Aviso: mais um texto sobre o século 20 e as suas guerras.
Rothbard foi o último dos moicanos na tentativa de preservar a tradicional politica de neutralidade, entretanto quebrada desastrosamente pelos presidentes democratas Woodrow Wilson e Roosevelt e depois Truman e Johnson (as guerras americanas devem-se à sua esquerda).
O primeiro envolve-se numa guerra da qual nasce (e sem qual, talvez a Europa fosse ainda hoje fosse um retalho de Monarquias parlamentares...nice though) o comunismo na Rússia e o fascismo e nazismo na Europa, e a Segunda faz de Estaline (que entretando já tinha morto bem mais população - durante os anos 20 e 30 - do que aquela que seria depois atribuída a Hitler e ao nazismo) um aliado, o verdadeiro vencedor da Segunda Grande Guerra, e o comunismo e Mao com mãos livres na Àsia (por causa da destruição do Japão) - e depois todas as vitimas da Guerra Fria: a queda do Império Britânico e Francês e as descolonizações influenciadas por nacionalismos que viram na ideologia comunista um meio (e mais um meio do que um fim em si mesmo) de incentivar as populações a revoltarem-se, os apoios do Ocidente a toda a espécie de ditaduras militares (por exemplo, a CIA teve na origem da deposição do Presidente eleito no Irão para ser substituído por Phalevi que mais tarde foi deposto pela Revolução Islâmica), o Vietname e o Cambodja (milhões de mortos só para demonstrar o quanto a teoria do dominó estava errada), etc.
É bem fácil tirar a conclusão como o século 20 foi o pior da civilização e uma enorme tragédia induzida pelo tão glorificado Estado Moderno. Mesmo as Monarquias envolvidas no enorme erro da Grande Guerra (se bem que Versailles foi induzida pela República Francesa e a Americana fez questão no pura e simples desaparecimento do Império Austro-Húngaro com as consequências trágicas da Europa Central passar a ser dominado pelo espirito Prusso, ainda por cima agravado pelo sentimento de animal injustamente ferido - e o pior de tudo, tornado república com o fim das monarquias germânicas) foram já influenciados para não dizer vitimas das decisões de uma classe política e de políticos profissionais de carreira que caracterizam o Estado Moderno, quando antes eram ausentes nas decisões das, por comparação, civilizadas guerras entre monarquias europeias nos séculos anteriores.
Em 1959, Rothbard escreve um texto enviado para a National Review que começava na altura a literalmente expulsar os conservadores tradicionais para acolher o cold war interventionism e o início da migração neo-conservadora com origem no partido democrata. Estes tiveram perto de conseguirem um first strike, e já perto do colapso, a famosa team B de que fazia parte Paul Wolfitz, produzia um relatório mais uma vez histérico, que afirmava que a URSS estava mais perto do que nunca de dominar o mundo. Há pessoas que nunca aprendem.
Em 1959 Rothabrd escrevia então:
"(...)The only way for the Communist regime to crumble from within, therefore, is by internal revolution.
Now I know that Mr. Eugene Lyons has been valiantly predicting for many years now an imminent revolution inside the Soviet Union. I fervently hope that he is right. But to base a foreign policy on expectation of revolution seems to me foolhardy. The Soviet regime has been in power, after all, for some forty-two years, and unfortunately, there are still no signs of revolution on the horizon. Don’t misunderstand me: we must all hope and pray for such a revolution, but we cannot count on its arrival. The present regime seems more stable than any since Stalin’s death.
(…) We are not threatened by Russian tanks or machine guns or infantry. It is, therefore, the principal task of an American foreign policy truly devoted to American interests, to bring about a universal scuttling of the new weapons. If we all returned to no more than the old "conventional" weapons, and preferably even to the muskets of yore, then America would no longer be endangered.
This does not mean, of course, that America should unilaterally disarm. But it does mean that America should try its best to effect a disarmament-agreement with Soviet Russia, whereby all the nuclear etc. (…)
In the first place, I do not think it at all obvious that Russia will immediately attack the other nations. Believing as it does in eventual internal Communist triumph and fearing an American return to a cold-war policy, it will most likely refrain from any military attack. And, secondly, we can relieve ourselves of even more of the crippling and wasteful economic burden of armaments, as well as take the unilateral propaganda play for peace away from the Russians for a change, by suggesting to them further disarmament of even conventional weapons, perhaps eventually stripping down completely to bows and arrows. But let US assume the worst, and suppose that the Russians will really proceed to attack their neighbors with conventional arms once nuclear disarmament has been attained. What then?
I maintain that the only answer we can give to this hypothetical problem is the inelegant: "so what"? Let us not forget our initial axiom: that we first and foremost pursue American national interests. In that case, while we would personally deplore a Communist takeover of foreign countries, we would also adhere to the old isolationist principle of doing nothing about it, because it would not be of official national concern. Deprived of nuclear, etc. arms, Russia might be a military menace to Europe or the Middle East, but it would no longer be a menace to the United States, our primary concern. The Russian and Chinese hordes will not be able to swim the oceans to attack us.
(…)
A return to old-fashioned isolationism, then, is paradoxically the only really practical foreign policy that we have. It is precisely because we are living in the terrible technology of the nuclear age that we have a sound basis for a workable disarmament agreement with the Russians. And, with such an agreement, we would be back to the military realities of the pre-nuclear age when even our present Right-wing interventionists agreed that isolationism was practical.
One thing I would like to make quite clear: I am not proposing a program of large-scale foreign aid to the Soviet government, or a joint UN slush fund for the backward nations. In fact, adoption of a true isolationist program would finally end, once and for all, the blackmail wheedling of foreign countries that they will go Communist if we don’t come across with a suitable bribe. We can now tell the foreign nations to paddle their own canoes at last, and take full responsibility for their own actions.
There is, in short, an eminently sound alternative to the loudly trumpeted policies of either pro-Soviet or anti-Soviet interventionism. And that is a new policy of enlightened and realistic isolationism, sparked, as it needs to be in our day, by general nuclear disarmament of the world powers. Abandoning foreign meddling, we need neither continue the cold war nor pretend that the Communist leaders are our "heroic allies."
We need only adopt again that stance of splendid isolation which once made peaceful and free America the beacon-light of the world. "
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário