Prodi da Berlino (da "La Repubblica")
Prodi conclude invitando l'Europa a "ritrovare un poco della sua follia creativa per convincersi che il mondo può essere cambiato, reso migliore, che non ci si debba accontentare di prenderselo così com'è".


on the same line of thoughts...

"One must have chaos within oneself to give birth to a dancing star.” Friedrich Nietzsche

Shirin Ebadi, winner of the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize, interviewed by Daniele Castellani Perelli

Intellectuals such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali maintain that Islam is incompatible with the respect of women’s rights. And it is true that the present Iranian regime has, on the basis of religious justifications, prohibited you from becoming a judge.
The Iranian government, along with the Saudi government and all the other non-democratic governments, maintain that Islam is not compatible with human rights and that their people, as Muslims, must follow only Islam. But by ‘Islam’ they mean that which serves to justify their own tyranny. It disappoints me that certain intellectuals, without thinking of the consequences of their reasoning, end up seconding the very same opinions of these tyrants.

And what are the consequences of these extreme views?
They end up presenting Muslims with an ultimatum: either accept Islam, and with it all the injustices which you are suffering, or abandon the religion of your fathers in favour of democracy. It is not fair to force such a decision. I propose another way - that Islam be interpreted in a way which allows for democracy. Within Christianity, too, there are some churches which condemn homosexuals, and others which accept them. They are all Christian, but they interpret their religion in different ways. The same can be true for Islam. In a country like Saudi Arabia there is not even a parliament, whilst Malaysia has a fairly advanced democracy. Which Islam are we talking about? Islam is completely compatible with women’s rights. Those who maintain otherwise simply give justification to non-democratic Islamic governments.

Would you prefer to live in a secular Iran, in which religion and the state were separated?
I believe in secularism because I don’t want governments to take advantage of the people’s religious beliefs. However, I wonder whether we have the right to declare that the whole world see things only our way. When, in whatever region of the world, a people elects a radical cleric, do we have the right to say that the elections which brought him to power are invalid? Of course not. At the same time, it is also true that many secular governments are dictatorships. It’s clear then that secularism is not the only solution to these problems. We need to look for a more modern definition of democracy. Democracy is the government of the majority, yet that majority which comes to power does not then have the right to do whatever it likes. Governments are not legitimised solely by the ballot box, since it’s true that many dictators have come to power via elections. Only when democracy goes hand-in-hand with the respect for human rights can there be a true democratic government. With this new definition of democracy in mind, it is no longer important to decide whether secularism is a good or bad thing.

In an interview with the on-line magazine Roozonline, you stated that nuclear energy is Iran’s right. Is it also a priority?
The priority of any project must be decided by the people. The Iranian government claims that its people wants nuclear power. I propose that the issue of uranium enrichment, or of its suspension, be decided by a popular referendum. If the people make it clear that they take the risks linked to the enrichment of uranium seriously, then the project must be halted. The enrichment of uranium may lead to war, and therefore it must be the Iranian people who decide. Via a referendum.

The US presidential candidate Barack Obama has said that President Bush’s policies have strengthened the Iranian leadership. Is this true?
The American government has already made it known that it doesn’t exclude the possibility of a military attack on Iran. When a society is in danger of attack, its government feels itself authorized to limit civil liberties in order to strengthen national security. This has always been true, and the case of Iran is no exception.

Do you that with a Democrat president in the White House, relations between Washington and Tehran would improve?
But do the Democrat candidates really want to improve relations between the two countries? I haven’t forgotten that the Democrat party, too, voted in favour of military intervention in Iraq.

The New York Times has written that the Supreme Guide Khamenei would have ceased to support President Ahmadinejad. Do you agree?
If you listen to the speeches of Ayatollah Khamenei, it is clear that he speaks like Ahmadinejad on the issue of uranium. I’ll say no more.

Is there something that you would criticize the West for?
When we had the reformists in power, the West did not support them. Today, ten years later, we are seeing the results of that policy.

Translation by Liz Longden
9 Mar 2007

Theo van Gogh/Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

The Egyptian writer ‘Ala Al-Aswany with Amara Lakhous

Looking at the recent electoral victory of Hamas and Muslim brothers in Egypt, there are those who are of the opinion that organising free, legitimate elections means handing over power to fundamentalists. What do you think?
There is the question of principals: the winner of correct elections has the legitimate support to govern. If we truly believe in democracy we must the people’s choice irrespective of the people indicated, be they communists or Islamic integrationalists or Satanists. This said, we must tackle a serious problem regarding religious and ideological extremism in the Arab world. At this point we should consider this extremism as a symptom and not as an illness. I am a dentist by profession, and by studying medicine I have learned that it is important to distinguish between the symptoms and the illness. We cannot cure a patient effectively if we only settle for the symptoms. Today our illness is tyranny while the symptoms are social injustice, poverty, corruption, and religious and ideological extremism. Therefore, if we want to crush extremism, we must cure tyranny with only one medicine called democracy.

Since September 11th 2001 the debate on the democratisation of the Arab world is still open. How does the argument of ‘exporting democracy’ value this?
First of all, democracy is a right and a value for all of humanity. Therefore, I find aberrant the theory which says some peoples deserve democracy and others do not. Furthermore, we must not forget that the United States have supported the worst dictatorships both in the Arab world and in Latin America. Still today, there are right-wing Western governments which are willing to support dictatorial regimes to protect their own interests and the benefits of multinationals.

The democratisation is also a priority on the internal Arabic agenda. Where do you need to start from: abolition of media censorship, facilitation of political parties, or teaching about democracy in schools?
All the justifications and demands to for a return to democracy are welcome for the Arabic regimes. Debates, conferences and meetings on conditions for democracy have no sense. We cannot talk of democracy only on a theoretical level; first we need to put it into practice. And to simplify the argument, I am of the opinion that democracy consists of respecting human rights, legitimate elections, alternating those in power without it leading to violence and coup d’états, and the people’s right to choose their own leaders.

...«C'est une très mauvaise idée», a immédiatement prévenu l'administration Bush à l'adresse de Romano Prodi et de ses turbulents alliés.
Après ces passes d'armes, l'entourage de Romano Prodi a recommencé anxieusement à faire ses comptes. Moins d'un mois après la crise ministérielle, entraînée par la mise en minorité du gouvernement par deux voix au Sénat sur l'Afghanistan, ce dossier ébranle à nouveau la très hétéroclite majorité de centre gauche. Plusieurs parlementaires menacent de ne pas approuver, en début de semaine prochaine, le refinancement de la mission militaire italienne en Afghanistan. Et une partie de l'opposition ­ qui avait dans un premier temps laissé entendre qu'elle pourrait soutenir le projet par sens des responsabilités ­ envisage de faire volte-face.
Crédibilité. «Vu que le gouvernement a perdu toute crédibilité internationale, notre vote en faveur du décret n'est pas acquis», a indiqué hier l'ancien ministre (Alliance nationale) des Affaires étrangères Gianfranco Fini.
Dans ce contexte, l'opposition de droite tire à boulets rouges sur le gouvernement. «Nous sommes désormais considérés comme peu fiables par nos alliés. Bush me faisait confiance. Les choses ont changé», a lancé Silvio Berlusconi.
http://www.liberation.fr/actualite/monde/242836.FR.php

hahah too funny Silvio, too funny!

Italy Swapped 5 Jailed Taliban for a Hostage

By IAN FISHER
Published: March 22, 2007

ROME, March 21 —An Italian journalist who was held hostage for 15 days by the Taliban in lawless southern Afghanistan was ransomed for five Taliban prisoners, the Italian government and Afghan officials confirmed Wednesday.
It appears to be the first time prisoners have been openly exchanged for a hostage in the wars that the United States and its allies are fighting there and in Iraq, and the move drew immediate criticism from Washington and London, and from other European capitals.
“We don’t negotiate with terrorists, and we don’t advise others to do so either,” said the State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack.
A senior Bush administration official said the prisoners exchanged had been held by the Afghan government, not by NATO, which is directing the allied military in Afghanistan. The official said he did not believe that NATO officials in Afghanistan had been formally alerted before the exchange.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with the Italian foreign minister, Massimo D’Alema, in Washington on Monday, the day the hostage, Daniele Mastrogiacomo, 52, of the leftist newspaper La Repubblica, was released. It was not clear whether they discussed an exchange.
Though it may have saved a life, the ransom has set off a worried debate in Italy and in other countries with soldiers, reporters and aid workers in danger zones.
The exchange sent “the wrong signal to prospective hostage takers,” a spokeswoman for the British Foreign Office told Reuters.
On a visit to Kabul on Wednesday, the Dutch foreign minister, Maxime Verhagen, told reporters: “When we create a situation where you can buy the freedom of Taliban fighters when you catch a journalist, then in the short term there will be no journalists anymore.”
The concern was underscored on Tuesday just after the release of one of the prisoners, Ustad Yasir, who was identified as a Taliban spokesman. He said he would return immediately to war, and was “grabbing two rifles to begin jihad again to hunt down invaders and fight nonbelievers,” according to a statement attributed to him on the Internet.
The government of Romano Prodi, the Italian prime minister, said the central issue surrounding the kidnapping of Mr. Mastrogiacomo was not complicated.
“We think that the life of a person is very precious,” said Mr. Prodi’s spokesman, Silvio Sircana, who is also a friend of Mr. Mastrogiacomo’s. “So if there is a chance to save a life, we must do all we can do. And this was our very simple line, and not anything more.”
Mr. Mastrogiacomo was abducted as he was driving with an interpreter and a driver to an interview with a Taliban commander near Lashkhar Gah, in southern Afghanistan, he wrote in La Repubblica on Tuesday, the day he returned to Rome.
Dragged from place to place, nearly always in chains, he wrote, he was forced to watch a Taliban soldier decapitate his driver, then wipe the blade clean on the headless body.
“I imagine myself with my neck sliced, the blood splashed from all the arteries drained into the sand, the body committed to the river’s course,” he wrote.
On Monday, he continued, a Taliban commander came into the mud hut where he and the interpreter were being held and proclaimed, “You are free, fly away!” The fate of the interpreter is still unknown.
Italy’s domestic politics seemed to play a role in the decision, in a nation where weak domestic support for foreign involvement had prompted earlier allegations of payments for hostages.
It was widely reported that the former Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, paid cash for the freedom of at least three hostages in Iraq in 2004 and 2005. The issues then were at once humanitarian and political: Italians broadly opposed Mr. Berlusconi’s decision to send troops to Iraq, and critics said any deaths there could further erode support for him as national elections neared. Italy has since withdrawn its troops from Iraq.
The kidnapping of Mr. Mastrogiacomo occurred at a similarly delicate time for Mr. Prodi’s already fragile government, which fell briefly last month, partly because of a lack of support inside his coalition for the presence of nearly 2,000 Italian troops in Afghanistan.
Later this month, Mr. Prodi faces a crucial vote on financing for the mission there, a vote that might have been more difficult if Mr. Mastrogiacomo had not been freed.
Italy did not — and could not — act alone in the prisoner exchange, and attention was focused on both Afghanistan and the United States, which exerts broad control inside the country.
A spokesman for the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, told reporters in Kabul that the release was an “exceptional measure taken because we value our relations and friendship with Italy.”
Many experts wondered at the precise role of the United States, which has strained relations with Italy on several fronts, including the indictment of 26 Americans, all but one of them believed to be C.I.A. operatives, in the kidnapping in Italy in 2003 of a radical Egyptian cleric.
Diplomatically, the United States could not bar the exchanges, American officials said, given that the Taliban prisoners were being held by the Afghan government and not by the American military or NATO. United States officials have also been mindful of the rising tide in Italian public opinion against the presence of Italian troops in Afghanistan.
Edward Luttwak, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, speculated that American officials made the political calculation that for the sake of good relations with Italy, it was better not to stop the transfer.
“They certainly didn’t lean on the Afghans” to trade the prisoners, Mr. Luttwak said. “But they didn’t interpose themselves. They let them have it.”
A former Italian hostage, Giuliana Sgrena, kidnapped in Baghdad in 2005, said she believed that the Italian government was obligated to do all it could to save a hostage’s life. She argued that paying ransom for reporters was a far smaller issue than the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
“If there is no war, there will be no hostages,” Ms. Sgrena, also a journalist, said in a telephone interview from New York, where she is promoting a book about her experience.
(Her own kidnapping is another source of tension between the United States and Italy: an American soldier shot at her car at a roadblock in Baghdad shortly after her release, killing a top Italian intelligence official.)
She added that, whatever the dangers, it was important for reporters and aid workers to go to places like Iraq or Afghanistan to provide information independent of the governments or groups waging wars there.
“It’s a problem of democracy,” she said. “If we say we want democracy, democracy is based on information.”

Voyager, c’est bien utile, ça fait travailler l’imagination.
Tout le reste n’est que déceptions et fatigues. Notre voyage à nous est entièrement imaginaire. Voilà sa force.

Il va de la vie à la mort. Hommes, bêtes, villes et choses, tout est imaginé. C’est un roman, rien qu’une histoire fictive. Littré le dit, qui ne se trompe jamais.

Et puis d’abord tout le monde peut en faire autant. Il suffit de fermer les yeux.

C’est de l’autre côté de la vie.

Céline, Voyage au bout de la nuit