Gianfranco Fini, Italian deputy prime minister and leader of the right wing party Alleanza Nazionale, has pinpointed a new enemy in the never ending ‘war on terror’: pacifists.
At the annual meeting of AN’s youth brigade, Fini urged his members to be the “”vanguard of a great battle for peace against pacifism”. He continued, “Pacifism is the caricature of peace, Pontius Pilate said it first, he was the first pacifist in history, he washed his hands, he looked away. Today is the moment of assuming responsibilities”.[1] And how to define those responsibilities? He continued, somewhat vaguely “Peace can’t be won by waving pretty little flags, but by following an authentic politics of pacification”.[2]
As a piece of political rhetoric it’s both brilliant and shameful. At precisely the moment that Italy remains shocked by the seizure of two young Italian women aid workers in Iraq, Fini touches on popular sentiment to let us know that the path of non-violence is irresponsible. A handy argument for a party that supports Italy’s involvement in Iraq, and will face an election at some stage next year.
Fini, or the intelligent face of fascism as we like to call him at the monkeys, has wilfully missed the point. To suggest that Pontius Pilate, a Roman military governor eventually dismissed from office for excessive use of violence [wilkipedia]was the first pacifist in history seems ludicrous. Pilate, in this case, wasn’t standing up for any principle of non-violence, but rather was refusing to take any stand either way. While it’s debatable as to who the first pacifist in history was, surely, by Pilate’s side stood one of history’s most influential pacifists, Jesus Christ.
A simple misunderstanding on Fini’s part? It seems unlikely to this Monkey, as even his fiercest critics would have to agree that Fini is a measured speaker, not prone to Berlusconi like gaffs. To pinpoint the figure of Pilate is to touch on an nerve in Western Society, particularly in a Catholic country, as was shown by the box office returns for the Passion of the Christ. The import is clear; our shared Christian culture is under threat, and nothing less than military action is acceptable.
At the same time, on the other side of the fence, as it were, Italian Daily La Repubblica reports that Abu Anas Al Shami, the ‘Spiritual’ leader of Tawhid al Jihad, has said “Even if amongst the infidels there are good people and our struggle forces us to eliminate them, we’re authorized to do it, because it is up to God to have them judged”[3].
Opposition to pacifism is something that is to be expected from ‘terrorists’, after all who needs the example of two young Italian women voluntarily working in the danger zone for the good of Iraqi children, when what you’re trying to argue is that westerners are an occupying force of Godless infidels.
Should militant* opposition to pacifism be something acceptable from the leader of a governing party in a western Democracy? Acceptable-no, but predictable in the current climate – yes, because sadly in this case the Coalition of the Willing share the same goals as Al-Qaeda, which are to remove any complexity from the debate, to reduce the war in Iraq to the fundamentals of ‘good vs. evil’.
Tellingly, Fini went on to finish his speech thus: “But I hope that never again will there be someone who makes distinctions between hostage and hostage, or reasons for being in Iraq or other things”[4].
1Alleanza Nazionale
2 Translated by Three Monkeys from the original “La pace non si conquista sventolando bandierine, ma portando avanti una politica autenticamente pacificatrice” Alleanza Nazionale site
3 From
