Sunday, May 18, 2008

Drivers Free Dell Gx620

Violence ETA (II): a strategy

In previous post I tried to analyze the violence of ETA only from an ethical point of view, accepting the fact that for the radical left violence should not be lawful rather than a means of self-defense, and never aggressive. But also indicated that such an analysis does not matter if we the fact that ETA violence arises only as a strategic means to achieve a political goal: to compel the State to recognize the right of Basque self-determination. It is clear that from that point of view of ethical considerations go into the background.

But my purpose today is to analyze precisely the violence of ETA from a purely strategic point of view. because it could happen that the violence, although it can not be ethically justifiable, it may be strategically or politically : the use of ETA violence on their targets more than a purely peaceful strategy?

We recognize that it is very logical think that a certain pressure on a state it tends to get some concessions, especially when the pressure is manifold: political, social and economic. ETA's violence is putting pressure on these three areas, because it is a political problem that causes suffering in society and economic losses. We also know, on the other hand, that the State has granted to negotiate with ETA on several occasions. It appears, therefore, that violent strategy pays off . However

appearance differs significantly from reality. All negotiations attacks to date, featuring the governments of Gonzalez, Aznar Rodriguez Zapatero, have suffered from a manifest bad faith on the part of the state (something known from the Left wing nationalists), which seem to regard as a mere bargaining weapon to weaken ETA and its political . That was true even in times when the armed organization killed hundreds of people a year, so there is no reason to believe that the current level of ETA violence (with a few murders a year) will force the State to take negotiations more seriously.

Keep in mind also that the violence of ETA over the years has achieved the opposite effect on English citizenship: not just this is not wanting a negotiated solution to the conflict, but also is radically opposed to the same (something that has been actively involved state propaganda). So much so that it is suicidal for any English government to raise even that option. Moreover, the very existence of ETA for about 50 years has finally create or strengthen certain state sectors that feed on the existence of the organization or fight the , and of course never will welcome its demise: People's Party, National Court, journalists, police, private security, counterterrorism police ... How point these industries will lead to an eventual stop negotiating strategy of the state?

course ETA violence has other side effects. Your expression gets put on the table always crude Basque conflict, and it is permanently present. ETA says the news and drink, both nationally and internationally, there is a Basque conflict in Spain territorial problem that remains unresolved, for which the legal channels seem insufficient.

But all this we must add other effects as positive if we consider that in the XXI century the majority of society, and especially the left, the fight does not accept army as a political method valid. ETA's violent strategy succeeds, then, away from itself to broad popular Basque, English and international organizations that could help push the state toward solving the problem. This should be a growing concern for an organization that sees the long run, is losing support among its political base.

Finally, the persistence of ETA violence success has helped the state propaganda has managed to move the debate between "vs. Basque nationalism. English nationalism" and focus on "violent vs. Non-violent, something that has helped a substantial reduction of state violence in recent years, but now endures torture and violation of civil and political rights.

Thus, it appears that the strategy causes violent positive and negative effects for the political ends they seek, and ETA should reflect on them and decide which are more prominent. But I insist that this assessment can not fail to take into account the ethical, in my opinion are the most should weigh .


Saturday, May 17, 2008

Escape From Guantanamo Bay Bottomless

violence ETA (I): The real crisis

perceive violence as a means only as legitimate as any to get a particular purpose is a position fully consistent with the classical use of violence that humanity has done throughout its history. A left that aspire to a total revolution in human relations is forced to reconsider that position if necessary. It is obvious that if we build a more just and humane from pillars and solidarity is necessary in this analysis introduce new factors such as ethics and morality, apart from the usual political and strategic factors.

Therefore, if we consider that the main result of the violence is the pain and suffering, the choice is obvious: Can a particular political or strategic outcome somehow compensate for the suffering caused by violence? I firmly believe (it is a purely personal belief) that this debate is sterile because it is very difficult to determine whether such compensation exists, exists when and when not, and especially how to calibrate. The answer is so highly subjective, depending on each personal value accorded to different factors in the equation, it is quite possible that any violence could be justified by any political purpose and strategic. What kind of political projects can objectively justify the use of violence? Which are not? What limit is violence, if they had one according to that view?

The most reasonable solution is simply not about taking risks and concluded that Violence can never be justified on strategic or political reasons . Therefore, bearing in mind that violence is not desirable for its harmful effects, it is logical to conclude that one should not make use of it, or at least should be used only as a last resort. The debate is then placed between a moderate pacifism that only accepts the use of violence as a legitimate defense or radical pacifism which excludes any violent acts even in self defense.

Personally I advocate the first option, and although I admire the radical pacifists believe that its position is not only not viable in today's society but is even suicidal. I position, then, for the use of violence only as a last resort if self-defense. Of course, the concept of "self defense" involves a number of basic assumptions:

1. There must be a principle of proportionality : violence has to be exercised against an equally violent attack, and therefore the level of violence in response should not exceed the level of violent offending.

2. violence defense has to be directed against targets directly responsible for the attack: it can not be addressed against targets that have little or nothing to do with it.

3. Finally there should be no other way of nonviolent self-defense (legal, political, etc.) Or it is clearly inadequate.

Such a position, with such basic assumptions, is in a perfect balance between a powerful limits to violence and a preventive effect against any aggression. Of course, this argument can be applied to either individuals or groups, and any situation of aggression imaginable. With respect to a State, a case in point would be that of a police officer violently reduced (of course maintaining the principle of proportionality mentioned in point 1) to an individual who uses violence to attack others.

not difficult to make an assessment of the Basque conflict and the violence of ETA in the light of this position. It is clear that when there are torture, beatings of demonstrators, outlaw forced party, etc. there is a situation of aggression illegitimate state violence could bring about a perfectly legitimate self-defense. However ETA violence is no longer proportional (because the state no longer kills Basque militants or too infrequently) and has extended to groups which have only a very indirect relationship to state violence (Councillors or former Councillors Basques, for example). ETA violence, then, it will only get justification from the point of view of the inability to defend themselves by any other peaceful course of state aggression (mainly due to the impunity enjoyed by the aggressors), but the flagrant violation of other invalidate the premises comply with it.

short, the violence of ETA (at least in its current strategy level) do not think is justifiable. But it does not matter too much if we consider that ETA does not share my view and not even part of the same ethical concepts than me. For ETA, the violence is justified when the state denies collective right (the self-determination of the Basque people) and is a legal means to force the state to the negotiating table. From that point of view any other consideration of moral or ethical passes the background, as is usual for any State, dominion or organization making use of violence to the classic mode, which should give pause to those who are considered to itself "revolutionary."


(Next post: "The violence of ETA (II): a strategy.")



Thursday, May 1, 2008

History Of Immanuel Chapel In Largo Florida

ethics Distracting the problem

Overwhelmed by the crisis of the wealthy, we do not want to find out about the crisis of the poor. Even the UN has found that millions of people are dying of hunger and thirst and disgust. And that many more will die. If the twenty-first century world can not stop this nonsense of prices, if the planet XXI can not get people not starve, it's time to do something. The real crisis is not for mortgages, is that of hunger.

The crisis of the rich is terrible, and even more so because nobody understands it, because nobody knows how far the bottomless hole of debt, because nobody wants to know how far reaching the blunders they have committed the banks and the financial arrangements for the institutionalized greed. What we see under such trash, such as logo and harangues is that the system is rotten. Always has been, but now we've reached the climax of misery. We have perfected both the mechanism that supports the greed that there is no way of knowing what is happening. The states are going to run out of money to cover such infamy spoiled and sometimes encouraged by them. International money institutions are already taking things by the back door. While obvious issue their opinions and their gibberish seroleras, everyone is waiting for the helicopter idling on the roofs of its luxury skyscrapers. But the real crisis, which is part of the world and the same system, is that the more and better produced, more Hunger is passed. The more satellites and more networks and more intelligence and more information, more millions of people dying without food and work for a euro from sunrise to sunset.

The solution would be true democracy, which we have not yet dared to imagine. The real problem is not climate change, but the change of ideas: we are like in the Neolithic. Until the spirit predator will have to evolve sometime.

Gistaín
Mariano, El Periódico de Aragón
.