Liberty is a powerful arm or a modern one?

by A. Autino


When I was very young, some tens of years ago, I thought growing old was not a weight, because I was going to live my 50s in the new millennium. The ones that, like me, were young in the years of economic boom infact, had very great expectation on 2000 based - we thougt in that time - on the technological and social progress.

I never expected that the main event of the just begun new millennium was the crash of Twins Towers, by means of terrorists.

I didn't envisage levitating cars or antigravity motor. But I expected a lunar colony or a more developed human settlement in solar system; hunger and underdevelopment, if not completely defeated, on the way of overcome at less. This I expected and I hoped. On the contrary, a maniple of madly indoctrinated fanatics, accomplished to do that criminal act, an absurd and unimaginable act, on 11 september 2001.

Whoever dreamt the best future, like an exemple of social equity, is obliged to see that something doesn't work, indeed, that something works definitely in a wrong way, versus our dreams and expectation. And we cannot ignore this, going along our way.

The outcomes doesn't count for little: while we analize all possibilities that suborbital flight developes, as a forerunner of space flight within everyone's reach, we have a never seen shrinkage of airplain flights, and a lot of companies are standing thanks to government support. And we can't still know which the results, short and long-term of all this are going to be, on a world-economy so much already tried by the lack of imagination of the economic and politic leaders. While we discuss about free market, about privatization of space, about reduction of cumbersome presence of the governments, we're obliged to take security measures, which certainly trespass those rights and freedom that - by our western point of view at less - are basic. The most libertarian ones, one time more, must also acknowledge a big contradiction: individual freedom could be based only on the state which, on the other hand, is anachronistic. But it remains the only armed and coordinate structure, (technically) able to prevent society by jumping back to middle age, to tribalism, and to opposite the different mafias infesting the world.

But not only libertarians have to reflect. Infacts we're obliged to see that, without defence structures, whithout high technology weapon systems, our dreams about freedom and progress are going to become like fried air, non-sense delirium under shuts of the still ruling tribal culture.

A very important lesson for pacifists arrives from these last mounths of human history, our own history (and woe betide to considere such history as something having nothing to do with us, as - I admit it - I would be attempted to do sometime). Pacifists are an ensemble that - one time - I often looked with a certain liking. If a civil airplane can be used by few fanatic persons as a terrible killing weapon, the world disarmament will bring civil society to be an hostage of every criminal able to change any normal object in a weapon.

Consequently, the humanist thought has to turn it-self to another way: no discussing about "weapons yes" or " weapons no", but "which weapons, and to do what?"

Between Afghanistan war by one hand, and Kossovo and Irak by the other, some centuries of history are passed: the main objective, which had been very publicized, is now to punish the guilties without, if possible, hiting innocents, (I must admit that Bush's amministration surprised me in a good way, as to this topic). Is the politic world leadership adressing to the concept of world police? The results of this new political setting out are under everybody's sight: though the leaders of Taleban are still absconder, they've been completely excluded of their total power position in only three mounths. Evidently Afghanistanian people (the first victim of Taleban regime) understood that military action wasn't against themselves.

After the slaughter of civilian population perpetrated in Kosovo, Milosevic has been continuing in office for long time, he became stronger than before too. Saddam Hussein stands very firm to the power, after ten years and more of wars and exhausting punishments for Iraki population. Now, each police should protect innocents who are, in spite of them, between wicked and bullets. We're maybe going to wait for this, but don't give our-selves up to dispair. Human kind, notwithstanding all this, continues to move steps ahead, even if dubious and painfully slow.

Bush, after an absurd and terrible event like the 11 september one, could only have a great consent about his military position, also by many people who, traditionally (I'm one of these), criticize "military solutions" for social conflicts. Nobody cries for the end of Taleban regime, one of  most retrograde and anti-historical dictatorships never seen in these last ten years. But now Bush is at a crossroads: trying to use the consent obtained for declaring war upon other "bad-states" in a political way, even if their bound with 11 september is less clear then Bin Laden's one, or administering carefully the same consent, going on for a more open-mind leadership, which respects innocents and allied's rights. As fair as I'm concerned, I think the second way is the best one. In the case of Afghanistan war, in public opinion, which take care about human rights, the desire to punish guilties of New York massacre and seeing afghanian women smiling had won. I think that if we were, in an imperialistic way, tempted to consider every unlucky terrestrial who tryes, even by wrong means, to win his own rights as a terrorist (as does, e.g., the Israeli Sharon), the same public opinion had very much to contest, consequently it wouldn't give the same consent.

A possible lobbist armourer who is reading this article should observe that I'm not suggesting him to disappear or change his job. I'm really asking you (as I did other times with oil magnates), not to kill your intelligence and imagination. Even if bombs are "clever" and "surgical", they allways kill innocents, and mines let unavaillable the land for decades after war: stop now! Our western progressive society cannot sustain this barbarism, because - yes - it offends our conscience. As fair as the other people are concerned, other persons who aren't part of our "good and hypocritical hearts" small club, we can see them in TV: adults and children maimed founding some mines, maybe mines dating back to a forgotten war.

It's true that bombs have a very good business: infacts they're completely spendable, like a bottle of wine, like a spendible rocket (against a reusable one), like oil (against reusable energies, first of all solar space power). Then, why we must complicate our life? Easy: because the most progressive society, by the cultural point of view, (probably this is an illusion too, but illusions are maybe the only motor of progress) doesn't want to see maimed people, or hunger, and this should be enough for you, if you want to continue doing business with us!  Then, roll up your sleeves, spend a bit of your big incomes in life research, rather than for death. The subjects are: inventing weapon systems able to make unusable thaditional weapons, to block persons without hurting them, to make wickeds not able to hurt, without demaging innocents. All these objectives are definitely attainable, through electronics, chemistry and... respect for human life! 


 [001.AA.TDF.1/2002 - 09.03.2002]

[English version was revised by Ben Croxford]