weekly's Children of the Street [11.23] Constitution [10.08] Who Is Protecting Who? [08.04] Statistics [07.21] Derogations [07.07] The Mammouth [06.15] Criticism [05.25] State Theft [05.17] The "Christian" Socialism [05.09] Freedom of Speech [04.21] Circle of Power [04.16] Redistribution [04.05] Anti-corruption [03.22] CNSAS [03.15] Working Code [03.10] Health [03.03] special Romania, for whom? [05.31] Perversion of diplomacy [04.30] Iraq War [03.25]

03.25.2003

Saddam and the Pacifism

The Iraqian war is raising the problem of its own justification. For the pacifists, the war is unacceptable for principle humanitarian reasons and these reasons have to be taken into consideration. But to think in idealistic terms it is quite never enough; of course all rational people would prefer war would never exist for that no people would die. Still, is this a realistic thought? Wars have always existed and it seems like the human kind has not reached that total harmonic stage which would eliminate for ever all wars. Before asking, in an inflexible tone, the preservation of some utopia principles concerning the humanity, the ones that are opposing with maximum intransigence to war should take into consideration the actual state of facts; or this one is clearly showing us that in the world there are divergent interests and that we do not have for the time being not even the set of common principles, nor the rightful instruments through which these interests could be harmonized.

It is quite risky to think the problem of Iraq in terms of an absolute rightfulness, because this does not exist. Not even the Security Council of the United Nations could be truly representative and could have the same authority a national representative organ has, whose reglementations are being applied to all citizens in the virtue of a common history and a common destiny. That is why we believe that when speaking about international problems we have first of all to be pragmatics. Not just in the pursuing a national interest mean, but especially in having all the time the perspective of all that is possible, in a realistic way, to happen and to obtain an optimum result.

Continuing the parallel between the authority and the national reglementations on one hand and the authority and the international reglementations on the other hand it becomes obvious that the nations will not be able to behave anymore like mere "citizens" of a planetarium democracy within which the norms adopted by the majority would become mandatory for all. This would signify the renunciation of suzerainty, which looks quite unlikely to happen in a predictable horizon of time. This is exactly why the national suzerainty was amended in the last years international relationships by the modern principle of individual rights. The absolute precedent is the Kosovo intervention, in which case this principle represented the main motivation. Sure, we are aware that beyond it there have been other motivations, just as in Iraq there are important economical interest, mainly U.S.A.'s; still, these interests must be judged in a pragmatic way, as a reality that has existed and will keep on existing.

We believe that this reason of mankind fundamental rights should count more and more. The fact that these have reached a stage where they are producing an intervention which breaks down the national suzerainty is not simply arbitrarily; this principle of human rights is representing for quite some centuries, the main sense of the evolution, of modern society. We believe that all peoples, especially the ones that have recently walked from a totalitarian regime, should be more sensitive to this kind of reasons, because they are following to diminish the global quantity of sufferance. To invoke "quantity" does not mean mercantilism; if there is a subject which we could consider dignify to be forced upon national (and suzerain) regimes which do not recognize it, well, this is the only one that can be sustained by all people, in the virtue of the simple fact that they are people: the arbitrary cruelty which kills people or even worse, turns them into slaves lacking personality, human interiority, slaves of an abusive regime must be stopped. This objective is, though hard to contest even other cultures than the Euro-Atlantic ones have, by tradition, values and principles different from those of the human rights.

More over, the suzerainty must absolutely be amended by the new reality of international terrorism, too. The 11th September changed in a radical way all the facts of the problem; the conclusion drawn after that humanitarian catastrophe can not be other than the one that states are responsible for the terrorism which develops from battle bases which are stationed on their territory, the more these states are really supporting in an active manner the terrorist networks. The countries of the world can not close their borders and instauration totalitarian control measures on their territory just because some countries are using the suzerainty principle in order to shelter terrorists who are later on sent to kill, in a cowardly manner, peaceful citizens of other countries. In this situation, the government of a country, either a democratic or a totalitarian one, should answer for all that is happening on its territory.

The Saddam Hussein regime is a criminal regime. It is a regime responsible for numerous assassinates and tortures against the Kurd people and against the Iraqian dissidents; like any other dictatorial regime, still it ends up killing, even in a pure arbitrarily way in order to maintain terror or merely in the routine virtue. Ann Clwyd, a British labor deputy assisted to a casual scene in Iraq: the killing of all Iraqians the regime would not tolerate anymore, by throwing them in a machine that minces plastic materials; all under the direct supervision of Qusay, the son of Saddam Hussein. The ones that ended foot in front died in much more terrible torments than the ones ending head first; these ones were considered "lucky" because they died quicker. The left deputy who assisted to 30 of this kind of executions was told that the remains would be used as fish food. Or, when people end up considering themselves as "lucky" just because they are being killed quicker, it is quite difficult to understand how the humanitarian - pacifistic principles can be invoked against an intervention in their favor.

The monthly medium income in Iraq is 2$ for each inhabitant; the Iraqians live in terrible material lacks, but they have all the grotesque shows a totalitarian regime is given to the people in stead of food and medication. Only by reminding us at least of the cold and hunger the Ceausescu regime would once given us along with the compulsory glorification shows for the "Carpathians genius" we could understand the war that will set the Iraqians free, the more our past sufferance would hardly reach the nowadays sufferance level.

Exactly in virtue of this community in sufferance living an extreme poor less and sordid life of a totalitarian regime we could understand the Iraqians that are today waiting for the setting free intervention. More than that, we believe that their hope is demanding an action from our side.

Romania must of course support the coalition against the Saddam Hussein regime in the virtue of its international arrangements, but above this we should support an action that will save lives and will put an end to so many absurd cruelties. It is a violent action which is producing tragically losses on both parts, but there is no reason to fight it in the virtue of some utopia arguments, which are ignoring the fact that the Earth has never been and probably will never be a Heaven where lions and deer are hugging together. We live in a conflictual world in which we must think in a pragmatic manner and we must assume decisions that are not easy, nor comfortable.