ABSTRACT: In reply to a letter where some radical exponents explained the reasons for which they did not join the "hunger strike in support of the victims of the former Yugoslavia" [text n. 5348], Adriano Sofri explains that first of all he agrees on the fact that peace cannot be safeguarded outside the legality and on the need for a more effective intervention of the United Nations to defend Sarajevo and Bosnia . But all this, Sofri says, has nothing to do with the hunger strike, because this initiative's explicit goal is gathering forces that are divided by opposite positions. The dissent, therefore, concerns only the opportunity of carrying out a common action despite the difference of opinion. Believing that this is possible, Sofri specifies the objectives of the initiative, that aims to strengthen all those, "public and civil personalities, moderate parties and groups that favour peace and ethnic and religious respect, who are to build, in the former Yugoslavia a fragile structure for the end of the war

and the reinstatement of coexistence". He then says the Verona Forum is the most appropriate forum for the development of a process that will lead to a definition of new and more advanced common objectives. Lastly, Sofri expresses reservations on the distinction, underlined by the radicals, between non-violence and pacifism: while it is true that pacifism has missed some of the most dramatic challenges of our time, it is also true that in Gandhi's way of thinking pacifism was "the extention of individual non-violence to a state level". "Destined to relinquish its ideological presumption, all the more in that it confronts reality, pacifism could become what it should be: the desire of many people to join their forces to the force of the United Nations".

---------------------

Dear Emma, Sergio, Roberto and Angiolo,

Thank you for your letter, which I will answer in writing.

I hadn't thought we would disagree on this initiative, and perhaps this could already be matter for thought. Believe me: the other day over the phone with Marco, I mentioned my intention very briefly simply because I know how busy he is. A central idea in your letter struck me as both correct and incoherent: that peace cannot be upheld outside of the law. I am convinced of this, but I cannot see how our initiative can buttress this objection. On the contrary. Therefore, I cannot answer something which I consider totally groundless.

In your letter, you explained (or rather, confirmed) your position concerning the responsibilities of the aggressors in ex-Yugoslavia. But this is not the point. Discussing this subject, we could find arguments of specific dissent: possibly a different consideration of the degree of responsibility. But obviously there could be no dissent regarding the primary responsibility of the Serbian government and of the armed gangs which it finances and covers; or the concern for rash expressions, like "those bloody Serbs" which escape Emma's lips at times, when we were together at the "Maurizio Costanzo show" for example, and which I imagine Emma herself would not repeat. Or perhaps - but I doubt it - I might express a more pessimistic opinion on the Croatian government. But these are secondary divergences, in any case. As to the central issue, I fear I would be more drastic than you are. Some time ago, I wrote on "L'Unità" (and no one answered) that I was in favour of an armed intervention of the United Nations to d

efend Sarajevo and of Bosnia. I wanted to dispel any doubts, and clearly said that I was in favour of bombing the Serbian heavy artillery bases and military supply routes. But I think you know all this.

Since in my hunger strike proposal I explicitly expressed the intention of uniting forces even divided by strongly conflicting, if not opposite, opinions (my text summarizes this point very accurately; regarding the subject of the responsibilities, and of the use of military force on the part of the United Nations), there ensues that our divergence does not concerns the divergences, but the possibility of carrying out a common action despite the divergences. I believe this is possible, and I ask you to consider my reasons.

In the meanwhile, my ultimate goal is not that of mediating between opposite fronts, but urging the active participation of as many people of good will who do not belong to any front. My impression is that a great number of these people remain passive as an effect of the mutual paralysis of those fronts. At any rate, the extraordinary number of voluntary initiatives to express concrete solidarity faced to the inconsistency of a wider and more general mobilization, further confirms this view.

In the meanwhile, it seems to me that there are things that can be done in spite of every divergence. Neither you nor I would shun the idea of collecting money or clothes, for example, together with professional pacifists. There are other things, on the other hand, that call for clear positions and delimitations. However, my initiative is free of any noncommittal compromise. What I suggested was to unite our forces in order to give a more tangible expression of solidarity, each person remaining free to act according to his own principles on any other occasion; and to use this strength in favour of all those - public and civil personalities, moderate groups and parties in favour of peace and of ethnic and religious respect - who can build the framework for the end of the war and a return to coexistence. Supporting the growth of this prospect is already a worthy goal, and I needn't tell you that, considering the network of transnational adhesions you have created. Moreover, as I tried to explain in the appeal,

joining a hunger strike and similar initiatives also represents a first step to endorse the objectives which this renewed peaceful and multiethnic meeting is gradually and laboriously recognizing as common. I said the meeting of Verona Forum was one of the sites of this process; I participated in this meeting as a spectator, and it confirmed my belief that it will be an extremely difficult process, and at the same time a highly necessary and fruitful one. I trust that, in the face of tragically dire conditions, many people of good will should - and in any case could - feel less influenced by principles of affiliation, national, confessional and ideological prejudice, and accept the common appeal to humanity, to respect, to the legitimate defence of any threatened part. That meeting unconditionally confirmed objectives which I fully share and which you yourselves have been advocating - the creation of an international court for crimes of war, the recognition of Macedonia, etc. - and as far as the most thorny

issues are concerned, I heard appeals to "a stronger and more direct commitment on the part of the international Community, both to obtain the cessation of sieges and attacks, prevent air raids, arms supply and the use of heavy artillery, and to ensure the safe arrival of humanitarian relief, which should not be divided between the besieged and the besiegers, and to discourage any form of "ethnic cleansing". For this purpose, the meeting asked to support the mots intensive use of all civilian means (monitoring, mediation, diplomatic and political pressure, use of embargos, etc.), but also a credible threat to resort to the international military force, not with the purpose of supporting a faction at war, but to reinstate minimum conditions of legality...Such strong international commitment is necessary also as a preventive measure, especially to discourage any extension of the war to Macedonia (and the meeting underlined Macedonia's request for an immediate international recognition), Kosovo and Vojvodina.

Isn't this experience significant, despite its limits? Isn't it a significant fact, that these results come from the union of different forces, many of which could be labeled as pacifist?

The last point: I talked about it more than once with Marco, and it seemed to me we had made some progress. The distinction which you make between nonviolence and pacifism doesn't convince me, except perhaps in a historical sense. It's true that pacifism has missed the most dramatic challenges to humanity, and that it has contributed to disarming the public opinion and the international community in the face of aggressions and exterminations. But it is equally true, that in Gandhi, especially after a certain stage of his life, nonviolence and pacifism are closely related and sometimes even coincide, and that - despite the endless complications and the vital contradictions of Gandhi's thought and action - pacifism was, in Gandhi's philosophy, the extension of individual nonviolence on a national scale. As far as this intricate problem is concerned, I will express only a few remarks. As an extension of a non-aggressive attitude vis-à-vis nature - "ecopacifism" - pacifism is a deceitful doctrine; and probably p

acifism as a confessed religious ideal cannot be attributed to a movement, but to single and extraordinary people - people whose sanctity is such as to offset even the insanity and the willingness to sacrifice themselves and others. But as far as pacifism as a "leftist" ideology is concerned, as a follower of the superstitious demonization of the West and of the complicity with communism, pacifism is bound to die out with the collapse of communism. I said die out, rather than collapse, because certain psychological habits and mental patterns last long after the condition they originate from; and they can always find new life in surrogates of the lost ideals (including a generalized pro-Third World attitude, if not a pro-Islamism; excesses, which, compared to the blindness with which Europe shows its lack of interest for the domestic Turks and Bosnian Mulsims, may appear to be secondary). It seems to me, therefore, that the "leftist" and Stalinist pro-Serbian stance is bound to be short-lived, and will be des

troyed by the ill-doings of the Serbs themselves as well as by a Russian voluntarism which combines Soviet reminiscences and racist forms of Pan-Slavism: an intolerable concoction. Bound to lose its ideological presumption, all the more since it has to confront the reality, pacifism could become what it should be - the yearning of so many people to unite their force of interposition with that of the United Nations. More simply, to use an expression of the time of Saint Francis, to "make the peaces". Don't you think pacifism could become such? It could also do the opposite thing: cling to its local interests and prejudices - but this is a risk we all share. Clearly, I'm astonished when people who believe they should mobilize in the name of pacifism to prevent the use of an international armed force in Bosnia, whereas the international community has allowed Bosnia to be devastated for over a year. I'm astonished when I hear the same old story about the inviolability of the national sovereignty, and when people

raise an eyebrow when the Pope talks about the right to humanitarian interference, years after the international bodies have consecrated the duty of interference, in a world in which national sovereignties can save neither the children, nor the whales, nor the world. It thus seems all the more appropriate, to me, to find ways to tackle the common problems together, with common interlocutors. You have made efforts in this sense, and continue to do so; more than I have. This might lead you perhaps to an involuntary withdrawal, a sort of party jealousy, which is the most natural of feelings, but inappropriate in a party such as the radical party - and all the more in the radical party as it has become after the newly-acquired transnational status. But perhaps party jealousy has nothing to do with it, and in that case I apologize.

We can make this discussion public, if you agree, and further develop it with other people. I would be very happy if this occurred while the sympathetic hunger strike continues, thanks also to your contribution.

Yours sincerely,

Adriano Sofri.

(1) SOFRI ADRIANO. (1942). Leader of the Italian political movement "Lotta Continua". Journalist and writer. Tried and convicted to twenty years of prison as the presumed author of the assassination of the police commissioner Luigi Calabresi. Author of memoirs.

(2) BONINO EMMA. (Bra 1948). President of the Radical Party, former member of the European Parliament; member of of the Italian Parliament as of 1976. Among the promoters of the CISA (Information Centre on Sterilization and Abortion) and an active militant in the campaign against clandestine abortion. She was tried and acquitted in Florence. Participated in the conduction, on a national and international scale, of the campaign on World Hunger. Among the founding members of "Food and Disarmament International", promoted the circulation of the Manifesto of Nobel Laureates.

(3) STANZANI GHEDINI SERGIO AUGUSTO. (Bologna 1923). Exponent of the Italian Students Association in the '50s; among the founders of the Radical Party. Senator and member of Parliament, currently secretary of the Radical Party. Former IRI executive. Engineer.

(4) CICCIOMESSERE ROBERTO. (Bolzano 1948). Radical deputy belonging to the European Federalist Group. Conscientious objector, was arrested and convicted; following his initiative, in 1972 this civil right was recognized in Italy. In 1970 treasurer of the Radical party, which he was also secretary of in 1971 and 1984. In 1969 he was secretary of the LID (Italian League for Divorce), member of the European Parliament from 1984 to 1989. Creator and organizer of "AGORA' telematica", a multilingual computer communications system.

(5) BANDINELLI ANGIOLO. (Chianciano 1927). Writer. Former member of the Partito d'Azione; secretary of the Radical Party in 1969, 1971 and 1972; he was also treasurer of the party for five years. In 1979 local councillor in Rome, deputy in the ninth legislature. For many years, editor of several radical publications ("La Prova Radicale", "Notizie Radicali", etc), author of essays and articles relative to the history and the theory of the party, many of which are contained in the book "Il radicale impunito". Currently writes for newspapers and magazines and for Radio Radicale with notes and editorials.

(6) PANNELLA MARCO. Pannella Giacinto, known as Marco. (Teramo 1930). Currently President of the Radical Party's Federal Council, which he is one of the founders of. At twenty national university representative of the Liberal Party, at twenty-two President of the UGI, the union of lay university students, at twenty-three President of the UNURI, national union of Italian university students. At twenty-four he advocates, in the context of the students' movement and of the Liberal party, the foundation of the new radical party, which arises in 1954 following the confluence of prestigious intellectuals and minor democratic political groups. He is active in the party, except for a period (1960-1963) in which he is correspondent for "Il Giorno" in Paris, where he established contacts with the Algerian resistance. Back in Italy, he commits himself to the reconstruction of the radical Party, dissolved by its leadership following the advent of the centre-left. Under his indisputable leadership, the party succeeds in

promoting (and winning) relevant civil rights battles, working for the introduction of divorce, conscientious objection, important reforms of family law, etc, in Italy. He struggles for the abrogation of the Concordat between Church and State. Arrested in Sofia in 1968 as he is demonstrating in defence of Czechoslovakia, which has been invaded by Stalin. He opens the party to the newly-born homosexual organizations (FUORI), promotes the formation of the first environmentalist groups. The new radical party organizes difficult campaigns, proposing several referendums (about twenty throughout the years) for the moralization of the country and of politics, against public funds to the parties, against nuclear plants, etc., but in particular for a deep renewal of the administration of justice. Because of these battles, all carried out with strictly nonviolent methods according to the Gandhian model - but Pannella's Gandhi is neither a mystic nor an ideologue; rather, an intransigent and yet flexible politician - h

e has been through trials which he has for the most part won. As of 1976, year in which he first runs for Parliament, he is always elected at the Chamber of Deputies, twice at the Senate, twice at the European Parliament. Several times candidates and local councillor in Rome, Naples, Trieste, Catania, where he carried out exemplary and demonstrative campaigns and initiatives. Whenever necessary, he has resorted to the weapon of the hunger strike, not only in Italy but also in Europe, in particular during the major campaign against world hunger, for which he mobilized one hundred Nobel laureates and preeminent personalities in the fields of science and culture in order to obtain a radical change in the management of the funds allotted to developing countries. On 30 September 1981 he obtains at the European parliament the passage of a resolution in this sense, and after it several other similar laws in the Italian and Belgian Parliament. In January 1987 he runs for President of the European Parliament, obtaini

ng 61 votes. Currently, as the radical party has pledged to no longer compete with its own lists in national elections, he is striving for the creation of a "transnational" cross-party, in view of a federal development of the United States of Europe and with the objective of promoting civil rights throughout the world.