TROUGH THE YEARS PWRef MADE AN ATTEMPT TO MAINTAIN A PRAGMATICAL ETHIC,
SHOWING PRACTICAL POLITICAL ACTIVITIES THAT MAY CONDUCE TO CONCLUSIVE
PWRef TRIED TO AVOID TO ADD RHETORIC TO RHETORIC, PROBABLY NOT SUCCEEDING,
AND WE EXCUSE . WHY? BECAUSE RHETORICAL PEACE REFLECTS SUCH A COMMON
FEELING IN HUMAN HISTORY AS POPULAR AS TO TALK ABOUT WEATHER. SINCE PEACE
MEANS : AWAY FROM PAINFUL AND INTENSE FEAR, DREAD OR DISMAY, CAUSED BY
SIMILAR BEINGS; THAT IS WHY WE MUST EVOLVE OUT OF WAR. NO MORE ENEMIES
PRE-WAR REFERENDUM Via Bormida 4 00040 Torvaianica Rome, Italy
Object: - To abrogate measures or war legitimized or applied by
the United Nations.
- To avoid war actions by the United Nations conducted directly or in its
As in the Korean conflict.
To solicit United Nations General Assembly and member Governments, to
abrogate articles 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51 chapter · (Action with respect to
threats to the peace, breaches or the peace, and acts or aggression) or
the Charter or the United Nations, through the media, poli_ tical
parties, International Humanitarian Associations and every inhabitant or
- A) An abrogation appeal.
- E) World Petition for Pre-war Referendum (3rd reproposal).
- F) Copy or Chapter VII or the Charter or the United Nations.
A) _An abrogation appeal.
B) List of International Organizations.
C) List of Newspapers.
D) List of Political Parties.
- Conference in Moscow (Nov. 1943). The Governments of the Soviet Union,
United Kingdom, United States or America and China, dec_ lared that: "It
is admitted that there is the need to establish with the greatest brevity
an International Organization, based on the principle of the sovereign
equality of all the States which love Peace."
And with the constitution of the United Nations in 24/10/45, the signing
Nations agreed to respect the following principles:
_3rd. _Principle_: "The members will negotiate their international divergences
by pacific means."
_4th. Principle: "In their international relations they will not resort to
threat or the use or force in any form incompatible with the purpose or
the United Nations."
In early December 1990, newspapers throughout world refer_ red to
U.N. resolution 67¸ in the following terms: "Armed with a United Nations
Resolution authorizing the use of force, ..." Time, Dec. 10,1990 p. 2
"In a climactic week the United Nations Security Council autho rized "all
necessary means"..." Newsweek, Dec.
10,1990 p. 1
In the United Nations we have the most important instrument that has ever
existed for preserving peace among bellicose men. We must, therefore,
understand that the United Nations cannot autho rize a war, since the
goal of this Organization is the peaceful mediation of controversies. The
U.N. is made of the controversies themselves.
- Articles to abrogate:__
Art.42“ The United Nations has lost tolerance after having used measures
without use or force(see art.41.)art 42 substantiates: “... it (the
Security Council) may take such action by air, sea or land forces as may
be necessary."This is an aeuphemistic way of saying the word "war". The
people of the territories administrated by "rebellious” leaders will be
led into war by means or force.
Art. 44“ Is more explicit:"When the Security Council has decided to use
We must consider the decisions taken by the 15 members of the Security
Council not the resolution of the General Assembly as a whole» but the
opinionated action of the 5 countries more militarized. They have
meetings "closed-door", are permanent members with power or veto. The
other 10 member nations are rechangeable every 2 years and without veto.
This contrasts with the pargph.1, art.2, chap.1, "The Organiza_ tion is
based on the principles or the sovereign equality of all it Members."_
Art.45:"In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military
Art.46:"Plans for the application of armed force...."
Art.47:"There shall be established a Military Staff Committee... relating
to the Security Council's military requirements..."
Art.51 Because it justifies reprisal by an attacked member nation. There
is the possibility that the presumable attacked country, could claim that
the conflict could belong, by pretence, to its own internal competence.
These articles legitimize the use of force, which is in clear violation
of the _Purposes and Principles of the Charter pargph.1,art.1,chapt.1,explicitly
talks:”... to take effective collective measures ..to bring about by
peaceful means ... adjustment or settlement of international disputes of
situations which might lead to a breach of the peace."_
We must become conscious of the fact that with our individual vote, in
our individual nations we legitimize the contents of the articles of the
Charter of the United Nations.
All human collective activities can and must be improved, and continuous
updating will give us the best and the most perfect of all Charters.This
possibility is substantiated by art. 108: "Amendments to the present
Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when
they have been adopted by a vote of two thirds of the members of the
General Assembly ..."
Therefore we must oppose any action of war by the United Na_ tions. Erect
a barrier of interdiction and general dissention. Declare all use of force
against to harm to be illegal. The action of the Organization must stop
short of any measure of war, because if not the United Nations would
simply create a block of allies around a common enemy.
Thus, we must create a union of nations that guarantees that it never will
legitimize reprisals of death or violence or "police actions". A single
death or a single wounding out from its decision making.
Let us modify the Charter by abrogating the articles and by limiting its
by-laws to the rule of non-intervention, giving more power to article 41
which permits interventions of any kind, excluding those that require
measures of war.
A new improvement of the Charter should be the natural evolution of our
This appeal is supported by the content of the World Peti_ tion or
Pre-war Referendum,which is here reproposed for the 3rd time.
E) - _World petition of PRE-WAR REFERENDUM_
This document should be inserted among the Fundamental Human Rights in
the Universal Declaration or the United Nations. The respect or this
right should be guaranteed by all the gover_ nments of the nations
which have signed the Universal Declara_ tion of Human Right.
I hereby ask you to publish the following:
PARTICIPATE TO THE WORLD REQUEST OF PRE-WAR REFERENDUM.
TODAY’S ADDITION TO THE LETTER
— “There are missiles which can arrive at the target in
just 6 minutes. What political man can make a decision as serious as this
in so little time without delegating it to military men?” -
This is the thought that anguishes Wiily Brandt in his
interview to “La Repubblica”, Italy 12/4/83 .
Italo Pietra on the “Messaggero di
Roma” the 29/1/81
- “In 1954 when the Viet-cong surrounded the entrenched
French forces at Bien Dien Phu , Bidault, Foreign Affairs minister
received his american colleague Foster Dulles at Quai d’Orsai. They
started chatting in French at an open window, and at a certain pomnt the
State Secretary made the following proposition
“And if we gave you two atomic bombs to save Bien Dien
Phu?” Bidault, who couldn’t betieve his OWfl
“Atomic bombs? In that way we would destroy not only
the Viet-congs but also our
such irnportance can be taken by such small men. One of
the marěy re~sons~o propose the political pluralism and the larger popular
political participation is the necessity of not letting the keys of war
and peace remain in the hands of the few important personalities at the
top.”For how much time will we continue allowing unconsciously with our
our few political and military representatives to
decide for us on the right to uve? How rr.uch time is lGft te follow the
road of political pragmatism, abandoning the wŕy of simple protests which
we have followed until today?
The basěs of this proposition is to make the idea of
democracy practicable, denying the authority of whoever decides today
about our life, by means of the enlargement of the Fundamental Human
Rights with the right to conserve our own life by means of the Pre-War
Today the proposition is repeated to a world which I
think is now more receptive. In addition to the newspapers I wrote to in
1980, I have included weeky and monthly magazines and many international
organizations which I believe have the same objectives. To them I ask to
add this proposition to their own inititives, possibly within their
publications. I know my list Is incomplete and I shall be very grateful to
hear from other associations.
I realise that the biggest handicap in this initiative
is its proposal by an individu~I and not by an irěternationally known
organization. I remember an anccdote which happened to a friend of mine;.
whc during one of his a’+<’r_ periods in politics punctually every month
received a letter from a citizen wh~ch proposed hi.m to change the color
of all the traffic signals in the country (for whěch he cortainly had his
qood re6sons) . I understand that it i~s not difficult in cases like this
to be ironical, but the words of a song from a young itaiian folk singer
are very appropriate and consoling. He sings about a poor fool who
searches the “Island—that-does—not—exist” and on which “there Is no hatc,
no violer1ce, no heros, no saints, no soldiers, no weapons, no
wars” and he invites him to continue searching, not gěving up, because
“He, who already has renounced his search Is probably crazier than him”
Whith time it has become obvious that even if there exists a real
conflict of interests none of the countries in question would suffer
as much by yielding, as it would suffer by combat. With continuous
bellic inventions it is sure that war will become always more
destructive. The civilized races of the world will find themselves
faced with the alternative of cooperation or the mutual destruction.
An actual war makes this alternative more evident every day. And it
is hard to believe that, when the enmities generated by it, will
have had the time to cool off, civilized man will decide volontarily
to destroy civilisation rather than agree to abolition of war. Man
must learn to be conscious of the common interests of humanity which
are identical, rather than of the so—called interests which divide
Bertrand Russell. 1917 (Political Ideals)
Even science has lost its serene impartiality: those who serve it,
deeply exacerbated, try to obtain arms from it to contribute to the
fighting against the enemy. The anthropologist is induced to
demonstrate that the enemy is an. inferior and degenerate being: the
psychiatrist to diagnose in the enemy, perturbation of spirit and of
Siegmund Freud. 1915 (Why War. Letters with Einstein. S. Freud)
The thirst for power of the dominant class is in every nation
against whatever limitation of national sovereignity. This excesive
wish for political power coincides with the purpose of those who
search only mercenary and economical advantages. How is it possible
that the above mentioned minority manages to pervert to its own
cupidity, the mass of the people, which from a war can only expect
suffering and loss? (Speaking of the general masses, I don’t exclude
soldiers, of every rank, which have chosen war as their profession,
convinced of being useful for the defence of the highest interests
of their own race) . An obvious answer to this question would be,
that the minority of those who from time to time have the power,
have the upper hand, first of all in schools and the Press, and
furthermore even in religious organizations. This allows them to
organize furthermore even in religious organizations. This allows
them to organize and by—pass the feelings of the masses,
transforming them in instruments of their own politics.
Arbert Einstein. 1932 (Why War. Letters with Einstein. S. Freud)
Torture like murder or war, is one of trie most extreme and tragic
aberration of n’.ank Lid.
Martin Ennals. (Amnesty International.)Handbook 1979
Given the facts, objectively war must be considered the greatest
mortal endemic disease of the brain of social man: Millions of dead
and invalids are the result, among the most healthy and young
An eventual observer from above would have seen for centuries and
centuries, always increasing groups of human animals (us) apparently
in good health, going out of their minds, and suddently killing each
other. Today with tecnological and atomical progress, he would see
our planet suddenly burst into flames,
causing all of us to die. The resemblance to unconscious
micro-organisms which burn themselves, helping to cause fire in the
hay where they live, makes us feel really a non thinking animal. It
humiliates us. This likeness would make the purpose of our long
evolution only equal to the results of this micro-organism. This
possibility is unfortunately today in the hands of not more than a
thousand humans, which as history demonstrates, at the moment of the
war declaration, are sure to survive it, not giving a thought about
their fellow-creatures who will act it out.
The spirit of this inititive comes from the sensation of impotence
which occurs in the sentence “What can I do alone?” in the face of
the superimposing of situations and of the impossibility of changing
the mind of those who say they represent us, but do not hesitate to
sacrifice us. And from the desire to give to every person, without
discrimination, the possibility of deciding personally, and
democratically, the length of his own life, without which the other
rights remain only meaningless words.
Knowing the real power of Press, would it be wrong to give the same
relief to the reasons which produce war as to the ones that can
In the full conviction of the absolute desire of conserving ones own
life which animate all human beings on this planet, and Dear Sir,
convinced of your feelings in accordance with the rest of humanity,
I ask you to help to eliminate war, you (the press) can do it, and
in a few years we will have a more just world.