Brasil 1964: os militares como os agentes da desmilitarizacao da politica brasileira

Recebido, via Google+, esta nota assinada, que me parece historicamente correta e factualmente objetiva, sobre a participação dos militares na política brasileira.
Uma coisa é certa: depois de 1964, e começando a contar em 1985, na verdade (com alguma tutela no período imediatamente subsequente), não ocorreram mais intervenções dos militares na política brasileira.
São os militantes da esquerda, atualmente no poder, que parecem estar trazendo os militares de volta, ao pretender retaliações contra os que cometeram torturas e violações dos direitos humanos.
As alegações são seriamente enviesadas, na medida em que nenhum dos atentados cometidos pelos grupos armados são sequer mencionados.
Ora, é evidente que se não tivesse havido iniciativas de guerrilha urbana e rural no Brasil, dificilmente o Brasil, e os militares e civis envolvidos na repressão, teriam embarcado nos "anos de chumbo".
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

ALENTOS PARA A VERDADE SUFOCADA

General da Reserva Luiz Eduardo Rocha Paiva

(Recebido em 26/03/2014)

O regime militar teria sido um dos fatores determinantes do fortalecimento da democracia no Brasil? Sim.

De 1922 até 31 de março de 1964, o Brasil viveu sucessivas revoltas internas, devido à debilidade das instituições para garantir a normalidade democrática em momentos de crises políticas que, via de regra, tinham a participação das Forças Armadas. Eram conflitos onde sempre havia chefes militares envolvidos na política partidária, que arrastavam consigo parte da tropa numa demonstração de que o País não amadurecera para a democracia. Vários chefes, ainda no serviço ativo, participavam da política partidária não só como candidatos a cargos eletivos. Havendo ou não honestidade de propósitos, ficavam prejudicados: o compromisso, que deveria ser exclusivamente com a Nação; a dedicação, que deveria estar integralmente voltada para a missão constitucional; e os princípios de hierarquia e disciplina, comprometendo a coesão militar e a própria unidade nacional.

Pode-se fazer uma longa lista para comprovar essa instabilidade institucional.

- Em 1922, ocorreram levantes em quartéis da Vila Militar, Escola Militar do Realengo e no Forte de Copacabana, este último passando à história como o episódio dos “18 do Forte”.

- Entre 1924 e 1927, sucessivas revoltas, principalmente nos Estados de São Paulo, Mato Grosso e no sul do Brasil, culminaram com a campanha da Coluna Miguel Costa-Prestes pelo interior do País.

- Em 1930, a revolução que depôs o presidente Washington Luiz e colocou Getulio Vargas no poder.

- Em 1932, a Revolução Constitucionalista de São Paulo.

- Em 1935, a Intentona Comunista no Rio de Janeiro, Natal e Recife.

- Em 1937, o golpe de Getulio Vargas e a implantação do “Estado Novo”, regime ditatorial que durou até 1945.

- Em 1938, a revolta integralista de Plínio Salgado.

- Em 1945, a deposição do ditador Getulio Vargas e a redemocratização do País.

- Em 1954, a crise político-militar que culminou com o suicídio do presidente Vargas e sua substituição pelo vice-presidente Café Filho.

- Em 1955, o “golpe preventivo” do Marechal Lott, Ministro da Guerra, para garantir a posse de Juscelino Kubitschek na presidência da República, ameaçada pelo então presidente interino Carlos Luz, setores militares e aliados políticos.

- Em 1956, a revolta de Jacareacanga.

- Em 1959, a revolta de Aragarças.

- Em 1961, a crise da posse de Jango após a renúncia de Jânio Quadros, que resultou na implantação do parlamentarismo no Brasil.

- Em 1963, a revolta dos sargentos em Brasília.

- Em 1964, a Contra-revolução de 1964, com a implantação do chamado regime militar.

- Entre 1968 e 1977, o período que abrange o combate à luta armada e sua neutralização.

Em 1978, começou o processo de abertura democrática, com a revogação do AI-5 e a concessão da anistia no ano seguinte. Desde então, não houve mais nenhuma crise política com o envolvimento das Forças Armadas no Brasil.

Foi o regime militar que afastou os militares da ativa e, como consequência a tropa, da política partidária, sendo este um dos fatores determinantes do fortalecimento das instituições democráticas, junto com a neutralização dos movimentos radicais que tentavam implantar a ditadura comunista nos moldes soviético, cubano ou chinês. Podem ainda ser destacados outros indutores do regime democrático, quais sejam: a implantação de infraestruturas básicas que permitiram o desenvolvimento econômico, o crescimento da classe média, a melhoria das condições de vida e a criação de oportunidades para grande parte da população; e o amadurecimento político-social da Nação. A esses fatores, pode-se agregar o descrédito do socialismo radical, após o categórico fracasso das matrizes soviética e cubana, e a transformação da China de uma economia socialista-estatal para capitalista-estatal, porém ainda ditatorial e liberticida, portanto incompatível com a índole do povo brasileiro.

Civilizacao Maia: coloquio e exposicao sobre seu desaparecimento (Paris)

O Le Monde Magazine deste final de semana trata de um colóquio e de uma exposição grandiosa no Quai Branli, em Paris, dedicados ao misterioso desaparecimento da civilização Maia, aos quais eu provavelmente não vou poder ver ou assistir. Muitas perguntas ainda sem respostas sobre um dos mais impressionantes desaparecimentos (por duas vezes) de uma das mais bem organizadas civilizações complexas, desde a antiguidade até quase a chegada dos espanhois na América central; o que temos são algumas respostas parciais, interessantes.
Sobre o assunto do colapso das civilizações, permito-me recomendar o livro de Jared Diamond, chamado Colapso, precisamente.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

"Le Monde Magazine" : Mayas, autodestruction d'une civilisation
Stéphane Foucart
LE MONDE Week-end MAGAZINE, 17.06.11

Tikal, une des plus grandes cités mayas de la période classique, a perdu 90 % de sa population en moins de deux générations, au IXe siècle. RD Hansen/Fares

GUATEMALA, ENVOYÉ SPÉCIAL - Des pyramides gigantesques perdues dans la forêt pluviale ; des temples oubliés envahis par la végétation ; d'imposants blocs de calcaire renversés par les racines d'arbres centenaires. Les images d'Epinal de cités majestueuses reprises par la jungle et la nature sauvage en ont fait l'une des plus captivantes énigmes archéologiques. Pourquoi, vers 850 de notre ère, la civilisation maya classique a-t-elle sombré ? A quelle catastrophe ou quel enchaînement d'événements peut bien tenir ce qui nous semble la fin d'un monde ? En quelques décennies, les dynasties s'éteignent, des centaines de cités-Etats se vident de leur population, des régions habitées pendant un millénaire voient leurs habitants partir pour ne plus revenir. Le pourquoi et le comment de cet effondrement seront au cœur d'un colloque international organisé au Musée du quai Branly les 1er et 2 juillet, dans la foulée de l'exposition "Mayas, de l'aube au crépuscule".

Il faudra cependant plus d'un colloque pour trancher ces questions. Elles hantent les chercheurs depuis presque un siècle, sans qu'aucun consensus ne se dégage. Bien sûr, certaines théories n'ont plus guère de partisans : épidémies fulgurantes, "invasions barbares", tremblements de terre en série… Toutes les causes simples et exogènes sont désormais écartées de manière quasi certaine. Reste une combinaison de facteurs régulièrement invoqués : sécheresses en cascade, remise en cause du statut des rois, récurrence de conflits meurtriers entre les principales cités-Etats qui se partagent, via de complexes systèmes d'allégeance, la grande région centrée sur l'actuel Guatemala.

Chaque cité semble avoir vécu une agonie particulière. Ici, la guerre a été prépondérante. Là, une forte baisse des rendements agricoles a peut-être primé. Ailleurs encore, le détournement de voies commerciales a pu avoir son importance… "Mais le problème, à se dire qu'un grand nombre de facteurs régionaux ont ainsi été impliqués, c'est que nous avons quand même bien affaire à un effondrement généralisé, rappelle Dominique Michelet (CNRS, université Paris-I), qui a dirigé pendant une décennie les fouilles de Rio Bec, au Mexique. Toutes les cités-Etats des basses terres s'effondrent dans un laps de temps assez court. Il faut tenir compte du caractère global de ce phénomène." Manquerait donc au moins une pièce au puzzle.

Pour Richard Hansen (université de l'Idaho), "un effondrement est toujours causé par plusieurs facteurs". "Mais la particularité d'un tel effondrement est que la population, une fois qu'elle a quitté les centres urbains, n'y revient pas, ajoute l'archéologue américain. Cette absence de toute réinstallation ne peut être le fait que d'une dégradation de l'environnement : les gens ne reviennent pas simplement parce qu'ils ne le peuvent pas. Aujourd'hui, si personne ne retourne vivre à Tchernobyl, c'est parce que l'environnement ne le permet pas."

Ler a íntegra da matéria neste link de meu blog de textos, ou no site do próprio jornal.

Tortura: o crime supremo, a diferenca entre a civilizacao e a barbarie...

A diferença entre uma democracia verdadeira e uma ditadura é exatamente esta.
Mesmo quando um regime democrático comete uma barbaridade como a tortura -- em situações extremas, como guerra e terrorismo -- nada impede o sistema democrático de debater amplamente o problema, e de corrigi-lo, pelo menos tentativamente.
Leiam a resenha-discussão abaixo publicada no Mises Daily.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

How Civilization Deals with Torture States
by David Gordon
Mises Daily, May 21, 2010

Rule of Law, Misrule of Men
By Elaine Scarry
(MIT Press: A Boston Review Book, 2010; Xxii + 191 pages)

Elaine Scarry, a distinguished English professor at Harvard, attracted great acclaim early in her academic career for her study The Body in Pain (1985). It is hardly surprising, then, that the use of torture in the Iraq War has attracted her attention.

In Rule of Law, Misrule of Men, her searing indictment of the Bush administration, Scarry argues that the absolute prohibition of torture lies at the basis of the rule of law.

[I]t is crucial for the country to recognize that there is one crime with a legal profile so singular that it can — even standing alone — convey the wholesale contempt for the rule of law displayed by the Bush administration. That crime is the act of torture. The absolute prohibition of torture in national and international law, as [legal philosopher] Jeremy Waldron argued… "epitomizes" the "spirit and genius of our law," the "prohibition draw[s] a line between law and savagery," it requires a "respect for human dignity" even when "law is at its most forceful and its subjects at their most vulnerable." The absolute rule against torture is foundational and minimal; it is the bedrock on which the whole structure of law is erected. (p. 133)

That is very well said. Those, such as Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule in their Terror in the Balance (Oxford, 2007), who regard freedom and security as goods to be "traded off" against each other, with nothing counting as absolute, will dismiss Scarry; but she is perfectly right.

The fact that American forces engaged in torture, at Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo, and elsewhere is well known; what is perhaps less well-known is that this occurred with the full knowledge and approval of the highest levels of the administration. In one case, that of Mohammed al-Qahtani, a prisoner at Guantánamo, "against whom all legal charges were eventually dropped… President Bush's team was in direct contact with the room in which the physical injury was taking place" (p.135, parentheses removed). In other cases, people have been "rendered" to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other countries known to practice torture.

Scarry extends her criticism of torture in an original and enlightening way. Refraining from torture is but one of several essential conventions that, if observed, prevent war from altogether disrupting civilized life. Civilization depends on communication; and while few agree with St. Augustine and Kant that lying is in no circumstances justified, the use of deception needs to be radically restricted.

But does this apply to war? Are not ruses and deceptions standard procedure? That is indeed so; but, as Scarry points out, international law has condemned certain forms of deception in war as "perfidy," holding them to be inimical to the fabric of communication. Among these are "false flag" operations and abuse of the red cross symbol.

[S]ome small pieces of language in war must remain wholly intact, uncompromised, unwavering, undiluted in their meaning. These few insignia are placed hors de combat, or "out of combat"; they constitute a civil structure that remains in place in the international sphere… (p. 66)

America has used false flags in interrogations, e.g., in the case of accused al Qaeda terrorist Abu Zubayda, in an effort to persuade him that Saudi Arabians were questioning him.

Why is abuse of the red-cross symbol forbidden? Scarry notes that this prohibition rests on another prohibition: hospitals cannot be attacked under any circumstances. The United States violated this prohibition as well, in the famous effort to rescue Private Jessica Lynch from Iraqi captivity. It transpires that the assault on the hospital was altogether unnecessary. Lynch had been well treated, and her captors were endeavoring to return her to an American hospital, an effort rudely interrupted by American gunfire.

As if this were not enough, the American forces violated another rule of civilized warfare. These rules strictly forbid assassinations of enemy political leaders; lethal force may be directed only against enemy soldiers. (Scarry notes a dissenting view but argues forcefully that this is unfounded.) America brazenly flouted this rule with its deck of cards depicting members of Saddam Hussein's government. Rewards were offered for the capture of these people, dead or alive, in complete violation of this prohibition.

The depredations of the Bush administration were by no means confined to the enemy. Scarry contends that Bush reversed the proper relation between the people and its government. She maintains that the government should be transparent to the people. Laws result from public deliberation, not the scheming of secret cabals. In contrast, people are entitled to a private sphere immune from the watchful eyes of government. Privacy is a fundamental right, and the Fourth Amendment severely restricts the government's power to search our homes and businesses.

When we say that democracy requires that the people's privacy be ensured, we do not mean that our lives remain secret; we mean instead that we individually control the degree to which, and the people to whom, our inner lives are revealed. (p. 10)

The Patriot Act inverts the Constitutional requirement that people's lives be private and the work of the government officials be public; it instead crafts a set of conditions in which our inner lives become transparent, and the workings of the government become opaque. (pp. 9–10)

The Iraq War did not come about through Congressional decision, as the Constitution mandates. Quite the contrary, Bush launched the attack on his own volition, after a propaganda campaign, based on a false and misleading account of the intelligence available to the administration. That intelligence, in turn, even though it did not support the inferences Bush and his minions drew from it, had been obtained through pressure aimed at securing conclusions given in advance.

The Patriot Act, along with other measures, allows the government drastic powers of surveillance, inconsistent with the Constitution, over Americans. Not only can bank and other records be examined without regard to the limits imposed by the Fourth Amendment, but those from whom such information is demanded cannot, under criminal penalties, disclose these demands to anyone.

In earlier work, Scarry has stressed the ability of the people to act for themselves.1 She returns to that theme here. Many towns and cities have taken matters into their own hands, declaring that they will refuse to cooperate with the Patriot Act. "Despite impediments to resistance, 238 towns, cities, and counties have now created a firewall against executive trespass in their communities" (p. 32; the number comes from an essay that Scarry wrote in September 2004 and is no doubt now greater).

Scarry goes beyond this. She contends that Bush and his leading associates should be criminally prosecuted for their misconduct. Moreover, she holds, in some cases, e.g., infliction of torture, international law requires prosecution. It is not a mere option, to be accepted or rejected on grounds of prudence:

Finally — and for us, most important — the international rules against war crimes and torture do not allow prosecution to be thought of as discretionary; they do not allow an escape based on electoral euphoria or on one's doubts about one's own stamina in fighting injustice. (p. 156)

I do not think that she is correct here. She seems to me dubiously to assimilate international law to domestic law. If a nation violates a treaty, at least one school of thought holds that this terminates the treaty. The treaty, in this view, cannot be treated as ordinary legislation, where someone subject to a law must comply with it whether he wishes to or not. True enough, that is not the prevailing opinion, as the Nuremberg trials and their many successors indicate; but the new view perverts justice. To impose criminal penalties for violations of international law encourages ideological crusades and war to the finish. Those faced with criminal penalties should they lose a war will be reluctant to surrender.2

I should be inclined to think, then, that prosecution along the lines Scarry indicates is a poor idea. Violations of domestic law by the Bush administration are of course another matter; and Scarry has in any case given us in her excellent and provocative book an indictment of recent American policy difficult to answer.

David Gordon covers new books in economics, politics, philosophy, and law for The Mises Review, the quarterly review of literature in the social sciences, published since 1995 by the Mises Institute. He is author of The Essential Rothbard, available in the Mises Store.

Notes
1 See her Who Defended the Country? (2003) on the action of private citizens on the commandeered airplanes involved in the 9-11 attacks.
2 See, e.g., Danilo Zolo, Victor's Justice: From Nuremberg to Baghdad and my review in The Mises Review Fall 2009