Flanker para o Equador ?

O presidente equatoriano Rafael Correa irá a Moscou para discutir compra de armas, em especial a compra de vários helicópteros e sistemas de defesa aérea incluindo no pacote mísseis IGLA. Fontes militares equatorianas dão conta que deverá ser formalizada à compra de mais dois helicópteros Mi-17 que devem se juntar as três outras aeronaves recebidas ano passado. (Nota do Blog especula-se que o Equador poderia devolver os helicópteros indianos Dhruv caso se comprove que o acidente ocorrido foi motivado por uma falha irreparável no projeto da aeronave)

Fontes ligadas a Rosoboronexport dão conta que espera-se que o Equador efetive a intenção de compra de seis caças Sukhoi Su-30MK2 Flanker (com opção de mais seis) o que elevaria o “pacote” de financiamento para mais de 200 milhões de dolares.

Mas tanta cortesia por parte dos russos tem um preço. Os Russos esperam que o Equador reconheça a independência da Abkhazia e Ossétia do Sul (regiões antes pertencentes a Geórgia). Uma fonte do Ministério Russo de Negócios Estrangeiros disse que o Equador deverá anunciar oficialmente a sua posição durante a visita do Presidente Equatoriano.

By Vinna com informações do Ria Novosti, Argenpress e Pravda

The yearly IDFA festival is always around this time of the year, which is supposedly the world’s biggest documentary festival. It’s a pretty cool thing. There are so many documentaries running and so much extra stuff (debates, masterclasses, presentations etc), that it’s actually impossible to see everything even if you take 10 days off. The problem is that it is really hard to make a choice on what you actually want to see and some of the stuff you really want to see is quickly sold out. This time I actually booked tickets in advance and ended up seeing quite a lot of documentaries. I felt like shortly writing about the stuff I’ve seen:

The Red Chapel ***
I first went to see the Red Chapel, a Danish tv-serie turned into a movie, which is about a bunch of Danish comedians going to North Korea to play a comedy show and to make fun of the regime. As all stuff is censored (you got to hand in your cameras at night and then they delete the footage they don’t like before giving it back in the morning) and as the N-K regime is likely to have Danish interpreters, they took a Danish-Korean spastic with them as spastic Danish is probably impossible to comprehend for the North-Korean interpreters. In short, it’s a hilarious but also scary documentary. From time to time you burst out laughing while watching, at the same time North Korea is so unreal and frightening that it never gets really funny. The Danish documentary maker (/leader of the small group) constantly pushes for the limit, trying to find the footage that shows the evilness of the regime, and he is clearly uncomfortable at times, questioning his own consciousness; was it a good decision to come here? Am I not misusing the young spastic guy? Do I put people at risk? And those questions kind of remain unanswered when the docu finishes, I couldn’t help but wonder if this sort of documentary has consequences for the North-Korean woman who guided them during their stay.

Oil City Confidential ***
Documentary by Julian Temple about an old R&B band Dr Feelgood, who had some success in the UK charts in the 70s. I didn’t even know the band, it is seen as a sort of missing link towards the punk years (It inspired Joe Strummer to buy a guitar for example) and underrated in music history. Even while I didn’t know the band I kind of enjoyed it. Wilko Johnson is constantly being interviewed and he hyper-actively walks and jokes around all the time. Plus he’s even more amazing live as a guitar-player, watch this. After he and the singer couldn’t get along anymore he left and Dr Feelgood never really got popular anymore.

The Most Dangerous Man In America *****
The title refers to the words Henry Kissinger used to describe Daniel Ellsberg. I had never heard of the man and his story before, making the movie even more mindblowing for me. Daniel Ellsberg worked for the Pentagon as a military analyst during the Vietnam war, in 1971 he leaked a top-secret 7000 paper document about background and run-up of the Vietnam war to the NYT and to several other newspapers which showed how 5 succeeding US Presidents lied to the public and much more. After this he was declared public enemy nr 1, he was hiding in a hotel, even giving interviews to TV, while the FBI was looking for him. For 2 weeks the news broadcasts constantly opened with new tidbits of the story. Nixon was so mad he used his political power against Ellsberg personally, which also lead to the Watergate being discovered. It’s a fascinating story of a brave man, who spend the rest of his life as a peace-activist, but it also had a huge effect on the relation between the government and media. It’s well-structured, full of archival footage and makes a call for people in the government to leak revealing papers that might for example reveal the government deception about the Iraq and Afghanistan war (you could argue that the docu came out 6 years too late, something on which the documakers concurred in the Q&A afterwards), but the docu also makes an argument in favor of the anti-war protest-movements and the docu works kind of activating.

A hilarious, but scary, element of the documentary are the soundbites of President Nixon (as Nixon recorded everything between ‘ 71 and ‘ 73). It brilliantly shows the ‘other side’ of Ellsberg’s narrative, we hear Nixon and Kissinger madly talk about Ellsberg and the NYT. We also hear soundbites of Nixon suggesting to use nuclear weapons on North-Vietnam  and how he not gives a damn about civilians, with Kissinger being against that and diplomatically responding “I also do not care about civilians, sir, I just do not want the rest of the world… to think of you as some kind of butcher” and then Nixon “but Henry, we have to think big for-christ-sakes”. It’s rather mindblowing. Personally I do not believe in some Biblistic (or Star-Wars like) good and evil or any of that nonsense, which is why I’m always kind of amazed when real people make themselves look so much like real villains. In a weird way I’ve got mad-respect for people like Richard Nixon and Dick Cheney.

Sadly people like Kissinger and McNamara aren’t interviewed for the documentary, they were asked but rejected according to the makers in the Q&A.

The Yes Men Fix The World *****
I had heard of these two guys for the first time a year ago or so when I read about one of their pranks. I was a fan of it immediately, but somehow didn’t watch the previous Yes Men documentary (that is supposedly not so good as this one). These guys create fake websites of international organizations (as the WTO) and corporations (like DOW Chemical) and then get invited for conferences via these websites, there they show up and impersonate spokesmen and give a speech in which they tell the brutally honest truth (their truth) and pull off some hilarious stunts. It’s an original way of protesting against the big powers in our capitalist world.

I was a bit worried about the actual documentary, would it not get a bit boring and their pranks a bit childish? Thankfully it didn’t. I’ve seen them being described as the political alter-globalist version of Sacha Baron Cohen and I think it’s a good description. It’s probably the funniest documentary I’ve ever seen, I was entertained throughout the full 90 minutes. As for the political side, it’s not very deep or anything but it shortly explains the the economic neo-liberal ideology and takes aim at Milton Friedman and his followers (Milton Friedman as the guru of greed with his own cult in their words). Nothing new, but enough for people not acquainted with this critique to understand it and why the Yes Men do what they do. Especially funny is how they viciously ridicule the corporate-funded think-tanks spokesmen and tear apart their bullshit.

It also takes balls to do this. Not just standing there and giving a fake speech, but also the consequences when you’re busted. The big problem is whether you’re actually right, do you speak truth? I mean, corporations aren’t evil, the people who work for them are usually full of good intentions, so are the people organizing the conferences. It must be rather uncomfortable to come up and be so mean towards them. Is what you’re doing actually justified? That to me seems the hardest part of the whole thing. The pranks featured in the documentary however all made perfect sense to me, with the background info provided in the docu, they all seemed to be perfectly justified.

Anyway, it is a hilarious documentary. It works kind of activating, just like The Most Dangerous Man In America, with a positive portrayal of the protest movement and an ending with a call to action; if two guys can pull off all this there is no excuse to not take at least some action ourselves. It’s also a good introductory docu for for people not acquainted with the neo-liberal critique and the whole alter-globalist movement. When the movie ended people gave the longest ovation (with people standing) I’ve ever seen in a cinema and the Q&A with both Yes Men (one via web-cam) was also rather funny. It does seem the Yes Men are becoming ‘bigger’, they also spread sign-up lists for people to join and help out with their actions. I’m curious if they’ll be pulling off something at Copenhagen.

Burma VJ: Reporting from a Closed Country ****
Saw this movie after the Yes Men and it’s completely different. Not much jokes in this one. It’s a movie that was also at IDFA last year and mostly focuses around the mass demonstrations in autumn 2007, when the monks joined the protests and received international mass-media coverage. This is about the people who made the coverage possible; a Burmese organization that secretly video-tapes demonstrations and spreads them via satellite internet or smuggles them out of the country. And jesus christ, these guys are brave. Filming riot-police from a couple of meters distance, even filming the time their secret hide-out got busted and some of their members get arrested. Insane. I think the footage cannot leave anyone cold. The documentary also tells the story of the makers and their hopes when the monks joined the protests, Aung San Suu Kyi showed her face in public for the first time in years, and the country saw the biggest mass-demonstrations in Burma since 1988 when thousands of people got killed on the streets. It all ends badly and nothing has really changed so far. This movie probably leaves nobody cold.

The Shock Doctrine ***
Documentary on Naomi Klein’s best-selling book, which tells an alternative narrative on free-market economics of what happened in the world in the previous decades. I haven’t read the book, but I knew the argument it tries to make and was looking forward to the documentary. I didn’t really like the documentary, the American style voice-over annoys the hell out of me. It’s the same with those PBS documentaries; great stuff and freely available online with lots of info, but I just can’t stand the voice-over. The music is also overly dramatic from time to time. The footage however is interesting and so is the argument of course. The alternative narrative is convincing and quite ehm.. shocking; from Pinochet’s economic shock theory to Yeltsin to New Orleans to Iraq being sold out to private corporations and the army being increasingly privatized in Iraq. It’s interesting, the link between torture-shock treatments and the economic neo-liberal shocks seems a bit exaggerated to me though. While it’s not a good documentary, the mix of footage and lectures of Naomi Klein also feels a bit off, I guess it’s a good introduction to Naomi Klein’s argument for people who are too lazy to read the book.

Crude *****
Documentary about a lawsuit against Chevron for polluting the Ecuadorian Amazon, where kids swim and drink the water and where lots of people died of all sorts of diseases; the “Amazon Chernobyl”. It sounds like one of these many documentaries where against big corporations, you usually think you already know what is going to be the message before you start to watch, but this one is beautiful. It takes a rather objective approach in which both sides are interviewed, but after a while it’s for you as a viewer not hard to back up the young Ecuadorian lawyer that takes it up against the 5th biggest corporation of the world. It shows Chevron employees, like an environmental scientist, doing their work and seeming completely convinced that Chevron is doing the right thing, I couldn’t help but think that it shows how humans are capable of rationalizing the most horrible behavior.

To briefly explain, it’s a lawsuit against Texaco of over 20 years ago when they polluted the area there in order to cut down costs (Texaco merged with Chevron, so Chevron takes over the lawsuit). Texaco sold its stuff to PetroEcuador in the early 90s and basically bribed officials to get away with the behavior. The documentary is there at the right time as the case is opened up for field inspections in which the judge and attorneys of both sides move through the jungle to proceed the lawsuit. Everything is in it, the negatives of both sides are shown and the whole dubious system around these cases is explored. Chevron gets away with it by slowing things down in court while the Amazon continues to be polluted by the oil pools they’ve left behind, they have hundreds of millions in legal costs, but that’s nothing compared to the possible 28$bn fine. So they basically make use of their deep pockets and as long as they don’t have to pay they have more than enough interest on that 28$bn to cover the legal expenses. The other side however has lower legal expenses, but have still spend over 12$mln so far. They money they get is from a dubious sue-firm in the US that would get a big share of a possible ruling. This whole legal part is however not what could be really scary for Chevron, as the case is basically completely ignored by the corporate media and American public, what can however get really scary is when celebrities get involved like Sting’s wife who gets involved, starts speaking about the injustice in interviews and starts seriously hurting Chevron’s public image. It’s a sad world, although if you consider the fact that the most marginalized people of the world are now in a position to seriously hurt one of the world’s most powerful corporations you could say we’ve come a long way. Also interesting is how Chevron uses Web 2.0 for their propaganda on this case, they just started their own fucking youtube channel to explain how sympathetic Chevron is to the plight of the Ecuadorian citizens. I wonder if this new documentary has something to do with it…..

Anyway, highly recommended.

Eyes Wide Open **
The final movie I saw and probably the worst, although I still enjoyed watching it. It’s about a tour through Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela and Brazil; all countries that got new elected leaders that finally stand up for their own people, are able to stand up against American corporations and improve public health, education and other services. I’m very interested in what is going on there, how it’ll continue and it could very well be end up as some sort of model for the rest of the world. While I don’t live there and follow it all that closely, I got a lot of respect for people like Evo Morales and Rafael Correa. The latter is the president of Ecuador and also played a very positive role in the Crude documentary. So this documentary should be very interesting for me, but it was a bit disappointing. The maker doesn’t try to really assess the situation, but basically gives his own subjective one-sided narrative on the situation and interviews ‘unimportant’ people in all these countries, shows footage of the leaders and interviews Eduardo Galeano (the writer of the classic Open Veins in Latin-America, the book Hugo Chavez gave to Barack Obama). Some of the footage is really interesting, a highlight is seeing Diego Maradona and Chavez sharing the stage during an antisummit against G.W. Bush, in which they both jump around and sing together with the massive audience and tell Bush to fuck off.

The problem for me with the documentary is that it is completely uncritical towards for example Hugo Chavez, even while the maker himself said in the Q&A that there are indeed some serious problems. The maker claims it is his own narrative and that he does not attempt to be objective, that’s all fine for me, the problem with this completely uncritical narrative is that you do injustice to reality and basically make a propaganda movie in favor of people like Chavez. Don’t get me wrong, I think that Hugo Chavez is often also incorrectly portrayed in Western media. The man does a lot of good things there, the situation for the poor drastically improved; improved health care, education, housing, jobs etc etc. But the man is also rather dangerous and I’m afraid for increasing dictatorial tendencies in the future. I would’ve preffered a more objective assessment of what is going on, the interviews with ‘common people’ also seem a bit too much for me, it’s not always all that interesting.

Of all the factors on the table in the current Afghan strategic review, the War on Drugs and its unintended consequences should be front and center. Our 95-year effort to create a Drug Free America by enforcing world-wide prohibition has twisted our foreign policy out of shape all over the globe and the nightmare in Afghanistan is just the latest manifestation.

It seems to be an open secret that President Hamid Karzai’s brother is a player in the heroin trade, and the whole administration in Kabul is said to be riddled with corruption. Unfortunately, the replacement of Karzai, even if that proved possible, would not change the fundamental dynamic. Nearly a tenth of the population relies on the illegal opium industry for their daily bread. Corruption will be the norm as long as the American people are willing to invest limitless resources manning an arbitrary barricade between the sellers and buyers.

Unfortunately narco-corruption, like narcotics themselves, can penetrate any border and there is growing evidence that this cancer has metastasized into every nook and cranny of the known world. Consider, for example, this headline from London: “Corrupt officers exist throughout the UK police service.”

This jarring assessment of the once-pristine Royal Constabulary comes from Britain’s National Criminal Intelligence Service. According to a document leaked to the Daily Telegraph, the head of the agency warns that “corruption may have reached ‘Level 2′, the situation which occurs in some third world countries.”

The “situation” in the colonies, current and former, is undoubtedly worse. Here’s a two-week random pick from recent U.S. headlines: August 14, a Baton Rouge deputy sheriff is sentenced to 10 years for cocaine distribution. Six days later a Georgia cop goes down on the same charges. The following week a Memphis officer is busted for distributing crack and the next day a U.S. Customs agent in Newark is cuffed for running off with a hundred pounds of cocaine. The day after that a prison guard in Arkansas is nailed for delivering meth to the Pine Bluff maximum security wing, and the head of a Michigan narcotics unit pleads guilty to diverting drugs and cash.

This is a tiny sample of lawmen who were sloppy enough to get caught. But according to Law Enforcement Against Prohibition [LEAP], the virus is everywhere. LEAP co-founder Peter Christ, a retired Police Captain from suburban Buffalo, puts it this way: “You’ve been a police officer four or five years, you’ve seen the wasted energy spent on this drug war, and now you’re standing in a motel room and lying on the bed is a hundred thousand in cash that hasn’t been counted yet. And in your back pocket is a bill from the plumber you can’t pay. And it doesn’t make any difference anyway. So you take your first taste. And then you’re gone.”

In this war as in all wars it’s the foot soldiers who bite the dust. But focus for a second on the staggering amount of cash in play — more than $300 billion a year according to the United Nations — and we would have to be brain dead not to suspect that this corrosion reaches the upper echelons of all governments including our own. As presidents Hamid Karzai, Felipe Calderón, Álvaro Uribe, Michelle Bachelet, Rafael Correa, and others have discovered, with that kind of loot lying around you can’t trust anyone. What’s worse, the exposure to people who are getting fabulously wealthy by ignoring the law inspires a corrosive tolerance for criminality. In Ohio we just uncovered two juvenile court judges who were raking in thousands of dollars a head for every kid they sent to a private for-profit prison. This is a fire alarm sounding for the court system itself.

Even more ominous, the illegal drug trade turns out to be the ultimate crime university and a godsend for terrorists. It provides weapons, training and untraceable cash for operations, and essential technologies like border penetration and money laundering have become an art form in the hands of the drug lords. We have, in effect, created a global mechanism that is in the process of eating our civilization alive.

The drug warriors tell us we have to stay the course or drugs will destroy us but they don’t like to talk about the incalculable damage being done by blind adherence to a failed policy. While abuse of narcotics can be devastating, the tragedy of addiction actually affects only about one person in a hundred. There are humane answers to this problem that don’t require putting the future of the nation at stake. We cut tobacco addiction in half through education and never fired a shot.

International drug prohibition was begun by the United States and we can end it with a simple majority vote in Congress. As for the rest of the world, several of our allies are already ahead of us. Portugal, Holland and Switzerland are successfully experimenting with legalization and three former Latin American presidents are calling for an end to the drug war because the corruption and violence in their countries is spinning out of control.

The prohibitionists insist that legalization would only increase lawlessness, but all the evidence is on the other side of the scale. When we ended alcohol prohibition the U.S. murder rate was cut in half. Then we regulated booze, taxed it heavily, and the state got the money instead of the mob. The prison population shrank and the criminal justice system was freed from the daily grind of processing drunks and their enablers and the huge burden of enforcement was lifted from the taxpayers.

We could repeat that success with the stroke of a pen. And we could cut the funding for terrorists and simultaneously pull the rug out from under the drug lords. And in Afghanistan we would no longer have to explain to the family of the poppy farmer whose livelihood we just torched that we really meant well.

O gancho de Merval é a entrevista do governador de Minas com o também presidenciável do PSB, em que Ciro cobriu Aécio de elogios, dizendo até que “a minha candidatura não é necessária mais” se o “amigo de uma vida” conseguir “se viabilizar candidato a presidente da República”.

Estratégia que “não serve para nada”

Poderia parecer um evento positivo para o PSDB. Mas a coluna no Globo, cheia de fel e maus agouros, mostra que não. Se é bom para Aécio é ruim para Serra, e portanto para Merval.

O veterano jornalista global é categórico: “a estratégia do governador mineiro não serve para nada, a não ser para criar um ambiente de constrangimento dentro do seu partido”. Pior, foi uma “provocação pública a seu concorrente (Serra) e ao presidente de honra do PSDB (o ex-presidente FHC), em troca de nada”, sentencia Merval, na coluna Passo em falso.

Por fim, um fernando-henriquista

Finalmente um brasileiro, Merval Pereira, ergue-se em defesa de FHC. Os compatriotas do venerável e injustiçado ex-presidente, mal agradecidos, nâo enxergam as virtudes do venerável ex-presidente.

Como diz o adágio, ninguém é profeta em sua terra. Ainda no sábado passado (14), El País – diário espanhol com ambições latino-americanas – publicou uma entrevista com Fernando Henrique onde o apresenta, sem rodeios, como “o homem que pôs o Brasil para funcionar” e fala até em um “milagre Cardoso” (sic).

Foi nessa entrevista que FHC perguntou-se candidamente: “Qual é a diferença entre meu governo e o de Lula no modelo econômico?”. E respondeu-se: “Muito pouca, é basicamente social-democrata, quer dizer, respeito ao mercado, sabendo que o mercado não é tudo, e políticas sociais eficazes” (veja aqui a entrevista completa, em espanhol).

O entrevistador espanhol, Manuel Calvo, engoliu sem vacilar a patranha do “homem que pôs o Brasil para funcionar”. Mas os ingratos brasileiros, com essa mania de ficar comparando índices de emprego, poder de compra do salário mínimo, preços da cesta básica e do cimento, e agora até apagões, não engolem. Para não falar dos que ainda querem saber de auto-estima, “patriotismo econômico” – como disse Lula – e integração latuino-americana, inclusive com os odiosos, demoníacos, abomináveis Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales e Rafael Correa.

Em todas as pesquisas de opinião em que se pediu para comparar os governos Lula e FHC, mesmo nos momentos mais periclitantes do “Mensalão”, a resposta foi uma impressionante rejeição do ex-presidente. Merval Pereira é, talvez ao lado da Velhinha de Taubaté de Luis Fernando Verissimo, o último brasileiro a sustentar as “virtudes” do governo FHC.

“Lula está fazendo tudo certo”

Mais ainda: o destemido jornalista do Globo, Globo News e CBN interpela os tucanos que não saem em defesa do seu presidente de honra.

Aécio “estaria incorrendo num erro que pode ser fatal, o mesmo em que incorreram Serra e Alckmin, os dois tucanos batidos por Lula: evitar a “contaminação” do governo FH, em vez de assumir suas virtudes e defender o programa partidário”, julga Merval. “O mesmo erro Serra está cometendo novamente, na tentativa de se mostrar uma alternativa confiável para eleitores de esquerda”, lamenta o colunista.

Com a autoridade inconteste de um profissional de imprensa que proclama Cuba como “a pior ditadura do mundo” e nunca, jamais votou em um torneiro mecânico que não fala línguas estrangeiras, Merval Pereira atinge o ápice de sua análise:

“Até o momento, mesmo admitindo-se que exorbita de seu poder para tentar colocar em pé a candidatura de Dilma, é o presidente Lula quem está fazendo tudo certo.”

Serra, preferido “até o momento”

Merval conclui a frase com um contraponto, admitindo “ser o PSDB que tem em José Serra o candidato preferido do eleitorado até o momento”. Mas o colunista do Globo deixa entrever, com insuspeita franqueza, que isso não vale grande coisa.

Na eleição presidencial de 1994, em 3 de maio, o instituto Datafolha dava 42% de intenção de voto em Lula, e 16% em Fernando Henrique. Cinco meses depois, este se elegia no primeiro turno, graças ao Plano Real, que só em 1999 revelou-se ao público como um bombom envenenado, com uma doce crostra de chocolate envolvendo o recheio de cianeto de potássio.

Merval não se ilude: “A indefinição do PSDB, e sua divisão cada vez mais clara, contrastam com a unidade governista, mesmo que a candidata oficial seja ruim de voto e não tenha traquejo político. O que alimenta o apoio de um amplo leque de partidos à sua candidatura é a crença na capacidade de Lula transformar em votos para sua candidata sua grande popularidade.”

Para Merval, o PSDB “teria” que “dar alguma segurança” aos partidos que se agrupam em torno do plano Lula-Dilma. Mas ele constata desesperançado que, “até o momento”, o PSDB “não tem nem candidato nem proposta alternativa”. E o conselho que oferece aos tucanos, “assumir” as “virtudes” do governo FHC, seria a receita garantida para piorar uma situação que já anda de ruim para péssima.

Será que irão assim até outubro?

Um dia alguma tese de doutorado há de examinar como, nos idos do segundo semestre de 2009, os comentaristas mais argutos e sagazes da grande mídia cansaram da incompetência, covardia e oportunismo dos seus aliados do PSDB, DEM e adjacências, e, por pura coerência antilulista, passaram a falar mal da oposição e bem do governo. Merval ‘Lula-está-fazendo-tudo-certo” Pereira segue as pegadas da coleguinha global Miriam Leitão, que sentenciou três semanas atrás: “O Brasil tem governo demais e oposição de menos” (veja mais aqui).

O encontro Aécio-Ciro em Belo Horizonte nesta terça-feira até valeria uma apreciação sobre o sinuoso jogo de alianças do deputado socialista. Haveria lugar então para se questionar um presidenciável do campo do governo que só tem elogios para o oposicionista Aécio, a ponto de rifar sua própria postulação presidencial. Mas ala Serra e seus publicistas, como Merval, roubam a cena com sua biliosa reação – a ponto de se indagar se não é o caso de deixar que eles mesmos liquidem a fatura.

Será que eles caminharão assim até o matadouro de 3 de outubro, alfinetando-se a cada passo e armando camas de gato uns para os outros?

É improvável. A incongruência e a incompetência, em política, têm limites, impostos pelas camadas profundas do jogo político, ditadas pelos interesses dos atores coletivos em luta. Há interesses, poderosos, desejosos de enterrar a era Lula antes tarde do que nunca. Mas, a julgar pelo aqui e agora, eles vão ter um baita trabalho para se expressarem na sucessão, em meio a tamanha briga de tão grandes cachorros demo-tucano-midiáticos.

Se o internauta quiser conferir o que escreveu mesmo Merval Pereira no Globo, reproduzo a íntegra abaixo:

The Woodrow Wilson Institute for International Scholars Mexico site picked up an article from El Universal that has captured what I think is one of Mexico’s greatest challenges… facing north when it should be looking south:

Mexico was once boasted as a leader in Latin America, but is now an observer of the development of other nations. Academics and specialists confirm that the country has found itself stuck in several areas stymieing its competitiveness.

The majority agree: the country wasted its potential, never looked south to reassert itself as a leader, and squandered the advantage of oil resources and neglected science.

(Original article in El Universal 16-November 2009)

I’ve talked before about the disadvantages of Mexico’s too-close ties to the United States economy, which has worked to discourage trade with the rest of Latin America and other parts of the world.  At the same time, despite my continual carping on the lack of attention the United States pays to Latin America, Mexico does receive attention… just not the kind that allows for creative and independent policy-making.

Narrow concerns with “stability”, coupled with the unfortunate co-incidence of the timing of the last presidential campaign during the United State’s own bout with extremist political and economic attitudes probably did have more to do with with the questionable outcome of that election than it should.  Not that a López Obradór administration would have necessarily have been more successful than the Calderón administration, but AMLO was more interested in pan-Latin initiatives, and his program was more focused on the basics — like educational and agricultural reform — than the incumbent is.

Secondly, Mexico’s willingness to fight the United State’s “war on drugs” — or rather, the Calderón administration’s willingness to use the “mano duro” against “instability” (which includes not just the narcotics exporters, but political and social dissent as well).  Basic judicial reforms, as well as social programs which would have ameliorated the need for so much dissent (as well as the need to make a living working in the narcotics industry) have been put on the back burner.

Third, while the PAN people are not incompetent per se, they are ideologically bound to the wrong issues.  This wouldn’t have been a problem had the U.S. economic house of cards stood up a few more years, but it didn’t.  While the United States could make some mild reforms thanks to an election at the right time, Mexico is stuck with the same mindset when it comes to economic responses as the Bush Administration in the U.S.  I thought it a good sign when Augustín Carstens was appointed Secretary of the Treasury, although — today — an orthodox World Bank type is exactly wrong.

And, of course, shit happens.  Mexico isn’t “exotic” — or exciting enough to rate the pres that Brazil does right now.  And, our stability may be working against us.  People like Felipe Calderón are kind of dull… even AMLO, or Beatriz Parades just don’t have the star appeal of other Latin American politicos like Bolivia’s Evo Morales or Ecuador’s Rafael Correa,  And, outside the “drug war” and quasi-crises like the flu epidemic, there hasn’t been any “change to believe in” that really captures one’s attention since the Oaxaca protests.

While it looks, on the surface, that nothing is going on… there are signs that something will give.  The cynical dismemberment of Luz y Fuero del Centro (and the union) hasn’t quite sunk in yet, nor has the Calderón administration’s coddling of the corrupt union boss, Esther Elba Gordilla… nor the seeming lack of ideas from the administration on how to respond to the economic situation.  There will be national elections in 2012… and although it appears for now that the likely winner is a Carlos Salinas protege, nothing is ever for certain in Mexico.  As Porfirio Dias said, just before everything changed, “Nothing changes in Mexico… until it changes.”

Es una joda esto de estar sin luz. Mi mamá dice que sería peor estar sin agua, pero desde que leí La luz es como el agua de García Márquez estoy convencido de que no existe una diferencia sustancial entre una y otra.

Ayer, sin previo aviso, el gobierno nos recordó cómo era estar sin luz durante cuatro, cinco, siete horas al día.

La compulsión obvia -cansina y repetitiva- radica en echarle la culpa al gobierno de los apagones. Me parece desacertado, definitivamente, endilgarle la culpa solo a este gobierno sobre la crisis energética que el Ecuador arrastra desde hace veinte años. Lo que sí parece acertado es  que en el Ecuador las cosas no avanzan al ritmo que el presidente parece creer. Luego él se entera y despotrica en contra de los burrócratas de siempre por los retrasos en las obras, los errores en los estudios preliminares, las incongruencias en las bases.

Parece existir una evidente desconexión (o apagón) entre ciertas realidades nacionales y el presidente de la República.

Por citar otro ejemplo, el SRi decidió aplicar una “medida ejemplar” en la provincia de Santa Elena cuando decidió, dos días antes del feriado, clausurar a diestra y siniestra cuanto local comercial, hotel o negocio que no estuviese aplicando debidamente las normas tributarias. Yo por supuesto que estoy a favor de que el SRI se saque la recontra madre haciendo que la gente empiece a pagar sus impuestos.

Eso, de ninguna manera puede ser criticado. Lo deleznable es que al genio que se le ocurrió “darles una lección” a los peninsulares no calculó el desastre humano que provocaría al clausurar negocios que habían aceptado anticipos, habían hecho reservaciones e invertido dinero para recibir a sus huéspedes. Si bien es cierto que la ley debe ser cumplida, existe un principio de racionalidad que debe ser atendido en todo momento. Y clausurar los locales de la península uno ó dos días antes del feriado es una demostración de torpeza suprema, propia de aquéllos legalistas que no entienden que en la ley y sobre ella se puede teorizar mucho, pero que su aplicación debe ser razonada y sensata, pues recae sobre los seres humanos.

Lo del SRI en la península me recordó las palizas exageradas -verdaderas torturas- con que ciertos padres pretenden corregir a sus hijos; “lecciones” que pueden costar la vida.

Estoy seguro que Correa no hubiera aprobado lo que hizo el SRI en Santa Elena. No sólo porque creo que entre rabieta y rabieta es un hombre lúcido, sino también porque la medida es profundamente antipopular.  Estoy seguro que nadie se lo preguntó y estoy seguro que lo que más escasea es el sentido común y la proactividad entre la burocracia.

Él mismo ha dicho no haber tenido idea de los contratos millonarios de su hermano, comediante consagrado ya.

Siendo éste el estado de las cosas, uno no puede dejar de preguntarse cuántas otras cosas escaparán al control y, sobre todo, cuántas se harán fuera de la línea de pensamiento (o acción) del propio presidente.  Cabe preguntarse, también, en qué momento se comienza a desarrollar la paranoia inveterada de creer que todo el mundo lo engaña, le miente o lo traiciona a uno.

En esa paradoja de locura que es la solitud del poder, más de un acto demencial ha registrado la historia.

Por estos días la desconexión más preocupante en el Ecuador no será la falta de fluido eléctrico que sufriremos (supuestamente) hasta mañana, sino la que puede ocurrir, perennemente, entre los gobernantes y la ciudadanía.

Ese siempre ha sido la punta del ovillo del fin.  

Freedom Left Out

The Obama administration, in concert with leftist Central American and South American regimes, successfully broke the back of the Honduran economy – Mel Zelaya will return to power.

Facts – A Synopsis of Events

The Honduran constitution limits presidential terms to one four-year term. Leftist President Mel Zelaya, a man who gained his wealth in timber, became close friends with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. They two share common goals – they want to be dictators for life.

Honduras is a constitutional democracy, a government modeled after our own: Legislature branch, Executive branch and Supreme Court. Chavez conspired with Zelaya to hold a “referendum” on his re-election, an unlawful act. To this end, Chavez printed counterfeit ballots for a Honduran election. Zelaya’s party holds power in the Legislature and the Supreme Court. It was his own political party that kicked him out of office with assistance from the military and booted him out of the country.

Obama, working overtime to appease presidents of socialist countries, the likes of Lula (Brazil), Chavez (Venezuela), Ortega (Nicaragua), Castro (Cuba), Morales (Bolivia) and Correa (Ecuador), denied foreign aid and stifled Honduran tourism to break the back of one of the only two Latin American friends we had, Columbia the other.

 Today, it was announced that leftist Zelaya had reached some unspecified agreement with the ruling party to return him to the office of president.

 ****

 It is hard to understand the foreign policy of this administration.

They send their diplomats to Cuba to see how they can work with those who have been oppressing the Cuban people for 50 years, and they send their diplomats to Honduras to put pressure on those who defended the Honduran Constitution and democracy, refusing to let Honduras become another Cuba or another Venezuela.

Maybe having a foreign policy that works with anti-American tyrants and puts pressure on those who are pro-American and want democracy, is the only way a U.S. president can win a Nobel Peace Prize.

In that case, I hope that this is the last time that a U.S. president wins such a prize, otherwise, we could end up losing our biggest prize of all: Our own freedom.

The Real Cuba – 30 October 2009
****

It is hard to understand, indeed, how far left the government of the United States of America has swung. God, have mercy on America. – JW 

Further Study 

Library of Congress stands by report on Honduras coup – Miami Herald

 Beck criticizes Obama for being in the “company” of Cuba and Chavez in opposing Honduran coup

 Interview Roberto Micheletti Constitutional President of Honduras On The Record Fox News P1

 Interview Roberto Micheletti Constitutional President of Honduras On The Record Fox News P2 

Desde hace varios años se han venido observando ciertos cambios en la manera de imponer un gobierno en latinoamérica, facciones de derecha y de izquierda han aprendido a utilizar la ley para poder perpetuarse en el poder, así ante eventuales bloqueos de parte de la comunidad internacional sendas dictaduras han comenzado su propceso en varios países de latinoamérica, otras fracasaron pero hay muchas que siguen en su proceso.

El caso Fujimori marca un hito en esta nueva casta de dictadores, si bien es cierto el se “aplicó” un “autogolpe”, luego utilizó una nueva constitución hecha a su medida y validada a través de un referéndum popular, así trató de perpetuarse en el poder sin embargo los cálculos le fallaron y lo que se convertiría en su segundo mandato (según él), terminó por convertirse realmente en un tercer mandato y por consecuencia anti constitucional ya que en el Perú, de acuerdo a la nueva constitución de Fujimori, sólo puede existir una re elección.

Si Fujimori hubiese aceptado que se trataba de una segunda elección entonces hubiera aceptado que dió un golpe de estado en 1992 ya que sólo trataba de contar sus períodos a partir de 1995, pero con videos de corrupción a la vista de todos los ciudadanos peruanos y con un pueblo harto de abusos y de sinvergüenzadas no le quedó otra opción más que la renuncia por fax después de su fuga.

Pero el caso de Fujimori sólo representa una muestra de lo que vendría luego, por coincidencia Vladimiro Montesinos, ex asesor de Fujimori y mano derecha del mismo, fugó hacia Venezuela donde fue capturado, ya en ese entonces Chávez ostentaba el poder en ese País, se supo luego por investigaciones periodísticas que Vladimiro Montesinos tuvo contactos importantes con gente del gobierno de Chávez, una coincidencia que podría servir de base para el consecuente asentamiento de Chávez en el poder.

Chávez fue más cauto en este sentido, sabía que para no ser bloqueado por la comunidad internacional debería someterse a los procesos constitucionales de su País, es así como amparado en una herramienta constitucional como lo es el referéndum modifica legalmente la misma carta magna sentando las bases de consecutivas re elecciones que lo tienen sentado en el poder ya por más de 10 años y lo que es peor le han dado facultades para que pueda gobernar a través de decretos, así, no tiene reparos para, a través de la ley, lanzarse ferozmente en contra de sus adversarios sin importarle pisotear derechos fundamentales como el de la libre expresión.

Al igual que Chávez, Rafael Correa, Evo Morales y Daniel Ortega van por el mismo camino, similares estrategias con similares retóricas hacen pensar que sus objetivos van más allá de querer perpetuarse en el poder sino que caminan hacia la consecusión de una unión de Países en bloque cuya finalidad no será la protección de sus ciudadanos sino la hegemonización de una doctrina que pretende endiosar a Hugo Chávez y dejarlo como líder único tal como lo soño en algún momento Simón Bolívar.

No podemos dejar de nombrar tampoco a Alvaro Uribe y so loca ambición de mantenerse en el poder, sin bien es cierto este Señor no tiene ambiciones “imperialistas” representa intereses externos a los cuales salvaguarda para mantener un equilibrio en la región, Uribe es un buen presidente pero no se puede obviar el tema de la corrupción en Colombia y mucho menos el tema de los para militares que tanto daño le hacen a esa gran nación.

Todos estos gobernantes pertenecen a una nueva casta de dictadores que han sido engolosinados por el poder y han llegado a creerse imprescindibles en sus Países, creen que sin ellos los proyectos exitosos no serán tales y que un eventual cambio sería retroceder, ellos piensan que son lo únicos capaces de sacar adelante un País y no se dan cuenta que sólo terminansiendo un triste remedo de Fidel Castro ó de Pinochet.

Los Países no necesitan caudillos ni dioses, los Países necesitan gente responsable, profesionales a carta cabal que hagan de la política lo noble y bella que es, que esten en política para servir al pueblo y no para servirse de él y que tengan en la democracia a su principal fundamento, la alternatividad en el poder evita la corrupción y evita la aparición de caudillos y de “dioses” y en nuestras manos está el mantener ese preciado sistema.

L’Equateur envisage d’acheter à la Russie quatre hélicoptères en plus des deux Mi-17 qu’il a déjà acquis, a déclaré Rafael Correa, président de la république de l’Equateur actuellement en visite officielle  en Russie.

ACI.-

El Presidente de Ecuador, Rafael Correa, sorprendió a la prensa europea cuando en una conferencia que ofreció en la Universidad de Oxford repasó varios documentos pontificios y reclamó al Papa Benedicto XVI la publicación de una encíclica que aborde sin eufemismos los problemas sociales, omitiendo la recienteCaritas in veritate.

Según la cadena Cope, Correa pretendió “dar cátedra de eclesiología en Oxford” y dijo que le “gustaría ver una encíclica que denunciara con vigor y frontalidad, sin eufemismos, la ideología disfrazada de ciencia que se nos quiso imponer como el final de la historia”.

Correa “habló de varios documentos episcopales y del magisterio pontificio, pero, en lo que hubiera sido una respuesta a su reclamo, omitió mencionar documentos de Benedicto XVI como la reciente encíclica Caritas in veritate”, agrega Cope.

La conferencia de Correa se tituló “Experiencia como un cristiano de izquierda en un mundo secular” y en ella aseguró que “en el plano personal, mis principios sociales y económicos se fundamentan en la Doctrina Social de la Iglesia Católica y en la Teología de la Liberación, y el socialismo del siglo XXI que estamos construyendo en América Latina, al menos en el caso ecuatoriano, también se alimenta de esas fuentes”.

Asimismo, acusó a la Iglesia en América Latina de haber desplazado la cuestión social del “centro de la acción pastoral” y poner hoy “mayor énfasis en cuestiones de moral individual y en cuestiones de rito”.

Correa alabó la encíclica Rerum Novarum del Papa León XIII por haberse rebelado “ante las consecuencias de la Revolución Industrial y la cuestión obrera” y aseguró que “como católico, espero ansioso una encíclica análoga  para los tiempos que vivimos, denunciando la cuestión laboral y migratoria”.

“ ¿Cómo podremos explicar éticamente a las futuras generaciones que en esta supuesta globalización, buscamos cada vez mayor facilidad para la movilización de capitales y mercancías, pero penalizamos y hasta criminalizamos cada vez con mayor rigor la movilidad de los seres humanos? ¿Cómo Europa, con estas políticas, puede llamarse cristiana? Con medidas coercitivas, con un apartheid institucionalizado, no se acaba con la miseria”, expresó el mandatario ecuatoriano ignorando el magisterio del Papa Benedicto XVI.

Para sorpresa de muchos, Correa insistió en que como católico, espera “ansioso una encíclica que denuncie cómo en este mundo, al igual que en la Revolución Industrial,el capital tiene más derechos que los seres humanos”.

Among the conventional wisdom that we hear every day in the business press is that developing countries should bend over backwards to create a friendly climate for foreign corporations, follow orthodox (neoliberal) macroeconomic policy advice and strive to achieve an investment-grade sovereign credit rating so as to attract more foreign capital.

Guess which country is expected to have the fastest economic growth in the Americas this year? Bolivia. The country’s first indigenous president,Evo Morales, was elected in 2005 and took office in January 2006. Bolivia, the poorest country in South America, had been operating underIMF agreements for 20 consecutive years, and its per-capita income was lower than it had been 27 years earlier.

Evo sent the IMF packing just three months after he took office, and then moved to re-nationalise the hydrocarbons industry (mostly natural gas). Needless to say this did not sit well with the international corporate community. Nor did Bolivia’s decision in May 2007 to withdraw from theWorld Bank’s international arbitration panel, which had a tendency to settle disputes in favour of international corporations and against governments.

But Bolivia’s re-nationalisation and increased royalties on hydrocarbons has given the government billions of dollars of additional revenue (Bolivia’s entire GDP is only about $16.6bn, with a population of 10 million people). These revenues have been useful for a government that wants to promote development, and especially to maintain growth during the downturn. Public investment increased from 6.3% of GDP in 2005 to 10.5% in 2009.

Bolivia’s growth through the current world downturn is even more remarkable in that it was hit hard by falling prices for its most important exports – natural gas and minerals – and also by a loss of important export preferences in the US market. The Bush administration cut off Bolivia’s trade preferences that were granted under the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act, allegedly to punish Bolivia for insufficient co-operation in the “war on drugs”.

In reality, it was more complicated: Bolivia expelled the US ambassadorbecause of evidence that the US government was supporting the opposition to the Morales government, and the ATPDA revocation followed soon thereafter. In any case, the Obama administration has so far not changed the Bush administration’s policies toward Bolivia. But Bolivia has proven that it can do quite well without Washington’s co-operation.

Ecuador’s leftist president, Rafael Correa, is an economist who, well before he was elected in December 2006, understood and wrote about the limitations of neoliberal economic dogma. He took office in 2007 and established an international tribunal to examine the legitimacy of the country’s debt. In November 2008 the commission found that part of the debt was not legally contracted, and in December Correa announced that the government would default on roughly $3.2bn of its international debt.

He was vilified in the business press, but the default was successful. Ecuador cleared a third of its foreign debt off its books by defaulting and then buying the debt back at about 35 cents on the dollar. The country’s international credit rating remains low, but no lower than it was before Correa’s election, and it was even raised a notch after the buyback was completed.

The Correa government also incurred foreign investors’ wrath by renegotiating its deals with foreign oil companies to capture a larger share of revenue as oil prices rose. And Correa has bucked pressure from Chevron and its powerful allies in Washington to drop his support of a lawsuit against the company for alleged pollution of ground waters, with damages that could exceed $27bn.

How has Ecuador done? Growth has averaged a healthy 4.5% over Correa’s first two years. And the government has made sure that it has trickled down: healthcare spending as a percent of GDP has doubled, and social spending in general has expanded considerably from 5.4% to 8.3% of GDP in two years. This includes a doubling of the cash transfer programme to poor households, a $474m increase in spending for housing, and other programmes for low-income families.

Ecuador was hit hard by a 77% drop in the price of its oil exports from June 2008 to February 2009, as well as a decline in remittances from abroad. Nonetheless it has weathered the storm pretty well. Other unorthodox policies, in addition to the debt default, have helped Ecuador to stimulate its economy without running too low on reserves.

Ecuador’s currency is the US dollar, so that rules out using exchange rate policy and most monetary policy for counter-cyclical efforts in a recession – a significant handicap. Instead, Ecuador was able to cut deals with China for a billion-dollar advance payment for oil and another $1bn loan.

The government also has begun requiring Ecuadorian banks to repatriate some of their reserves held abroad, expected to bring back another $1.2bn, and it has started repatriating $2.5bn in central bank reserves held abroad in order to finance another large stimulus package.

Ecuador’s growth will probably come in at about 1% this year, which is pretty good relative to most of the hemisphere. For example, Mexico, at the other end of the spectrum, is projected to have a 7.5% decline in GDP for 2009.

The standard reporting and even quasi-academic analysis of Bolivia and Ecuador says they are victims of populist, socialist, “anti-American” governments – aligned with Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and Cuba, of course – and on the road to ruin. To be sure, both countries have many challenges ahead, the most important of which will be to implement economic strategies that can diversify and develop their economies over the long run. But they have made a good start so far, by giving the conventional wisdom of the economic and foreign policy establishment – in Washington and Europe – the respect it has earned.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/oct/27/bolivia-ecuador-economy