There is no war whose harshness leaves us indifferent, especially in the face of the infinite suffering of human beings who today are Ukrainians, also Palestinians, Syrians, Yemenis, Afghans and Kurds, and tomorrow, could be ourselves. However, the defence of these victims and the opposition to the barbarism that every war represents must not drag us to a point from which no return is possible or, in other words, a point that could lead us to abandon the values and principles on which we have built a society that we assume and present as morally superior.
Opposing an action that is brutal, even criminally punishable, is our duty ―it is enough to analyse Article 8(bis) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court― but we must equally demand that this response is not only proportionate, but appropriate, and that it does not become a kind of boomerang that ends up destroying those values, rights and freedoms that we hold dear.
The response given must rise to the occasion and I am using the right term: it is not a question of giving a response similar to that which is intended to be repressed, but one that, with clear objectives and within a framework that is respectful of fundamental rights, allows us to restore a state of things with which we can coexist, without this response causing us to lose what we have struggled so hard for.
Over several decades now, the mechanisms for monitoring and demanding accountability from the perspective of international law have become systematically weakened, even suppressed. And today, just when they seem to be needed most, we realize that they have become so degraded that, perhaps, those mechanisms and institutions are ineffective for the work we want to entrust to them.
It is not that containment mechanisms, for situations such as the one currently being experienced in Ukraine, are failing, but rather, that they have been practically dismantled in a systematic process of abandonment of the defence of human rights for reasons that some senile and ardent politicians, today defenders of freedom and previously silent accomplices, should someday explain.
International law, so deteriorated these days, nevertheless remains as a useful, valid and necessary instrument to redirect situations like the current one or, if the need arises, to demand accountability for what has been done, and in previous instances too; yet international law has steadily become hamstrung by spurious interests and, above all, because it has become a corset that represses its own practices. The best example of what I am talking about is found in the International Criminal Court, which everyone remembers today, but of which no one wanted to know anything when its rules could and should have been applied to powerful friends.
Now everyone talks about the crime of aggression and urges that the Court act against Putin, while omitting essential facts such as the position of the United States, the United Kingdom and other relevant countries regarding that same court in past decades, and how there has been an undermining of the credibility and deterrence capacity of a court that was born for situations like this ―or for those that have taken place in Afghanistan, Yemen, Palestine, Syria, Kurdistan and so many other places― but that has never been used against the powerful.
To think that since "we are at war" everything is possible and everything is justifiable implies a degradation that takes us away from that pedestal of moral superiority from which we are analysing the situation
No one wanted to support the Court when it came to investigating war crimes committed by British, Dutch, Israeli or wealthy Saudi Arabian soldiers, and that was a mistake that will surely not be acknowledged and that prevented effective action by that court, also having its consequences in terms of impunity and legitimacy. Despite that, strengthening this court is a good idea if it is also provided with legal and material instruments so that it can fulfill its mission without looking at who it acts against.
The demand for accountability is a process that must always be carried out within the framework of the rule of law, never on the sidelines or against it and, much less, by means of news broadcasts –a very Hispanic practice that has always led us to a process of permanent reform of the Criminal Code– or under the warmongering fervour of some senile leaders who could not care less about dragging us into one or another scenario without measuring the consequences.
The response that Europe gives to the current situation in Ukraine will mark the very future of the Union and, surely, the most sensible thing would be to prevent the senescence and the bellicose ardor of some senior European officials from dragging us towards the destruction of a framework for coexistence that cost so much effort to build.
Fire is not fought with fire; neither are human rights violations or the great crimes that may or may not be committed fought by breaking the rules or committing further crimes. If we abandon the legal framework that we have endowed ourselves with, in order to combat evil, we will by that action be stepping into an abyss from which it will be very difficult to emerge.
The European Union cannot and should not combat Putin's action outside the framework of European and international treaties, much less by skipping the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, because, if this were done, when the bellicose effluvias pass, we will have been left without any protection, no longer "against Putin" but against the powerful who govern our own societies.
To think that since "we are at war" everything is possible and everything is justifiable implies a degradation that takes us off the pedestal of moral superiority from which we are analysing the situation, it puts us on the same level and, believe me, sooner rather than later, that degradation will be used against everyone. To believe that abdicating our values and rights, because "we are at war", will be something provisional and that we will resume where we left it when all this ends is a mistake, it is a failure to understand that there are certain lines that are only crossed once and that thereafter situations cannot be redressed.
To believe, as some do, that suspending rights is something that does not bring consequences or that, since "we are at war", these are provisional measures, is naivety, ignorance or, worse, an exercise in deep cynicism. In war, not everything goes, moreover, the scenario that we will find at the end of this conflictive moment depends on how we approach a situation like the current one.
It is clear that, in a situation of conflict, already of confrontation, decisions have to be taken and some are not to anyone's liking, but we must not lose sight of something that is essential: each of the measures adopted must be critically analysed so that the result does not end up in the curtailing of freedoms, which, as history shows, is a step that once taken becomes permanent.
The measures that are being adopted from the European Union, with a Borrell who was persistently silent in other conflicts, are neither appropriate nor respectful of the very rules with which we have endowed ourselves. I hope that time will prove me wrong, but, starting with the censorship of the media, we will see how, if we accept that today, tomorrow we will suffer from it.
Defending freedom and democracy in Ukraine seems to me to be a necessity, as well as doing the same here, and yet it is surprising that, for instance, states like Poland – our allies – detain journalists and not only is there no response, but also, people look the other way, because "we are at war", in a war in which there will be many victims, but in which, among the first of them we already find our rights and freedoms, and about that, nobody is saying anything to us.
If we are to go to war, so be it; but we must not do so at the expense of all that we have gained at such a high cost and on which we have always established our moral superiority; if we renounce that, we put ourselves at the same level, and, in the end, who is good and who is evil will be unknown or, rather, we shall all be evil... In short, let war not vilify us, since there will then be no winners and losers; rather, we shall all have lost.