By William Markiewicz
Fight, terror and crime are three aspects of struggle hard to distinguish from one another. Sometimes only motivation makes the difference. It's one thing to fight terror and another to launch the order: "First stop the violence, later we'll negotiate!" Isn't it arrogant to dictate to your enemy what he should or shouldn't do before any talk takes place? And if The Big Shot doesn't intend to keep his word, how long should the waiting period last? The Big Shot also decides in advance what is negotiable and what isn't, and the adversary has to obey forever. There are those who call this negotiations. This kind of treatment has always been used towards 1) slaves or prisoners, 2) occupied populations, 3) children. If we wish to end a conflict with an adversary we respect, we will not smash him with those contemptuous conditions. Even unrealistic demands must be included in the discussions in order to separate the wheat from the chaff.
My question is: Why does public opinion never react to the aggressivity and arrogance of The Powerful, and blames only the opponent for the mess to come? Because of shared arrogance or collective stupidity? When the self-appointed Sultan of the Planet strikes Asia, the rest of the planet suffers too. The moment may come when the balloon pops and it will be too late to make excuses: "Sorry, our violence brought irreversible consequences."Back to the index of the Vagabond