Según
dicen, se necesita una ideología para estos tiempos.
Yo hubiera jurado que ya teníamos una oficial y establecida. Pero parece que los mandamientos y la liturgia que hay, no alcanzan.
De eso, ya diré alguna cosa (por eso copio el editorial de
The New York Times más abajo...)
Ahora bien, no me acuerdo si
Primo de Rivera o
Agustín de Foxá (otros dicen
Francesc Combó o
Julio Camba...) sostenía que
morir por la democracia era como morir por el sistema métrico decimal...Entiendo lo que se quiere decir. Pero eso no quita que la cuestión tenga su verdad.
La
libertad, la
tolerancia, el
disenso que parecen estar en la raíz de la ideología que hay que construir, tienen un aire tan decididamente parecido a la democracia de la frase...
Y en realidad creo que a las tres cosas, juntas o separadas, se les puede aplicar la misma frase.
Sin embargo, y ya que lo estoy diciendo, recuerdo que el
sistema métrico decimal es, tal como lo conocemos, un hijo espiritual de la
Revolución Francesa y que- como muchas de las cosas que nacieron de ella- también se impuso, como si dijéramos,
'a sangre y fuego...'De este modo, es muy pero muy probable que haya legiones de gentes dispuestas a morir por la libertad, la tolerancia y el disenso...
Como debe haber legiones dispuestas a dar su vida por la democracia.
Hasta que llegue el día en que haya apenas unos poquitos que se resistan a dar la vida por el sistema métrico decimal.
ver
What We Saw in London
By Stephen J. Hadley and Frances Fragos Towsend
Washington, July 23, 2005
The British people suffered another attack this week, one that fortunately caused far less damage than the horrible events of July 7. But as they did earlier this month, the people of London responded bravely. Their courage over these harrowing few weeks reminds us that those who love freedom have prevailed against such evil before and can do so again.
The London attacks vividly demonstrated the challenge we face. As President Bush has said: "The terrorists need to be right only once. Free nations need to be right 100 percent of the time." We need all citizens, everyone who loves freedom, to join in the fight. And in this fight, the people the terrorists most want to dominate - the people of Islam - will be our most important allies.
Muslims are the prize the terrorists hope to claim. They are also the victims of the terrorists, for suicide attacks have likely killed and wounded more Muslims than people of any other faith. It is their religion that the terrorists invoke to justify these evil acts, and so Muslims themselves are in the best position to expose the terrorists' lies. They are increasingly doing exactly that, as the 500 Muslim leaders who signed a declaration condemning the July 7 bombings bravely showed.
The London attacks served to underscore the reality that we face an enemy determined to destroy our way of life and substitute for it a fanatical vision of dictatorial and theocratic rule. At its root, the struggle is an ideological contest, a war of ideas that engages all of us, public servant and private citizen, regardless of nationality.
We have waged such wars before, and we know how to win them. Of course, every ideological war is different, and each presents new challenges. Yet our efforts since the attacks of 9/11 have been guided by three important lessons learned when free peoples twice defeated totalitarianism in the last century.
First and most important, we must have a clear understanding of the ideology espoused by the enemy. The terrorists we face today aim to remake the Middle East in their own grim image - one that, as President Bush has said, "hates freedom, rejects tolerance and despises all dissent."
This vision is eerily reminiscent of earlier totalitarian systems, where a radical few subjugated the helpless many. Then as now, terror is the principal tool of the totalitarian. Today's terrorists seek through barbaric violence to topple governments, export terrorism and force free nations to stand down. The terrorists believe democracies are weak, and that those who champion freedom will retreat in the face of relentless attacks - that people, in Osama bin Laden's words, "will like the strong horse."
History has taught us that the best antidote to totalitarianism is forceful resolve coupled with actions that advance human freedom. Our logic is straightforward. Terrorists exploit conditions of despair and feelings of resentment where freedom is denied. When we support the vision and reality of a freer and hopeful future, we undercut the ideological underpinning for the terrorists and embolden those opposed to their grim vision.
This constructive vision was on display in Scotland at the Group of 8 summit meeting when the terrorists struck London for the first time. The leaders at that meeting hammered out plans to reverse generations of lost opportunities in Africa by marrying aid to reform. The leaders discussed multilateral efforts to provide greater assistance to the brave people of the new Iraq. They reviewed steps to help establish a future democratic Palestinian state living in peace with Israel. By contrast, the terrorists offered only death and destruction.
The second important lesson flows directly from the first. An ideological contest can be a long and difficult one. Even bankrupt ideas have attracted followers for a time. And in making our case, we must overcome America's mixed record on supporting freedom in the Middle East. For too long we accepted a false bargain that promised stability if we looked the other way when democracy was denied.
But we can take heart for the long run because we know that we, and not the terrorists, are on the right side of history: people everywhere prefer freedom to slavery and will embrace it whenever they can, because freedom is the wish of every human being.
The third lesson is that the struggle against terrorism requires force of arms, but will not be won through force of arms alone. The victory in World War II was not complete until the Marshall Plan secured Germany's democratic political future. In the fight against Communism, our armed forces deterred the enemy. But it was the superior appeal of human freedom - not bombs and bullets - that ultimately led to democracy's triumph. After all, the cold war's most powerful voices proved to be those who lived under the Communist system and could expose its lies.
In a similar way, military action is only one piece of the war on terrorism. The terrorist hard-core is beyond appeal and must be hunted, captured or killed. The sanctuary that terrorists rely on to turn resentment into a weapon - the sanctuary provided by sympathetic governments willing to look the other way when terrorist training camps are set up within their borders - can be denied through military action.
AT the same time, however, we must bring all of the tools of statecraft, economic influence and private enterprise to bear in this war. Freedom-loving people around the world must reach out through every means - communications, trade, education - to support the courageous Muslims who are speaking the truth about their proud religion and history, and seizing it back from those who would hijack it for evil ends.
For several years now, it's been clear that two opposing ideas, one of hope and one of despair, are competing for the world's embrace. Those who believe in the worth of every human life know how to judge between the two.
Stephen J. Hadley is the national security adviser. Frances Fragos Townsend is the homeland security adviser.
(Continuará)
