Marc Salomone / marcsalomone@sfr.fr /
Blog : madic50.blogspot.com / Livre : Les deux formes, éd. Amazon (étude matérialiste de la spécificité des relations entre les deux sexes et la lutte des classes)
Sunday September 10, 2023
PACEM IN EUROPA
REFLECTION ON THE PRIMACY OF THE WAR PARTY OR THAT OF THE PEACE PARTY IN A GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCE.
Part 1: Preamble
1)- February 24, 2023
Peace is the spirit of Europe.
It was defined by the good spirits of past centuries and fixed by the victory of democracy over Nazism on May 8, 1945.
On February 24, 2023, the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin announced “I have made the decision for a special military operation.” The Russian army invades Ukraine through Belarus, Russia and the Republic of Crimea which has been associated with it since 2014.
Although this “preventive war” draws on Israeli jurisprudence from 1967, NATO in Yugoslavia in 1999, American in Iraq in 2003, NATO in 2011 in Libya, it is nonetheless, like its predecessors, the sole responsibility of that who declares it.
The primacy of peace is opposable to it in the first place.
So the war is once again in Europe. Little by little she seizes it, destabilizes it, enslaves it.
It was first on Ukrainian soil, since it has been on Russian soil, some want to see it on Polish or Romanian soil.
Soon, it will set the whole of Europe ablaze.
As with the previous European wars which were also world wars, it is illusory to believe that everyone will be able to continue after the war as before.
Whether the post-war period is postponed indefinitely (like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), whether it is the victory of Russia over Ukraine or the West over Russia, or whether the logic of peace prevails; nothing will ever be the same again.
2)- War itself defines its relationship to Peace.
1- War:
A- The first effect of war is to be obvious and, as always, to disqualify peace.
It goes without saying. It is the proving proof of the incapacity, the uselessness, even the harmfulness, of the latter.
War organizes a moral fascination. It reorganizes the social field of perception of the world. She flatters us.
It establishes the obligation to subordinate oneself to its objectives, means, injunctions, to end the war and incidentally achieve peace.
His arguments are delivered as innate, deep and irrefutable truths.
War causes a division of labor:
a- to the assets, war and the subjection of everything and everyone to its demand for victory/
b- to the liabilities, peace and its logorrhea on the end of the war, the world after the war.
War is reality. Like the pudding that proves itself by eating it, war is seen by imposing its demands on combat and armaments.
As such, it is courage, lucidity, maturity.
B- The second effect is to impose its solution, victory.
War imposes its definition of peace which becomes the achievement of victory.
War demands that this definition of peace, its own, become the public definition of peace. Which subjects it to war.
The war party has its own presentation of peace.
He opposes a “ceasefire” which would just be a moment of respite given to the belligerents to rearm.
He wants peace in the cemeteries.
For this, he needs a winner and a loser.
The loser is not the one designated as such on the ground.
It is the opposite camp, in other words Russia for the Western camp and Ukraine for the Russian camp.
The war must therefore last until the total collapse of the adversary.
Peace by K.O.
Meanwhile, the deaths, the destruction, the ruin of economies and populations, are getting worse.
No one can doubt that the main political and strategic consequence of this war is for Europe, its disqualification, its ruin and its subjugation to the United States; like after 1914 and 1940.
This time it will become a second South America.
2- Peace
Through war, Peace ceases to be obvious, normative. It becomes a debatable, illusory, indefinite, uncertain objective.
It becomes a moral argument for the weak.
His arguments are first dismissed without saying a word, then mocked, then disqualified and finally the people who put them forward are repressed in the name of urgency and common sense.
It is then the world after the war, without war.
It is held to be the imaginary of a substitute reality. A reality that doesn't even exist.
It presents itself as an alternative to war when all it knows is to abandon the fight, to desert the present for an unreal future.
It is at best a belief, an act of faith.
It presents itself as optimism when it is the substitution of an imaginary optimism for the real optimism which is the military victory from which peace arises.
She soon enters the realm of "Alternative Truths" otherwise known in the United States as "Bullshit Thought", crap ideas.
Which makes it a belt of the propaganda of counterfeiters, the universe of Fake news.
2)- History
War appears to be an obvious fact imposed by military action. It was actually built.
1- Before February 24, war was promoted as the norm and peace disqualified.
War appears to be the product of a chain of events.
I let everyone refer to their favorite historians or do research themselves.
Here I want to touch on what is the condition of the evidence of war as a link of unity and solution to these sequences of facts.
There was an ideological, moral and philosophical training, insidious and then oppressive in war.
Each European country will have had its own clever path to rehabilitating war as a moral and political norm.
In France, this training in the normality of war was formed from the imaginary obsessive repetition of the frontal and therefore military opposition to Hitler before the war.
In other words, the constant reiteration of the heroic staging of the refusal of the Munich agreements of 1938, the hunt for the Munich spirit.
Fifty years after the events, people born after the war, having not fought any, organized and installed a hysteria of the refusal of peace as a cause of war and continues to perpetuate it like a mantra.
As if self-evident, without anyone paying attention to it, the good old feudal reflex of warlike obviousness, having become obsolete due to previous military butcheries and its monopolization by castes frozen in the past, has been given a new lease of life. by the leftist sector claiming to be victims of Nazism and the uncompromising fight against its endlessly repetitive fiction.
All those who found fault with the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya were “Munichians”. As well as all those who supported the Minsk agreements.
It would even seem, given the reports, that, for mainstream historians and journalists, President Truman's refusal to use the nuclear bomb in the Korean War in 1950 has become an insidious mark of Munich spirit.
The President of the French Republic, Emmanuel Macron, would thus have succumbed to the sirens of the spirit of Munich by rejecting "followism" in the Taiwan affair.
This vigilance scam makes it possible to postpone peace on the distant horizon of the victory of all the wars essential to defeating what the authors of this trick themselves call Evil. That is to say Satan, Beelzebub, the Evil One, etc., in person.
It leaves time for the laudators of the war and it allows them to devote themselves to scorn, to public vindictiveness, to censorship, holding them to peace as a public norm.
2- After February 24, peace must be subordinated to the conditions of war.
When war is preoccupied with peace, it conditions the latter to its military requirements. It translates the military defeat of the enemy into the language of peace.
So :
a- the Russians are not invited to the Fall 2023 Peace Summit organized by the Western side of the conflict.
b- Ukrainian Foreign Minister: “We have to move forward, because war is a reality, and in this reality, we have to win. There are no other solutions” 19,08,23
c- the French press in the rear mobilizes, as in 1914, to wage war to the end:
cf. Le Monde: “Yes, this war is likely to be long. The only way to shorten it is to intensify military assistance to Ukraine, to deliver more long-range missiles (on which Berlin continues to hesitate), to fight more effectively against the circumvention of sanctions, to stand firm against Moscow, and explain it to public opinion. » 19,08,23
d- From Moscow, the destruction of Ukraine is promised.
Everything is said about the warlike discourse on peace.
3)- Peace
Now, precisely what the Russo-Ukrainian war reveals is that peace does not follow war, nor certainly does it precede it.
It is still relevant today.
It is a full-fledged political way of resolving conflicts of a military nature, that is to say confrontations without limits.
This is so, because precisely, the war and the peace that would result from it, as the media and everyone talk about it today, are archaisms.
It is in no way calling into question the professional raison d'être of warriors and diplomats to say that they no longer have the same role and the same place as yesterday and that war and peace are no longer the same war and same peace.
Peace is the first condition of prosperity for all. It is legal.
Peace in Europe is not the business of a few, of a particular country or organization, of a foreign power.
It is everyone's business, therefore Ukraine, the European Union and each of its member states, but also the people themselves.
Part 2: Kennedy
4)-Kennedy
To reflect on the primacy of peace over war, I take a detour through President J.F. Kennedy's reflection on "World Peace" in his June 11, 1963 speech at American University (see below). ).
In this theoretical and governmental intervention, President Kennedy affirms that the peace of which he speaks is not adapted to this or that military circumstance. It is the norm of political action.
For there to be no ambiguity, he ends his text thus "Confident and without fear, we go forward, not towards a strategy of annihilation, but indeed towards a strategy of peace. »
He speaks of "world peace" because precisely that is the answer to the question of the primacy of war or peace in a particular situation where the nuclear powers are in near direct confrontation under the shelter of an ultimate screen.
World peace is indeed the answer to the question of going to world war on the occasion of a particular conflict.
While he scored points for mastering the technical tools of world warfare, he failed to impose the primacy of peace over war.
After him, thanks to the Vietnam War and the following sequences, the governments bracing themselves on the detour of staggered conflicts will resume the refrain of peace following victory or negotiator of defeat.
However, it seems to us that his university intervention occurs at a time similar, and in no way identical, to ours.
Its past failure therefore does not hamper the topicality of its subject because the same situation of apparently local conflict reappears, on an apparently derisory territory, which turns out to have no other reality than a direct confrontation between two equivalent nuclear powers.
Peace in Ukraine is indeed the business of world peace.
This text is a reference that ours simply uses to reflect on the present.
5)- The context of 1963:
A- facts
In October 1962, Soviet missiles installed in Cuba to defend the island against the repeat of the American invasion via Cuban exiles, April 17, 1961.
This missile display in Cuba answers:
a- the installation, in November 1961, by the United States of 15 Jupiter missiles in Turkey and 30 others in Italy, which are capable of reaching Soviet territory.
b- the embargo of the United States against Cuba decreed on February 1962.
B- The issues
For both countries, the issue is crucial:
1- The United States defends its political space.
2- In his autobiography, Nikita Khrushchev gives his perception of the American attitude: "I constantly had this problem in mind... If Cuba fell, the other Latin American countries would reject us, claiming that, despite all its power, the Soviet Union had not been able to do anything for Cuba except make empty protests before the United Nations.”
3- Solution
The Cuban Missile Crisis ends with:
a- the withdrawal of Soviet missiles from Cuba as well as that of certain American missiles in Turkey and Italy.
b- the guarantee given by the United States that they will no longer attack Cuba.
c- a red telephone between Washington and Moscow.
Which follows from the principle of constant official communication between all parties.
d- The establishment of the so-called “detente” political phase.
6)- The intervention
Because he is a Head of State, President Kennedy considers it useful to share his thoughts on the essential issue of these clashes for humanity.
It thus establishes a space for a theoretical presentation producing knowledge.
a- To construct the place of his words, he takes a detour through the words of the English poet John Edward Masefield and his praise of the university as a place of knowledge and communication thereof: “a place where those who hate ignorance can strive to know, or those who perceive the truth can strive to make others see it. »
It is therefore possible in this place to impose time for reflection and to produce knowledge that is binding on everyone.
b- he then gives the reason for his presence in these places:
“I have therefore chosen this time and place to speak about a subject with which ignorance is too often associated and for which the truth is too rarely seen. And yet it is the most important subject on earth: world peace. »
c- President Kennedy's intervention is in two parts: a theoretical reflection on "world peace" and the presentation of the measures taken subsequently by the statesman in the circumstances of the time.
7) - Two sides in the same unit
This university place of his speech allows him to recall that it is that of the State.
"What kind of peace am I talking about? (me) What kind of peace are we looking for? (the government, the state)")
President Kennedy constructs two definitions of peace.
1- That which he rejects: the peace which results from war, from its victories, from its consequences.
a- “Not a Pax Americana imposed on the world by American weapons of war.”
b- “Not the peace of the grave or that of the security offered by slavery. ".
2- That which he defends: the peace which flows from itself as a praise of life.
“I want to talk about authentic peace, the type of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the type of peace that allows men and nations to develop, to hope and to build a better life for their children.
Not only peace for Americans, but peace for all men, not only peace for our time, but peace for centuries to come. »
These two definitions overlap two camps which have different peace and war strategies.
It goes without saying that these two camps cross the leadership of the two countries concerned by this speech.
The “Pax Americana” was not imposed by the Soviet Union. And yet, it is not the “authentic” peace that President Kennedy opposes.
President Kennedy clearly defines two opposing camps. They can talk to each other but their originality is contradictory.
"Genuine peace" is not opposed to "pax americana" because neither would place peace in the same place of historical development, before or after the war.
The two are opposed because they both impose a contradictory primacy.
The Pax Americana imposes the primacy of war.
Authentic peace imposes the primacy of peace.
As Head of State, President Kennedy textually presents the opposition of the camp of the primacy of Peace to the camp of the primacy of war as an opposition between his country, camp of peace, and the country of in face, war camp.
This is so because President Kennedy as head of state, automatically imposes on his country the place of leader of peace.
It nevertheless says that the two countries are crossed by the same fractures and that the responsibilities are equal on both sides; “Our attitude is as fundamental as theirs. »
Therefore, if he bases his speech on the opposition of the United States and the USSR, it is because as Head of State he hopes to impose the primacy of the logic of peace over the primacy of the logic of war in the American government and get it to speak with one voice to impose the logic of peace on the state opposite.
1- This is not the great pacifist speech of a statesman.
“I am not alluding to the universal and unfailing concept of peace and goodwill, of which some chimerical and fanatical minds dream. I don't deny the importance of hopes and dreams, but by making that our only immediate goal, we open the door to discouragement and disbelief. »
2- It is the establishment of the priority of peace over war in the field of action where war ordinarily subordinates peace.
If the President of the United States attacks the opposite camp (here, the Soviet Union), he begins and ends his speech with a reflection on the necessary personal and political introspection of Americans and the United States.
“But I also believe we need to review our own attitude, as individuals and as a nation.
Because our attitude is as fundamental as theirs...
First, let's start by examining our attitude toward peace itself.
Too many of us think it is impossible, that it is unreal.
But this is a dangerous and defeatist view.
It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable, that humanity is doomed, that we are dominated by forces we cannot control.
Nothing obliges us to accept this point of view.
Man created the problems we face, so he is capable of solving them. And man can demonstrate greatness when he decides to do so. No problem related to the destiny of humanity is beyond the reach of human beings. Human discernment and spirit have often resolved what seemed insoluble. And we believe this is possible again. »
a- the logic of peace competes with that of war: “I am aware that the quest for peace is not as spectacular as the pursuit of war and that often, the defenders of peace are not not heard. But none of our tasks is more urgent. »
b- but it imposes itself on all those responsible: “I therefore evoke peace as a necessary and rational outcome that rational men must envisage. »
Therefore, I study his text as addressing everyone to impose the primacy of peace. This is not based on good will or the ideal but on “pragmatism” and the responsibility of men to ensure the continuity and progress of their species.
8)- Humility
According to him, the primacy of peace cannot be subordinated to the will of the other party, nor to the assessment that the speaking side has of the abilities of the other party to want Peace.
These capacities of the other also relate to the capacity and will of the supporters of the primacy of Peace to create a sharing of the demands of Peace.
Consequently, each of us, supporters of the primacy of peace, each citizen, “must begin by questioning ourselves, by analyzing our own attitude towards the possibilities of peace, towards (the party opposing), vis-à-vis the course of the (ongoing dissension) and vis-à-vis freedom and peace here in our country. »
The party of the evidence of war presents peace as unreal. He is unknowingly seconded by those who radically oppose war to peace and present the latter as an absolute.
The primacy of peace derives from what it is the positive human solution to human problems.
Nothing forces men to destroy themselves instead of building.
It is a process, a result, a perseverance.
“I am not alluding to the universal and unfailing concept of peace and goodwill, of which some chimerical and fanatical minds dream. I don't deny the importance of hopes and dreams, but by making that our only immediate goal, we open the door to discouragement and disbelief.
Let us instead concentrate on a more pragmatic peace, easier to implement, based not on a sudden mutation of human nature, but on a gradual evolution of human institutions, on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are of interest to all.
To obtain this peace, there is no magic formula, nor single solution to be adopted by one or two great powers.
True peace must be the result of the efforts of many nations, the result of many actions.
It should not be static, but dynamic and changing to meet the challenge of each new generation.
Because peace is above all a process, a way of solving problems.
With such a peace, there will still be contentions and conflicting interests, such as exist within families and nations.
Peace in the world, like peace in the community, does not oblige each man to love his neighbour. It requires everyone to live together with tolerance, submitting their differences to a fair and peaceful mode of arbitration.
And history teaches us that animosity between nations, as between individuals, is not immutable. However deeply rooted our sympathy or antipathy may seem, the march of time and events often allows relations between neighboring nations and countries to evolve in astonishing ways. »
9)- The technique of peace
1- Clarity and perseverance
“So let’s persevere.
Peace is not impossible and war is not inevitable.
By defining our goal more precisely, by making it more reasonable and more accessible, we can enable all people to perceive it, to draw from it a source of hope and to move irresistibly towards it. »
2- believe in others
Supporters of the primacy of Peace must not “fall into the same trap as” the opposing party who is said to be a supporter of the primacy of war.
It “only wants to create a distorted and desperately pessimistic image of the other camp...considering conflicts as inevitable, compromises as unrealizable and communications as nothing more than an exchange of threats. »
It is clear that these remarks are addressed symbolically to the opposing country but really to the two supporters of the primacy of war on both camps.
3- Realism
“We must take the world as it is and not as it could have been if the history of the last eighteen years had been different. »
Instead of increasing dissension, “we must conduct our affairs in such a way that it is in (the opposing party’s) interest to agree on real peace. »
“We are trapped in a vicious and dangerous circle in which the suspicions of one reinforce the suspicions of the other, and where the development of new weapons leads to the development of response weapons.
Don't let our differences blind us. Let us focus our attention on our common interests and on the means by which we will resolve these differences.
And if we can't end our disagreement immediately, we can at least help preserve the diversity of the world we live in.
Because, in the end, our fundamental common point is that we all live on this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish the future of our children. And we are all mortal. »
10)- Two parties
For the war party, at the end of tomorrow there will be negotiations.
For the party of peace, at the beginning of today there is peace.
1- The war party
The war party considers it possible to resolve all contradictions through war and considers it impossible for them to be resolved through various civil political and institutional movements.
War draws its economy on this foundation.
This war economy subjects the peoples of Europe to misery. It places the European economy and populations under the dictate of the market.
Today, poverty is again becoming a mass reality in France.
The war is not the only cause. She is the guarantee.
The war party ends the cycle begun by the first two European so-called world wars. He offers Europe to the unchallenged domination of the United States. They do the only thing they know how to do; transform it into a second South America.
2- The peace party
The peace party does not think otherwise. He thinks differently.
It is peace that puts States up against the wall to organize their development and that of their population and not to postpone political deadlines until later by the grace of a war and a dictatorship.
It is peace that makes cooperation, intersections and pluralisms evident and possible.
Peace is not a place of forgetting, of anesthesia, of paralysis.
On the contrary, it is the place of manifestations and exacerbations of contradictions.
If it seems associated with an impossibility of resolving these conflicts, it is because it is very often confused with what President Kennedy calls "the Pax Americana" (or other) or "the peace of the grave" "that of the security offered by slavery".
However, what decision-makers must put forward is “authentic peace”, “Not only peace for (us), but peace for all men, not only peace for our time, but peace for the centuries to come. »
3- The path
The response to war lies in the affirmation of both the originality of peace in relation to war and the primacy of peace.
This peace requires an effort for Europeans, an effort equal to that imposed on them by the war party.
“I therefore evoke peace as a necessary and rational outcome that rational men must envisage. »
Part 3: elements of the conflict
10)- NATO
A- Membership
1- The only direct motive for this war is the desire of the Ukrainian government to join NATO.
As the only direct motive for the Georgian war was the educational provocation of the Georgian President who wanted to prove Putin's aggressiveness by provoking him militarily.
Like these leftists who prove police violence by throwing stones at the police.
This membership in NATO, presented as supreme protection against war, is precisely the vector of war and its ravages.
As long as it is under discussion, there will be no peace other than the annihilation of one camp by the other and of a free and sovereign Europe in both cases.
2- Before the war, already, this requirement for membership in NATO consubstantially accompanied a policy of cultural intolerance, political segregation, ethnic and linguistic cleansing.
The desire to eradicate the Russian language, to erase the socialist history of these Eastern European countries and the Soviet history of the countries of the Soviet Union, to demean the Russian-speaking and ethnically Russian or non-Russian populations original, is intrinsically linked to membership or the prospect of membership in NATO.
Linguistic, cultural and historical purification is part of the NATO integration program.
3- This quest sets up a self-fulfilling prediction.
Joining NATO is seen as a vital provocation by Russia and therefore leads to its entry into preventive war.
This war proves the need for Ukraine to enter NATO to protect itself, which justifies the war for Russia.
The same was true in Georgia.
Etc.
4- It is false to say that the Treaties and agreements which guaranteed peace in this region were of no use since the demand for membership in NATO amounts to destroying these treaties and agreements.
The Treaties include non-adherence.
In terms of protection, this integration by NATO of Eastern European countries leads to a militarization of relations between these countries and Russia.
A similar movement will inevitably follow between these countries themselves and between them and the countries of Western Europe.
The example of Turkey's occupation of Cyprus clearly indicates that NATO in no way guarantees the security of its weakest members against NATO predators.
B- Ukraine
In Ukraine, since 2014, we have seen another major trend emerge, which is pure and simple ethnic cleansing.
Like the Turks in 1920 with the Greeks of Constantinople, or the Jews of Israel with the Arabs of Palestine, the Ukrainian leaders are now explicitly planning the departure of the Russians from Ukraine.
They do it against the advice of their people who live in harmony throughout the territory.
War makes it possible to hysterize mentalities and make them conform to the wishes of the war party.
C- Originality
This purifying desire, first moral then increasingly physical, is, with the need to add bloody force, the major reason for the reinstallation of explicitly Nazi currents in Eastern Ukraine.
Since 2014, the first characteristic of these Nazi groups and movements is that they are not opposition actors but participants in power.
This gave rise to conflict within the American government.
a- in 2015, the Senate refused any American military aid and training to these groups due to their Nazi affiliation.
b- the Pentagon has started their military training.
c- He won in front of the beautiful sentences of the senators.
Whatever Russia's responsibilities, this policy is fully responsible for the Western Civil War and the secession of the Republic of Crimea.
C- Democracy
The decline of democracy, the disqualification of the Republic, the banning of the Communist Party, but also the promotion of the Nazi movement, described as such by the American Senate, the leading political and military role of the latter, are expressly linked to the mirage NATO which must resolve all the Ukrainian problems which all come from Russia or are insoluble as long as it exists.
11)- Europe
To say that Europeans must suffer the consequences of a war because Ukraine and NATO claim that the former is in danger of aggression if it does not adhere to the latter is moral and political nonsense.
This is what the poet Louis Aragon called “the manners of a king.”
A number of leaderships in Eastern European countries treat political issues in the same way that Western European countries treated them before their fireworks in 1914.
This continuation is impossible unless it definitively destroys Europe.
This feudal conception of relations between States is one of the axes of the war party.
The peace party can only express itself by refusing this backwardness of European political life.
The European Union is a civil organization. NATO which is a military organization under the control of a foreign power.
The inevitable consequence of this procedure, already in action, is to grant NATO progressive pre-eminence over the European Union in all matters relating to the conduct of war. That is to say ultimately in all areas.
Because, this conduct includes the examination of political, institutional, economic, social, diplomatic issues, which intervene in the preparation of hostilities and their conduct.
This necessarily warlike demand for Ukraine to join NATO is a coup by NATO military power on European civil power.
In times of peace, these pretensions to assert one's point of view can be contained. In time of war, the military organization imposes its will as a common and obvious necessity.
On July 11, 2023, French General Michel Yakovleff (SHAPE's Honorary Deputy Chief of Staff) explained the future of relations between European countries after an eventual war party victory:
"What NATO does not understand is that when Ukraine becomes a member, it will enter NATO saying: 'I fought for you, the strongest army in Europe, it's mine.'' "
In other words, the pax Americana will bring the war back into civilian government.
In the short term, it is wrong to imagine that European democracy can retain its civil principles.
It follows that the peace party wants the signing of a Security Treaty between European nations including Russia.
A European Security Treaty is the bedrock of peace in Europe.
Some aim, more and more clearly, at the overthrow of the Russian government and the carving up of the Russian Federation.
They should be asked if they plan to stop in Moscow or if they plan to continue to Beijing with a detour via Brasília and Cape Town and a political cleansing in Europe already installed in Ukraine by the civilians who have provided between another the Azov division.
At this level of irresponsibility, the only possible answer is simply: no!
12)- The territories
In 1991, the Ukrainian Republic consisted of two Associated Republics: the Republic of Ukraine and the Republic of Crimea.
1- The Ukrainian Republic
A- The territory
The current Ukrainian Republic, recognized by the world, was formed by the Soviet government in 1945 and presented to the UN as a founding country on the same date with the full agreement of the Allies.
This territory is intangible.
Its questioning would open the way to territorial claims of all kinds on the part of political and state currents who consider either that Ukraine is part of their space and is on the way to their aims or that there are other European territories that can change nation.
It follows that Russia cannot retain the eastern Ukrainian territories that it unduly occupies.
B- Obligations
1- Dignity
This intangible territorial unit gives the Ukrainian government the obligation to govern with its entire population.
From 2014, the Ukrainian government becomes incapable of ensuring the safety, dignity and freedom of Russian-speaking populations such as those of Donbass.
These territories are Ukrainian and the populations concerned have constantly expressed the choice to be so and to continue to be so.
It is up to the Ukrainian government to propose what is needed to guarantee the rights of these populations.
It's up to Europe to see to it.
2- Democracy
There are not only territorial considerations.
The installation of the Nazis in the formation of power is accompanied as before, as always, by a hunt for communists and the banning of the Communist Party of Ukraine (PCU), on May 17, 2022.
The rhetoric is always the same.
A government claims to ban the two identical extremes: the Nazis and the Communists.
Except that, as always and without exception, this amounts to an alliance, including a military one, with the Nazis in the hunt for communists.
Ukraine thus became the place where Jews formed into a governing political party were the government allies of the Nazis.
This follows a long journey since 1955 aimed at the unification of the Western camp divided since 1945 by the caesura between the Jews and the Nazis.
This unification of the Western camp will have consequences, already visible, for the future of Europe but also for the re-reading of its past. It's already in progress.
This is the case in Ukraine as well as in French universities and everywhere else.
In France, in June 2000, a conference was held during which academic historians pledged allegiance to the logic according to which Hitler was a victim of Lenin.
This rewriting of history establishes the party of war in Europe and slowly undermines democracy.
This ban on the PCU took place at the same time as that of 11 other parties: the “Opposition Platform-For Life”, the “Shariy Party”, “Nashi”, “Opposition Bloc”, “the Left Opposition”, “Union of Left Forces”, “Derzhava”, “Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine”, “Socialist Party”, “Socialists” and “Bloc of Vladimir Saldo”.
Nothing justifies these prohibitions other than the desire to impose the law of the war party. There also under the pretext of the evidence of war and its pseudo political laws.
As for the future of European democracy, the Ukrainian ambassador to France, Vadym Omelchenko, gives us a foretaste.
Commenting on Mr. Sarkozy's remarks on the Ukrainian conflict, he has this formula:
““I would not be surprised if the Prosecutor General of Ukraine is interested in the comments made to see if there are elements constituting a crime” (under Ukrainian law, Editor’s note).”
As for political freedoms in Europe, word to the wise!
2- The Republic of Crimea
Europeans must ask themselves at least three questions:
A- Is the Republic of Crimea intrinsically Ukrainian?
B- Is it in Europe’s interest for it to be so?
C- The Russian language
A- Belonging
The Republic of Crimea cannot be conceived as being obviously, historically, ethnically, politically, a stakeholder of the Ukrainian Republic.
In 1954, reduced to an administrative district, called Oblast, it was given to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic by Nikita Khrushchev, then general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU).
Ukrainian commentators refute the idea of a communist Prince, Nikita Khrushchev being Ukrainian, by saying that he acted for “economic” reasons. They add that Crimea was far from being a gift.
The Russians, who had become the majority in Crimea, would have been incapable of developing the country and Nikita Khrushchev would have called on the Ukrainians to redress the situation.
We recognize the racist subtext broadcast in the European media.
Regardless, everyone agrees that Crimea is an external addition to Ukraine and in no way the recognition of consubstantiality or historical brotherhood.
We cannot identify the attachment of Crimea to Ukraine within the Soviet framework and the integration of the Republic of Crimea into independent Ukraine after 1991.
In one case, it concerns the administrative layout of the Soviet Union.
The two countries have equal access to a territory of 22 million km2
The port of Sevastopol is obviously at the disposal of the Soviet army.
In the other case, Crimea finds itself in a head to head with a government that wants to enslave it, eradicate one of its languages, or even expel part of its population.
From 1992, for Ukrainian leaders, the Republic of Crimea has always been a matter of Special Units that undo the Constitution and hinder the power of kyiv.
1992, the Ukrainian Constitution recognized the autonomy of the Republic of Crimea, apart from foreign capabilities.
The evolution of Ukrainian power has continually destroyed this autonomy and reduced the Republic of Crimea to an Oblast.
The Ukrainian government used armed force in 1995 to break the passed Constitution and remove the elected government.
The trigger for the independence referendum of the Republic of Crimea on March 16, 2014 was the decision of the Ukrainian Parliament on February 23, 2014 to remove the protected regional language status of Russian.
The offensive of Nazi groups for the Ukrainianization of Ukraine causes terror in all the territories of Western Ukraine.
The Odessa massacre should not have improved the relations of the Crimeans with the power in kyiv.
Without the proximity of Russian troops, the Nazi Ukrainian military groups would probably have drowned this desire for rupture in blood.
The primary population of Crimea, the Tatars, are taken into account only as an instrument of the ideology of martyrdom and the subversion of politics by religious alliances.
It is not the exercise of the fullness of their rights by the Tatars that interests us. It is the possibility of a governmental alliance of Jews, Ukrainian Orthodox, Muslims facing a symmetrical alliance on the other side.
It’s not believers who play politics, it’s politics that fades behind beliefs; like in Lebanon.
The Ukrainian government bears decisive responsibility for the breach of this contract.
As for the populations of Donbass, it was incapable of ensuring the security, dignity, freedom of the Crimeans.
Above all, the aim is both:
a- to expel the Russian Federation from the port of Sevastopol, that is to say from the Black Sea, in other words from the Mediterranean, the Middle East, etc.
b- to ensure the maritime dictatorship of the American fleet in the Mediterranean area. While waiting for conflicts with the Turkish, French, Italian, Greek, Israeli fleets, and more if affinities.
c- the Libyan crime of 2011, never judged, is there to testify to the effects of this exclusive supremacy.
From this perspective, the population of Crimea weighs nothing and this territory becomes an aircraft carrier for the conquest of Russian space and beyond the formerly Soviet states of Central Asia.
Chaos is inscribed in this device.
B- Europe
Ukraine and the Russian Federation are not the only ones affected.
Europe has no interest in seeing the Russian Federation desert the Mediterranean.
Nor does it have any interest in seeing both parties give free rein to their expansionist aims aimed at resuming the glorious medieval Teutonic or more recently Hitlerian epics of the conquest of the East.
The interest of Europeans is the stability of States and their democratic development.
The administrative attachment of a territory to a State which is foreign to it is merited on the part of the latter.
Obviously, successive Ukrainian governments have been incapable of assuming their functions as managers of a cooperative state.
They were unable to recognize the regular and sovereign use of the port of Sevastopol by the Russian Federation.
As a result, it helps that they lose sovereign authority over the Republic of Crimea.
Whether it is independent or whether it is united with the Russian Federation is a matter of a recognized or to be organized electoral choice.
It is also useful that the sovereign use of the Port of Sevastopol is assured to the said Federation.
The refusal of a Dutch museum to return to a Crimean museum the historical treasures that the latter had lent to it even though they came from Crimean soil, from local history, is a political, legal and scientific fault.
It was an aggression against the Republic of Crimea whatever its attachment.
It is a judicial error due to the compromise of European justice with this spoliation which creates a precedent and uncertainty for all museums in the world.
This is a step backwards for the status of scientific bodies which weaken democracy by subordinating themselves to dishonest and irrational political combinations.
C- The Russian language
The eradication of the Russian language from all of Eastern Europe, the countries of Central Asia, and if possible from the entire Russian Federation, is very directly a racist disposition and the organization of totalitarianism linguistic on the part of the beneficiaries of the English language.
The annihilation of the Russian language has been a demand from Westerners since 1989 in Poland.
In 1989, Europe, through its executives and its populations of Eastern Europe, had a formidable cultural, commercial, political strike force to build a bridge between the peoples of Eurasia, from Dublin to Vladivostok via Samarkand.
These people spoke two ancient languages. This made it much easier for them to teach others.
The Western party, acting as a dominating power, has destroyed these capacities in favor of a foreign language which conveys their domination and which only fractions of the populations will speak.
An archaic, militant, militaristic cultural wall is thus constructed.
The Ukrainian war opens the prospect of a seizure of Russian space by Western power.
This new linguistic subjugation would mean an enslavement of European peoples, the reduction of Europe to a new South America.
Part 4: Salvete judices. Morituri te salutant
13)- The ICC
On March 17, 2023, the Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin in connection with alleged war crimes involving "deportation" and "illegal transfer" of children from the occupied territories of Ukraine.
With this decision, the ICC blocks all movement of the President of the Russian Federation and clearly obstructs discussions at the highest level concerning all subjects and particularly those of war and peace.
The Western party thus displays its will for all power and undoubtedly throws its last lights.
The UN website says:
The orders state that he is "allegedly responsible for the war crime of illegal deportation" of children from the occupied territories of Ukraine to Russia, the UN-backed court said.
“The crimes were allegedly committed in occupied Ukrainian territory at least from February 24, 2022,” detailed the ICC. “There are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Putin and Ms. Lvova-Belova bear individual criminal responsibility.”
“The court found that there are reasonable grounds that Mr. Putin is responsible for committing the acts directly, jointly with others and, or through others, and “for his failure to exercise appropriate control over the civilian and military subordinates who committed the acts, or permitted their commission, and who were under his effective authority and control, by virtue of the responsibility of their superior.”
“All allegations are consistent with the Rome Statute. Neither Russia nor Ukraine is a party to the statute, which created the judicial body in 1998.”
It should be noted that this judicial body, the ICC, takes the detour through children to place an international judicial system at the service of a camp.
We recognize here the method usually used by all interior ministers, politicians, religious or moralist groups.
They take the same detour to justify their attacks on free speech, personal liberties, sexual information rights, nudity, and others.
It is enough for them to say that children can read, see, hear, or could do so, to prohibit, censor, repress.
Faced with the misfortune of children, everyone must remain silent and comply.
We were entitled to imagine that a modern court would not use these facilities.
The ICC uses the term “deportation” for Ukrainian children transferred to Russia.
The word "deportation" to Europe has a meaning.
Particularly in this part of Europe where the political groups which claim not only the heritage but the continuity of the practices of those who "deported" children, Jewish in this case, are part of the teams in power , both in government and in Parliament, and throughout the elective and administrative hierarchy.
These children were moved or transferred and not deported.
Jewish children were "deported" by the predecessors of today's Nazis who claim to be. Survivors have testified extensively about what a “deportation” is.
In this case, the fault of contravening the reunification of families or the return of ten thousand children lost in the war to their legitimate official channel, is serious.
It was denounced in a memorandum by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović, following a visit to Ukraine focusing on the human rights situation of Ukrainian children transferred to the Federation. of Russia and in the territories of Ukraine under Russian occupation.
This legitimate legal procedure does not justify judicial intrusion in the direction of the political discussion processes between the States concerned by this conflict.
Basing judicial policy in this conflict and jurisprudence on a public hypertrophy of a type of fault committed, specifically concerning children, that is to say placing children at the center of decisive political confrontations, is not an appropriate method. neither to protect children nor to legally frame the conflict.
There is no point in challenging a court decision. Whatever the possible criticisms leveled at it, it mobilizes the networks of executives whose function is to apply it and who, as we have seen for South Africa, will apply it.
Let us say that by cunningly inserting themselves into a political dispute of a military nature, the magistrates contributed to the entanglement of the Gordian Knot.
14)- “Preventive wars”
It would have been much more complicated to start with accusations aimed at the entry into Ukraine of the Russian army without an international mandate or direct military provocation on the part of Ukraine.
This would inevitably have raised questions about the action of Israel in 1967, NATO in Yugoslavia in 1999, the Americans in Iraq in 2003, the English, French, Americans and NATO in Libya in 2011.
In all these interventions the notion of “preventive war” was official and claimed to establish the rule of law and democracy; what's more, it's the only one, the true one.
Apparently, this case law should no longer receive publicity.
By issuing an arrest warrant against the President of the Russian Federation, under the guise of protecting children in danger, this judicial-type body, created to judge proven crimes, enters into a political debate by using its capabilities judicial and the affiliation to its authority of numerous States in the world to disqualify the first Leader of one of the two camps.
It thus creates a clear confusion between law and politics.
On March 20, before the ICC decision, Insaf Rezagui (Doctoral student in public international law, Le Mans University - Researcher at the Thucydide Paris Panthéon-Assas Center, Le Mans University) wrote in the internet journal The Conversation (University expertise, l journalistic requirement):
“While at this stage Karim Khan has not reported the precise nature of these crimes, President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson have not hesitated to characterize President Putin as a war criminal. »
Isn’t everything said about the law and this decision?
Neither the ICC nor any other judicial court has done this for the American state or other Western states.
The Criminal Court for Yugoslavia had also decreed that only the crimes of Serbs and possibly other Yugoslavs were subject to trial.
The crimes of NATO bombing hospitals, prisons, power plants, etc. have been ruled accidental.
How long will Westerners be able to impose the deliberations and judgments of these Courts inherited from a bygone past?
Everywhere in the West, there is a right for some and a right for others. After which Westerners worry about a loss of Western authority in the world.
15)- The criminals of Afghanistan
The facts accused of the Russians deserve to be judged as they deserve to be judged, and the disqualification of 20 million women of all ages is not.
A- Officials
On September 27, 1996, the Taliban entered Kabul. The American Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, considers that this is “a positive step”.
On August 15, 2021, the Taliban took power in Kabul.
This is so because:
a- in 2018, the Taliban and the Americans began talks which led to the signing of a peace agreement in 2020, in Doha.
b- the legal government in Kabul was voluntarily kept away from the Doha agreement signed on February 29 by the Taliban and the United States,
c- on April 14, 2021, President Joe Biden announces the complete withdrawal of American troops for September 11, 2021,
The entire American approach took place without the authorization, agreement or decision-making participation of the legal government in Kabul and participated in its overthrow.
Americans :
a- behaved like occupying troops who impose on the legal government to deal with a force from abroad, deemed criminal, factious and carrying a specific and constant crime against humanity.
b- abandoned legal government and forced it to leave power by surreptitiously removing any ability to defend itself.
c- the usual public comedy of the conflict between the American secret services full of moderation and wisdom and the ignorant, muddled and unpredictable policies of Washington, cannot continue to serve as a cover for the state responsibilities of the American government and its representatives.
However, the American government, and therefore the President of the United States, could not ignore that the Taliban's guideline is the disqualification of women and that this constitutes in practice and in law a crime against humanity.
It follows that the American government, that is to say the President of the United States and the American administrative authorities concerned, are responsible:
a- of a voluntary, organized, deceptive attack against a legal government that they had undertaken to protect and of having provided the rebels with the means to achieve its overthrow.
b- active, voluntary, conscious participation in the institutional organization of a crime against humanity.
On July 30 and 31, 2023, as expected, the United States and the Taliban met in Doha.
The Americans gave the Taliban satisfaction for their governance and, as in Doha in 2020, let the Taliban impose their demands.
The 2023 delegation considered the outcome of the discussion “positive”.
She thus repeats the expression of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to welcome the arrival of the Taliban to power in 1996.
In this way, they legitimize the disqualification of women and make it an ordinary matter of governance. Which is the principle of active complicity in a state crime.
Oddly enough, no one is indicting the President of the United States or issuing an arrest warrant against him and anyone else in his administration.
It should be noted that no one bothers to also indict the Taliban.
The American government delegation can thus meet people in Doha who are not subject to any international arrest warrant. She herself is free of it.
However, when the Americans discuss in Doha, the place of the agreement to liquidate the legal government of Kabul, it goes without saying that the competent magistrates are required to examine the criminal responsibilities of each party in this crime against humanity towards women and the abilities of those involved to be legal interlocutors.
B- Communicators
But it is not only in Doha that the magistrates refuse to examine the responsibilities of each person in the support, participation, complicity in this crime against humanity.
Thus, in France, in 2022, justice refused to examine the possible involvement of journalists, in 1992, in the policy of disqualification of women as the dominant structure of the political program, that is to say in a procedure for crimes against humanity and war crimes at the time of the events.
Not by legally disqualifying the request but:
1- In first instance on the grounds that: “the facts denounced do not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the French courts” which constitutes “a legal obstacle”, therefore “the facts cannot be judged”.
The magistrates are not aware here of Universal Jurisdiction, although it is duly explained in the request and of which the ICC judge makes great use.
2- On appeal on the grounds that “I do not intend to call into question this decision”.
Corporate solidarity as a legal category.
3- How well said all this.
4- In this case, Western executives know how to preserve the future to come to an agreement with criminals by maintaining the continuity of crime, the disqualification of women as an instrument of discussion and recognition; as before, since 1992, and with the judicial guarantee of impunity.
5- In 2023, discussions resume with the Taliban. Their basis is the diplomatic acceptance of the disqualification of women.
6- By their disqualification from any judicial reflection on the participation in these sexist crimes of Western civilian high school diplomas in communication, the magistrates have allowed the renewal of these negotiations in the forms in progress.
Nota Bene
American justice and September 11, 2001.
In August 2023, the families of the nearly 3,000 victims of the deadliest attack in US history received a letter from military prosecutors outlining an agreement to end years of proceedings at the Military Tribunal. from Guantánamo, without trial.
This agreement would put an end to the procedure against the perpetrators of the attacks without a trial.
This is for two reasons:
1- the failure of the military commissions on 9/11.
2- Capital punishment cannot be required for confessions extracted under torture.
"No trial will result in the death penalty because of the issue of torture", (Ms. Rockefeller. member of the "peaceful tomorrows" group).
3- Dennis McGinley (member of the group Justice sur le 9/11 (9/11 Justice)) considers, on the other hand, that the debate is not so much about the severity of the sanction, life imprisonment or death penalty, but about the truth of the attacks and more particularly on the presumed role of Saudi officials.
4- If Ryad has always denied any link with the attackers, suspicions remain on the financing of some of them by Saudi funds.
But an agreement would allow Washington to keep sensitive information about it secret, argues Mr. McGinley, accusing US authorities of "mistreating" the 9/11 families.
American justice knows how to keep a sense of political realities both vis-à-vis torture and state officials, which it considers essential to the proper functioning of international relations.
Everyone will have noted the silence of moralists and experts on this occasion.
Part 5: Peace in Europe
While Europe is neither among the leaders of space conquest nor among those of artificial intelligence, it is not capable of investing what is needed in climate transition, it spends lavishly in an action as archaic as a war of village cocks likely to lead to a nuclear war and it subordinates its economy to it by a cacochymal repetition of the policy of the blockade.
16)- The logic of war
The primacy of peace camp does not fit into the logic of the chicken and the egg to take sides on war.
There is no question of subordinating peace to the search for a primary responsibility (original, present, future) nor to the jumble of chatter about the impossibility of stopping the fighting.
1- In Europe, the war party is the distant successor of the Teutonic Knights as regards revenge on the failures of the conquest of the East and of the Knights of the Temple or Templars as regards the supremacy of the private property on public property and the identification of private forces with public authorities.
2- In Russia the war party claims to be tsarist against civil, secular and democratic power. It is almost the same configuration that has been built in a centuries-old confrontation with the camp opposite.
The difficulties of peace come from there.
Both sides of the war have the same goal, which is the legal disqualification of public powers and public property.
The victory of one over the other is only another name for the exercise, henceforth infinite, of a dictatorship of the private over the public, of particular interests over the Nations as a place of exercise of the sovereignty of the People.
All decisions taken in the context of this confrontation must be measured against this yardstick.
The renunciation of tsarism (the disqualification of its imaginary dependencies) for the one and the renunciation of the conquest of the East (the disqualification of the endogenous populations which prefigure it) for the other will be essential for the definition of an “authentic peace” and not a “pax americana” which is the aim of the war parties on both sides.
17)- The primacy of peace
The war party has shown itself lately by bringing "democracy", "rule of law", "peace", in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc.
It is high time that he leaves the management of the war to the peace party.
The source of peace is not to be found in the Middle Ages. It is the victory of Democracy over Nazism, on May 8, 1945.
The first factor in this war is the destruction of their country by the teams that govern them. The ideology of the Martyr and the incense of past glories are only the facade.
The United States has a word for these states; they are Kleptocracies.
Peace will set these governments back against their peoples. We understand their apprehensions.
The first requirement of peace is the immediate, unconditional, without negotiations, cessation of fighting. Stop.
This cessation of fighting develops its consequences.
Ukrainian and Russian grain deliveries are free.
A permanent conference is opened which is organized on the prevalence of the "genuine peace" of the party of peace over the "peace of the grave" of the party of war.
State leaders are asked to show what they can do.
They too are reluctant because they know that with peace they will be seen and judged.
The challenge of the negotiations is not that each of the two camps gives guarantees to the camp opposite but first to its own populations.
Peace now, immediately, without discussion, allows Europeans:
a- to live instead of dying heroically and dirty.
b- to build instead of destroying oneself.
c- to regain control of their destiny.
The primacy of the war party imposes singular hatreds on each of the belligerents. Be that as it may, people hated or adored are more useful to humanity alive than dead when this rule applies to everyone.
In fact, the Ukrainian crisis, like previous European crises that have become world wars, invites Europeans to question themselves. Do they want Europe to live?
18)- Closing
The purpose of this text is to draw the public's attention to the organization of this conflict by the question of the primacy of war or that of peace.
Depending on whether one of the primacies prevails over the other, Europeans will be permanently subjected to war or will be able to continually impose confrontations based on the exclusivity of peace.
The primacy of war gradually seizes the Europeans and leads them to defeat regardless of the winner or declared as such.
Europeans, all Europeans, are concerned and required to impose the primacy of peace.
“So let’s persevere. Peace is not impossible and war is not inevitable. By defining our purpose more precisely, making it more reasonable and more attainable, we can enable all people to perceive it, draw hope from it, and move irresistibly towards it."
President Kennedy.
Marc SALOMONE
Retirement
President Anderson, members of the faculty, board of trustees, distinguished guests, my old colleague, Senator Bob Byrd, who has earned his degree through many years of attending night law school, while I am earning mine in the next 30 minutes,
ladies and gentlemen: -
It is with great pride that I participate in this ceremony of the American University, sponsored by the Methodist Church, founded by Bishop John Fletcher Hurst, and first opened by President Woodrow Wilson in 1914.
This is a young and growing university, but it has already fulfilled Bishop Hurst's enlightened hope for the study of history and public affairs in a city devoted to the making of history and to the conduct of the public's business.
By sponsoring this institution of higher learning for all who wish to learn, whatever their color or their creed, the Methodists of this area and the Nation deserve the Nation's thanks, and I commend all those who are today graduating.
Professor Woodrow Wilson once said that every man sent out from a university should be a man of his nation as well as a man of his time, and I am confident that the men and women who carry the honor of graduating from this institution will continue to give from their lives, from their talents, a high measure of public service and public support.
"There are few earthly things more beautiful than a university," wrote John Masefield, in his tribute to English universities-and his words are equally true today. He did not refer to spires and towers, to campus greens and ivied walls. He admired the splendid beauty of the university, he said, because it was
"a place where those who hate ignorance may strive to know, where those who perceive truth may strive to make others see."
I have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived - yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace.
What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek?
Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.
Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave.
I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children-not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women - not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.
I speak of peace because of the new face of war.
Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all of the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the glove and to generations yet unborn.
Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year of weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles - which can only destroy and never create - is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.
I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men.
I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war - and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.
Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament - and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude.
I hope they do.
I believe we can help them do it.
But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude - as individuals and as a Nation - for our attitude is as essential as theirs.
And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward - by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home.
First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable - that mankind is doomed - that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.
We need not accept that view.
Our problems are manmade - therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants.
No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again.
I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of universal peace and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal.
Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace - based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions-on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned.
There is no single, simple key to this peace - no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process-a way of solving problems.
With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations.
World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor - it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement.
And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors.
So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.
Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists z write. It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims - such as the allegation that "American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars ... that there is a very real threat of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union ... [and that] the political aims of the American imperialists are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist countries ... [and] to achieve world domination ... by means of aggressive wars."
Truly, as it was written long ago: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth." Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements - to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning - a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.
No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue.
As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements - in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage. Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique, among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation's territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland - a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago.
Today, should total war ever break out again no matter how - our two countries would become the primary targets. It is an ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours. And even in the cold war, which brings burdens and dangers to so many countries, including this Nation's closest allies our two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combating ignorance, poverty, and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other, and new weapons beget counterweapons.
IThird: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the cold war, remembering that we are not engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points. We are not here distributing blame or pointing the finger of judgment. We must deal with the world as it is, and not as it might have been had the history of the last 18 years been different.
We must, therefore, persevere in the search for peace in the hope that constructive changes within the Communist bloc might bring within reach solutions which now seem beyond us.
We must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the Communist's interest to agree on a genuine peace. Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war.
To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy - or of a collective death - wish for the world. To secure these ends, America's weapons are nonprovocative, carefully controlled, designed to deter, and capable of selective use. Our military forces are committed to peace and disciplined in self-restraint. Our diplomats are instructed to avoid unnecessary irritants and purely rhetorical hostility.
For we can seek a relaxation of tensions without relaxing our guard. And, for our part, we do not need to use threats to prove that we are resolute. We do not need to jam foreign broadcasts out of fear our faith will be eroded. We are unwilling to impose our system on any unwilling people - but we are willing and able to engage in peaceful competition with any people on earth.
Meanwhile, we seek to strengthen the United Nations, to help solve its financial problems, to make it a more effective instrument for peace, to develop it into a genuine world security system - a system capable of resolving disputes on the basis of law, of insuring the security of the large and the small, and of creating conditions under which arms can finally be abolished.
At the same time we seek to keep peace inside the non-Communist world, where many nations, all of them our friends, are divided over issues which weaken Western unity, which invite Communist intervention or which threaten to erupt into war.
Our efforts in West New Guinea, in the Congo, in the Middle East, and in the Indian sub continent, have been persistent and patient despite criticism from both sides. We have also tried to set an example for others - by seeking to adjust small but significant differences with our own closest neighbors in Mexico and in Canada.
Speaking of other nations, I wish to make one point clear.
We are bound to many nations by alliances. Those alliances exist because our concern and theirs substantially overlap. Our commitment to defend Western Europe and West Berlin, for example, stands undiminished because of the identity of our vital interests. The United States will make no deal with the Soviet Union at the expense of other nations and other peoples, not merely because they are our partners, but also because their interests and ours converge.
Our interests converge, however, not only in defending the frontiers of freedom, but in pursuing the paths of peace. It is our hope - and the purpose of allied policies - to convince the Soviet Union that she, too, should let each nation choose its own future, so long as that choice does not interfere with the choices of others.
The Communist drive to impose their political and economic system on others is the primary cause of world tension today. For there can be no doubt that, if all nations could refrain from interfering in the self determination of others, the peace would be much more assured.
This will require a new effort to achieve world law - a new context for world discussions. It will require increased understanding between the Soviets and ourselves. And increased understanding will require increased contact and communication. One step in this direction is the proposed arrangement for a direct line between Moscow and Washington, to avoid on each side the dangerous delays, misunderstandings, and misreadings of the other's actions which might occur at a time of crisis.
We have also been talking in Geneva about other first-step measures of arms control, designed to limit the intensity of the arms race and to reduce the risks of accidental war. Our primary long-range interest in Geneva, however, is general and complete disarmament designed to take place by stages, permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms. The pursuit of disarmament has been an effort of this Government since the 1920's. It has been urgently sought by the past three administrations. And however dim the prospects may be today, we intend to continue this effort to continue it in order that all countries, including our own, can better grasp what the problems and possibilities of disarmament are.
The one major area of these negotiations where the end is in sight, yet where a fresh start is badly needed, is in a treaty to outlaw nuclear tests. The conclusion of such a treaty, so near and yet so far, would check the spiraling arms race in one of its most dangerous areas. It would place the nuclear powers in a position to deal more effectively with one of the greatest hazards which man faces in 1963, the further spread of nuclear arms. It would increase our security - it would decrease the prospects of war. Surely this goal is sufficiently important to require our steady pursuit, yielding neither to the temptation to give up the whole effort nor the temptation to give up our insistence on vital and responsible safeguards. I am taking this opportunity, therefore, to announce two important decisions in this regard.
First: Chairman Khrushchev, Prime Minister Macmillan, and I have agreed that high-level discussions will shortly begin in Moscow looking toward early agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty. Our hopes must be tempered with the caution of history but with our hopes go the hopes of all mankind.
Second: To make clear our good faith and solemn convictions on the matter, I now declare that the United States does not propose to conduct nuclear tests in the atmosphere so long as other states do not do so. We will not be the first to resume. Such a declaration is no substitute for a formal binding treaty, but I hope it will help us achieve one. Nor would such a treaty be a substitute for disarmament, but I hope it will help us achieve it.
Finally, my fellow Americans, let us examine our attitude toward peace and freedom here at home. The quality and spirit of our own society must justify and support our efforts abroad. We must show it in the dedication of our own lives - as many of you who are graduating today will have a unique opportunity to do, by serving without pay in the Peace Corps abroad or in the proposed National Service Corps here at home.
But wherever we are, we must all, in our daily lives, live up to the age-old faith that peace and freedom walk together. In too many of our cities today, the peace is not secure because freedom is incomplete.
It is the responsibility of the executive branch at all levels of government - local, State, and National-to provide and protect that freedom for all of our citizens by all means within their authority.
It is the responsibility of the legislative branch at all levels, wherever that authority is not now adequate, to make it adequate.
And it is the responsibility of all citizens in all sections of this country to respect the rights of all others and to respect the law of the land.
All this is not unrelated to world peace. "When a man's ways please the Lord," the Scriptures tell us, "he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him."
And is not peace, in the last analysis, basically a matter of human rights - the right to live out our lives without fear of devastation - the right to breathe air as nature provided it - the right of future generations to a healthy existence?
The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war.
This generation of Americans has already had enough - more than enough - of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it.
But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success.
Confident and unafraid, we labor on - not toward a strategy of annihilation but toward a strategy of peace.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire