Peace or war? A vision of the future
The invasion of the West worldwide (Europe and North America) is great controversy: should we admit economic and political refugees from the other parts of the world? Should Europe open to refugees? Left forces say yes, invoking not making sense of discrimination/distinction between the nationals of a country and foreigners; with what they would pay injustices of colonial times; and that these foreigners must be 'integrated' (1). Also the most liberal forces, although with a different argument, are favorable to the entry of immigrants in large quantities, claiming to be indispensable given the lack of labor for many activities – which also suits them as these immigrants are generally paid for values that are not attractive to nationals.
As for the nationalist right, now nicknamed far-right, in his populist speech he sees the entry of large numbers of immigrants as an 'invasion', capable of causing problems at the criminal level; While in a more intellectual view it invokes that such an indiscriminate entry will subvert the indispensable values and coherence for the existence of a nation as a community.
The two worlds
Let us now look on the other side, to most of the populations living outside this 'West': for those who are not sure to have to eat the next day, live in tents or houses where the cold and rain comes in, in neighborhoods where sewers run outdoors, dominated by gangs or corrupt police forces, 'West' is an 'El Gold', a 'paradise', for what they try to reach at any cost. The reader has certainly heard the Mediterranean Sea of 'Largest Open Cemetery'.
The answer of the well -thinking
However what is the answer of well -thinking politicians? They sweep this problem under the rug, nicknamed it from extreme right mystifications. And not just this problem, but also, such as the pollution of rivers, seas and air, the exhaustion of natural resources, nuclear proliferation, pandemics, wars – which make godly statements but do not translate into effective measures… and point out the danger of a Russian invasion. In the words of the current secretary general of NATO « if we do not increase to 3.5 % of the gross domestic product the expenses with military expenses we will have to start learning Russian. »
The fear
However, it seems to me that a war between great nuclear powers cannot take place, for this would imply the destruction of humanity and, consequently, who had triggered it (2); And in 'classic' war the Russians are not that strong as they see in Ukraine. In short: The risk of a Russian invasion is 'a bogeyr' to fear. And although high military spending and the maintenance of a climate of distrust – and consequently fear – be bearable to the populations of rich countries (although costs in social programs, given that the military spending itself has to add the cost of sanctions that limit free trade) this vision implies that its problems remain unresolved. On the contrary they will make it worse, as each block will try to pull as much as possible to nations, which will translate into the multiplication of civil wars, with their more suffering and more refugee corollary.
War or Peace
Let's see another aspect now: Want European populations want to live in a climate of war? Will not prefer peace? However, and somewhat paradoxically, 'responsible' European politicians, governing in countries that claim to be democratic, that is, where the will of the population has to be taken into account, does not even put as an alternative the idea of achieving peace.
Now – Wouldn't it be the attempt to achieve peace an alternative? The (very) best alternative?
Let us be aware of recent history: The Israelo-Palestinian conflict has been 'resolved' through Arms-and the result is a series of wars that seems to have no end. By opposition in Europe, social democracy (at the level of each country and global, and in its various forms, including Christian democracy), and the idea that wars on our continent had to end, that gave peace and social stability to western and central Europe, interrupting the bloody confrontation series between countries and between the different social classes (or ways of seeing the world) in which the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century were fertile. It seems so not only warned, more human-and I venture to say, not just more Christian but more logical, to replace this war paradigm with a paradigm of peace, so that we can look at the future with more confidence, and applying the resources now diverted to war-which, as has been seen, to alleviate-to attenuate (to nullify the impossible) the flagant inequalities between the world of the 'rich' and the world of the 'rich' 'Poor'. End hunger, give a decent house to each family, clean water, end the cold, vaccinate and educate all children. So that every man/woman/child can have a minimally acceptable life in his own country. That is, what we dare here to suggest is the application of the principles that gave peace to Europe to the planetary level.
But… can it be like this?
The reader will doubt here: Isn't this a naive vision, perhaps even dangerous? In fact, undoing the climate of distrust between the current blocks that are currently dignified (although this animosity is more instilled than real) can not be unilateral and blindly – it will have to be done by stages, and based on concrete measures from party to – the situation may be reverted if these conditions do not occur. And a spirit of true collaboration of 'United Nations', the dream of the founders of this organization, will be even harder to reach, at least in the nearest years. But we will all win; And to make politics seriously a vision of the future is necessary. As the Black Ouro Duo sang: « Men made / a final agreement / end hunger, end war / live in love. »
- This idea obviously only applicable – and yet in moderation – citizens of countries whose culture is close to that of the welcoming country; For others it will be violence.
- Already a small nuclear war between medium powers although not probable, it is possible, because it should be avoided at all costs to nuclear proliferation.
Landscape architect
