Negotiation or war?
False, negotiation implies
giving agreed, limited advantages,
and waiting for the enemy's error
on the charred military flank—-but it is in the air-conditioned rooms
that war blows blindly
its liturgical wind: in the course
of the wounded waters, the open sea
repeats constant pain, strange
shells of political hindrance
among wandering ships, sing
of marine fears and apprehensions.
Full of noisy glances, the
cold water of the oceans' frenzied war
falsely murmurs
on the shore of the chest the conciliation
of interests, giving it
the exact form of a negotiated agreement.
They negotiate while confronting each other,
they want a functional purgatory
instead of a hell of paths
overcome, diplomatically, with panting swims.
From drowning to drowning, it soon becomes clear that (ostendit incitatque) a reasonable Machiavellianism interferes with the submarines of the American Navy, and a surreal armistice continues the war "by other means."
Regular demarcation armies appear in the background of the report, embarking on a "non-negotiated" agreement explicitly in the line of fire, where zones of influence clash with other causes.
The last diplomatic trench, submerging in the depths of the sea air, the liquefaction of a dark sea in disordered waves of distrustful criticism of everything.
Realistic and useful, the cool head is Machiavellian, and its cabinet diplomacy cynically confuses every agreement with the mutual firing of shots at what is wanted in practice.
"Lend me your conception of the world
for five minutes," says the poet, "and I will become your favorite clown!"
And from so much laughter: the extension of bile
in the depths of your esophagus,
where all logic dies asphyxiated
"asiatically," "gulping."
Comentários
Postar um comentário