Not even Capanna is capable of such demagogic intolerance!

The whole matter becomes grotesque when Aligi states that Gandhi, having approved the war, took part in it personally, and did not vote to send others there. As far as I know, no one asked Gandhi to decide on World War I, and during World War II all he did was not prevent Indians from participating in it.

But Gandhi, unlike Aligi, dealt with matters of this importance with more humbleness: "My opposition to War was as strong then as it is now. However, we must acknowledge that in the world there are many things we do despite the fact that we are against them. I am against depriving even the most humble living creature of its life, just as I am against war. However, I constantly deprive several creatures of their lives, all the while hoping to achieve, one day, the capacity to live without this fratricide". "He who believes in non-violence should refrain from resorting to violence of physical force, directly or indirectly, in the defence of any cause, but no one should prevent him from helping other human beings or institutions that are not operating on the basis of non-violence. If such were not the case, I, for example, should not struggle for India's achievement of Swaraj (independence), simply because I know for sure that the future independent Indian parliament will have military and police forces".

I am in a rather similar situation as far as the United Nations are concerned. I am fully aware that the United Nations, as the expression of the prevailing political and juridical culture, never decided to operate on the basis of non-violence, but, as I said, I am convinced that only by enhancing that institution's powers will it be possible to curb violence. Aligi then objects to the fact of voting differently before and after the beginning of hostilities. In the first case it was possible, at least in theory, to consider either an extension of the embargo or other options of non-military force; once the war had broken out, the choice was either supporting the military action decided by the U.S. and by the other countries, in compliance with the international law, or dissociating oneself from such decision.

This last consideration also enables me to elucidate the problem of "just" wars. By justice we mean compliance with the law, with legality. From the point of view of the Christian law, wars are always unjust, in conformity with article 5 of the Tables. According to the law in force in Italy, only wars aimed at self-defense are "just", and, in relation to art. 11 of the Constitution, all military actions undertaken, in compliance with art.42 of the Charter, "with air, naval or ground forces of Members of the United Nations" aimed at restoring violated legality.

The non-violent militant struggles so that the Christian imperative "do not kill" may become a law of the States. He struggles to create a new legality, if necessary with civil disobedience, if he believes there is even a slight hope to assert it. But on the 17th of January or even before that date, were we faced to conditions of non-violent struggle and mobilization in the world enabling us to suggest an alternative to the use of military force, beyond words? Have we not been trying for years to constitute the transnational and non-violent Radical party precisely so as to include political non-violence in the range of possible, credible options? Aligi continues to mistake political struggle and verbal proclamation, patient and constant commitment to give consistency to a project, a historical project, aimed at introducing the culture of non-violence in the civilization of our time, with the abstract manipulation of alleged non-violent dogmas.

As far as the other points of Aligi's text are concerned, I can hardly reply without having to repeat things I have already said, making lengthy quotations or, even worse, entering the (unknown) realm of metapolitics (concerning the example of the stick, refer to Gandhi's "Young India", 4 November 1926 - and as far as the odd theses of the policeman shooting the unarmed boy, I can make no comment on his rash comparison between Saddam Hussein and the apple thief). As for gratuitous abuse, I will not bother answering.

One thing of Aligi's text I consider intolerable, and the expression of the most vulgar bad faith: Aligi, who has known the party and myself for over twenty years, goes so far as to pretend to ignore what we mean by "the right to life and the life of rights" and idly wonders whether we are referring to natural law! At that point, Aligi should have quoted the third slogan of the "Party" of Oceania as well: "IGNORANCE IS FORCE". We would all have cried out, filled with gratitude: "Oh Saviour".