“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether destruction is carried out under the name of totalitarianism or in the holy name of freedom or democracy?”
—Mahatma Gandhi
“There always comes a time when protest is not enough: after
philosophy, action is indispensable.” Victor Hugo.
“The rung of the ladder was not invented to rest on, but
only to support the foot long enough for the man to place the other foot a
little higher.” Aldous Leonard Huxley.
What is war, if not the most stupid way of resolving
disagreements? What is your philosophy? — “We kill your soldiers and civilians
and you do the same to ours. We destroy your buildings, bridges, factories,
schools, railways, hospitals; we sink your ships, we exterminate millions, with
steel, hunger and disease. And you, dear enemies, are legally tolerated — there
have always been wars... — to act in the same way with our property, people and
animals. After all, we ask, don't we have two competent international courts in
The Hague, Netherlands, designed to prevent this periodic tragedy that
victimizes both sides in conflict? We do, but so far we have failed countless
times in this task. We need to climb “a higher step”, in the words of Aldous
Huxley.
What step would that be? My answer: if we held the head of
state and/or head of government who decided to initiate hostilities against
another state using force or threat financially responsible. I am referring to
the Court (or Tribunal) of International Justice, which can only judge other
states — “read” countries — and other variants mentioned in its statutes. We
also have the International Criminal Court, also in The Hague, which is not
part of the UN, designed to criminally judge individuals accused of genocide,
crimes against humanity, crimes of aggression and war crimes. These are two
independent courts with missions that are intended to be quite distinct but
that are increasingly connected in the way they act.
What is the justification for this proposal to involve the
“pocket” of the politician, leader or military officer who decides to attack or
seriously threaten the international order? Currently, in cases tried by the
International Court of Justice, the eventual conviction of the guilty party is
due not to the politician or military officer responsible for the aggression
but rather to the aggressor country, a legal entity under public law. This
convenient system encourages irresponsible personal behavior by politicians and
military officers who, before and during the aggression, think this way. —
“Great! My assets will not be at risk! The ones who will have to compensate the
attacked country will be my country, my people, not me.”
In this regard, the International Criminal Court — which
tries individuals — acts more energetically, even ordering arrests, which are
rarely carried out because of the veto power of the five great powers or simply
invoking the sovereignty of those who made the mistake. It is the right of
humanity — which suffers in the flesh, in moral suffering and in property the
terrible consequences of wars — defeated and victorious — to have the right to
express its opinion on this matter. There is nothing more important than this
issue, which remains untouched or manipulated by those who profit from wars and
do not personally participate in them.
How would this “individualization” of the financial
responsibility of the politician or military officer be worded in the
preliminary and final decisions issued by the International Court of Justice?
It would be, I imagine, with the provisional freezing of their bank accounts,
or sources of income, in the country and abroad. However, if the politician or
military officer ceases the attack, their assets will once again be freely
managed. And if, in the specific case — the Security Council, or whoever issued
the restraining order — concludes that there was reciprocal aggression, both
governments will suffer an “individualization of the penalty”, which varies,
according to the gravity of their conduct. This is because the mission of the
Court is to suppress wars, and not to protect any country.
As I said, the blocking or freezing of the wealth of the abusive politician or military officer does not always need to be total. Both courts in The Hague could set this penalty at between 50% and 80%, to mitigate the rejection of the most powerful countries to accept a new concept of international life. This restriction on the use of one's own assets, in itself, would already be a major headache and would spare the family of the politician or military officer from suffering hardship or being humiliated due to the sole fault of their boss.
It should also be remembered, against wars, that in them the defeated side may want revenge, with new deaths and destruction, as happened with Germany after the end of the First World War. Germany considered itself, and was even forced, to agree to some compensatory abuses set forth in the Treaty of Versailles. In a way, this treaty helped Hitler set the world on fire.
Regarding the First World War, estimates of deaths vary
between 16 million and 40 million. Estimates of the number of deaths in World
War I vary between 16 million and 40 million, including soldiers and civilians
who were direct or indirect victims of the fighting, or of famine, epidemics,
atrocities and genocides. Winners and losers saw the most promising part of
their populations — the healthy youth selected in the draft — stupidly
slaughtered, even when they secretly disagreed with this method of resolving
disputes. Ridiculously, having flat feet could — and perhaps still can... — be
an advantage, a “life insurance” because the person with flat feet was, or
still is, exempt from military service. Being perfectly formed on the soles of
the feet would be subject to a violent death or being a prisoner of war. But
how can one refuse the call-up without being arrested or demoralized, accused
of cowardice? And the soldier is not always defending the homeland. It is
“exported” to kill strangers in another country, for geopolitical or economic
reasons invented by much older people who will not take personal risks, either
in their own flesh or in their pockets, with their “bravery”.
Regarding the Second World War, the estimated death toll is
between 70 million and 85 million (Wikipedia). As for the number of wounded and
maimed, I have not found any reports, but the number of wounded in tragedies
almost always exceeds the number of deaths.
It is unnecessary to continue saying what everyone knows about the evils of war. Obviously, the country that has been attacked has the right to defend itself, until the international community intervenes. But heads of state and governments must feel a sense of personal risk — at least financial — when they imagine how easy and profitable it would be to invade a weaker country. Some arms manufacturers will fight to keep things as they are. Others, more understanding, will know how to perfect what they know how to do with competence because the warrior instinct still exists in human beings and one never knows if situations will arise in which force of arms will be necessary to repress obvious abuses by powers that seek to dominate the world.
In closing, I would like two extraordinary international personalities, José Francisco Rezek, former judge of the International Court of Justice for 12 years and twice Minister of the Supreme Federal Court — something unprecedented in our history — and Professor Sylvia Steiner, who practically created the International Criminal Court, remaining there between 2005 and 2016. Anyone who wants to know more about this unusual personality should read an article written by Arnild Van De Velde on the Internet. You will learn that talent, character, modesty and fame can coexist in the same person.
I know that both José Francisco Rezek and Sylvia Steiner will feel uncomfortable with the invitation to judge a suggestion so relevant to the human race, raised by an illustrious unknown. This article could, in my hands, extend to hundreds of pages, but that would be counterproductive because it would not be read. On the other hand, there is the possibility of awakening the interest of two leading figures in Public International Law. And the international political situation really needs the lucidity of two great Brazilians.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário