In the world many populations are much more oppressed and subject to massacres than the Tibetan. They cannot even voice their problems while the world seems indifferent to their issue. Our Party has long ago singled out the Tibetan cause as prioritary.

It is therefore necessary to retrieve the reasons of this choice so that they can become part of the collective consciousness.

Fighting for Tibet and for the Tibetans means asserting the need to find a new planetary institutional order, grounded on the Law and on novel institutional provisions. Novel in nature, in their binding capability, and in the powers ascribed to them.

The Tibetan tragedy faithfully represents both the want of planetary equilibria and the loss of the existing ones, which have given rise to tragic events but which have nonetheless been functional for decades.

Therefore, it is not feasible to act in favour of Tibet without being explicitely and politically aware of the fact that this engagement is functional and useful to the issue of a novel planetary institutional organization, to the so called international relationships. At least as far as we, the Radical Party, are concerned.

The Radical Party did not deem the fight for freedom in Tibet as prioritary merely out of the need for independence claimed by that population; in that case the Radical Party would not be the most proper body to fight for that specific goal. Perhaps, it would be better to create or give rise to an ad hoc subject, capable of attracting and gathering new and manifold strengths and energies, including those that would divert the perplexities relevant to our being a Party, and to our being radical.

Why is it the Radical Party, rather than a world organization for freedom in Tibet and the surrounding ecosystem, who is engaged in this fight? Why is it not a sort of "Peoplpeace"?

If the R.P. were supporting a national independence issue, this would be lacking any form of legitimation but that of a charitable pursuit which would be a little more than an end in itself. The problem is to be ligitimized to act: if the pursuit were the mere liberation of Tibet or even the democratization of China, the R.P. could not claim any legitimacy, since very few Tibetans, let alone the Chinese, can be listed among its members.

Legitimacy arises or must arise from something else, i.e. from the explicit instrumentality ascribed by the Party itself to the Tibetan issue. Instrumentality to something else, something to be defined, or to be achieved or, still, to be made political. Otherwise, the R.P.'s legitimation to act the role of leading character in the fight for the Tibetan issue would be ephemeral. In tactical terms, if the Radicals continue to be complementary - either in the practice or in the image - to the legitimate Tibetan institutions in exile, this approach will sooner or later clash with the - evident and natural - want of legitimacy with respect to the issue of independence and autonomy claimed by a population.

We, transnational transparty - which is what we do or do not claim to be - would be legitimized to act in favour of Tibet only if we were explicitely and practically aware of the fact that the Tibetan issue is instrumental to the development of a novel planetary institutional order.

Otherwise, the want of legitimacy will force us to pay too high - and final, given our present situation - a price.

On the contrary, by being engaged in the Tibetan issue, we seem to be fighting for our legitimation. But this makes no sense. Legitimation cannot ensue from cautious actions or as a sort of compensation. Even less can this ensue from a political practice that leaves what we are and the reasons of our choice out of consideration. Legitimation can only spring from the clear knowledge of the diversities and of the various interests at stake, including ours. In these months we have realized that, more or less frequently, we are not informed on events that are crucial for the evaluation of the situation and its evolution. Of course, this is not so much the result of a political will, as of the unclear role played by us and of our unclear interests. The party must act as a political subject prefiguring, in its being and in its organization, the institutional environment where it intends to act, and which it aims to create. The operative alliance with the exiled Tibetan institutional bodies

, and the consequent alliance with groups, different in kind and nature, acting as they can or want in favour of that popoulation, cannot be inspired by "intergroup" logics which - often or always - tend to smooth tactical differences, rather than to emphasize strategically useful diversities.

We often endure the tendency to favour prudence rather than wisdom. But often what seems prudent is not wise. The time has come, for us Radicals, to say, practice, assert and witness the reason why the Tibetan cause is not our own. This cause is not more urgent and tragic than others. Accordingly, there can be no strategic alliance with neither the exiled Tibetan Government nor the many pro-Tibetan groups. On the contrary, the existing common struggle must be pursued and strengthened with a constant emphasis on both diversity and diversities.

First of all, because we Radicals need Tibetans and their history, their present and their creed. We need them; they are useful because thay can help us do what we have to do.

Yet what we have to do is still uncertain, in terms of both thought and debate. Things are not different if we consider our

policy, or the policy of some Party members, on the death

penalty, for instance, or on other issues. It must be underlined

that we (at least myself) are still unaware of the reasons why we

are against the capital punishment. We have never asserted it, or

at least it has been years since we asserted it last. Why do we

say no to the death penalty? And, likewise, why do we fight for

freedom in Tibet? Prudence often leads to automatism and to

emphasize humanitarian (or semi-humanitarian) reasons which seem

the most understandable and immediate political messages. But

wisdom would suggest to act otherwise. If it is true, as it has

been empirically proved (and not only claimed by Gandhi, King or

Pannella) that, after all the means equal to the ends, that the

former prefigure as well as interpret the latter, thus affecting

them, it seems clear that by referring great part of the

initiative to a specific subject engaged in the fight for the

abolition of the death penalty we would merely reach that specific goal and nothing else. Furthermore, this subject would not be legitimized to make any binding or cogent decisions. The means, the political instrument can just lead to that end, but first it must be prefigured.

We must make another consideration, which goes beyond the Gandhian political viewpoint: the law plays a crucial role in the political culture we express as well as the instrumentality of political organizations with respect to their own goals. A

subject asserting its own instrumental role (for both practical and liberal-lay reasons) will unlikely give rise to other different political subjects without denying the urgency of its own existence.

Let me now make a parallel consideration which might seem cynical but which is nothing more than a painful acknowledgement of the fact that, in Italy, the actual hinderance to handicapped people like myself to circulate relatively comfortably lies in the existence of the many bodies and associations organizing and managing the funds destined to the care and support of the handicapped. It might seem a paradox, but the greatest misfortune for these associations and bodies would be the transformation of urban areas into comfortable places for handicapped and non-handicapped people. A handicapped person is a

sort of treasure for those dealing with his/her problem, provided

that he/she is able to move and to pay the taxes. Any association dealing with handicapped people is objectively interested in

having these peolpe's problems prolonged as long as possible, and

this is somehow understandable. May be this consideration is out

of place, but I think that it could be useful to think it over.

The decision made by the CORA at the recent European Conference contrasts with my last consideration although it seems to be somehow in agreement with what I have asserted in the previous pages. I am talking about the choice of becoming federated to the Radical Party rather than internally associated with it. Of course there is nothing wrong with this decision, but I think that my previous considerations perfectly fit the case. On the contrary it is commendable that our camrades are willing to focus their own energies on specific issues and campaigns and that, accordingly, they decide to create subjects that are functional to the pursuit of specific goals that are challenging their minds. And, of course, nobody can or must interfere with any organizational decision. Howevere, there are some inadequacies that have nothing to do with the will and the engagement of our camrades.

But this reality questions the nature of the Party itself as well as its policy. Therefore, we must necessarily be aware of the instrumentality of the party. Nothing else. Family wisdom would suggest to consider the resources, acutally or likely, available by always keeping in mind the goals. And if the goals are manifold the political subject must be adequately shaped. In the long term, the political responsabilities will have to be subdivided into various sectors and coordinated rather than managed as a whole. Perhaps the present situation makes the monochratic or diarchic structure of the leadership obsolete. Of course we should go much deeper into the matter but it would seem that only some members can benefit from this situation. However, this issue should be included in a much wider framework where opportunities and benefits underlying the same existence of the Party are debated. In a word, the existence of the Party must not be given for granted. Should it

be necessary, its same existence can be questioned and its structure converted into something else.

Although the Tibetan cause is being fought by the Radical Party in the first person, the risk is the same and was expounded beforehand: the present tactical meaning of the initiatives is openly unbound from the strategic awareness of those achieving them.

It is necessary that by Satyagraha we mean both a nonviolent and nonpeaceful invasion of Tibet. This compound word has long ago become very common in our may be too intimate lexicon. It is our duty to spread it beyond the Tibetan and the relevant worlds. But first of all it is necessary to understand clearly what we aim at so that such an exhotic word can become something more than a totem or an alibi.

If Satiagraha is to be more than a logo it depends on us. We must conceive it and share it. While it is wise to share only what we master, it would be dangerously prudent to tactically wait too long because, in this way, we would lose the chance to draw theoretical richness from the sharing.

What is Satyagraha to be?

The question is pointless unless we set the goal and the target. Undoubtedly, both the theory and the history of political nonviolence can be inferred and measured by the ends rather than by the means. And this cannot be disproved.

Therefore, it is necessay to set our targets so that the proper means can be adopted together with subjects other thar ourselves.

The target is: to impose the Tibetan cause on the new United Nations, also through the emerging Chinese ruling class. In these terms it might seem very coarse, but its nature would not change by using other words.

Undoubtedly, if the target is the legitimation of Tibet within the international law, we must also acknowledge the utmost urgency of legitimizing - also through the legitimation of Tibet - the United Nations as the unique body where the international controversies are to be solved. We must acknowledge the need to consider the law as the equilibrium point between human relationships (be they individuals, social and ethnic groups, or nations).

We must necessarily be very rigorous on this issue, otherwise the Tibetan cause will turn out to be even worse - in its consequences - than the issue of Central-Eastern Europe. In the latter case, not only were many hopes shattered, but also numberless chances for richer Western democratic countries lost.

In other words, a political subject can be structured according to its own targets and thus, in turn, represent them faithfully.

This is why the subjectivity of the Radical Party, as an instrument, is to be clear, but the Party must be able to change its present nature, alongside its present features.

To set Tibet free, or to assert the need of political supranational institutions that go beyond the contingent, obsolete form of the States, this is the question.

The way can be covered alongside any ally, but we must necessarily be firm, not only on the grounds of ideal reasons, but also due to our evident and increasing inadequacy. Undoubtedly, things in the world go much faster than our political action.

For the sake of clarity rather than of modesty, it must be said that these words are not aimed at summare anything. But we deem it absolutely necessary to draw up now, today, a manifesto where we express the need of international laws and institutions. The programmatic manifesto of a planetary institutional order dealing with the needs and issues of today's world. The Tibetan cause stands for many others, the most striking, the most tragic.

But first of all it is necessary to draw up a Manifesto of International Law. It is necessary to find a new equilibrium point

for the world.

This can be done by progressively identifying actions and interventions, which will have to be deepened, and which will have to catalyze consent.

This Manifesto will be that of a nonviolent, nonpeaceful, invasion of Tibet. We must start the preparatory process, form a political and practical perspective. Satyagraha, can be nothing but this: the civil prefiguration of what communities can do with respect to the global emergencies and issues. Thus asking and giving rise to new global institutions.

Much more should be added on the matter, but for the time being let us just predispose - through these few words - places and opportunities for a debate, for a new age.

I am not talking about nonviolence, Gandhism or whatever the like: I am just pointing out that it is wise for an organization like ours to act in fields where we shall not be defeated for certain. Which might also be new fields.

We must go there and we must be many, one million people. This urgency is also supported by the internal equilibria (which are mostly unknown to us still) and relationships with the Tibetan ruling class, alongside many other considerations.

Of course, some important emergencies might and must lead us to postpone some other initiatives and the activity of many members of the Party. But this does not equal to avoiding to manage what could or will happen tomorrow. But the new form of the Party must be faced and debated now, because we must be theoretically well equipped today in order to fill some dangerous gaps. The Radical Party's features must comply with the widest of public debates. It must act, but actions must be planned now. This is why the Satyagraha perspective, i.e. to cover growingly wider and clearer ways, is not only necessary but also urgent.

We can and must try, and to do so we must make a choice, also as far as resourse allocation is concerned. Starting from the Party's property. We must consider what we have and what could be sold, for instance. The need, often and long expressed by the Party's members, of an new "State of the Party" which complies with the wise decision made by the leaders about eight years ago, i.e. to make known what the Party owns, what can be sold and invested, must be urgently satisfied, hic et nunc.

The Manifesto must be drawn up by a study group. The latter is to be created soon to the purpose of finding new intellectual resources. They must also describe the State of the Party today, they must give a picture of its properties, since the coincidence of having and being has always (and almost uniquely) guranteed the laity and credibility of the Party.

To do so, it is necessary to discontinue our tasks, so that we can conceive this new possibility by taking into account what we must be able to do, and by endowing ourselves with external skills. We must conceive our replies and our proposals.