Monday, August 8, 2011
Saturday, May 21, 2011
LXXXVIII - (Re)leituras - La Révolution en Amérique, par Guillaume-Thomas (l'Abbée de) Raynal - Commentaire de André Bandeira
Ce rapport et considérations vers la Révolution en Amérique, éclatée en 1774, ont été écrits en 1781. Le rapport vers les événements militaires est concis et exact. Les considérations politiques sont une surprise: Raynal avait écrit «De la Démocratie en Amérique», bien avant Tocqueville. Cela veut dire que la Démocratie était une aspiration depuis longtemps dans l'Occident. Mais cela n'est pas une surprise. Si l'aspiration a un nom, le contenu est historique. Selon Raynal -- et ça sert en témoignage historique -- la Démocratie était une aspiration évangélique et protestante ( bien qu'il ne mentionne pas ça) qui s'est nourrie en Angleterre avec un autre espoir, la Révolution Glorieuse de 1688. Mais le témoignage de l'observateur Raynal ne suffit pas pour prendre l'haleine toutes les fois qu'on renouvelle l'espoir, souvent aveugle et obsédé. Il y a de la politique et Raynal partageait avec Thomas Jefferson cette fascination pour le versement du sang qui cache une autre généalogie bien plus ancienne que celles des espoirs et des enthousiasmes. Il admire Richelieu et lui attribue le premier refus de l'oligarchie des têtes couronnées en Europe, en lui reconnaissant, tout de même, un rôle tirannique et haïssable. C'était, en somme, Richelieu qui a fait de la France la nation de la juste rébéllion contre la Tirannie. Cette marque de la bête que la Démocratie a acquise, en Europe, ça veut dire, le mystère de l'odeur du sang, a quelque chose à voir avec une pluralité de cultures très anciennes qui s'est trouvée en voisinage sur le bord atlantique de l'Asie depuis la nuit des temps. Et la Démocratie ne suffit point a trouver des points communs parmi ces ombres archaïques, et moins a les brouiller. Ce que Raynal dit avec des prévisions stupéfiantes autour du Destin de l'Amérique, et ça bien avant Tocqueville, ne sert qu'a nous convaincre que les États Unis sont bien une fuite en avant des fantômes de l'Europe.
LXXXVIII - (Re)leituras - La Révolution en Amérique, par Guillaume-Thomas (l'Abbée de) Raynal - Commentaire de André Bandeira
Ce rapport et considérations vers la Révolution en Amérique, éclatée en 1774, ont été écrits en 1781. Le rapport vers les événements militaires est concis et exact. Les considérations politiques sont une surprise: Raynal avait écrit «De la Démocratie en Amérique», bien avant Tocqueville. Cela veut dire que la Démocratie était une aspiration depuis longtemps dans l'Occident. Mais cela n'est pas une surprise. Si l'aspiration a un nom, le contenu est historique. Selon Raynal -- et ça sert en témoignage historique -- la Démocratie était une aspiration évangélique et protestante ( bien qu'il ne mentionne pas ça) qui s'est nourrie en Angleterre avec un autre espoir, la Révolution Glorieuse de 1688. Mais le témoignage de l'observateur Raynal ne suffit pas pour prendre l'haleine toutes les fois qu'on renouvelle l'espoir, souvent aveugle et obsédé. Il y a de la politique et Raynal partageait avec Thomas Jefferson cette fascination pour le versement du sang qui cache une autre généalogie bien plus ancienne que celles des espoirs et des enthousiasmes. Il admire Richelieu et lui attribue le premier refus de l'oligarchie des têtes couronnées en Europe, en lui reconnaissant, tout de même, un rôle tirannique et haïssable. C'était, en somme, Richelieu qui a fait de la France la nation de la juste rébéllion contre la Tirannie. Cette marque de la bête que la Démocratie a acquise, en Europe, ça veut dire, le mystère de l'odeur du sang, a quelque chose à voir avec une pluralité de cultures très anciennes qui s'est trouvée en voisinage sur le bord atlantique de l'Asie depuis la nuit des temps. Et la Démocratie ne suffit point a trouver des points communs parmi ces ombres archaïques, et moins a les brouiller. Ce que Raynal dit avec des prévisions stupéfiantes autour du Destin de l'Amérique, et ça bien avant Tocqueville, ne sert qu'a nous convaincre que les États Unis sont bien une fuite en avant des fantômes de l'Europe.
Monday, May 16, 2011
LXXXVII (Re)leituras - Madame de Staël, par Ghislain de Diesbach - Commentaire de André Bandeira
Madame de Staël n'était pas belle. Elle était géniale. Lord Byron, qui avait quelque chose d'emporté par ses propres hallucinations, la considérait effrayante comme une gouffre entre les sommets des montagnes. Elle lui était supérieure et lui faisait des vertiges.Elle a séduit et tout son bonheur sentimental était dû à cette capacité de séduire comme quelqu'un qui surveille à la dernière allumette dans un orage. Il est incroyable comment elle, et ses compagnons de route, Chateaubriand, Napoléon, Benjamin Constant, Schlegel, Sismondi, Madame Récamier, ont vécu tant en tellement peu de temps. Comme ils ont inventé ou assourdi l'historigraphie, c'est encore à la séquence d'un Ancien Régime, d'une Révolution Française, d'un Empire et d'une Réstauration, sortant en éclair, qu'on doit une admiration pour ce genre de géants, capables, pourtant, de naviguer dans un temps surhumain. Marat disat que les révolutionnaires de 1789 devaient tout aux émeutes. Madame Staël a prouvé qu'on doit tout aux bouleversements du Destin. Mais il y une autre Histoire cachée derrière, celle-là du Protestantisme versus le Catholicisme. La bataille s'est étérnisée en France. Carlyle disait que la Révolution Française était bien le dernier pas du Protestantisme. Le déséspoir d'une bataille que ne finit jamais, fait de nous des monstres à survivre, et ça n'étonne point qu'on puisse devenir des drogués du sexe,quand le corps et l'âme sont trainés sans cèsse devant la Cour finale. Madame Staël a aimé sans cèsse et est bien devenue quelqu'un qui ne peut pas être jugé. Elle a été le symbole de la bonne voie pendant que la Révolution s'érangeait et devenait le cauchemar de la Terreur, elle a été vraiment la courageuse opposition au dictateur et plus tard au tiran Bonaparte. Et pourtant Madame Staël l'a sauvé la vie, en le prévenant d'un attentat contre lui, qui était exilé dans l'île d'Elba. Staël causait avec tout le monde et ne cherchait jamais à écraser l'adversaire.Elle prennait de l'opium comme du soda. Mais la narrative n'est pas la rêverie d'un opiomane: les furies qui ont été relachées pendant la Révolution française, eles étaient libres depuis longtemps. L'évolution frémissante de ce qu'on croit être le berceau de la démocratie occidentale, vers la Terreur, soit démocratique, soit impériale, était depuis longtemps dans l'identité de l'Europe. C'est pour ça que Madame de Staël est morte de 14 Juillet. C'est elle qui a décapité la Révolution, elle qui disait avoir toujours aimé Dieu,son père (Jacques Necker qui fut Ministre de Louis XVI), et la Liberté. Mais qui aime la Liberté, ne peut pas être aimé. Saint François le savait. Elle est morte pendant le sommeil, elle y est restée finalement.
LXXXVII (Re)leituras - Madame de Staël, par Ghislain de Diesbach - Commentaire de André Bandeira
Madame de Staël n'était pas belle. Elle était géniale. Lord Byron, qui avait quelque chose d'emporté par ses propres hallucinations, la considérait effrayante comme une gouffre entre les sommets des montagnes. Elle lui était supérieure et lui faisait des vertiges.Elle a séduit et tout son bonheur sentimental était dû à cette capacité de séduire comme quelqu'un qui surveille à la dernière allumette dans un orage. Il est incroyable comment elle, et ses compagnons de route, Chateaubriand, Napoléon, Benjamin Constant, Schlegel, Sismondi, Madame Récamier, ont vécu tant en tellement peu de temps. Comme ils ont inventé ou assourdi l'historigraphie, c'est encore à la séquence d'un Ancien Régime, d'une Révolution Française, d'un Empire et d'une Réstauration, sortant en éclair, qu'on doit une admiration pour ce genre de géants, capables, pourtant, de naviguer dans un temps surhumain. Marat disat que les révolutionnaires de 1789 devaient tout aux émeutes. Madame Staël a prouvé qu'on doit tout aux bouleversements du Destin. Mais il y une autre Histoire cachée derrière, celle-là du Protestantisme versus le Catholicisme. La bataille s'est étérnisée en France. Carlyle disait que la Révolution Française était bien le dernier pas du Protestantisme. Le déséspoir d'une bataille que ne finit jamais, fait de nous des monstres à survivre, et ça n'étonne point qu'on puisse devenir des drogués du sexe,quand le corps et l'âme sont trainés sans cèsse devant la Cour finale. Madame Staël a aimé sans cèsse et est bien devenue quelqu'un qui ne peut pas être jugé. Elle a été le symbole de la bonne voie pendant que la Révolution s'érangeait et devenait le cauchemar de la Terreur, elle a été vraiment la courageuse opposition au dictateur et plus tard au tiran Bonaparte. Et pourtant Madame Staël l'a sauvé la vie, en le prévenant d'un attentat contre lui, qui était exilé dans l'île d'Elba. Staël causait avec tout le monde et ne cherchait jamais à écraser l'adversaire.Elle prennait de l'opium comme du soda. Mais la narrative n'est pas la rêverie d'un opiomane: les furies qui ont été relachées pendant la Révolution française, eles étaient libres depuis longtemps. L'évolution frémissante de ce qu'on croit être le berceau de la démocratie occidentale, vers la Terreur, soit démocratique, soit impériale, était depuis longtemps dans l'identité de l'Europe. C'est pour ça que Madame de Staël est morte de 14 Juillet. C'est elle qui a décapité la Révolution, elle qui disait avoir toujours aimé Dieu,son père (Jacques Necker qui fut Ministre de Louis XVI), et la Liberté. Mais qui aime la Liberté, ne peut pas être aimé. Saint François le savait. Elle est morte pendant le sommeil, elle y est restée finalement.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
LXXXVI (Re-leituras) - A Treatise of Human Nature, by David Hume - comments by André Bandeira
Today it is the 300th birthday of David Hume, the scottish philosopher who is probably behind Adam Smith and, therefore, who stands in the very foundations of the, so far, greatest myth of the twenty-first century: universal capitalism. Both Adam Smith and David Hume, if they were read properly, they would probably make the supporters of that myth feel sick. Neither Adam Smith nor David Hume believed that science was dictated by facts. Adam Smith wrote extensively on Astronomy, just to conclude that, even in Astronomy, everything was nothing but a construction of the human mind. So did Hume, on his subtile idea that there should be a pre-defined harmony between the constructions of the mind and the world of facts, having been said that the mind was mostly a complex of passions. The world of passions was the only thing sure to be described if there was any order to describe thereon. This leads me to state that globalization -- the mediatic name for universal capitalism, or for Fukuyama's End of History --was one of the most virulent tricks which was ever played on the western mind. Capitalism has been cultivated, not as societal and historical way, but, similarly to Darwinism, as a dogma of any social science. That holds for marxism too. Nevertheless, the rationalism which is imprinted on the studies of capitalism was based on the assumption that one is entitled to know, nothing more that his own passions and avoid an ensuing vertigo by holding to the assumption that the order of passions, whatever it maybe, should be similar to the one of facts. It is the most daring bet that a civilization has ever made and it still proves to be winning, as far as statistics may be daily manipulated to prove every self-fulfilling prophecy, where every question leads to the desired answer. But the brute fact is that on the basis of this mental skyskraper, it stays an enormous mistrust, were the honest love of a scottish Hume, for a french somewhat sadistic Hyppolite de Saujon -- a courtisan busy in advancing her passion's strategies in Paris -- ended up in the practice of what she hated, the most, in men: their «servile mind». The love of a rubicund and honest scottish man for a sanguine mediterranean woman, professional in the business of passions,it is not enough to build a plausible theory. That is why, for every sadistic, unbalanced entrepreneur, there is a masochistic admirer. Why do philosophers are so often unfortunate? I don't know. As Tolstoi said at the beginning of his Anna Karenina, each one is unfortunate by his own way. Still David Hume was too daring in compiling a «Treatise» on Human nature because his greatest blunder was not the human affair but aspiring to grasp a «nature», which, also in human affairs, stays always in flux. Instead of throwing some fluid data out of the boat, from time to time, Hume decided that there was a way of finding a definite formula for making the sea solid as rock. He ceased of sailing and kept digging his heels in the shore of bets. That's why capitalism is mostly a mental ailment: if one doesn't catch the fish, one should empty the sea. Now, would there still be a way for catching the scottish fish who seem, among UK wars of choice, decided to swim free in the ocean?
LXXXVI (Re-leituras) - A Treatise of Human Nature, by David Hume - comments by André Bandeira
Today it is the 300th birthday of David Hume, the scottish philosopher who is probably behind Adam Smith and, therefore, who stands in the very foundations of the, so far, greatest myth of the twenty-first century: universal capitalism. Both Adam Smith and David Hume, if they were read properly, they would probably make the supporters of that myth feel sick. Neither Adam Smith nor David Hume believed that science was dictated by facts. Adam Smith wrote extensively on Astronomy, just to conclude that, even in Astronomy, everything was nothing but a construction of the human mind. So did Hume, on his subtile idea that there should be a pre-defined harmony between the constructions of the mind and the world of facts, having been said that the mind was mostly a complex of passions. The world of passions was the only thing sure to be described if there was any order to describe thereon. This leads me to state that globalization -- the mediatic name for universal capitalism, or for Fukuyama's End of History --was one of the most virulent tricks which was ever played on the western mind. Capitalism has been cultivated, not as societal and historical way, but, similarly to Darwinism, as a dogma of any social science. That holds for marxism too. Nevertheless, the rationalism which is imprinted on the studies of capitalism was based on the assumption that one is entitled to know, nothing more that his own passions and avoid an ensuing vertigo by holding to the assumption that the order of passions, whatever it maybe, should be similar to the one of facts. It is the most daring bet that a civilization has ever made and it still proves to be winning, as far as statistics may be daily manipulated to prove every self-fulfilling prophecy, where every question leads to the desired answer. But the brute fact is that on the basis of this mental skyskraper, it stays an enormous mistrust, were the honest love of a scottish Hume, for a french somewhat sadistic Hyppolite de Saujon -- a courtisan busy in advancing her passion's strategies in Paris -- ended up in the practice of what she hated, the most, in men: their «servile mind». The love of a rubicund and honest scottish man for a sanguine mediterranean woman, professional in the business of passions,it is not enough to build a plausible theory. That is why, for every sadistic, unbalanced entrepreneur, there is a masochistic admirer. Why do philosophers are so often unfortunate? I don't know. As Tolstoi said at the beginning of his Anna Karenina, each one is unfortunate by his own way. Still David Hume was too daring in compiling a «Treatise» on Human nature because his greatest blunder was not the human affair but aspiring to grasp a «nature», which, also in human affairs, stays always in flux. Instead of throwing some fluid data out of the boat, from time to time, Hume decided that there was a way of finding a definite formula for making the sea solid as rock. He ceased of sailing and kept digging his heels in the shore of bets. That's why capitalism is mostly a mental ailment: if one doesn't catch the fish, one should empty the sea. Now, would there still be a way for catching the scottish fish who seem, among UK wars of choice, decided to swim free in the ocean?
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
LXXXV - (Re)leituras - Helena, by Machado de Assis - comments by André Bandeira
This is a short romantic novel, written by the greatest name of brazilian Literature and one of the greatest in the Portuguese Language. Tomorrow, we'll commemorate the international day of the Portuguese language. The sixth Language in the world. I don't care whichever Languages, gets Portuguese to outrange. But that is a mistery, indeed, how a small nation balancing on the cliffs of the Atlantic, poor in resources, short of people, full of suicides, as Unamuno once said, manage to make people from wherever, stutter « Amo-te», or «Valha-nos Deus!», in every shore, under every sky. I think it is a mistery of lessoning, rather of shouting, a choice of enduring, instead of winning. Fernando Pessoa, a monarchist somewhat jewish, who said once that the Portuguese Language was his country, meant that a Nation is more a way of spreading and reaching out to others, than a territory. It is a shore where a handfull of people ties itself to the same mast and decides to sail forever, until the skyes open, over a new world where there is no sea. The ocean bed is full of portuguese sailores, including maybe a King who never was. This book tells us the story of a suicide, a young suicide, who comes as cousin, to be brought up in a mannor, at debuting age, falls in love with her cousin, already bound for a much more profitable marriage than hers and who finds out, too late, that she's is her cousin's half-sister. She is elegant, lovely, humble, and she cannot avoid attract and feeling attracted by a person she only got to know at a nuptial age, and who carries so many traits of her own, as she never shared with a brother or a sister. Finally, one gets to know that her father treated her as she was her own natural daughter, but she was not, in fact, her daughter. When everything seems to be rescued by a dodging fortune, when her «cousin» has already broken up with his fiancée, she tries to commit suicide and doesn't survive the attempt. She had thought, for long, that she was her beloved's sister and still she kept drawing him. She decided not to break a destiny which was bound to be fulfilled if she hadn't followed her instincts. It is a very beautiful novel which describes the watershed between romanticism and naturalism in a much intense way than some contemporaneous portuguese novels. And it invites a moral reflection, for times of whirlpools, rather than watersheds: the error lies not in our feelings, and subjective representations. We falter when we give up making our representations accord with our deeper feelings. There is no love which doesn't sail from the shore of a noble dream and we are captains of a much vaster ship than we think.
LXXXV - (Re)leituras - Helena, by Machado de Assis - comments by André Bandeira
This is a short romantic novel, written by the greatest name of brazilian Literature and one of the greatest in the Portuguese Language. Tomorrow, we'll commemorate the international day of the Portuguese language. The sixth Language in the world. I don't care whichever Languages, gets Portuguese to outrange. But that is a mistery, indeed, how a small nation balancing on the cliffs of the Atlantic, poor in resources, short of people, full of suicides, as Unamuno once said, manage to make people from wherever, stutter « Amo-te», or «Valha-nos Deus!», in every shore, under every sky. I think it is a mistery of lessoning, rather of shouting, a choice of enduring, instead of winning. Fernando Pessoa, a monarchist somewhat jewish, who said once that the Portuguese Language was his country, meant that a Nation is more a way of spreading and reaching out to others, than a territory. It is a shore where a handfull of people ties itself to the same mast and decides to sail forever, until the skyes open, over a new world where there is no sea. The ocean bed is full of portuguese sailores, including maybe a King who never was. This book tells us the story of a suicide, a young suicide, who comes as cousin, to be brought up in a mannor, at debuting age, falls in love with her cousin, already bound for a much more profitable marriage than hers and who finds out, too late, that she's is her cousin's half-sister. She is elegant, lovely, humble, and she cannot avoid attract and feeling attracted by a person she only got to know at a nuptial age, and who carries so many traits of her own, as she never shared with a brother or a sister. Finally, one gets to know that her father treated her as she was her own natural daughter, but she was not, in fact, her daughter. When everything seems to be rescued by a dodging fortune, when her «cousin» has already broken up with his fiancée, she tries to commit suicide and doesn't survive the attempt. She had thought, for long, that she was her beloved's sister and still she kept drawing him. She decided not to break a destiny which was bound to be fulfilled if she hadn't followed her instincts. It is a very beautiful novel which describes the watershed between romanticism and naturalism in a much intense way than some contemporaneous portuguese novels. And it invites a moral reflection, for times of whirlpools, rather than watersheds: the error lies not in our feelings, and subjective representations. We falter when we give up making our representations accord with our deeper feelings. There is no love which doesn't sail from the shore of a noble dream and we are captains of a much vaster ship than we think.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
LXXXIV - (Re)leituras - A Inconfidência Mineira - uma síntese factual, by Márcio Jardim - Comments by André Bandeira
Which one of the attempted revolutions, before Brazil's independence, was able to set the mood for the first portuguese nation, out of Portugal? Márcio Jardim has no doubts, in this superb synthesis of the main studies and evidences available, dating back to 1885 - 1889: it was the «Inconfidência» which set the idea of an independent Brazil. A portuguese philosopher and historian of ideas, Esteves Pereira, wisely says that it is always very difficult for us to know what our ancestors really believed in, unless we could live, again, in their times. One aspect of what really moved those hundred, probably thousands of portuguese and brazilians, has also very much to do with the inception of freemasonry in Brazil. There were two proven freemasons among the conspirators, but Márcio Jardim adds a dozen more, as very plausible. On the other hand, the respected historian Oilian José excludes the only conspirator who has been executed, the «Tiradentes». This raises questions, not only about the solidarity among the pioneers of that creed in Brazil, as well as on its consistence. The myth that «Tiradentes» never existed, or that he escaped and even died peacefully in Portugal, may have something to do with it. It is clear that there was, that time, a masonic hit in a burgeoning Brazil, but so was in Portugal. Persecutors and rebels shared the same values about the future of the civilized world, some were monarchists, and some other were republicans, all of them setting secret lodges, to freely discuss among people who were bound not to disclose the subjects, outside. At the same time, some believed that the freemason framework was the only one able to guarantee them mutual assistance and communion of ideas, whereas some others believed that freemasonry gave them leverage by some world power, that including Portugal, where the autocrat Pombal had been a freemason too. Awkwardly,some of the leaders were priests with a stern jesuitic background. The Prince João decreed a perpetual silence on the lawsuit and, later, already as João, the Sixth, he set out an unified kingdom of Portugal and Brazil. But the «Inconfidência» was not a masonic movement. More than secrets, there were conflicting passions and allegiances. For the passions, freemasonry spread quickly on a «shock and awe» ideological method, inflammed with myths of «popular science», as a countervalue to the opposite bigot practices. As for the allegiances, the third President of United States, Thomas Jefferson, who was then a sybiline ambassador in Paris, decided not to help the conspirators and later became a «de facto» ally of the United Kingdom against Napoleon. By that time, some of the conjectural freemasons, once on the side of the repression, such as the Duke of Barbacena, Governor of Minas Gerais, later became allies of Napoleon, the invader and butcher of their own country.I venture to say that if the «Inconfidência» had ever managed to crack the eggshell, Brazil would have had with Portugal a much deeper and far-reaching «special relationship», than the one binding today the USA and United Kingdom.
LXXXIV - (Re)leituras - A Inconfidência Mineira - uma síntese factual, by Márcio Jardim - Comments by André Bandeira
Which one of the attempted revolutions, before Brazil's independence, was able to set the mood for the first portuguese nation, out of Portugal? Márcio Jardim has no doubts, in this superb synthesis of the main studies and evidences available, dating back to 1885 - 1889: it was the «Inconfidência» which set the idea of an independent Brazil. A portuguese philosopher and historian of ideas, Esteves Pereira, wisely says that it is always very difficult for us to know what our ancestors really believed in, unless we could live, again, in their times. One aspect of what really moved those hundred, probably thousands of portuguese and brazilians, has also very much to do with the inception of freemasonry in Brazil. There were two proven freemasons among the conspirators, but Márcio Jardim adds a dozen more, as very plausible. On the other hand, the respected historian Oilian José excludes the only conspirator who has been executed, the «Tiradentes». This raises questions, not only about the solidarity among the pioneers of that creed in Brazil, as well as on its consistence. The myth that «Tiradentes» never existed, or that he escaped and even died peacefully in Portugal, may have something to do with it. It is clear that there was, that time, a masonic hit in a burgeoning Brazil, but so was in Portugal. Persecutors and rebels shared the same values about the future of the civilized world, some were monarchists, and some other were republicans, all of them setting secret lodges, to freely discuss among people who were bound not to disclose the subjects, outside. At the same time, some believed that the freemason framework was the only one able to guarantee them mutual assistance and communion of ideas, whereas some others believed that freemasonry gave them leverage by some world power, that including Portugal, where the autocrat Pombal had been a freemason too. Awkwardly,some of the leaders were priests with a stern jesuitic background. The Prince João decreed a perpetual silence on the lawsuit and, later, already as João, the Sixth, he set out an unified kingdom of Portugal and Brazil. But the «Inconfidência» was not a masonic movement. More than secrets, there were conflicting passions and allegiances. For the passions, freemasonry spread quickly on a «shock and awe» ideological method, inflammed with myths of «popular science», as a countervalue to the opposite bigot practices. As for the allegiances, the third President of United States, Thomas Jefferson, who was then a sybiline ambassador in Paris, decided not to help the conspirators and later became a «de facto» ally of the United Kingdom against Napoleon. By that time, some of the conjectural freemasons, once on the side of the repression, such as the Duke of Barbacena, Governor of Minas Gerais, later became allies of Napoleon, the invader and butcher of their own country.I venture to say that if the «Inconfidência» had ever managed to crack the eggshell, Brazil would have had with Portugal a much deeper and far-reaching «special relationship», than the one binding today the USA and United Kingdom.
Friday, April 22, 2011
LXXXIII - (Re)leituras: Cláudio Manuel da Costa by Laura de Mello e Souza - Comments by André Bandeira
Some are aware that there was an attempt, once upon the final years of the
XVIII century, in Brazil, of declaring the independence of the Province of Minas Gerais from the Portuguese Crown. The regime which held that time, in Lisbon, was a kind of illuminist despotism of which foundations were the ones set by the autocratic Marquis of Pombal,a mercantilist, busy in keeping all the gold he could gather from distant regions such as Minas Gerais, in Brazil. In the rush for gold, there was an accumulation of immigrants, slaves, culture and power in that region, not very faraway from Rio de Janeiro, but still protected by a double mountain range. At a certain point in time, a group of the local ruling class decide to forge a conspiracy which was delated by some of the conspirators, who had to gain both from the conspiracy's success and from its timely delation, since they were crushed under debts to the Crown. In 1789 the conspiracy was uncovered, most of its members were sentenced to death and automatically sent to exile in Africa, all except one, a lieutenant, Joaquim José da Silva Xavier, named the «Tiradentes» (dentist), who became not the first, but the most coherent martyr of Brazil's cause for independence. But, among the conspirators, there was an old and respected magistrate who didn't get to be interrogated by the Viceroy in Rio. He was Cláudio Costa, who got arrested in Vila Rica de Ouro Preto, by the local Governor, and who was found hanged in his cell before the Viceroy's envoyees could reach him. People say that his obscure suicide made brazilian politics, thereafter, forever secretive and mistrustful. As a matter of fact, Cláudio Costa was the only one to disclose during his first interrogation that there was a plan for the local Governor, the Viscount of Barbacena, an illuminist portuguese aristocrat who was sent to Brazil because of his far-reaching ideas, to become a kind of Emperor in an independent Minas Gerais. Kenneth Mawxell, author of «Conflicts and Conspiracies: Brazil & Portugal 1750-1808» thinks Cláudio has been assassinated, as a good half of brazilian historians does. In this book, Laura de Mello e Souza explores the divided soul of an old magistrate and respected poet, the only one who genuinely hesitated between Monarchy and Republic, and concludes with his suicide. The «Inconfidência mineira» (the name of the crime the conspirators have been accused of, that meaning the treason to the Crown) will go on having a corpse which cannot be fully explained.
XVIII century, in Brazil, of declaring the independence of the Province of Minas Gerais from the Portuguese Crown. The regime which held that time, in Lisbon, was a kind of illuminist despotism of which foundations were the ones set by the autocratic Marquis of Pombal,a mercantilist, busy in keeping all the gold he could gather from distant regions such as Minas Gerais, in Brazil. In the rush for gold, there was an accumulation of immigrants, slaves, culture and power in that region, not very faraway from Rio de Janeiro, but still protected by a double mountain range. At a certain point in time, a group of the local ruling class decide to forge a conspiracy which was delated by some of the conspirators, who had to gain both from the conspiracy's success and from its timely delation, since they were crushed under debts to the Crown. In 1789 the conspiracy was uncovered, most of its members were sentenced to death and automatically sent to exile in Africa, all except one, a lieutenant, Joaquim José da Silva Xavier, named the «Tiradentes» (dentist), who became not the first, but the most coherent martyr of Brazil's cause for independence. But, among the conspirators, there was an old and respected magistrate who didn't get to be interrogated by the Viceroy in Rio. He was Cláudio Costa, who got arrested in Vila Rica de Ouro Preto, by the local Governor, and who was found hanged in his cell before the Viceroy's envoyees could reach him. People say that his obscure suicide made brazilian politics, thereafter, forever secretive and mistrustful. As a matter of fact, Cláudio Costa was the only one to disclose during his first interrogation that there was a plan for the local Governor, the Viscount of Barbacena, an illuminist portuguese aristocrat who was sent to Brazil because of his far-reaching ideas, to become a kind of Emperor in an independent Minas Gerais. Kenneth Mawxell, author of «Conflicts and Conspiracies: Brazil & Portugal 1750-1808» thinks Cláudio has been assassinated, as a good half of brazilian historians does. In this book, Laura de Mello e Souza explores the divided soul of an old magistrate and respected poet, the only one who genuinely hesitated between Monarchy and Republic, and concludes with his suicide. The «Inconfidência mineira» (the name of the crime the conspirators have been accused of, that meaning the treason to the Crown) will go on having a corpse which cannot be fully explained.
LXXXIII - (Re)leituras: Cláudio Manuel da Costa by Laura de Mello e Souza - Comments by André Bandeira
Some are aware that there was an attempt, once upon the final years of the
XVIII century, in Brazil, of declaring the independence of the Province of Minas Gerais from the Portuguese Crown. The regime which held that time, in Lisbon, was a kind of illuminist despotism of which foundations were the ones set by the autocratic Marquis of Pombal,a mercantilist, busy in keeping all the gold he could gather from distant regions such as Minas Gerais, in Brazil. In the rush for gold, there was an accumulation of immigrants, slaves, culture and power in that region, not very faraway from Rio de Janeiro, but still protected by a double mountain range. At a certain point in time, a group of the local ruling class decide to forge a conspiracy which was delated by some of the conspirators, who had to gain both from the conspiracy's success and from its timely delation, since they were crushed under debts to the Crown. In 1789 the conspiracy was uncovered, most of its members were sentenced to death and automatically sent to exile in Africa, all except one, a lieutenant, Joaquim José da Silva Xavier, named the «Tiradentes» (dentist), who became not the first, but the most coherent martyr of Brazil's cause for independence. But, among the conspirators, there was an old and respected magistrate who didn't get to be interrogated by the Viceroy in Rio. He was Cláudio Costa, who got arrested in Vila Rica de Ouro Preto, by the local Governor, and who was found hanged in his cell before the Viceroy's envoyees could reach him. People say that his obscure suicide made brazilian politics, thereafter, forever secretive and mistrustful. As a matter of fact, Cláudio Costa was the only one to disclose during his first interrogation that there was a plan for the local Governor, the Viscount of Barbacena, an illuminist portuguese aristocrat who was sent to Brazil because of his far-reaching ideas, to become a kind of Emperor in an independent Minas Gerais. Kenneth Mawxell, author of «Conflicts and Conspiracies: Brazil & Portugal 1750-1808» thinks Cláudio has been assassinated, as a good half of brazilian historians does. In this book, Laura de Mello e Souza explores the divided soul of an old magistrate and respected poet, the only one who genuinely hesitated between Monarchy and Republic, and concludes with his suicide. The «Inconfidência mineira» (the name of the crime the conspirators have been accused of, that meaning the treason to the Crown) will go on having a corpse which cannot be fully explained.
XVIII century, in Brazil, of declaring the independence of the Province of Minas Gerais from the Portuguese Crown. The regime which held that time, in Lisbon, was a kind of illuminist despotism of which foundations were the ones set by the autocratic Marquis of Pombal,a mercantilist, busy in keeping all the gold he could gather from distant regions such as Minas Gerais, in Brazil. In the rush for gold, there was an accumulation of immigrants, slaves, culture and power in that region, not very faraway from Rio de Janeiro, but still protected by a double mountain range. At a certain point in time, a group of the local ruling class decide to forge a conspiracy which was delated by some of the conspirators, who had to gain both from the conspiracy's success and from its timely delation, since they were crushed under debts to the Crown. In 1789 the conspiracy was uncovered, most of its members were sentenced to death and automatically sent to exile in Africa, all except one, a lieutenant, Joaquim José da Silva Xavier, named the «Tiradentes» (dentist), who became not the first, but the most coherent martyr of Brazil's cause for independence. But, among the conspirators, there was an old and respected magistrate who didn't get to be interrogated by the Viceroy in Rio. He was Cláudio Costa, who got arrested in Vila Rica de Ouro Preto, by the local Governor, and who was found hanged in his cell before the Viceroy's envoyees could reach him. People say that his obscure suicide made brazilian politics, thereafter, forever secretive and mistrustful. As a matter of fact, Cláudio Costa was the only one to disclose during his first interrogation that there was a plan for the local Governor, the Viscount of Barbacena, an illuminist portuguese aristocrat who was sent to Brazil because of his far-reaching ideas, to become a kind of Emperor in an independent Minas Gerais. Kenneth Mawxell, author of «Conflicts and Conspiracies: Brazil & Portugal 1750-1808» thinks Cláudio has been assassinated, as a good half of brazilian historians does. In this book, Laura de Mello e Souza explores the divided soul of an old magistrate and respected poet, the only one who genuinely hesitated between Monarchy and Republic, and concludes with his suicide. The «Inconfidência mineira» (the name of the crime the conspirators have been accused of, that meaning the treason to the Crown) will go on having a corpse which cannot be fully explained.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
LXXXII - (Re) leituras - The Book of the Five Rings, by Myamoto Musashi - comments by André Bandeira
The very time I'm writing these lines, there are about 70 japanese who are dying for me and you. German newspapers have insinuated that these japanese, mostly belonging to the fire-brigade, habe been ordered to go to the reactors of Fukushima and try to quell the atomic leaks. Kami Kaze means «the wind of God». When the Mongols were about to invade Japan, a series of winds came from the Mount Fuji and pushed the mongol ships away, putting the entire invading fleet, in desarray. Soon after, or sometime before ( I do not remember well), the japanese, who were keen in using their long swords, managed to jump into the ships and make the admirals endure so many losses that they decided to retreat. In this book, dating back to the XVIIth Century, one can see that the art of the samurai («the lone wave») is based on victory and not in a philosophy such as the one exposed in Sun Tzu's Art of War. For this latter, the general who managed to win one hundred battles without a fight, was at the top of military science. For Musashi, if there were one hundred battles to fight, the samurai would have waged and won everyone of them. It was by cumulative wisdom, that the bushido (the code of the samurai) could be fufilled. Something quite reasonable in a country which cherished peace but was always exposed to invasions and natural tragedies, leaving everyone to take care of himself in a matter of minutes. Hard and winding road where enlightment could only come at the very and sudden end. These japanese firemen are doing now their bushido. The diagnosis seems dull: either they'll die in a few weeks or they'll manage to survive, the most, until the end of the year. I cannot avoid a shout, in this world of lust and pleasure: which right has whoever of putting the end to someone else's life, for whichever reason, when there are so many manmade and natural forces able to wipe us all from the Earths'surface in a matter of seconds? Should any student learn History sitting in a kind of electric chair and receive electrical shocks similar to the pains which he's seeing depicted on the History books? There was an old italian journalist, Tiziano Terzani, who was dying slowly a few years ago, who wrote, during that time, a book called « On more leap on the merry-go-round ». He once visited the Temple in Japan where kamikazes used to depose their last vows, before leaving on their last missions. One said: I want to die in the sky as a crystal glass being broken in the clouds. May this purity go off in our minds when our thoughts are just jockeying to find a way out which adds more suffering to the one already existent. Shouldn't we put the cream of our bravery, the top of our pride, the glamour of our technology in the battle of Fukushima? Or else, shouldn't we admit that we still have a long way to go, before being ready to fight the battles of Fukushima, as these japanese firemen, are fighting now?
LXXXII - (Re) leituras - The Book of the Five Rings, by Myamoto Musashi - comments by André Bandeira
The very time I'm writing these lines, there are about 70 japanese who are dying for me and you. German newspapers have insinuated that these japanese, mostly belonging to the fire-brigade, habe been ordered to go to the reactors of Fukushima and try to quell the atomic leaks. Kami Kaze means «the wind of God». When the Mongols were about to invade Japan, a series of winds came from the Mount Fuji and pushed the mongol ships away, putting the entire invading fleet, in desarray. Soon after, or sometime before ( I do not remember well), the japanese, who were keen in using their long swords, managed to jump into the ships and make the admirals endure so many losses that they decided to retreat. In this book, dating back to the XVIIth Century, one can see that the art of the samurai («the lone wave») is based on victory and not in a philosophy such as the one exposed in Sun Tzu's Art of War. For this latter, the general who managed to win one hundred battles without a fight, was at the top of military science. For Musashi, if there were one hundred battles to fight, the samurai would have waged and won everyone of them. It was by cumulative wisdom, that the bushido (the code of the samurai) could be fufilled. Something quite reasonable in a country which cherished peace but was always exposed to invasions and natural tragedies, leaving everyone to take care of himself in a matter of minutes. Hard and winding road where enlightment could only come at the very and sudden end. These japanese firemen are doing now their bushido. The diagnosis seems dull: either they'll die in a few weeks or they'll manage to survive, the most, until the end of the year. I cannot avoid a shout, in this world of lust and pleasure: which right has whoever of putting the end to someone else's life, for whichever reason, when there are so many manmade and natural forces able to wipe us all from the Earths'surface in a matter of seconds? Should any student learn History sitting in a kind of electric chair and receive electrical shocks similar to the pains which he's seeing depicted on the History books? There was an old italian journalist, Tiziano Terzani, who was dying slowly a few years ago, who wrote, during that time, a book called « On more leap on the merry-go-round ». He once visited the Temple in Japan where kamikazes used to depose their last vows, before leaving on their last missions. One said: I want to die in the sky as a crystal glass being broken in the clouds. May this purity go off in our minds when our thoughts are just jockeying to find a way out which adds more suffering to the one already existent. Shouldn't we put the cream of our bravery, the top of our pride, the glamour of our technology in the battle of Fukushima? Or else, shouldn't we admit that we still have a long way to go, before being ready to fight the battles of Fukushima, as these japanese firemen, are fighting now?
Monday, March 28, 2011
The Libya conflict – My narrative
The Libya conflict – My narrative - Mendo Henriques _ WAIS
The conflict in Libya is between, on one side, the Libyan Jamahiriya,
a legal regime in the face of international law, supported by a
tribal structure centered in Tripoli and Sirte but infringing human
rights since its inception in 1971; and, on the other hand, a complex
coalition of Libyan tribes with a majority in Cyrenaica and also in
Tripolitania and Fezzan, ruled by the Libyan National Council's
authority and an allegiance to the Libyan National Senoussi dynasty,
whose flag they use and to whose Constitution of 1951 they seem to pay
allegiance. These rebels used the right of resistance against
repression and comparative underdevelopment to start a post-Islamic
revolution in January 2011. They reaffirmed the legitimate desire to
overthrow a tyrant, as accepted by political doctrines that found a
contemporary expression in the Universal Declaration of Rights.
Starting from Benghazi, the Libyan revolution conquered villages and
populations up to the outskirts of Tripoli in February, with the
support of dissident military units, including Air Force. Yet, it
never managed to have a unified command. Given the stalemate, Colonel
Gaddafi gathered his tribal support and hired thousands of mercenaries
in black Africa (and continues to hire war veterans, members of the
Polisario http://www.aujourdhui.ma/nation- details81531.html) to
launch an offensive with heavy weapons in the direction of Benghazi.
After dominating the corridor of Ajdabia, he threatened to raze
Benghazi.
Faced with the threat of crimes against humanity, the UN Security
Council, after the favorable stand of the Arab League, voted
Resolution 1973, which allows for the creation of a no-fly zone and
approved military action, with a 10 affirmative votes and 5
abstentions.
As the conflict in Libya became a peace enforcement operation, it
opposes national and international forces on both sides. The armed
forces operation by U.S., France and England (and Italy, Greece,
Canada, etc,) gave way now, 29 March, to a NATO command and control
structure that integrates forces from Qatar and UA Emirates.
I believe it is encouraging for the world at large that U.S. forces,
the Armée de l'Air and the RAF destroyed heavy weapons of the “tyrant
of Tripoli”.
I appreciate pacifist arguments that "love is better than war" but I
do not believe in permanent human kindness. I appreciate the antitrust
and anti-corruption arguments about the oil business, but the Libyan
oil can be easily replaced by other sources for European countries,
except, perhaps, Italy. I believe that in European democracies, reason
of state is bigger than vested interests. I support President Obama's
declaration that there will be no international intervention of ground
troops.. Libyans on the ground will sort it out and I am informed such
is the goal of Odyssey Dawn ...
An operation of peace enforcement implies the use of armed force to
achieve a ceasefire. The force can also be used to achieve other
purposes such as sheltering the victims of hostilities. It is clearly
a situation of armed conflict. This means that the forces are
countered by one side and they must fight to force a cease-fire. In
the process, they lose their neutrality. These operations are beyond
the ability to UN command and control, and can only be performed by a
coalition of the willing or a polyarchy such as NATO. As the Libya
conflict regards a sovereign state, national law should be taken into
account and thus an international mandate is essential to the
operation to be legitimate.
All things considered, I believe - as prime-minister Cameron told the
Commons, applauded by Labor - that the Libyan conflict is a "just,
necessary and lawful war." This is not a humanitarian intervention, as
Bosnia 1998. It is not power projection as Afghanistan 2001: It is
not, as Iraq 2003, a war for "regime change". It is a conflict to
create conditions for regime change by the people, because human
rights are equal for all. It is both a civil war and an international
conflict. Pretty much like Spain 1936-39.
This brings me to Carl Schmitt’s political categories. I think they
are not that relevant for international conflict. The “theorist of the
Third Reich” was a much more intelligent but less cunning Fascist than
Hitler's Nazi fellows, and he was out of his depth when he tried to
adapt Donoso Cortes’s traditionalist political categories to a 20th
century situation. Indeed, last year, at the kind invitation of the
Portuguese editor, I presented an Alain de Benoist’ book in Lisbon,
called " Carl Schmitt Actuel, Guerre juste, terrorisme, État
d’Urgence”, Nomos de la Terre”. I restricted myself to an academic
presentation of its contents, expressing my disagreement in a polite
way. I said that M. de Benoist was pretty much doing something like
“enfoncer des portes ouvertes”. Anyone who knows the Roman Law
distinction between inimicitia and bellum justum ( the traditional
example is Octavius’ conduct of war against Cleopatra as bellum justum
and against Mark Antony as inimicitia) may see that the Libya conflict
is a belllum justum against the “tyrant of Tripoli” from the point of
view of the NATO coalition on account of Resolution 1973; and it is
inimicitia from the perspective of the post-Islamic rebels.
An intellectual debate about the Libya conflict is a very good thing
because it keeps our minds busy. Yet, when it comes to see people die
on account of war initiated by a tyrant, I do not consider myself an
intellectual but a citizen of the world who says “Rwanda, never
again!” , “East-Timor, never again” "Bosnia never again”. I feel I am
well accompanied by the Arab League, the majority of Western public
opinion, and the magnificent North African youth who launched the Post
Islamic and almost bloodless revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia. The
West and the Arab countries have given a hand to prevent Post Islamic
revolution to sink in the Libyan wilderness. I think it a sign of hope
that the moral conscience of humanity proves itself superior to the
vested interests that celebrated agreements with the "pirate of
Tripoli" .. eh… ..all right.. with that grotesque and comic strip
personage who, for the next few days, weeks, or months, will be the
"Tyrant of Tripoli".
The conflict in Libya is between, on one side, the Libyan Jamahiriya,
a legal regime in the face of international law, supported by a
tribal structure centered in Tripoli and Sirte but infringing human
rights since its inception in 1971; and, on the other hand, a complex
coalition of Libyan tribes with a majority in Cyrenaica and also in
Tripolitania and Fezzan, ruled by the Libyan National Council's
authority and an allegiance to the Libyan National Senoussi dynasty,
whose flag they use and to whose Constitution of 1951 they seem to pay
allegiance. These rebels used the right of resistance against
repression and comparative underdevelopment to start a post-Islamic
revolution in January 2011. They reaffirmed the legitimate desire to
overthrow a tyrant, as accepted by political doctrines that found a
contemporary expression in the Universal Declaration of Rights.
Starting from Benghazi, the Libyan revolution conquered villages and
populations up to the outskirts of Tripoli in February, with the
support of dissident military units, including Air Force. Yet, it
never managed to have a unified command. Given the stalemate, Colonel
Gaddafi gathered his tribal support and hired thousands of mercenaries
in black Africa (and continues to hire war veterans, members of the
Polisario http://www.aujourdhui.ma/nation- details81531.html) to
launch an offensive with heavy weapons in the direction of Benghazi.
After dominating the corridor of Ajdabia, he threatened to raze
Benghazi.
Faced with the threat of crimes against humanity, the UN Security
Council, after the favorable stand of the Arab League, voted
Resolution 1973, which allows for the creation of a no-fly zone and
approved military action, with a 10 affirmative votes and 5
abstentions.
As the conflict in Libya became a peace enforcement operation, it
opposes national and international forces on both sides. The armed
forces operation by U.S., France and England (and Italy, Greece,
Canada, etc,) gave way now, 29 March, to a NATO command and control
structure that integrates forces from Qatar and UA Emirates.
I believe it is encouraging for the world at large that U.S. forces,
the Armée de l'Air and the RAF destroyed heavy weapons of the “tyrant
of Tripoli”.
I appreciate pacifist arguments that "love is better than war" but I
do not believe in permanent human kindness. I appreciate the antitrust
and anti-corruption arguments about the oil business, but the Libyan
oil can be easily replaced by other sources for European countries,
except, perhaps, Italy. I believe that in European democracies, reason
of state is bigger than vested interests. I support President Obama's
declaration that there will be no international intervention of ground
troops.. Libyans on the ground will sort it out and I am informed such
is the goal of Odyssey Dawn ...
An operation of peace enforcement implies the use of armed force to
achieve a ceasefire. The force can also be used to achieve other
purposes such as sheltering the victims of hostilities. It is clearly
a situation of armed conflict. This means that the forces are
countered by one side and they must fight to force a cease-fire. In
the process, they lose their neutrality. These operations are beyond
the ability to UN command and control, and can only be performed by a
coalition of the willing or a polyarchy such as NATO. As the Libya
conflict regards a sovereign state, national law should be taken into
account and thus an international mandate is essential to the
operation to be legitimate.
All things considered, I believe - as prime-minister Cameron told the
Commons, applauded by Labor - that the Libyan conflict is a "just,
necessary and lawful war." This is not a humanitarian intervention, as
Bosnia 1998. It is not power projection as Afghanistan 2001: It is
not, as Iraq 2003, a war for "regime change". It is a conflict to
create conditions for regime change by the people, because human
rights are equal for all. It is both a civil war and an international
conflict. Pretty much like Spain 1936-39.
This brings me to Carl Schmitt’s political categories. I think they
are not that relevant for international conflict. The “theorist of the
Third Reich” was a much more intelligent but less cunning Fascist than
Hitler's Nazi fellows, and he was out of his depth when he tried to
adapt Donoso Cortes’s traditionalist political categories to a 20th
century situation. Indeed, last year, at the kind invitation of the
Portuguese editor, I presented an Alain de Benoist’ book in Lisbon,
called " Carl Schmitt Actuel, Guerre juste, terrorisme, État
d’Urgence”, Nomos de la Terre”. I restricted myself to an academic
presentation of its contents, expressing my disagreement in a polite
way. I said that M. de Benoist was pretty much doing something like
“enfoncer des portes ouvertes”. Anyone who knows the Roman Law
distinction between inimicitia and bellum justum ( the traditional
example is Octavius’ conduct of war against Cleopatra as bellum justum
and against Mark Antony as inimicitia) may see that the Libya conflict
is a belllum justum against the “tyrant of Tripoli” from the point of
view of the NATO coalition on account of Resolution 1973; and it is
inimicitia from the perspective of the post-Islamic rebels.
An intellectual debate about the Libya conflict is a very good thing
because it keeps our minds busy. Yet, when it comes to see people die
on account of war initiated by a tyrant, I do not consider myself an
intellectual but a citizen of the world who says “Rwanda, never
again!” , “East-Timor, never again” "Bosnia never again”. I feel I am
well accompanied by the Arab League, the majority of Western public
opinion, and the magnificent North African youth who launched the Post
Islamic and almost bloodless revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia. The
West and the Arab countries have given a hand to prevent Post Islamic
revolution to sink in the Libyan wilderness. I think it a sign of hope
that the moral conscience of humanity proves itself superior to the
vested interests that celebrated agreements with the "pirate of
Tripoli" .. eh… ..all right.. with that grotesque and comic strip
personage who, for the next few days, weeks, or months, will be the
"Tyrant of Tripoli".
The Libya conflict – My narrative
The Libya conflict – My narrative - Mendo Henriques _ WAIS
The conflict in Libya is between, on one side, the Libyan Jamahiriya,
a legal regime in the face of international law, supported by a
tribal structure centered in Tripoli and Sirte but infringing human
rights since its inception in 1971; and, on the other hand, a complex
coalition of Libyan tribes with a majority in Cyrenaica and also in
Tripolitania and Fezzan, ruled by the Libyan National Council's
authority and an allegiance to the Libyan National Senoussi dynasty,
whose flag they use and to whose Constitution of 1951 they seem to pay
allegiance. These rebels used the right of resistance against
repression and comparative underdevelopment to start a post-Islamic
revolution in January 2011. They reaffirmed the legitimate desire to
overthrow a tyrant, as accepted by political doctrines that found a
contemporary expression in the Universal Declaration of Rights.
Starting from Benghazi, the Libyan revolution conquered villages and
populations up to the outskirts of Tripoli in February, with the
support of dissident military units, including Air Force. Yet, it
never managed to have a unified command. Given the stalemate, Colonel
Gaddafi gathered his tribal support and hired thousands of mercenaries
in black Africa (and continues to hire war veterans, members of the
Polisario http://www.aujourdhui.ma/nation- details81531.html) to
launch an offensive with heavy weapons in the direction of Benghazi.
After dominating the corridor of Ajdabia, he threatened to raze
Benghazi.
Faced with the threat of crimes against humanity, the UN Security
Council, after the favorable stand of the Arab League, voted
Resolution 1973, which allows for the creation of a no-fly zone and
approved military action, with a 10 affirmative votes and 5
abstentions.
As the conflict in Libya became a peace enforcement operation, it
opposes national and international forces on both sides. The armed
forces operation by U.S., France and England (and Italy, Greece,
Canada, etc,) gave way now, 29 March, to a NATO command and control
structure that integrates forces from Qatar and UA Emirates.
I believe it is encouraging for the world at large that U.S. forces,
the Armée de l'Air and the RAF destroyed heavy weapons of the “tyrant
of Tripoli”.
I appreciate pacifist arguments that "love is better than war" but I
do not believe in permanent human kindness. I appreciate the antitrust
and anti-corruption arguments about the oil business, but the Libyan
oil can be easily replaced by other sources for European countries,
except, perhaps, Italy. I believe that in European democracies, reason
of state is bigger than vested interests. I support President Obama's
declaration that there will be no international intervention of ground
troops.. Libyans on the ground will sort it out and I am informed such
is the goal of Odyssey Dawn ...
An operation of peace enforcement implies the use of armed force to
achieve a ceasefire. The force can also be used to achieve other
purposes such as sheltering the victims of hostilities. It is clearly
a situation of armed conflict. This means that the forces are
countered by one side and they must fight to force a cease-fire. In
the process, they lose their neutrality. These operations are beyond
the ability to UN command and control, and can only be performed by a
coalition of the willing or a polyarchy such as NATO. As the Libya
conflict regards a sovereign state, national law should be taken into
account and thus an international mandate is essential to the
operation to be legitimate.
All things considered, I believe - as prime-minister Cameron told the
Commons, applauded by Labor - that the Libyan conflict is a "just,
necessary and lawful war." This is not a humanitarian intervention, as
Bosnia 1998. It is not power projection as Afghanistan 2001: It is
not, as Iraq 2003, a war for "regime change". It is a conflict to
create conditions for regime change by the people, because human
rights are equal for all. It is both a civil war and an international
conflict. Pretty much like Spain 1936-39.
This brings me to Carl Schmitt’s political categories. I think they
are not that relevant for international conflict. The “theorist of the
Third Reich” was a much more intelligent but less cunning Fascist than
Hitler's Nazi fellows, and he was out of his depth when he tried to
adapt Donoso Cortes’s traditionalist political categories to a 20th
century situation. Indeed, last year, at the kind invitation of the
Portuguese editor, I presented an Alain de Benoist’ book in Lisbon,
called " Carl Schmitt Actuel, Guerre juste, terrorisme, État
d’Urgence”, Nomos de la Terre”. I restricted myself to an academic
presentation of its contents, expressing my disagreement in a polite
way. I said that M. de Benoist was pretty much doing something like
“enfoncer des portes ouvertes”. Anyone who knows the Roman Law
distinction between inimicitia and bellum justum ( the traditional
example is Octavius’ conduct of war against Cleopatra as bellum justum
and against Mark Antony as inimicitia) may see that the Libya conflict
is a belllum justum against the “tyrant of Tripoli” from the point of
view of the NATO coalition on account of Resolution 1973; and it is
inimicitia from the perspective of the post-Islamic rebels.
An intellectual debate about the Libya conflict is a very good thing
because it keeps our minds busy. Yet, when it comes to see people die
on account of war initiated by a tyrant, I do not consider myself an
intellectual but a citizen of the world who says “Rwanda, never
again!” , “East-Timor, never again” "Bosnia never again”. I feel I am
well accompanied by the Arab League, the majority of Western public
opinion, and the magnificent North African youth who launched the Post
Islamic and almost bloodless revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia. The
West and the Arab countries have given a hand to prevent Post Islamic
revolution to sink in the Libyan wilderness. I think it a sign of hope
that the moral conscience of humanity proves itself superior to the
vested interests that celebrated agreements with the "pirate of
Tripoli" .. eh… ..all right.. with that grotesque and comic strip
personage who, for the next few days, weeks, or months, will be the
"Tyrant of Tripoli".
The conflict in Libya is between, on one side, the Libyan Jamahiriya,
a legal regime in the face of international law, supported by a
tribal structure centered in Tripoli and Sirte but infringing human
rights since its inception in 1971; and, on the other hand, a complex
coalition of Libyan tribes with a majority in Cyrenaica and also in
Tripolitania and Fezzan, ruled by the Libyan National Council's
authority and an allegiance to the Libyan National Senoussi dynasty,
whose flag they use and to whose Constitution of 1951 they seem to pay
allegiance. These rebels used the right of resistance against
repression and comparative underdevelopment to start a post-Islamic
revolution in January 2011. They reaffirmed the legitimate desire to
overthrow a tyrant, as accepted by political doctrines that found a
contemporary expression in the Universal Declaration of Rights.
Starting from Benghazi, the Libyan revolution conquered villages and
populations up to the outskirts of Tripoli in February, with the
support of dissident military units, including Air Force. Yet, it
never managed to have a unified command. Given the stalemate, Colonel
Gaddafi gathered his tribal support and hired thousands of mercenaries
in black Africa (and continues to hire war veterans, members of the
Polisario http://www.aujourdhui.ma/nation- details81531.html) to
launch an offensive with heavy weapons in the direction of Benghazi.
After dominating the corridor of Ajdabia, he threatened to raze
Benghazi.
Faced with the threat of crimes against humanity, the UN Security
Council, after the favorable stand of the Arab League, voted
Resolution 1973, which allows for the creation of a no-fly zone and
approved military action, with a 10 affirmative votes and 5
abstentions.
As the conflict in Libya became a peace enforcement operation, it
opposes national and international forces on both sides. The armed
forces operation by U.S., France and England (and Italy, Greece,
Canada, etc,) gave way now, 29 March, to a NATO command and control
structure that integrates forces from Qatar and UA Emirates.
I believe it is encouraging for the world at large that U.S. forces,
the Armée de l'Air and the RAF destroyed heavy weapons of the “tyrant
of Tripoli”.
I appreciate pacifist arguments that "love is better than war" but I
do not believe in permanent human kindness. I appreciate the antitrust
and anti-corruption arguments about the oil business, but the Libyan
oil can be easily replaced by other sources for European countries,
except, perhaps, Italy. I believe that in European democracies, reason
of state is bigger than vested interests. I support President Obama's
declaration that there will be no international intervention of ground
troops.. Libyans on the ground will sort it out and I am informed such
is the goal of Odyssey Dawn ...
An operation of peace enforcement implies the use of armed force to
achieve a ceasefire. The force can also be used to achieve other
purposes such as sheltering the victims of hostilities. It is clearly
a situation of armed conflict. This means that the forces are
countered by one side and they must fight to force a cease-fire. In
the process, they lose their neutrality. These operations are beyond
the ability to UN command and control, and can only be performed by a
coalition of the willing or a polyarchy such as NATO. As the Libya
conflict regards a sovereign state, national law should be taken into
account and thus an international mandate is essential to the
operation to be legitimate.
All things considered, I believe - as prime-minister Cameron told the
Commons, applauded by Labor - that the Libyan conflict is a "just,
necessary and lawful war." This is not a humanitarian intervention, as
Bosnia 1998. It is not power projection as Afghanistan 2001: It is
not, as Iraq 2003, a war for "regime change". It is a conflict to
create conditions for regime change by the people, because human
rights are equal for all. It is both a civil war and an international
conflict. Pretty much like Spain 1936-39.
This brings me to Carl Schmitt’s political categories. I think they
are not that relevant for international conflict. The “theorist of the
Third Reich” was a much more intelligent but less cunning Fascist than
Hitler's Nazi fellows, and he was out of his depth when he tried to
adapt Donoso Cortes’s traditionalist political categories to a 20th
century situation. Indeed, last year, at the kind invitation of the
Portuguese editor, I presented an Alain de Benoist’ book in Lisbon,
called " Carl Schmitt Actuel, Guerre juste, terrorisme, État
d’Urgence”, Nomos de la Terre”. I restricted myself to an academic
presentation of its contents, expressing my disagreement in a polite
way. I said that M. de Benoist was pretty much doing something like
“enfoncer des portes ouvertes”. Anyone who knows the Roman Law
distinction between inimicitia and bellum justum ( the traditional
example is Octavius’ conduct of war against Cleopatra as bellum justum
and against Mark Antony as inimicitia) may see that the Libya conflict
is a belllum justum against the “tyrant of Tripoli” from the point of
view of the NATO coalition on account of Resolution 1973; and it is
inimicitia from the perspective of the post-Islamic rebels.
An intellectual debate about the Libya conflict is a very good thing
because it keeps our minds busy. Yet, when it comes to see people die
on account of war initiated by a tyrant, I do not consider myself an
intellectual but a citizen of the world who says “Rwanda, never
again!” , “East-Timor, never again” "Bosnia never again”. I feel I am
well accompanied by the Arab League, the majority of Western public
opinion, and the magnificent North African youth who launched the Post
Islamic and almost bloodless revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia. The
West and the Arab countries have given a hand to prevent Post Islamic
revolution to sink in the Libyan wilderness. I think it a sign of hope
that the moral conscience of humanity proves itself superior to the
vested interests that celebrated agreements with the "pirate of
Tripoli" .. eh… ..all right.. with that grotesque and comic strip
personage who, for the next few days, weeks, or months, will be the
"Tyrant of Tripoli".
Saturday, March 26, 2011
LXXXI - (Re)leituras - Tito, a Biography, by Phyllis Auty - Comments by André Bandeira
Why picking up a Tito's biography in a time of arab «revolutions»? First, it is quite strange to welcome, with no magnifying glass in hand, a «rebellion» against an alleged tyrant, which is led by the very tyrant's late Ministers of Interior and Justice. Second, remember that the first victim in war, is truth. Third, there is no evidence that democracy means peace. So, returning to Tito: it was the yugoslav Tito, and not the indian Nehru, who invented the non-aligned movement. Since we have been sneaking out of the Cold War, for the last 20 years, tainted with an atavic mistrust, and blinded with vengeance, it is natural to conclude that the non-aligned movement should be dismantled too.If there is only one block, there is no need of any Third World movement. What, then, else than democracy, universal democracy?! As Lacan, the famous french psychiatrist, once said, my mind lies where I'm not and I lie where my mind is not. So Tito managed to be a good austro-hungarian subject. Once the monarchical social-democracy of central Europe had been dismantled by the sectarian fury of Britan and the malevolence of France, during the First World War, Tito still survived through partisan communism and became a good republican tribune, at the helm of a Federation in the Mediterranean. The monarchists, led by Mihailovic -- who was, no doubt, a serbian patriot -- managed to waste the support by the British and alienate the support of the rest of the south slavic people. What I mean is that the popular champion Tito became a better leader than the legitimist faithful. Later, on the southern bank of the Mediterranean, some arab «raïs» amounted to be tentative Titos. Neither the USSR, nor the USA could take the responsibility for all of them, and they put them there (with much less merit than Tito himself) as if they were displaying the pawns on the chess board, before a long match. It is time now -- TVs imply -- to declare a victor, so TVs could table their broadcasts, before they'll be irrevocably replaced by social networks. But the world is not black and white, and the pawns have a much more colourfoul checkered board downunder. There is no use in selling us a daily quack that we can't avoid a new fatalism called democracy. There is, indeed, another fatalism: war. Empires will fall, Princes shall perish... Tito was the wise subject of an Empire and, in a solid Empire, everyone among its subjects, has himself a bit of an Emperor. I prefer this than the Empire of the masses, the uniformity of the buzz, and the continuum of stimulation. The first error of NATO happened in Yugoslavia, when, deprived of a UN mandate, Europe decided to lighten its heavy conscience, with a design of its own, on Tito's Empire. This time, provided with a UN mandate, Europe wants to redesign its own Empire, which has vanished long before Tito's. There is no greater folly than the one which sees Heaven whenever he sees blue. As Sun Tzu said, 2.500 years before Clausewitz: «War is the most serious matter of State, a matter of Life and Death». Fourth: never begin a war without the will of waging it.
LXXXI - (Re)leituras - Tito, a Biography, by Phyllis Auty - Comments by André Bandeira
Why picking up a Tito's biography in a time of arab «revolutions»? First, it is quite strange to welcome, with no magnifying glass in hand, a «rebellion» against an alleged tyrant, which is led by the very tyrant's late Ministers of Interior and Justice. Second, remember that the first victim in war, is truth. Third, there is no evidence that democracy means peace. So, returning to Tito: it was the yugoslav Tito, and not the indian Nehru, who invented the non-aligned movement. Since we have been sneaking out of the Cold War, for the last 20 years, tainted with an atavic mistrust, and blinded with vengeance, it is natural to conclude that the non-aligned movement should be dismantled too.If there is only one block, there is no need of any Third World movement. What, then, else than democracy, universal democracy?! As Lacan, the famous french psychiatrist, once said, my mind lies where I'm not and I lie where my mind is not. So Tito managed to be a good austro-hungarian subject. Once the monarchical social-democracy of central Europe had been dismantled by the sectarian fury of Britan and the malevolence of France, during the First World War, Tito still survived through partisan communism and became a good republican tribune, at the helm of a Federation in the Mediterranean. The monarchists, led by Mihailovic -- who was, no doubt, a serbian patriot -- managed to waste the support by the British and alienate the support of the rest of the south slavic people. What I mean is that the popular champion Tito became a better leader than the legitimist faithful. Later, on the southern bank of the Mediterranean, some arab «raïs» amounted to be tentative Titos. Neither the USSR, nor the USA could take the responsibility for all of them, and they put them there (with much less merit than Tito himself) as if they were displaying the pawns on the chess board, before a long match. It is time now -- TVs imply -- to declare a victor, so TVs could table their broadcasts, before they'll be irrevocably replaced by social networks. But the world is not black and white, and the pawns have a much more colourfoul checkered board downunder. There is no use in selling us a daily quack that we can't avoid a new fatalism called democracy. There is, indeed, another fatalism: war. Empires will fall, Princes shall perish... Tito was the wise subject of an Empire and, in a solid Empire, everyone among its subjects, has himself a bit of an Emperor. I prefer this than the Empire of the masses, the uniformity of the buzz, and the continuum of stimulation. The first error of NATO happened in Yugoslavia, when, deprived of a UN mandate, Europe decided to lighten its heavy conscience, with a design of its own, on Tito's Empire. This time, provided with a UN mandate, Europe wants to redesign its own Empire, which has vanished long before Tito's. There is no greater folly than the one which sees Heaven whenever he sees blue. As Sun Tzu said, 2.500 years before Clausewitz: «War is the most serious matter of State, a matter of Life and Death». Fourth: never begin a war without the will of waging it.
Friday, March 11, 2011
LXXX - The Return of Depression Economics - and the crisis of 2008, by Paul Krugman - comments by André Bandeira
It is probably late referring now to this book, which has been published three years ago. But Krugman is still very active as a journalist. Nevertheless, three years have passed after he received the Nobel Prize in Economics. So, we have time enough to recover from the kick and taste the core of his words. Krugman, the «Globalist», came in Obama's tide. But he advocated globalism, no matter this was being spread by the merchant or by the canon. It doesn't matter either whether «globalism» is being spread by throngs of disenfranchised youths, on the southern bank of the Mediterranean. Basically, Krugman says that we are not in a depression, but we are in a depression Economics' mood. As Keynes used to say, ideas matter much more than vested interests. Krugman's ideas are the ones pointing out that this kind of depression Economics has to be solved on the side of demand, and not on the side of supply. Thus, austerity will only turn a recession into an economic slump, as it did among the asian tigers, in the nineties, or Mexico, Argentina and Brazil. These are his ideas. But what kind of ideas are the ones exposed by Krugman? I say that I don't know. He portrays himself as a liberal. And as a keynesian. It is fair, but it is not enough. Actually, he didn't become a faustian neo-conservative, as it happened with many liberals, when they indulged in being carried away by pure politics. But Krugman expresses his own ideas in steep formulae such as the one that the UState intervened in the Economy, after the Great Depression, by means of an enormous undertaking of public investments: the Second World War. This is too much of a heavy joke, not to be interpreted as true. In conclusion: he says that the investment Banks, as well as the shadow banking system, have to be more regulated. This is a cacophony of Obama - we have it on TV, and we have it now, in a book. But what Krugman means is frightening, if not terrifying. He means that an economic crisis is basically a question of attitude, being reckognizable in the way one expresses his ideas, the color he paints the sky and the capability he has to influence public policies. So to say, the magic touch of Krugman's «liberalism» consists in finding the way how to make himself heard, when Governments have the time and resources to try the most juicy ideas in the marketplace. This is indeed, neither a problem of indoctrination in Economics, nor one of upper hand in Politics. It is a problem of civilization, if not of basic human decency. Krugman barks superbly, but the burglars are already faraway. We wonder if he is nothing more than an echo.
LXXX - The Return of Depression Economics - and the crisis of 2008, by Paul Krugman - comments by André Bandeira
It is probably late referring now to this book, which has been published three years ago. But Krugman is still very active as a journalist. Nevertheless, three years have passed after he received the Nobel Prize in Economics. So, we have time enough to recover from the kick and taste the core of his words. Krugman, the «Globalist», came in Obama's tide. But he advocated globalism, no matter this was being spread by the merchant or by the canon. It doesn't matter either whether «globalism» is being spread by throngs of disenfranchised youths, on the southern bank of the Mediterranean. Basically, Krugman says that we are not in a depression, but we are in a depression Economics' mood. As Keynes used to say, ideas matter much more than vested interests. Krugman's ideas are the ones pointing out that this kind of depression Economics has to be solved on the side of demand, and not on the side of supply. Thus, austerity will only turn a recession into an economic slump, as it did among the asian tigers, in the nineties, or Mexico, Argentina and Brazil. These are his ideas. But what kind of ideas are the ones exposed by Krugman? I say that I don't know. He portrays himself as a liberal. And as a keynesian. It is fair, but it is not enough. Actually, he didn't become a faustian neo-conservative, as it happened with many liberals, when they indulged in being carried away by pure politics. But Krugman expresses his own ideas in steep formulae such as the one that the UState intervened in the Economy, after the Great Depression, by means of an enormous undertaking of public investments: the Second World War. This is too much of a heavy joke, not to be interpreted as true. In conclusion: he says that the investment Banks, as well as the shadow banking system, have to be more regulated. This is a cacophony of Obama - we have it on TV, and we have it now, in a book. But what Krugman means is frightening, if not terrifying. He means that an economic crisis is basically a question of attitude, being reckognizable in the way one expresses his ideas, the color he paints the sky and the capability he has to influence public policies. So to say, the magic touch of Krugman's «liberalism» consists in finding the way how to make himself heard, when Governments have the time and resources to try the most juicy ideas in the marketplace. This is indeed, neither a problem of indoctrination in Economics, nor one of upper hand in Politics. It is a problem of civilization, if not of basic human decency. Krugman barks superbly, but the burglars are already faraway. We wonder if he is nothing more than an echo.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
LXXIX - The Seven Pillars of Wisdom, by Theodor Edward Lawrence - comments by André Bandeira
Everybody knows about David Lean's movie «Lawrence of Arabia» and those who have watched it, certainly remember as well, the superb acting in it of Peter O'toole.Reading the unabridged edition of this major book on the awakening of the arab peoples, after four centuries of decline, seems to me very helpful by watching TV and the experts' forecasts. Generally, the book is the report of an anguished soul, who has been subject in infancy to a strict anglican education, and who escaped up towards a stoic and efficient daydreaming. As a matter of fact, everybody knows, both from the movie and from History, that the secret agent Lawrence ( El Aurens, in arabic)never managed from his bosses, to fulfill the promise of an arab independence in the aftermath of first World War and the dismantlement of the turkish empire. He shows all the pain and grief for having to take decisions of life and death among the arab beduins, whom he managed to raise against the Turks, despite the fact that he knew, as well, that his much admired british General, Allenby, would never grant them independence. T.E. Lawrence was a Crusader by ideal but, in a way, he became an arab. This amounts to no surprise when some light is shed on the Templars and their alleged conversion to a kind of muslim mysticism, which costed them being torched under Philip's, the Fair, orders. As we know, the Arab world became divided under a franco-british mandate, according to the Sykes-Picot secret Treaty, which came to an end only during the Suez crisis of 1956. The arab countries were not only victims of colonialism, but also they were victims of the tragedy of Versailles Treaty. The book is full of wisdom, although it is hard to say how many pillars this wisdom is able to prop up. It is also full of horrible war scenes, described with pacifist purposes and shows how much the arab tribes, before independence, had a range which stretched from Morocco to Constantinopla. In a situation which was a «tertium genus» between civil and independence war, T.E. Lawrence manages to convince the reader that some genuine arab order is essential to a fair solution in the arab region. That is why he should be read in times where experts imply the aequivocal concept of «arab street» (an expression pertaing nowadays much more to London or Paris than to «Arabia» itself), thereby ignoring completely the different national traditions which emerged from the UN Charter on Decolonization, in the fifties.
LXXIX - The Seven Pillars of Wisdom, by Theodor Edward Lawrence - comments by André Bandeira
Everybody knows about David Lean's movie «Lawrence of Arabia» and those who have watched it, certainly remember as well, the superb acting in it of Peter O'toole.Reading the unabridged edition of this major book on the awakening of the arab peoples, after four centuries of decline, seems to me very helpful by watching TV and the experts' forecasts. Generally, the book is the report of an anguished soul, who has been subject in infancy to a strict anglican education, and who escaped up towards a stoic and efficient daydreaming. As a matter of fact, everybody knows, both from the movie and from History, that the secret agent Lawrence ( El Aurens, in arabic)never managed from his bosses, to fulfill the promise of an arab independence in the aftermath of first World War and the dismantlement of the turkish empire. He shows all the pain and grief for having to take decisions of life and death among the arab beduins, whom he managed to raise against the Turks, despite the fact that he knew, as well, that his much admired british General, Allenby, would never grant them independence. T.E. Lawrence was a Crusader by ideal but, in a way, he became an arab. This amounts to no surprise when some light is shed on the Templars and their alleged conversion to a kind of muslim mysticism, which costed them being torched under Philip's, the Fair, orders. As we know, the Arab world became divided under a franco-british mandate, according to the Sykes-Picot secret Treaty, which came to an end only during the Suez crisis of 1956. The arab countries were not only victims of colonialism, but also they were victims of the tragedy of Versailles Treaty. The book is full of wisdom, although it is hard to say how many pillars this wisdom is able to prop up. It is also full of horrible war scenes, described with pacifist purposes and shows how much the arab tribes, before independence, had a range which stretched from Morocco to Constantinopla. In a situation which was a «tertium genus» between civil and independence war, T.E. Lawrence manages to convince the reader that some genuine arab order is essential to a fair solution in the arab region. That is why he should be read in times where experts imply the aequivocal concept of «arab street» (an expression pertaing nowadays much more to London or Paris than to «Arabia» itself), thereby ignoring completely the different national traditions which emerged from the UN Charter on Decolonization, in the fifties.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
LXXVIII - Values and Weapons, de Janne Haaland Matlary, por André Bandeira
É legítima uma intervenção armada estrangeira, para implantar a Democracia num país? Para a autora, a maioria dos autores considerava ilegal uma intervenção armada externa, num país soberano, por razões humanitárias (os alemães invadiram a Checoslováquia, para salvar os sudetas) e, quanto a uma intervenção para implantar a Democracia, é violar a letra da Lei e o Costume internacionais. Os EUA de Bush tentaram lançar o Precedente, no Iraque. Mas -- como diz o especialista Ian Brownlie -- é preciso que não haja oposição expressa de nenhum país, o que aconteceu, para não falar duma prova que nunca aconteceu, a da existência de armas nucleares. Resta-nos, portanto, os limites do Direito internacional e da governabilidade mundial da ONU, ou o crime de Genocídio (matar categorias de pessoas pelo que elas são e não pelo que elas fizeram, na definição de Lemkin). A certa altura, uma União, a Africana, pode-se voltar contra outra União, a Europeia. Mas isso não é tão óbvio, nos jornais. Certo que o Direito de auto-determinação dos Povos, em abstracto, não é superior a uma auto-determinação em curso. Mas uma Democratização mundial implicaria uma governação mundial e, mais que a constituição de um «Demos» mundial -- a Humanidade -- vários «Demoi», no fundo, tribos -- teriam de ser reconhecidos à escala planetária. Para Rousseau, uma Vontade de Todos exige, a quem quiser relevar, uma vontade. Uma Democracia mundial, exige já uma permanente verificação das entradas, com o conceito de «Estados-falhados» e seria o tribalismo quem a faria relevar. Enfim, a prudência, que não é covardia nenhuma, regula ainda a Razão internacional. É verdade que a constatação da «Vontade», obriga à finalidade intelectual de uma Democracia. Na realidade, o que todos os Homens querem, a partir de certo momento, é político e, portanto, é o possível, o qual depende do momento e do lugar, como parece óbvio no terramoto de Christchurch. Ora, a rápida universalização de comunicações curtas e as emoções correspondentes, não chegam para este possível. Diz-se que uma Comunicação universal maximiza o possível. Mas não. A Reflexão não se faz apenas de maximizações, como em Kant, porque também o Indivíduo é um teor de comunidades antigas, arcaicas e modernas, conscientes e inconscientes. Se tudo o que a Democracia planetária nos garante, à partida,é uma maximização, então a Psiquiatria substituirá o Julgamento. Em suma: o sistema de Vestefália passou mas, curiosamente, só quanto ao seu resultado ( a cada Príncepe, a sua Religião). É possível que fique a Religião, depois da queda dos Príncepes.
LXXVIII - Values and Weapons, de Janne Haaland Matlary, por André Bandeira
É legítima uma intervenção armada estrangeira, para implantar a Democracia num país? Para a autora, a maioria dos autores considerava ilegal uma intervenção armada externa, num país soberano, por razões humanitárias (os alemães invadiram a Checoslováquia, para salvar os sudetas) e, quanto a uma intervenção para implantar a Democracia, é violar a letra da Lei e o Costume internacionais. Os EUA de Bush tentaram lançar o Precedente, no Iraque. Mas -- como diz o especialista Ian Brownlie -- é preciso que não haja oposição expressa de nenhum país, o que aconteceu, para não falar duma prova que nunca aconteceu, a da existência de armas nucleares. Resta-nos, portanto, os limites do Direito internacional e da governabilidade mundial da ONU, ou o crime de Genocídio (matar categorias de pessoas pelo que elas são e não pelo que elas fizeram, na definição de Lemkin). A certa altura, uma União, a Africana, pode-se voltar contra outra União, a Europeia. Mas isso não é tão óbvio, nos jornais. Certo que o Direito de auto-determinação dos Povos, em abstracto, não é superior a uma auto-determinação em curso. Mas uma Democratização mundial implicaria uma governação mundial e, mais que a constituição de um «Demos» mundial -- a Humanidade -- vários «Demoi», no fundo, tribos -- teriam de ser reconhecidos à escala planetária. Para Rousseau, uma Vontade de Todos exige, a quem quiser relevar, uma vontade. Uma Democracia mundial, exige já uma permanente verificação das entradas, com o conceito de «Estados-falhados» e seria o tribalismo quem a faria relevar. Enfim, a prudência, que não é covardia nenhuma, regula ainda a Razão internacional. É verdade que a constatação da «Vontade», obriga à finalidade intelectual de uma Democracia. Na realidade, o que todos os Homens querem, a partir de certo momento, é político e, portanto, é o possível, o qual depende do momento e do lugar, como parece óbvio no terramoto de Christchurch. Ora, a rápida universalização de comunicações curtas e as emoções correspondentes, não chegam para este possível. Diz-se que uma Comunicação universal maximiza o possível. Mas não. A Reflexão não se faz apenas de maximizações, como em Kant, porque também o Indivíduo é um teor de comunidades antigas, arcaicas e modernas, conscientes e inconscientes. Se tudo o que a Democracia planetária nos garante, à partida,é uma maximização, então a Psiquiatria substituirá o Julgamento. Em suma: o sistema de Vestefália passou mas, curiosamente, só quanto ao seu resultado ( a cada Príncepe, a sua Religião). É possível que fique a Religião, depois da queda dos Príncepes.
Friday, February 25, 2011
LXXVII - (Re)leituras : On Tiranny, de Leo Strauss, por André Bandeira
Leo Strauss foi o filósofo dos neo-conservadores norte-americanos, durante a Presidência de George Bush Jr. Além de ser um mente «cunning» ao extremo, Strauss mete medo pelo seu maquiavelismo desesperado. Graças a Deus que Donald Rumsfeld não era neo-conservador porque o arrôjo, direi quase libidinoso, do pensamento de Strauss podia-se ter apossado completamente da herança Bush. Este comentário sobre o texto de Xenofonte, Hieron ou Tyrannicus, não é, como se podia pensar, uma defesa do direito a assassinar um tirano, embora tenha passado por tal. Também no mundo dos livros, a violência publicitária já entrou há muito. O gosto por estudar a Tirania, faz-nos a volúpia de privar com Imperadores e nos sentirmos, fausticamente, que vivemos um sonho, no âmago da História, um pouco como se de uma representação teatral se tratasse. Depois, este «privar com tiranos», para, diz-se, aprender e impedir a Tirania, acaba como uma discussão com o Diabo: na cama. Penso que a competitividade extrema de Leo Strauss é tanta quanto uma busca acrobática de soluções representa o fim de uma fonte de energia, seja ela o petróleo, a sociedade industrial, ou a Democracia-espectáculo. Acho que houve realmente algo de vingativo em certos pensadores dos Impérios centrais que tomaram o caminho dos EUA. Daí a sintonia de Strauss com o hegeliano Alexandre Kojève, bem escutado na URSS, e os perturbantes arrulhos de ambos, em torno do Poder absoluto. No texto Hieron há algo bem actual e que fascina: o Tirano, no fundo deseja ser amado e não sabe porque é que não consegue. Não, não é por ser tirano, como uma audiência televisiva seria levada a pensar. Essa é a resposta mais fácil. O Tirano não é amado, apesar de ser eficaz, porque, no fundo, os outros têm a inveja de ser eficazes como ele. Será que o pensamento profundamente pessimista de Strauss, nos diz que a um Tirano, se segue sempre outro? Não. Ao Tirano, a maldição de não ser amado, neste mundo de exílio, deve ser curada com a conformação de que, para se ser eficaz, tem de se esquecer o Amor, concluindo que o Amor não existe e, portanto, nada há a lamentar. O resto, há em abundância, para os que sabem dirigir firmes. Portanto, a um tirano que cai, segue-se um tempo «desingénuo» em que a Tirania deixa de existir porque só se queixa da Tirania, quem é perdedor. Se se não for perdedor, então é-se eficaz e tudo vem por acréscimo, até a Graça pesada de se achar graça a um Tirano. Há notícias boas e más para o acrobático Leo Strauss, num período em que uma fonte de enrgia está preste a esgotar-se: as boas é que o Tirano vai cair, as más é que ainda não há outro.
LXXVII - (Re)leituras : On Tiranny, de Leo Strauss, por André Bandeira
Leo Strauss foi o filósofo dos neo-conservadores norte-americanos, durante a Presidência de George Bush Jr. Além de ser um mente «cunning» ao extremo, Strauss mete medo pelo seu maquiavelismo desesperado. Graças a Deus que Donald Rumsfeld não era neo-conservador porque o arrôjo, direi quase libidinoso, do pensamento de Strauss podia-se ter apossado completamente da herança Bush. Este comentário sobre o texto de Xenofonte, Hieron ou Tyrannicus, não é, como se podia pensar, uma defesa do direito a assassinar um tirano, embora tenha passado por tal. Também no mundo dos livros, a violência publicitária já entrou há muito. O gosto por estudar a Tirania, faz-nos a volúpia de privar com Imperadores e nos sentirmos, fausticamente, que vivemos um sonho, no âmago da História, um pouco como se de uma representação teatral se tratasse. Depois, este «privar com tiranos», para, diz-se, aprender e impedir a Tirania, acaba como uma discussão com o Diabo: na cama. Penso que a competitividade extrema de Leo Strauss é tanta quanto uma busca acrobática de soluções representa o fim de uma fonte de energia, seja ela o petróleo, a sociedade industrial, ou a Democracia-espectáculo. Acho que houve realmente algo de vingativo em certos pensadores dos Impérios centrais que tomaram o caminho dos EUA. Daí a sintonia de Strauss com o hegeliano Alexandre Kojève, bem escutado na URSS, e os perturbantes arrulhos de ambos, em torno do Poder absoluto. No texto Hieron há algo bem actual e que fascina: o Tirano, no fundo deseja ser amado e não sabe porque é que não consegue. Não, não é por ser tirano, como uma audiência televisiva seria levada a pensar. Essa é a resposta mais fácil. O Tirano não é amado, apesar de ser eficaz, porque, no fundo, os outros têm a inveja de ser eficazes como ele. Será que o pensamento profundamente pessimista de Strauss, nos diz que a um Tirano, se segue sempre outro? Não. Ao Tirano, a maldição de não ser amado, neste mundo de exílio, deve ser curada com a conformação de que, para se ser eficaz, tem de se esquecer o Amor, concluindo que o Amor não existe e, portanto, nada há a lamentar. O resto, há em abundância, para os que sabem dirigir firmes. Portanto, a um tirano que cai, segue-se um tempo «desingénuo» em que a Tirania deixa de existir porque só se queixa da Tirania, quem é perdedor. Se se não for perdedor, então é-se eficaz e tudo vem por acréscimo, até a Graça pesada de se achar graça a um Tirano. Há notícias boas e más para o acrobático Leo Strauss, num período em que uma fonte de enrgia está preste a esgotar-se: as boas é que o Tirano vai cair, as más é que ainda não há outro.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
LXXVI- (Re)leituras -- Personnalisme Musulman, de Mohammed Aziz Lahbari, por André Bandeira
Este autor da Universidade de Rabat cola-se um pouco ao personalismo cristão de Emmanuel Mounier, o qual não foi brilhante durante a ocupação nazi da França. Para ele, o Islão funde sagrado e profano, desde a sua essência, e tudo o que é existência humana não pode deixar de ter uma apreciação religiosa, segundo o Islão. Portanto - chegamos a uma conclusão - não existe possibilidade de um Islão laico. Mas, com Tariq Ramadan, acreditamos que há a possibilidade de um convívio e que nem sempre o que parece, é, algo que qualquer sociedade não escolhe, antes tem de encarar. Isto levar-nos-á, num Mediterrâneo mais integrado com a Europa (ou uma Europa mais mediterrânica), à existência inevitável de Partidos políticos de minorias étnico-religiosas, como aquele, da maioria, que governa a Turquia. Mas o personalismo islâmico,salvando o Islão em categorias filosóficas da tradição ocidental, não é muito flexível para o individualismo, socializa o «eu» (excepto a tradição sufi mas também o sincretismo dos marabus)e não deixa lugar para um Estado mínimo, ou uma socialização mínima, onde realidades inconvertíveis a um modelo, possam coexistir. Em suma, o Islão tende a espalhar-se e, quando não se espalha, cai num certo optimismo fatalista, com fome e revolta. Neste último caso, Culturas que se aliaram ao Islão histórico, voltarão ao de cima, umas vezes tribais, outras autoritárias, muitas vezes ansiosas, se não fanáticas, sempre jogando nas electrização de multidões. O Islão guardou, no seu génio, a força civilizadora de Culturas pré-islâmicas que nunca foram superadas e que farão, por exemplo, do Cristianismo, algo muito diferente de Roma ou Washington. A primeira categoria intelectual do Islão, o shahada, «cria» Deus, mas também o Homem, num desdobramento em que o Homem se analisa continuamente e, assim, tudo o que é humano -- como na máxima socrática que criou a «Humanitas» clássica -- nos deixa de ser estranho. Ora, se cada Homem é unico, só Deus o sabe e nós pouco. Isto torna-nos vigilantes uns em relação aos outros, por vezes fatalistas, e Deus, claro, não tem face humana. Enquanto os Príncepes instaurados pela Guerra Fria vão caindo, volta a questão das Monarquias na Arábia. Se o Califa -- ideal político do Islão -- é, no melhor dos casos, o soberano benevolente de uma verdadeira teocracia, em que os sábios decidem e obrigam por maioria, os Muluk (plurar de malik, Rei) buscam uma legitimidade muitas vezes anterior à do profeta Maomé, como é o caso dos Hashemitas da Jordânia e, em tempo, do Iraque. Um caso curioso destes monarcas é que eles quase sempre reinam sobre populações, esmagadoramente diversas da tribo que os gerou. Mas isso mesmo pode ajudá-los a desempenharem a missão de guarda a algo que permanece na sociedade política. Poderão, como já o demonstraram, vir a ser o Poder moderador, à falta de uma verdadeira Cultura de moderação. Isto, enquanto o barril de petróleo atinge os 120 USD e estamos sob uma forte tempestade solar.
LXXVI- (Re)leituras -- Personnalisme Musulman, de Mohammed Aziz Lahbari, por André Bandeira
Este autor da Universidade de Rabat cola-se um pouco ao personalismo cristão de Emmanuel Mounier, o qual não foi brilhante durante a ocupação nazi da França. Para ele, o Islão funde sagrado e profano, desde a sua essência, e tudo o que é existência humana não pode deixar de ter uma apreciação religiosa, segundo o Islão. Portanto - chegamos a uma conclusão - não existe possibilidade de um Islão laico. Mas, com Tariq Ramadan, acreditamos que há a possibilidade de um convívio e que nem sempre o que parece, é, algo que qualquer sociedade não escolhe, antes tem de encarar. Isto levar-nos-á, num Mediterrâneo mais integrado com a Europa (ou uma Europa mais mediterrânica), à existência inevitável de Partidos políticos de minorias étnico-religiosas, como aquele, da maioria, que governa a Turquia. Mas o personalismo islâmico,salvando o Islão em categorias filosóficas da tradição ocidental, não é muito flexível para o individualismo, socializa o «eu» (excepto a tradição sufi mas também o sincretismo dos marabus)e não deixa lugar para um Estado mínimo, ou uma socialização mínima, onde realidades inconvertíveis a um modelo, possam coexistir. Em suma, o Islão tende a espalhar-se e, quando não se espalha, cai num certo optimismo fatalista, com fome e revolta. Neste último caso, Culturas que se aliaram ao Islão histórico, voltarão ao de cima, umas vezes tribais, outras autoritárias, muitas vezes ansiosas, se não fanáticas, sempre jogando nas electrização de multidões. O Islão guardou, no seu génio, a força civilizadora de Culturas pré-islâmicas que nunca foram superadas e que farão, por exemplo, do Cristianismo, algo muito diferente de Roma ou Washington. A primeira categoria intelectual do Islão, o shahada, «cria» Deus, mas também o Homem, num desdobramento em que o Homem se analisa continuamente e, assim, tudo o que é humano -- como na máxima socrática que criou a «Humanitas» clássica -- nos deixa de ser estranho. Ora, se cada Homem é unico, só Deus o sabe e nós pouco. Isto torna-nos vigilantes uns em relação aos outros, por vezes fatalistas, e Deus, claro, não tem face humana. Enquanto os Príncepes instaurados pela Guerra Fria vão caindo, volta a questão das Monarquias na Arábia. Se o Califa -- ideal político do Islão -- é, no melhor dos casos, o soberano benevolente de uma verdadeira teocracia, em que os sábios decidem e obrigam por maioria, os Muluk (plurar de malik, Rei) buscam uma legitimidade muitas vezes anterior à do profeta Maomé, como é o caso dos Hashemitas da Jordânia e, em tempo, do Iraque. Um caso curioso destes monarcas é que eles quase sempre reinam sobre populações, esmagadoramente diversas da tribo que os gerou. Mas isso mesmo pode ajudá-los a desempenharem a missão de guarda a algo que permanece na sociedade política. Poderão, como já o demonstraram, vir a ser o Poder moderador, à falta de uma verdadeira Cultura de moderação. Isto, enquanto o barril de petróleo atinge os 120 USD e estamos sob uma forte tempestade solar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
