Is never easy to justify a war, who is sent to the front but also for those who have the task initiative, decide on goals and purpose. It is not easy even for those who, in the newspapers, trying to tell the truth of the war, its dangers. The biggest temptation is to take refuge in platitudes, in phrases, in lies.
Phrases like, no war is good, no reasonable political s'impantana in distant countries, no war, then it should be called war. The Italian government is a specialist of that lie, the more hypocritical. Nor is confined to lie: a prime minister who said he was "saddened by Gaddafi 'without feeling pain for its victims do not know the story he does, or why does it.
These platitudes are loyal and unconditional opponents of war, both governments and the wars do without thinking, or thinking about the motives (Libyan oil and gas) without saying it. The clichés always respond to the first instinct easier. Memorable was it that said the Prime Minister Chamberlain, in '38, when Hitler wanted to take Czechoslovakia: "A far away country, whose people do not know of anything." These are phrases that circulate, forgetful, for centuries.
Why fight for Benghazi? We came out of colonialism forgetting that the tactics of Mussolini in Libya (burned to the ground) is imitated by Gaddafi in his country. Similar phrases can be said only by those who imagine that its interest (personal, national) is separated from the world. There is not only the banality of evil.
There is also the banality of indifference to what happens outside the home. The writer Hermann Broch spoke at the beginning of the Nazi crime of indifference. The United Nations was born to curb this crime, after the war. The UN Charter guarantees the sovereignty of states, in section 1.7, but in the same paragraph states that the principle of non-interference "does not affect the application of enforcement measures under Chapter 7": chapter asks the Council to ensure the safety of "the existence of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression", and to those (if the attacker is not deterred) to "engage with the Air Force, sea, or land any action that is necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Such action may include demonstrations, blockade and other operations by air forces, naval, or land of the Members of the United Nations "(Article 39 and Article 42 of Chapter 7). The United Nations has made many mistakes in the past, but the major sins were of omission, not of action: just think of the genocide in Rwanda, where Kofi Annan, then head of UN military operations, remained indifferent in '94.
Despite what the UN is the only multinational body we have, the only answer to the common places of which is imbued with nationalism. Its Charter is not different from the pluralist constitutions of countries emerging from Nazism like Italy and Germany. Not far away, I had no supranational authority, the spirit of the European Union: the absolute sovereignty is not inviolable, as Member derail.
Furthermore, the UN has learned something from Rwanda. In 2005, at the initiative of Kofi Annan himself has endorsed the principle of "Responsibility to protect" populations threatened by their regimes (Responsibility to Protect, also called RtoP), although it is imperative to the approval of the Security Council.
It is the principle invoked in these days about Libya. From the moment in which this responsibility is codified hypocrisy of the space narrows and harder still to be thought out reasons for the war: especially in Arab countries, where they often dominate the tribe instead of modern states.
Even this is difficult since the days of Samuel Johnson, we know that "the first casualty of war is the truth," and needs to be rediscovered this ancient wisdom. If Italy is not at war ", what do our hunting in heaven Libyans? Patrol to the scene, without defending themselves if attacked, too pained to Gaddafi? This, Minister Frattini, who says that the pilots? Frattini will consider the application incongruous, and you can understand.
It is the same minister on January 17, in an interview with the Courier, Kadhafi called a model democracy for the Arab world: one month after Libya exploded. How come the majority has not ousted by the government, as the Gaullists have done with the Foreign Minister Michele Alliot-Marie? But maybe there's a reason why the empty words multiply.
Partly stem from old reflexes, waterproof experience. They are partly the result of a profound confusion: the UN is constantly invoked, but when it acts and America chooses the path of Obama multilateral many lose their compass. It is partly the UN, the prisoner of leading national, clear words to avoid.
Hence the many ambiguities of the resolution on Libya: a text that is to please everyone and do not really know what they want or what will not. Even on the crucial rules the darkness is not to overthrow Gadhafi, however, and not just asking just that. The first to falter and Obama: this time will not change the Bush regime, but the result is that each administration says its like a kindergarten.
On March 18 the President announced that "the change in the region will not and can not be imposed by the United States or from any foreign power: ultimately it is the people of the Arab world to have to do." Three days later, on March 21 in Chile, repeated that the mission is to protect civilians, but added: "The policy of the United States considers Gadhafi that he should go: this policy will be supported by additional means." Ben else had said Sunday the Chief of Staff Michael Mullen: The objective is to "limit or eliminate the ability of the dictator to kill their own people and to support the humanitarian effort," not to provoke a regime change.
For him, Qaddafi may also stay in power. It is not the only ambiguity interventionists claim they do not want jobs or land attacks, but have expressed many doubts about it. Also because the only aviation and airspace banned you get little, or even worse: in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the no-fly zone between the '93 and '95 did not prevent the massacre of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica 8000-10000, city under UN protection.
No less dubious is the delay with which the UN operates. The no-fly zone could be imposed before, when Gaddafi had not yet regained the city and created a de facto partition of Libya. One of the defects of the heavens has banned the timing. The no-fly zone in Iraq (1991-2002) were imposed after the North that the horror had occurred (3000-4000 Kurdish villages destroyed by Saddam with chemical weapons, in '88, more than 1 million dead), and the ban remained unheeded in the South.
Europe is not only exist, but dangerous in its implosion: the bet made by Obama on his autonomy has failed, and not by his fault. One of the reasons why the Arab League is willing but the angry intervention is the hurry to Sarkozy, who has made since its planes without ever consulting the Arabs.
Not just any plane from Qatar to fill the void, abyss, politics. Sarkozy thinks of his interventionist cases of Merkel's election not less anti-interventionist: hence the quarrel on driving or not driving NATO. As for Italy, it is worth remembering that he wrote more than a century ago, the writer Carlo Dossi, Crispi adviser: "International politics is not that Italy's present policy of the trailer.
Italy's government has no opinion, nor ever dare to initiate a business or an enterprise, even beneficial. It always combines with the opinion of others. Nor dare to openly join. He takes a beating, is silent and obey. " We do not know if the Arab world is shaken by riots, by clan insurgents, or revolutions that build new states.
One thing we know already: a real debate on democracy is underway, and the Westerners do not participate in this discussion, out of ignorance or contempt. Last week, the BBC issued a debate organized by the Qatar Foundation (the Doha Debate) in which an audience of young Arabs in Egypt discussed.
The majority voted for a motion that asks not to hold elections now, because democracy does not end at the ballot box "is made up of democratic infrastructure, the constitution guarantees minority rights, separation of powers. Marwa said Sharafeldine, Egyptian democratic activist: "Democracy can only create fast-food indigestion." It does not leave space for the rich, organized as the Islamic fundamentalists.
Thinking of Italy, I had the impression that we would need to participate in this global conversation, which began in sixteen Arab countries. Perhaps learn something about our fast-food democracies: The realm of clans, circles of friends and the demagogues who feel this merger with the people must, like Gaddafi, politically immortal. 
Phrases like, no war is good, no reasonable political s'impantana in distant countries, no war, then it should be called war. The Italian government is a specialist of that lie, the more hypocritical. Nor is confined to lie: a prime minister who said he was "saddened by Gaddafi 'without feeling pain for its victims do not know the story he does, or why does it.
These platitudes are loyal and unconditional opponents of war, both governments and the wars do without thinking, or thinking about the motives (Libyan oil and gas) without saying it. The clichés always respond to the first instinct easier. Memorable was it that said the Prime Minister Chamberlain, in '38, when Hitler wanted to take Czechoslovakia: "A far away country, whose people do not know of anything." These are phrases that circulate, forgetful, for centuries.
Why fight for Benghazi? We came out of colonialism forgetting that the tactics of Mussolini in Libya (burned to the ground) is imitated by Gaddafi in his country. Similar phrases can be said only by those who imagine that its interest (personal, national) is separated from the world. There is not only the banality of evil.
There is also the banality of indifference to what happens outside the home. The writer Hermann Broch spoke at the beginning of the Nazi crime of indifference. The United Nations was born to curb this crime, after the war. The UN Charter guarantees the sovereignty of states, in section 1.7, but in the same paragraph states that the principle of non-interference "does not affect the application of enforcement measures under Chapter 7": chapter asks the Council to ensure the safety of "the existence of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression", and to those (if the attacker is not deterred) to "engage with the Air Force, sea, or land any action that is necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Such action may include demonstrations, blockade and other operations by air forces, naval, or land of the Members of the United Nations "(Article 39 and Article 42 of Chapter 7). The United Nations has made many mistakes in the past, but the major sins were of omission, not of action: just think of the genocide in Rwanda, where Kofi Annan, then head of UN military operations, remained indifferent in '94.
Despite what the UN is the only multinational body we have, the only answer to the common places of which is imbued with nationalism. Its Charter is not different from the pluralist constitutions of countries emerging from Nazism like Italy and Germany. Not far away, I had no supranational authority, the spirit of the European Union: the absolute sovereignty is not inviolable, as Member derail.
Furthermore, the UN has learned something from Rwanda. In 2005, at the initiative of Kofi Annan himself has endorsed the principle of "Responsibility to protect" populations threatened by their regimes (Responsibility to Protect, also called RtoP), although it is imperative to the approval of the Security Council.
It is the principle invoked in these days about Libya. From the moment in which this responsibility is codified hypocrisy of the space narrows and harder still to be thought out reasons for the war: especially in Arab countries, where they often dominate the tribe instead of modern states.
Even this is difficult since the days of Samuel Johnson, we know that "the first casualty of war is the truth," and needs to be rediscovered this ancient wisdom. If Italy is not at war ", what do our hunting in heaven Libyans? Patrol to the scene, without defending themselves if attacked, too pained to Gaddafi? This, Minister Frattini, who says that the pilots? Frattini will consider the application incongruous, and you can understand.
It is the same minister on January 17, in an interview with the Courier, Kadhafi called a model democracy for the Arab world: one month after Libya exploded. How come the majority has not ousted by the government, as the Gaullists have done with the Foreign Minister Michele Alliot-Marie? But maybe there's a reason why the empty words multiply.
Partly stem from old reflexes, waterproof experience. They are partly the result of a profound confusion: the UN is constantly invoked, but when it acts and America chooses the path of Obama multilateral many lose their compass. It is partly the UN, the prisoner of leading national, clear words to avoid.
Hence the many ambiguities of the resolution on Libya: a text that is to please everyone and do not really know what they want or what will not. Even on the crucial rules the darkness is not to overthrow Gadhafi, however, and not just asking just that. The first to falter and Obama: this time will not change the Bush regime, but the result is that each administration says its like a kindergarten.
On March 18 the President announced that "the change in the region will not and can not be imposed by the United States or from any foreign power: ultimately it is the people of the Arab world to have to do." Three days later, on March 21 in Chile, repeated that the mission is to protect civilians, but added: "The policy of the United States considers Gadhafi that he should go: this policy will be supported by additional means." Ben else had said Sunday the Chief of Staff Michael Mullen: The objective is to "limit or eliminate the ability of the dictator to kill their own people and to support the humanitarian effort," not to provoke a regime change.
For him, Qaddafi may also stay in power. It is not the only ambiguity interventionists claim they do not want jobs or land attacks, but have expressed many doubts about it. Also because the only aviation and airspace banned you get little, or even worse: in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the no-fly zone between the '93 and '95 did not prevent the massacre of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica 8000-10000, city under UN protection.
No less dubious is the delay with which the UN operates. The no-fly zone could be imposed before, when Gaddafi had not yet regained the city and created a de facto partition of Libya. One of the defects of the heavens has banned the timing. The no-fly zone in Iraq (1991-2002) were imposed after the North that the horror had occurred (3000-4000 Kurdish villages destroyed by Saddam with chemical weapons, in '88, more than 1 million dead), and the ban remained unheeded in the South.
Europe is not only exist, but dangerous in its implosion: the bet made by Obama on his autonomy has failed, and not by his fault. One of the reasons why the Arab League is willing but the angry intervention is the hurry to Sarkozy, who has made since its planes without ever consulting the Arabs.
Not just any plane from Qatar to fill the void, abyss, politics. Sarkozy thinks of his interventionist cases of Merkel's election not less anti-interventionist: hence the quarrel on driving or not driving NATO. As for Italy, it is worth remembering that he wrote more than a century ago, the writer Carlo Dossi, Crispi adviser: "International politics is not that Italy's present policy of the trailer.
Italy's government has no opinion, nor ever dare to initiate a business or an enterprise, even beneficial. It always combines with the opinion of others. Nor dare to openly join. He takes a beating, is silent and obey. " We do not know if the Arab world is shaken by riots, by clan insurgents, or revolutions that build new states.
One thing we know already: a real debate on democracy is underway, and the Westerners do not participate in this discussion, out of ignorance or contempt. Last week, the BBC issued a debate organized by the Qatar Foundation (the Doha Debate) in which an audience of young Arabs in Egypt discussed.
The majority voted for a motion that asks not to hold elections now, because democracy does not end at the ballot box "is made up of democratic infrastructure, the constitution guarantees minority rights, separation of powers. Marwa said Sharafeldine, Egyptian democratic activist: "Democracy can only create fast-food indigestion." It does not leave space for the rich, organized as the Islamic fundamentalists.
Thinking of Italy, I had the impression that we would need to participate in this global conversation, which began in sixteen Arab countries. Perhaps learn something about our fast-food democracies: The realm of clans, circles of friends and the demagogues who feel this merger with the people must, like Gaddafi, politically immortal.
- Italy's Brutal Export: The Mafia Goes Global (09/03/2011)
- Dell In The Huddle - Live from SXSWi 2011 (22/03/2011)
- Interviewing Glyn Moody: why we should worry about our own digital Freedom. (10/01/2011)
- Dell Opens R&D Center in Israel (24/03/2011)
- Geek deals: $625 off Dell XPS 17 laptop with Dell Streak 5 Tablet Phone (24/03/2011)
No comments:
Post a Comment