - not brought about by the Palestinians, but by the Romans.
Based on my modest knowledge of History, several European countries prohibited the acquisition of land by Jews. Finding it impossible to cultivate land, they returned to those activities that were not prohibited, namely: finance, commerce, goldsmithery, philosophy, sciences, the arts and knowledge of foreign languages. Scattered throughout the world, most notably in the USA, their commercial and financial know how brought them wealth and power, in fields that include the media. It is exactly this force, this support on the part of Jews residing abroad (free from immediate personal danger) that encourages the aggressiveness shown by Israel’s current leaders, who are not only interested in protecting their nation, but also their own personal interests in the political dispute with other leaderships.
It should not be forgotten that public opinion in any country is molded by the media. If the media is prejudiced and aggressive, such characteristics are transferred to ordinary citizens, who do not have time to keep reading and analyzing that which is really happening behind the news - which is served up to them as a “ready-to-eat” dish.
I have already recommended the reading of Vargas Llosa’s text (a courageous summary of what is happening in Palestine), but even more surprising - almost incredible - is the boldness shown by an Israeli journalist, Gideon Levy, who, even living and working in Israel, has the courage to proclaim the bitter and undeniable truth regarding that which is occurring in the Gaza Strip. He manages to be fair even when the majority of his fellow countrymen, uneasy about the future, think or feel to the contrary (more feel than think).
Reading the biography of this journalist (who, due to his dark-skinned physical appearance, looks more like an Arab than a Jew, despite being an “authentic” Jew) on the Internet, the first and refreshing impression of any reader, if he or she is really honest, is that the human species still deserves credibility and hope. Levy, when adequately understood, deserves a Nobel Peace Prize.
Gideon Levy, 54, the son of European immigrants, is an important journalist working for the Israeli Haaretz newspaper. He worked for Shimon Peres from 1978 to 1972 (and therefore has inside knowledge of politics) and has already been given an award for his defense of human rights. Irrespective of being a Jew and a great patriot (in the more intelligent and ethical sense of the term), he did not content himself with forming a mental image of the life of Palestinians according to descriptions disseminated by the Israeli media. He resolved to personally investigate the way in which the Palestinians were being treated by the all-powerful State of Israel. With this intent, he traveled through areas inaccessible to ordinary Israeli citizens. And what he saw horrified his indisputable sense of justice.
His quest to discover what reality was like for the Palestinians almost cost him his life. On one occasion, intending to visit a Palestinian town named Tukarem, he made a request to the Israeli army for issue of all the necessary authorizations. After obtaining them, following a long wait and many inquiries, he took an Israeli taxi (white in color with yellow license plates) to a military post of his own country, in all certainty for further authorizations. However, when at a distance of around 150 meters from his destination, he was startled by five shots - three bullets hitting the front windshield and the remaining two other parts of the vehicle. The journalist and the taxi driver only escaped death because the windshield was bulletproof.
When interviewed (see Wikipedia on the Internet) some time after this incident, Levy did not show himself to have any doubt whatsoever regarding the real intent of this “mistake”, when he had already provided the military authorities with all necessary clarification, obtaining a permit to visit the area in question. Besides this, he was in a taxi that was clearly Israeli. The army later apologized for the attack and punished the soldier who fired the shots, if only because the media brought the fact to light, requesting explanations.
Gideon Levy’s articles do not divert their focus (for convenience - in order to remain “dear” to his fellow citizens) from the great political wound that is the expulsion, pure and simple, by force, threats or cunning, of Palestinians from lands that they have occupied for almost two thousand years. It is this that explains the revolt of many Arabs who feel that they have been treated unfairly. Almost as extraordinary as the courage of the aforementioned journalist is the moral (and even financial) courage shown by the editor of Haaretz, Amos Schockem, who loses readers of his newspaper by publishing articles by Levy. Editors of periodicals are generally subservient to the opinion of majorities, even when they believe that such majorities are mistaken and incomplete. What they are generally interested in is selling newspapers. By adopting such spiritual submission, they strengthen the errors of the country in which they are active, contributing to its eventual ruin in the future. With the ruin of the country, their own ruin follows. If the source dries up, the newspaper also falters. Truly independent newspapers, with no internal censure, certainly have a longer duration. They are more reliable.
Irit Linur, an Israeli novelist, cancelled her subscription alleging that Levy had adopted the ideology of Israel’s enemies. I am not familiar with any of the works of this novelist, but even if I were not familiar with them, I can prophesize that - unless she changes her opinion - she will never be a great writer. Either for reasons of lacking a spirit of justice (essential for the survival of literary prestige), or for not having the courage to say what she thinks, even at the cost of losing readers.
Why do I say that Israeli public opinion has been wrong with respect to Gaza? Because it has avoided facing the basic, primary, essential, unpleasant and unconcealable fact that drives the firing of rockets (obviously foolish, as it “authorizes” massacre-type reprisals): the Palestinians were expelled, without prior consultation and with no compensation, from an area that they had occupied for almost two centuries. If the Jews were treated unfairly by the Romans, with the destruction of Jerusalem, obliged to become scattered throughout the world, and suffering, furthermore, persecutions and massacres, it was not the Palestinians who were the authors of this injustice. This being the case, the international community should also have been concerned with them, when the Jews wanted a “homeland”. This was granted to the persecuted sons of Israel, but the wound of forced relocation remained, palpitating and infected with hatred. Such Jewish intellectuals as Gideon Levy are unable to “turn a blind eye” to this basic side of the conflict.
Obviously, it is not possible to go back in History. Israel is a country with around seven million inhabitants. It makes no moral, economic or any other kind of sense to “wipe it off the map” - the foolish flight of fancy of the braggart. And if the two neighboring peoples are unable to reach an agreement soon, creating two sovereign states (I have no great hopes of this happening), the only rational solution - much too late! - is for the international community to take a step forward - after all, it is not an incurable paralysis - attributing responsibility for resolving the issue of frontiers to an independent agency. Whoever loses land will gain the equivalent in financial compensation, as well as the possibility of starting life again, decently, in other countries. No longer in refugee camps or ghettos. The burden of compensation payments will be much less than that spent on armed conflicts, humanitarian assistance, the building of high walls and a troubled spirit.
Current international rules are no longer the same as those that existed one thousand years ago. They are able to be modified. If they are not, the World Bank will have to deal with financing the widespread construction of nuclear shelters, as there remains an irritating question, as yet unanswered, in the minds of those in weaker countries: “Why is it that some countries can possess nuclear weapons, whereas others cannot do so?”
Barack Obama will go down in History as one who is foreordained, if he manages to convince his country to agree with several modifications to the United Nations Charter, and related texts, attributing the mission of resolving conflicts with the potential of setting the whole world ablaze to an independent international agency. Widespread fires almost always start in small areas.
(13-1-09)
