AFnewsSince the beginning of this year, I have heard more and more people say, especially in Europe and the United States, that because of the epidemic we are at war with an enemy (the virus) that we do not see, we do not know, we only record its daily casualties. The commanders-in-chief go out to the press almost daily and try to describe the situation „from the front.” The army took to the streets and sometimes took over the command of several public civilian institutions. The horn players of this time announce, at short intervals, what order was issued by the Command for civilians, military and administration. And, of course, I bring to light certain dramatic aspects of the „theaters of operations” (mostly hospitals), the number and list of those who fell in the fight against the virus. While politicians, more worried about the future of their careers, always send us to the history of the Second World War, so that we realize the gravity of the days we (still) live. And the description could go on, but I am convinced that a more complete picture will be given to us by the chroniclers and correspondents dedicated to this so-called war.
It is strange that this whole war scenario was orchestrated and has as main actors the same characters who until yesterday communicated to us all kinds of precepts of a security culture. Their central message revolved around the special effort they put in to prevent conflicts and wars. But without being notified by terrestrial and / or extraterrestrial signals, our daily leaders woke up in front of an „enemy” who came with „war” on us without even declaring war on us. And instead of being taught the culture of pandemic prevention, we woke up to the spread of a true culture of war. Administrative and individual restrictions were accompanied by military orders regulating personal and social behavior. Formalized control of the mobility of goods and people has led to serious warnings and even harsh sanctions. Suddenly I found that our life is taken care of by the “state” that has engaged in a fierce battle with the killer virus, we have nothing to do but stay at home, be obedient and follow exactly the behavior outlined by the Leadership. Of course, the Treasury (the country’s budget) was made available to wage the „war” against the epidemic, and the decrease in the volume of funding, including due to the closure of important economic and social sectors, should not interest us, because the amount of public spending was sufficiently concerned of “war”. While those whom the Commanders, politicians, the media called heroes of these successive struggles-doctors and all medical staff, supermarket vendors, drivers transporting goods and products of strict necessity to health institutions and the population, etc. thought that if they escaped with life they will have to face their own battles of survival after the „war”, being convinced that state leaders and politicians will be busy with the strategies of future conflicts in outer space. Of course, the rest of the civilians who will escape the pandemic plague are thinking about how much the war proclaimed by the leaders of contemporary society will cost, being aware that they will be the payers and not even sure that they will find their job again after the belligerents retreat to the barracks.
The culture of war is what is taught in war schools. Sun-Tzu’s famous writing, The Art of War, is over 2,500 years old. It was translated into Europe by a Jesuit monk in 1772 and was quickly circulated in the royal courts and military schools. Sun-Tzu’s conception was not received with open arms on the European continent. Only six decades after the beginning of the Chinese general’s circulation in Europe, the work of the Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz, Vom Kriege / About War (1832) was published, in which the author set out his conclusions after the Napoleonic Wars. General von Clausewitz was called „the apostle of total war.” He considered that the war was a continuation of the course of politics, but with the contribution of different means than normal times. Von Clausewitz argued that the „art of war” was still political, but one that generated „fighting” and „battles.” And the military factor was, of course, at the disposal of politics.
The thinking and action of many contemporary political leaders seems to be very much imbued with the culture of war proposed by General von Clausewitz. That it belongs to the politicians themselves is either the result of the contagion with the military sphere or the military-industrial complex remains to be ascertained by analysts and historians. What is certain is that the current political leaders opted for the formula of „defense war”, described by the Prussian general, for the management of a viral epidemic that completely surprised the decision-makers in most European states and in the Western Hemisphere. Their reaction was to defend themselves against an unexpected phenomenon that blamed them for their inability to provide the promised security to their own citizens. One explanation for this „warrior” path that current politicians have chosen to follow could be that today’s politics has taken a rather aggressive turn, and political competition is taking place through „fights” and „battles” for power, in order to establish supremacy in society for the acquisition of private goods, instead of the unconditional application of democratic methods and serving the public interest. Of course, in states with autocratic governance, this reinvention of war policy has led to a strengthening of state control, and the political groups at the head of those countries have even allowed themselves to make decisions that exceed the democratic framework and no longer take into account „European values. „. IN SUCH A CONTEXT, IT IS POSSIBLE TO CIRCUMSCRIBE MORE CLEARLY THE BEHAVIOR OF THE EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, WHICH HAVE THE MISSION OF CREATING A FRAMEWORK FOR THE COOPERATION OF ITS MEMBERS, BEING ALMOST PARALYZED BY THE PROCLAMATION BY THE LEADERS OF SOME MEMBER STATES OF AN INTERNAL STATE OF WAR.
75 years ago, on May 7, Hitler’s generals agreed to capitulate, the time of the cessation of hostilities being 23.01 (Berlin), on May 8, which in Moscow was 1.01, on May 9, 1945. Therefore, most countries in Western Europe was celebrating the end of World War II on May 8, and the Soviets / Russians on May 9. Today’s pandemic has convinced Moscow to stop holding the famous May 9 military parade, and German politicians have decided not to hold public events to mark the end of the world’s largest conflagration in history. A rational attitude on both sides, because, beyond the danger of epidemic contagion, citizens are already too burdened by today’s politicians to wage a „war” with a pandemic that also has a global reach. It is enough that the same politicians and many analysts expose similarities of the effects of the current pandemic with the disaster after the Second World War, in the same tone of the emphasis of the culture of war. Perhaps the leaders of the Member States of the European Union will have the inspiration and determination to give a clear signal of harmony, peace and unity by May 9, when it is Europe Day, to conclude this appeal of some of them to the political discourse and behavior of „war”. And to treat the pandemic with sustainable and appropriate health policies, based on a social, economic and political evolution derived from the objective of achieving the common good and each one.
In the evening of the signing of the Armistice for the end of the First World War, the Prime Minister of France, G. Clemenceau, predicted to a collaborator that it would be more difficult for the French to be victorious in peace than in war. Nearly two decades later, another British prime minister, this time N. Chamberlain, returning from a meeting with Hitler (Munich, 29-30 September 1938), announced to the British that they brought peace. In fact, he and his French counterpart had just convinced the chancellor of the Third Reich that he could start the war because Western states had weak political leaders. The war did not even benefit W. Churchill, who, after leading England with skill and determination in a five-year war, could no longer persuade the British electorate to elect him in July 1945. So it seems that it is harder for state leaders to build peace than to sustain war. A clear proof of the qualities of leaders is leading society towards a lasting peace rather than war, which is rather an accidental episode in history. Will the leaders of today’s and tomorrow’s worlds also understand that what their citizens expect from them is the construction of social harmony and the peaceful development of all present and future societies?
Taken from „Cotidianul” with the author’s consent
Adaugă un comentariu