1) Pro-intervention non-violence: "The peace that Europe has conquered at Munich is a triumph of violence" (Gandhi, "Harijan", 15th of October 1938). To assert that non-violence is pro-intervention, that it sets itself against the pacifism of the weak ones, that precisely at a moment of conflict, the non-violent individual must be able to make a choice and not avoid the issue, and that he could not accept another Munich in the Gulf, in other words passively suffering the violence of Saddam Hussein, is simply a solid and indisputable acquisition of Gandhi's preaching. Where would the "fable" be?

2) On the 2nd of August, not during a theoretical simulation, the only way, unfortunately, of manifesting the resolve to refuse to accept the state of things, was that of showing, by sending ships, that this time there was the firm intention of enforcing resolution n. 661 of the Council of Security of the UNO, that is, of an indisputable source of international law. On the 2nd of August a non-violent individual could certainly have asserted that if the United Nations had acted before to prevent the rearmament of Iraq, and that if...., if...., then there would have been no need for ships today. Could he have boycotted (because it is this he should have done if he had considered it unacceptable) the enforcement of a measure of international police?

3) The United States are, at present, the only country which has the means and the possibility of enacting, "in good and in evil", resolution n. 665 of the Council of Security of the United Nations. The other countries can merely act as auxiliary forces, accepting the initiative and the decisions of the United States. The Soviet Union has too many domestic problems to solve, and too many old alliances that influence it. If the crisis will not be solved through a diplomatic solution or as a consequence of the embargo, in other words, if Saddam Hussein does not withdraw from Kuwait, it is most likely that the United States will be pushed toward an action of force, and this for a number of reasons, among which: the excessive financial and political cost of a long and nerve-breaking permanence in Saudi Arabia; the possibility of military ot terrorist accidents; the increasingly stronger requests on the part of the Arab countries for a military solution, in order to destroy the growing internal pro-Hussein moveme

nt. Only the creation of another political and military entity, capable of taking on itself the same responsibilities for the crisis as the United States, and therefore of becoming its forced interlocutor, could prevent this tragical solution, which too many people are already advocating. This entity is the community Europe. It is obvious that nobody is thinking of reaching a political union in a few weeks time, but it is certainly possible to accelerate the process of political integration, and weigh on the decisions to be taken in the Gulf.

Are there other ways to be not only spectators but also actors of the crisis? Does anyone have a different and more convincing suggestion - not just reservations and analyses?

Needless to say, what we have acquired in Parliament with the voting of 23 August is very little. Can anyone help us to obtain more?

Among the many doubts and uncertainties, these are the few convictions that, in this difficult moment, allow me to make those choices, which I cannot, even if I wanted to, avoid making.

Those who are reading this can and must have doubts, and discuss, but, at a certain moment, they too will have to make their choice. If not, the confrontation becomes a purely verbal exercise and not a political dialogue.

These are, therefore, my proposals: the current facts are a demonstration not so much or not only of the fact that we were right when we asserted that the real threat to security in our epoch is the North-South conflict, but especially that we can not win the battle against "starvation in the world" with the mere awareness that "development is the new name for peace". There can be no development without democracy, without information. This is, therefore, an incredible possibility for non-violent political initiative of applying all the analyses and all the initiatives that we developed for years against Soviet totalitarianism to the countries of the South of the world. Might it be worth joining the Radical Party to give shape to this new project of political battle?