"But you peace in this situation what would you do?" Every time the same thing. When conflict erupts (1st Gulf, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Gulf 2, now Libya) on time we are witnessing the "liturgy" of journalists who call some illustrious exponent of world peace / non-violent and poses the question (also convinced that it put a intelligent question.) Interviewed the victim tries to articulate the answer, but a shrewd reporter will not let him "beat around the bush", "Yes, but you'd Gaddafi left free to continue the slaughter of the insurgents? How would you have stopped with the non-violence? "...
And so on interviewing. It is a difficult situation for those who say no to war. What can I say? "Yes, I would leave that Gaddafi finished his work." Or, "No, in this case, the flood of missiles? "Well, the answer is another. A few years ago I did an interview with Alessandro Baricco (at the time was starting the war in Afghanistan ordered by Bush).
The theme was anything, but we ended up talking about the non-violent hounded by the question above, the "what-you-now-you would do." The writer said he would respond "now nothing, now that you have wanted war, fatevela, now that you have taken many steps in the direction of the conflict, you just have to fight, but do not ask for the solution to peace." Yeah.
It's like a chess game, during which seeks a way out when there are two moves to checkmate. At that point there is little to suggest. Now the situation is compromised. It is paradoxical, but supporters of the war (in this as in all previous cases) result in political action that inevitably leads to conflict, prejudice, or be accused of defeatism irenicism who then complains that war.
Take the case of Libya. Who, in recent years, politically the dictator Gaddafi has cleared through customs? Those who have signed contracts and agreements with him? Who invited him in official visits, in some cases even kissing her hand? Who called him to preside over even the Human Rights Commissions? Who supplied the apparatus of war? Certainly not the peace for which Gaddafi has always been a bloodthirsty dictator.
Certainly not the pacifists, who have always denounced the scandal of arms sales to authoritarian regimes and those in civil war. Yet, then, should we be us, that we take seriously the article 11 of our Constitution ("Italy repudiates war ..."), to invent the squaring of the circle, that is to avoid responding to war with war, now when the insurgents have weapons in their hands and Gaddafi has already made from his hunting.
No, the game of chess is conducted from the beginning. There would be conducted in international political and diplomatic strategies able to avoid the steps toward war. Those steps have not been done, those actions were not implemented. Italy has thought about the oil and rejections, the future of oil to France, the United States to avoid being dragged into a quagmire euro-african, and so on.
The pacifists have the solutions. The theories and practices of non-violence are now old and tested. But it is necessary that non-violent sit down to play the game from the outset, not timeouts. Time has elapsed to continue playing, who wanted to take the field. And do not ask for magic solutions when the game of peace is now lost. 
And so on interviewing. It is a difficult situation for those who say no to war. What can I say? "Yes, I would leave that Gaddafi finished his work." Or, "No, in this case, the flood of missiles? "Well, the answer is another. A few years ago I did an interview with Alessandro Baricco (at the time was starting the war in Afghanistan ordered by Bush).
The theme was anything, but we ended up talking about the non-violent hounded by the question above, the "what-you-now-you would do." The writer said he would respond "now nothing, now that you have wanted war, fatevela, now that you have taken many steps in the direction of the conflict, you just have to fight, but do not ask for the solution to peace." Yeah.
It's like a chess game, during which seeks a way out when there are two moves to checkmate. At that point there is little to suggest. Now the situation is compromised. It is paradoxical, but supporters of the war (in this as in all previous cases) result in political action that inevitably leads to conflict, prejudice, or be accused of defeatism irenicism who then complains that war.
Take the case of Libya. Who, in recent years, politically the dictator Gaddafi has cleared through customs? Those who have signed contracts and agreements with him? Who invited him in official visits, in some cases even kissing her hand? Who called him to preside over even the Human Rights Commissions? Who supplied the apparatus of war? Certainly not the peace for which Gaddafi has always been a bloodthirsty dictator.
Certainly not the pacifists, who have always denounced the scandal of arms sales to authoritarian regimes and those in civil war. Yet, then, should we be us, that we take seriously the article 11 of our Constitution ("Italy repudiates war ..."), to invent the squaring of the circle, that is to avoid responding to war with war, now when the insurgents have weapons in their hands and Gaddafi has already made from his hunting.
No, the game of chess is conducted from the beginning. There would be conducted in international political and diplomatic strategies able to avoid the steps toward war. Those steps have not been done, those actions were not implemented. Italy has thought about the oil and rejections, the future of oil to France, the United States to avoid being dragged into a quagmire euro-african, and so on.
The pacifists have the solutions. The theories and practices of non-violence are now old and tested. But it is necessary that non-violent sit down to play the game from the outset, not timeouts. Time has elapsed to continue playing, who wanted to take the field. And do not ask for magic solutions when the game of peace is now lost.
No comments:
Post a Comment