Peace - Professional Army - Conscientious Objection

Even in the title you can easily notice the contradiction in anyone who would like to keep as united these three realities: peace - professional Army - conscientious objection (civilian duties done instead of national service).
On the other hand, to speak deep about such subjects, as the editors of the magazine "Friends of the Lepers" asked me for the first number of the year 2000, it should need a book and more...
But taking for granted that the readers are quick-witted and not entirely devoid of a culture of peace, that is really more complex than a culture of war, I will simply do some clarifying introductions, to which it will follow the essential concepts.

INTRODUCTIONS

Army and military system

Army is not an automous reality; it is connected to a set of links, inseparably connected, as links in the chain: the military system.
It is just not difficult to meet good-hearted, simply or cultured people, ecclesiasticals and even soldiers, which sincerely think that peace is a right thing and so they abhor war, military expences, the antipersonnel mines, the building and the commerce of the weapons, the scientific research for war, but in the same time they think that the existence of the Army is necessary to defend themselves or others, according to the necessity.
Nevertheless, it is sufficient a little reflection to understand that the Army continually requests weapons - the more advanced - that have to be studied scientifically, constructed, sold, paid, and... used.
In other words, the Army is part of a system that inevitably flow into war. It is perfectly known that most part of wars are due to economic-financial interests, in which ethnic matter, religion, solidarity act as a pretext.
It is necessary to have the humble presumption to think and said that the time of the Army is gone. Don Sturzo wrote: "Between USA and Canada there is an enormous exposed boundary; there are no soldiers there, no cannon at all; and there is not a biggest security as that."

New Model of Defence and Professional Army

After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the self-dissolution of the Varsavia Pact (1989-90), it should be logical to expect the dissolution of NATO as well. But the alliance of the west countries, as a rule composed of the richer countries, has prepared a New Model of Defence (NMD).
The propaganda claims that it was written for "missions of peace and humanitarian operations" The fundamental writings, as for example the document entitled "Lines of developement of the Armed Forces in the 90s", produced in Parliament in October, 1991, nothing less than from the Ministry of Defence, explicitly speak about the defence of the "vital interests of the Native Land" everywhere in the world; interests that consist of "raw materials present in the South of the world, necessary to the economy of the industrialized nations", for which "Europe and particularly Italy should have a political and economical rule between industrialized nations and underdeveloped ones".
And about vital interests speak also in France, which Parliament has even authorized the government to the use of "Force de Frappe" (= Force of Impact = France atom bomb); in Germany, the generals speak of the defence of "German market in the world"; English government has for some time allocated fabulous sum of money for such aim - it means that it is necessary an Army equipped with weapons and trained, expert soldiers to fall upon whatever part of the world where one's own interests are in doubt; don't even mention the U.S.A., that head the line to support the NMD and the project of a professional Army.
Missions of peace, humanitarian wars and so on - are hypocrisies. It is right, about this, the Corriere della Sera (an Italian Daily) opinion maker, Angelo Panebianco, who, what is more, with Enrico Galli ( a member of the political Italian movement called Loggia), forms the intellectual-warmonger duo, when titles an article: "Is it necessary to intervene everywhere for peace? Interests and hypocrisies". (13.9.99, p.1).
The NMD (New Model of Defence) is an authentic Wicked Pact, as it was the Berlin Conference (1884-85), where the representatives of the European industrialized countries sat around a table and shared out Africa; then the colonial army finished the service, claimed that they brought civilization.
In fact, this NMD was signed in London (1990) by NATO countries, then updated in successive meetings, the last in Washington (April 1999), in the middle of the Serbia-Kossovo war, to sanction the right of NATO to take part in any crisis, where considered necessary, taking it upon oneself to replace UN.
In a clear document signed by Raniero La Valle, Mimmo Gallo, father Meo Elia and others, "Appeal for the Reconstruction of International Law and Democracy after the War", it is rightly said that, just referring to the summit of 25 April in Washington, "There is a wrong perception of national interests, above all on the economic and competitive level. Particularly regarding Italy, it contradicts its rule in the South of Europe and in the Mediterranean area, as passage and shore for populations, cultures, religions from the South of the World, towards it is urgent to prepare not a threatening and illusory Model of Defence, but a model of understanding, co-operation and pacific, interdependent safety".

Popular Nonviolent Defence
International Police Corps

It is obvious, from this writing, that it is necessary to thoroughly revise the military system, not to update it, but, in case, to eliminate it or at least to transform it in a radical manner, granted gradually.
The real problem is not to abolish the call-up; defence is a a right-duty for every citizen, in several forms, as said in the Italian Constitution. The problem is: "Which defence?"
It is time for all politicians, from Right to the Left (it means political ideologies), to disenchant themselves from the mirage of a Professional Army!!!
What's more, such an Army requests bags of money, to economically motivate the free choice of the soldier and to buy weapons more and more advanced and sophisticated.
Also the financial law that the Italian government has prepared for the year 2000, provides for an increase of thousands of billions for the military system, whereas the social expense, that is for health, school, co-operation, pension, etc, is heavily penalized.
In addition to this, the English government has recently opened the prisons to try to fill up the vacant seats in the professional Army.
But this is the exact contrary of the Italian constitutional project: "Italy repudiates war as an offence to the other's peoples freedom and dissolution of international litigations". (Art.11)
It is also the contrary of the mondial project about "rules that promote the justice and the peace among nations" and that save - as written in the UN Chart - "the future generations from the scourge of war".
Such a U-turn of the military defence to the Popular Non-violent Defence (DPN), is still more necessary, considering that the military system is just slaughter whole populations almost in all continents, by cruel ferocious wars of which we speak only when there is any advantage or, better, any interest for us. The risk of a nuclear war, or chemical, or bacteriological one, rather than averted, is increasing both in the nations that have such arms, that do not make as if to disarm, and in the other countries that, for that reason, are very angry, and threaten to equip themselves with these arms.
It needs to be remembered that since the Gulf War (including Iraq, Bosnia, Yugoslavia wars...), due to the NATO missiles, armed with impoverished uranium, the danger level is already been surpassed, with very serious consequences over people and over environment of measureless duration.

Those who still have a bit of wisdom and consciousness,
must say STOP to the Military System !!!

In addition to DPN, it seems sometimes necessary the intervent of International Police Corps to the dependence of a democratic and reinforced UN, of which politicians began (at last!) to speak clearly (D'Alema with Kofi Annan and Mancino), in addition to the social encyclicals written by the last Popes of the millenium: "It is more and more felt the need that to this internationalization of the economy, it will correspond international and valid inspection and guidance organs that drive the economy to the common good - a thing that every single nation, by now, even the more powerful in the Earth, is not able to do... concerning this matter, it remains so much to do" (Centesimus Annus n.58).
About the International Police Corps, it is necessary to clarify some things.
First, we have to distinguish the police that defends democracy for people's good, from the police system, that uses the police to defend the power against people.
Besides, we have to clearly distinguish between Army and police. It is not enough to distinguish between use and not use of armed force, and between armed defence and non-violent one, but instead between a murderous or not use of strenght, even armed.
This corresponds to the essential distinction between Army and police that even generals with a large theoretical philosopy training and wide national and international experience, suppose - for example the general Bruno Loi.
He wrote and confirmed me, in a meeting that he himself requested, that took place in the Military Academy in Modena, Italy (when he was commander), that "it is not possible to send the army to act as international police: the army has completely different tools, and the soldier is ready to kill, and to kill effectively. Whereas the police must not kill anyone, not even the thieves and the murderers; on the contrary, it ought to have at his disposal weapons intrinsicly not lethal".
If we do not do this dinstinction, between a murderous use or not of strenght (even armed), we risk to confuse the police and the Army; and so, every time it seems necessary a certain use of the strenght to defence (for example, humanitarian interference, etc), the real risk is to use army for war, disguise as police action, or solidarity, or peace, or humanitarian help, as it seems the fashion to call it by now.
Make it absolutely having priority the principle of do not kill, and realistically tolerate a non murderous use of strenght in extreme situations.
Clearly distinguish between Army and police, between war and action of police, and between a murderous use or not of strenght. Even Jesus used the whip to chase away the merchants from the Temple, and such a verbal strenght against Scribes and Pharisees. We are not more papist than the Pope.
It seems that the actual political classes, apart from, on this point, Rifondazione Comunista, rush towards the carring out of NMD (New Model of Defence), it does not matter what it costs.
Also the army purely professional is functional to the NMD - the wicked agreement.
Moreover, the NMD is really very expensive, and further subtracts funds to the social expenses. And it is not sure that such measures succeed in filling up the cadres of the Army, in spite of the monetary and occupational incentives. There is the risk that it will become necessary to open the prisons to fill up the vacant positions (in the Army).
On the contrary, the common sense and the conscience ask to abandon this military system, more consistent to a Hitler-like mentality, and convert it to more human models of resolution of international disputes, and that are based on the Gandhi's model of Peace and non-violence.
We really hope that Italy will not be totally dominated by the other countries about inhuman projects, as NMD, or the spread of nuclear weapons even in our territory - and so on - but we hope that Italy will be faithful to its mission of civilization, international legality and peace.
In spite of a bad realism, which believes that the abolition of the call-up for a structure of Army purely professional, according to the government proposal of law, will be inevitable by now, it is necessary to reaffirm that

This reform has not to be done !!!

Carry out the New Law about Conscientious Objectors n.230/98.

Someone claims that the Conscientious Objectors are employed in an improper way.
First of all, we would like to ask: who signed the convention with such companies, and who had to verify the correct carrying out of the civilian duties? It was the Ministry of Defence.
Secondly, do not generalize such a negative opinion. So many Conscientious Objectors has carried out a very good work, which explain well the anguish of many needy people, when they think the Objectors should leave.
Third, the New Law about the Objectors is been prepared and voted just to improve things: the compulsory vocational training; the training to the non-armed and non-violent defence; the prohibition to employ the conscientious objectors for work; to send abroad the objectors as members in humanitarian and peace missions - as only now the government is going to do - etc.
Let's introduce, instead, the possibility to opt for the military service or for the civilian duties, keeping the possibility to choose the conscientious objection for those who are contrary for principle to the military system. Also the examined new law about the free choice in favour of civilian duties, in fact will lead to the end of the civilian duties. Besides, those who thought of the abolition of the compulsory call-up, generally acted so (and said it explicitly) in the hope to abolish the conscientious objection also.
Besides, the eventual free-choised civilian duties won't have the same advantages of the soldiers (it means in the military system).
There are no money even for the professional Army nor for primary needs in the social life.
The government always gives crumbs to the civilian duties. If it depended on the wages and the board and lodging, the objectors should all death of hunger or should live under the bridges! Also in the New law about objectors, it is proposed that they could go abroad, but "without any burden for the State". In fact, those who are going to leave Italy are supported, at least in part, from the money of the objectors to the Military Expenses. The wages of the soldiers sent abroad are about 4 / 6 millions monthly, 16 millions for the officers (as the wife of one of them said me), all-expenses-paid. Where is the equal economical dignity between military service and civilian duties? Besides, for the cost of the military missions abroad, are expected special funds outside from the budget of Defence. First, change the defence in a non-violent one and in an international guarantee of peace justice; and then, in case, it will be possible to think of the abolition of the compulsory call-up. Surely we do not want the compulsory call-up to support and reinforce the military system as it is now. It is necessary to reaffirm to all the Members of the Italian Parliament:

NO to adventurous New laws !!
Carry out the New Law about Objectors that is time !!!

What European defence?

It seems decided, by now, the line of reinforcement of the European Union, after the Euro, also with the European Army in support of a credible foreign policy. The reinforcement of the Europe, is a good and necessary aim. Romano Prodi spoke in an interesting way about the necessity to end wars (see the open letter on the November issue of "MissioneOggi"), and on the convicion that the reinforcement and the enlargement of Europe is not to be economical and military, but rather in terms of healty priciple of democracy. But then it is necessary to clarify the concept of such an European Army. In fact, some tremendous industrial-military concentrations are forming, a fact that contradict the prospects of peace and democracy of Prodi. It is not clear if, at least, with the creation of an European Army, it will correspond the abolition of the national Armies, or if we will have another big Army. Besides, it should be more right to create an European Police Corps, in the above-mentioned sense, in the prospect of a radical reform of the UN with international police corps to its direct dependence.
Whithout a really reform of UN, the real power will be the prerogative of the multinationals, among which the multinational of weapons have a primary importance.

P. Angelo Cavagna