10 Be part of a generation that has grown up with the conviction that war was a defeat, a defeat for politics, for diplomacy, and above all, for humanity. Those of us who have been trained in the political culture of the late 20th and early 21st centuries have done so with the conviction that all war is an injustice, especially for the civilian population that suffers it, accepting, however, that there are international norms that, in situations of extreme gravity, can justify an armed intervention, approved and recognized by the international community.This was the moral and legal pact that emerged from the ashes of the Second World War. The world had known horror as never before, and that is why attempts were made to build mechanisms to prevent barbarism from once again becoming the ordinary way of relating between states. From this arose the United Nations Organization, international relations based on norms, and the idea that human rights constitute an upper limit to the political or economic interests of states.Undoubtedly, it was not a perfect system; there would be countless occasions when the UN acted conditioned by the influence of superpowers or was unable to enforce its resolutions. It is also true that numerous military interventions have been justified for humanitarian reasons, for justice, to protect threatened minorities, or democracy itself, but too often they have hidden real geostrategic objectives that had nothing to do with the speeches. However, even in these cases, a fundamental element was maintained: the need for military actions that went beyond the margins of diplomacy to have an appearance of legitimacy, within the legal and moral framework established by the international system. This is why "the Azores trio" saw it necessary to justify the invasion of Iraq by the existence of weapons of mass destruction that were never found. Even if it was a lie, it sought not to deviate from the legitimacy granted by the norms recognized by the states that make up the international community.Nowadays, even this minimum is alarmingly disappearing, because if before it was necessary to seek complex explanations for any military action, now everything seems valid. The big change is not the injustice of the wars that have been initiated, the profound change is that it is intended that the use of force no longer needs to be justified, or, in any case, the arguments that granted legitimacy seem secondary: they attack Venezuela in the name of democracy, but suddenly they admit that the important thing is oil and months later the transition to democracy remains in stand-by.Another case, Putin's invasion of Ukraine is a clear example of violation of international law, however, even Putin tried to build an alibi that would give him an appearance of legitimacy: the protection of Russian minorities or the security of Russia's borders against NATO expansion. There is no doubt that it is a questionable discourse and, in fact, incompatible with international legality, but even so, he maintained the need to justify the aggression with some type of legitimacy.The great danger right now is that after these arguments that have crossed the line of acceptable justifications, we find ourselves with other leaders who completely break with the previous paradigm, and this idea comes above all from the Trump administration. The current North American president represents this dangerous change in international relations like few others; he has sought to normalize politics based exclusively on immediate, economic, and national interest. He does not see the need to build a coherent narrative within the framework of international relations as we have understood them until now. This is a break with the norms and international relations built after 1945. With this new paradigm, wars cease to be considered an extreme evil justified only in exceptional circumstances to become simple (and destructive) tools of power.We cannot overlook the case of Gaza, which, like few others, reflects this crisis in international relations. Israel initially justified its military operations in the name of the fight against terrorism after the Hamas attacks, but this justification loses all meaning when it turns into the systematic destruction of an entire region, the expulsion of its inhabitants, the indiscriminate murder of civilians, attacks on basic infrastructure such as hospitals and schools, and humanitarian corridors. Attacks against international cooperation and solidarity organizations; actions, all of them, that can be considered war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide, and are so denounced at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Beyond the legal debate, the result of this unpunished aggression by the Israeli government of Netanyahu in Gaza, and now also in Lebanon, demonstrates the erosion and progressive destruction of a system of international relations based on norms and on the idea that the main goal of the international system is the maintenance of world peace.Therefore, we affirm that the wars of our time are, more than ever, immoral, because they have turned people, as has not happened since 1945, into expendable pawns in the service of economic gain, into simple figures, if political objectives are achieved from the most absolute selfishness. It is immoral because human life ceases to have value and remains subordinate to the interests of the powerful. For decades, the world at least tried to maintain the fiction that there were limits that democratic states in particular should never cross. Today we are witnessing the destruction of these limits, of a system of relations based on norms, a destruction that contemplates a public opinion saturated with information and that feels powerless, if not pushed to justify the unjustifiable according to an extreme polarization that some promote.In this context it is very important that voices opposing it are heard, loud and clear. One of these voices is Pope Leo XIV, who has repeatedly denounced the trivialization of war and the glorification of force. To him should be added political leaders from different countries, such as the Spanish president, Pedro Sánchez, who represent the democratic and internationalist response to the rise of new authoritarianisms, main promoters of the new culture of force.Here lies an essential part of the issue we are analyzing today: authoritarian governments exalt force over law, in line with how they manage their internal policies (let's recall Trump's anti-immigration policies, ICE, and the brutality they employ). Today it is once again time to demand the 'no to war', or the 'yes to peace', to advocate for pacifism, to reject those who treat peace as naivety. It is not naivety, it is a necessity. Defending peace, international law, and human dignity is once again an act of resistance. Being a pacifist is once again revolutionary.

]]>