It is useless to go around it: si vis pacem para bellum. The Latins had said it,
von Clausewitz reiterated it in the early nineteenth century - War is nothing butthe continuation of politics by other means - the States practice it withouthesitation. The war in Ukraine (and its similar ones elsewhere) is the fruit ofthis logic; a logic that in the twentieth century technological revolution addedthe economic interests of the industrial military complex to the will ofdomination by the powers, adding aberration to aberration. Up to the extreme thatin recent weeks has caused the use of nuclear weapons to be feared, a maximumwickedness that has attracted the consciences of many and rekindled the protestsagainst the war. Well, finally a more open stance to put an end to this war, andin the coming weeks it will be understood whether these mobilizations - which hada first start in the days from 21 to 23 October last with a series of initiativesin many cities in the within the scope of the appeal launched by Europe for peaceand will have another important step with the demonstration convened in Rome onNovember 5 by various organizations, including the first Italian Peace andDisarmament Network and Sbilanciamoci- they will be able to find words, spaces,actions to overturn at least a narrative that sees war as a necessary andinevitable choice; indeed, it promises a future in which war itself must becomeculture and armaments become the only means of defense (and attack). However, ifthis emerging opposition to the war is to give life to a real movement for peace,it will be useful to clear the field of some ambiguities that are already gathering.First of all, the issue of sending weapons: its refusal must be clear-cut. Onecannot think of promoting peace and in the meantime arguing that it can beachieved with arms and armies. The military logic is that of states that fightfor small or large hegemonies, not to liberate peoples. After the tens ofthousands of casualties and the destruction of entire territories, there shouldbe no doubt that other choices would have at least spared deaths and horrors, butit cannot be just this or the threat of a nuclear war to distance ourselves from war.Second question, without wishing to enter into the merits of relations betweenstates and blocs - which is probably not of much interest to the aspirations ofthe populations - a quick look at the dynamics that led to the current war is notuseless. The crisis that lasted for several years, rather than opening up thepossibility of dialogue, was channeled into ever deeper oppositions in which eachside provided to represent the other as an irreducible enemy. How many times havegovernments and diplomacy had the opportunity to stop the spiral and have notdone so? Why has there never been a serious attempt to really involve thepopulations concerned, outside the logic of national and identity? Instead on ourside, that of Western civilization, whose fate has been entirely delegated toNATO, scenarios of upcoming armed clashes have been built for years that the warpropaganda has emphasized with images of military exercises in the skies and onthe seas in every where in the world. And the same will have happened on theother side. In fact, if you want peace, prepare for war!Third issue, this war, which is evidently not one of the many neocolonial warsbut already mimics a clash between powers - Russia and the USA and, in thebackground, China - has exacerbated the conflicts between hegemonic blocs, haslaunched a new arms race, prefigures a world in which force and deterrence willdefine international relations even more, decreeing the end of a semblance ofdiplomacy for peace, represented up to now miserably by the UN, and the return toan early twentieth-century diplomacy. In this devastating scenario there can beno space within a peace movement for those who claim - person or institutionalrepresentative - to long for an end to hostilities and in the meantime work topromote armies and armaments, to incense generals and forces. armed, tostrengthen the enemy-friend division. No hesitation and no ambiguity: therejection of weapons, armies, the hegemonic and competitive system must beradical and unequivocal.Fourth, it is urgent, as Danilo Dolci wrote, to break the circle: to invent, tofind that pick that takes us out of the spiral of war, that defuses themechanisms of opposition, feuds with the enemy. Reverse the trend: to aggression,to violence for once, do not respond with violence, with force, but take otherpaths, imagine other solutions. In her fundamental The Count of the Saved AnnaBravo entitles two chapters in this way: Without weapons against Hitler: in Italyand Without weapons against Hitler: in Denmark.Instead, today, in the war probably most reported by the media, the use ofweapons is emphasized, the patriotic values, heroisms and sacrifices of those whofight or suffer weapons as an ineluctable destiny are exalted. Thus theperpetrated horror asks for revenge, preparing other mourning and other misfortunes.The hope is, of course, that on November 5 there will be a great demonstrationthat finally makes a voice for peace be heard and speaks out to stop the din ofthe weapons hissing from our television screens and from the pages of thenewspapers. In this moment that sees the whole world heading towards ever morepervasive wars, which have already lasted for several decades, it is necessarythat everyone, as Alex Zanotelli maintains, plays his part and does not backdown. However, if a desirable peace movement does not want to find itself hostageto states and governments intrinsically inclined to war, it must speak outagainst institutional armies, weapons and diplomacy. Otherwise, everyone willhave satisfied their humanitarian conscience, but the world will continue to goat breakneck speed towards possible self-destruction.Angelo Barberihttps://www.sicilialibertaria.it/_________________________________________A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C EBy, For, and About AnarchistsSend news reports to A-infos-en mailing listA-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten