A Saving Flick – Folha de S. Paulo, October 29, 1972
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
Unfortunately, the daily press coverage of the recent debate at the UN was not very clear. In summary, it seems to be about the following:
a) As is well known, by using satellites to transmit television broadcasts, a state can send news or commentary to any part of the world. There are no technical means for another country to defend itself against such transmissions.
b) Russia has proposed to other UN members that international regulations be established for the use of satellites for television. Otherwise, it would destroy a satellite to prevent it from serving as an instrument of anticommunist ideological propaganda on its territory. Incidentally, this gesture will not upset pro-communists worldwide who advocate breaking down ideological barriers.
The US protested the Kremlin’s unusual stance by defending the principle of total freedom of communication. After review by the relevant committees, the matter will be brought before the UN General Assembly.
As can be seen, this episode involves a confrontation between two opposing ideologies. According to classic liberal doctrine, any limitation on the expression of thought is contrary to human rights. According to Marxist doctrine, no freedom is lawful if it harms the interests of the proletarian revolution.
Naturally, other nations, including Brazil, will need to express their views on this important matter. What can we expect from our diplomacy in this regard?
That it takes a position entirely in line with that of the US? That would seem untenable. Well understood and judiciously used, freedom is an invaluable gift from God. However, absolute freedom, which includes the right to disseminate everything, even pornography, is absurd.
According to news reports, our ambassador to the UN, Mr. Sérgio Armando Frazão, rejected the US position and aligned with Russia’s view that, at least in principle, satellite TV freedom should be regulated.
So far, in theory, nothing unexpected has happened.
What the news reports do not make clear, however, is whether Brazil has already indicated the principle that should guide the regulations.
The matter is extremely sensitive, and based on the news reports, it appears our country has not yet issued a statement.
For this very reason, I think it is essential to remember one aspect that must be fully considered when our country expresses its opinion and casts its vote.
Because it is atheistic, the communist regime is incompatible with the institutions of family and private property and is therefore contrary to the natural order. Imposed by a heterogeneous clique of fanatics and opportunists, it leads all the peoples of the so-called Soviet republics into a regime of material and moral catastrophe.
As for the material catastrophe, it is now evident as an inevitable result of nationalization. One need only think of Russia’s spectacular agricultural failure, the chronic hunger in communist countries, the empty pots rattling in Chile, and Cuba’s agrarian failure. I have in my hands yet another example, a news item from the French magazine Catacombes dated August 1972, about the regression of Algeria’s nationalized economy. The flourishing era of French “domination” is being replaced by poverty.
As for the moral catastrophe, it is well known that an ideological earthquake of dissent is shaking the vast Soviet territory from end to end. After 55 years of effort to persuade the people, they are more hostile than ever to the Kremlin’s ideology.
It is in the nature of things that the ruling clique, unable to maintain itself except by violence, must rely on violence more and more. The so-called Soviet Union is increasingly becoming a gloomy prison, a living hell.
The world cannot stand by and watch this tragic development with indifference. In the 19th century, European nations legitimately intervened in the states of the East to abolish laws contrary to the natural order—the burning of widows, for example. The 20th century cannot remain indifferent to the fact that crimes of unquestionably greater number and severity are being committed in the immense communist empire, stretching from the Elbe to the gates of Saigon. Violently imposing on entire peoples a structure completely contrary to the natural order is a crime far more serious than those once committed by chiefs, sultans, or rajas in their respective dominions.
Has the power of civilization declined so much in the 20th century that it must now renounce the task it so triumphantly accomplished in the 19th century? It does not seem so.
It is true that the West is in decline, but the communist world is declining even more. For better or worse, our regime is surviving. As for the Soviet regime, a well-aimed, forceful blow could bring it down. Delivering that flick is an unavoidable duty for the free world.
* * *
Such a saving flick could well be the free transmission of news and commentary via satellite television. Let us imagine that the masses under Soviet domination, driven by deep discontent, are widely informed about the contrast between living conditions in the East and the West. Let us admit that their immense hunger for God is satisfied by a television service that presents the truths of religion in an adequate manner. Everything leads us to believe that in this case, an immense movement of opinion can emerge with such strength that the Kremlin’s executioners will simply disappear from the political scene.
Do we have the right to back down from such a task?
This is not the time to establish a formula under which the West rejects the Russian proposal without accepting absolute freedom of television, which would make the saving flick of the finger impracticable.
However, a thought occurs to me.
It has been said that the era of Latin America, and therefore of our Brazil, is dawning in history. It has also been said that this era should usher in a new kind of greatness in the international arena—a Christian greatness that does not involve aggression or domination but rather the primacy of all spiritual and material goods, shared widely and generously with the other peoples of the earth.
This would be a good occasion to initiate such a style of greatness. Everything suggests that the disagreement between the Washington-Moscow axis powers over control of satellite TV will follow the now-classic pattern of Russian demands and American concessions, culminating in Washington’s capitulation. In other words, the curtailment of television freedom will be such that the communist peoples will not benefit from the saving flick of the switch.
It will then be time to oppose this heartless arrangement. What formula should the Latin American family (excluding Chile and Cuba) propose?
I do not know exactly, but Itamaraty [the Brazilian Foreign Ministry] has no shortage of tradition, class, lucidity, and culture to craft it in terms that will be accepted by sister nations.
Presenting such a formula will usher in a new era beyond the Iron Curtain. It will be a beautiful clarion call announcing Latin America’s victorious presence in world affairs, and it will prove our greatness.
Courageous greatness. Beneficial greatness. Christian greatness!
