Global Research

The netflix movie “The White Helmets” may win an Oscar in the “short documentary” category at the Academy Awards on Sunday February 26.  It will not be a surprise, despite the fact that the group is a fraud and the movie is a contrived infomercial.

The White Helmets are a “feel good” story like a Disney hero movie: 90% myth and fabrication. Most of what is claimed about the Syrian rescue group is untrue. They are not primarily Syrian; the group was initiated by British military contractor James LeMesurier and has been heavily funded by the USA, UK and other governments.

They are not volunteers; they are paid. This is confirmed in the Al Jazeera video which shows some White Helmet “volunteers’ talking about going on strike if they don’t get paid soon. Most of the heavy funding goes to the marketing which is run by “The Syria Campaign” based in New York.

The manager is an Irish America woman Anna Nolan who has never been to Syria. As an example of its deception, “The Syria Campaign” website features video showing children dancing and playing soccer implying they are part of the opposition demand for a “free and peaceful” Syria . But the video images are taken from a 2010 BBC documentary about education in Syria under the Baath government.

When eastern Aleppo was finally freed from the armed militants, it was discovered that the White Helmets headquarters were alongside the headquarters of the Al Qaeda Syrian militant group. Civilians from east Aleppo reported that the White Helmets primarily responded when the militants were attacked. Soon after departing Aleppo in government supplied buses (!) the White Helmets showed up in the mountains above Damascus where they allied with terrorist groups in poisoning then shutting off the water source for five million people in Damascus.

The White Helmets’ claim to be neutral and independent is another lie. They only work in areas controlled by the rebel groups, primarily Nusra/ Al Qaeda.  Their leaders actively call for US and NATO intervention in Syria. Video shows White Helmet workers picking up the corpse of a civilian after execution and celebrating Nusra / Al Qaeda terrorist battle wins.

The movie is as fraudulent as the group it tries to heroize.

The film-makers never set foot in Syria. Their video footage takes place in southern Turkey where they show White Helmet trainees in a hotel and talking on cell phones. Thrilling. There is some footage from inside Syria but it looks contrived.  The opening scene depicts a White Helmet “volunteer” going to work and beseeching his son not to give mommy a hard time. Real or scripted?

The message is simple: here are people we can support; they are under attack by the brutal “regime”…shouldn’t we “do something” to stop it??!

Khaled Khatib is said to be the person who filmed the footage from inside Syria. He has reportedly received a US visa and will attend the Oscars. This will likely garner special media attention. Ironically, some of those who have exploited the refugee issue for their own fund-raising campaigns, like Human Rights Watch, are groups which promote the war which created the refugee crisis.

Khatib has tweeted the first video he took showing the White Helmets. It looks remarkably unrealistic, with a girl who was totally buried being removed without injuries or wounds or even much dirt. Is it really possible to rescue people that quickly? In the real world, rescue workers are told to work slowly so as to not damage or exacerbate body injuries. The original video has the logo of Aleppo Media Center (AMC) which was created by the Syrian Expatriates Organization.  Their address on K Street in Washington DC suggests this is yet another Western funded media campaign driven by political objectives.

In the past few days, with perfect timing for the upcoming Oscars, there is yet another “miracle” rescue …. another girl totally buried but then removed and whisked away in record breaking time – perfect for social media.  Is it real or is it contrived?

This raises a question regarding the integrity of the Oscar Academy Awards. Are awards given for actual quality, authenticity, skill and passion?  Or are Oscar awards sometimes given under political and financial influence?  There is political motivation to promote the White Helmets as part of the effort to prevent the collapse of the Western/Israeli/Gulf campaign to overthrow the Syrian government.

These same governments have given boatloads of money to fuel the propaganda campaign. Last week Syria Solidarity Movement reached out to three marketing firms in the LA area to request help challenging the White Helmets nomination.  Two of the firms declined and the third said they were already being paid to promote the nomination!

The true source and purpose of the White Helmets was exposed almost two years ago. More recently Vanessa Beeley has documented the fact there is a REAL Syrian Civil Defence which was begun in the 1950’s and is a member of the International Civil Defense Organizations. This organization is opposite to the group created in Turkey in 2013. According to on-the-ground interviews in Aleppo, terrorists began by killing real Syrian rescue workers and stealing their equipment.  Since then the White Helmets have been supplied, by the West through Turkey, with brand new ambulances and related rescue equipment.

Max Blumenthal has written a two part detailed examination of the “shadowy PR firm” behind the “White Helmets”. And Jan Oberg has written an overview survey of the “pro” and “con” examinations in his work “Just How Gray are the White Helmets”.

Yet mainstream media, and some ‘alternative’ media, continue to uncritically promote the myth of the “White Helmets”. The promoters of the group absolutely deserve an award for marketing and advertising.  This is a field where truth and reality is irrelevant; it’s all about sales and manipulation. On that basis, the “White Helmets” has been an incredible success. The group was started as “Syria Civil Defense”  in Turkey in 2013.

It was re-branded as the “White Helmets” in 2014. It was heavily used in 2014 and 2015 by Nicholas Krisof, Avaaz and others to campaign for all out aggression against Syria.  In 2016 the group received the Rights Livelihood Award and was seriously considered for a Nobel Peace Prize.  These facts show how corrupt and politically and financially influenced the Rights Livelihood Award and Nobel Peace Prize can be.

The White Helmets movie is a tactic in the ongoing campaign of distortion and deception around Syria.  It’s a fraud, just like the fake kidnapping of NBC reporter Richard Engel. The Oscars will be a demonstration of the integrity of the Academy Awards.  The reporting on the story will be a test of the integrity and accuracy of media outlets. Ironically, the Israeli mainstream TV program I24 presented both sides and titled the segment “White Helmets: Heroes or Hoax?”.  In contrast, the highly popular and widely respected DemocracyNow has  only broadcast a puff piece promoting the “White Helmet” disinformation.  The coming days will reveal more about the ongoing information war against Syria.  Meanwhile on online petition continues to gather signatures to NOT give the Oscar to the White Helmets deception.

Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area. He can be reached at [email protected]

Los dirigentes europeos tratan por todos los medios de aumentar la presencia de la OTAN en el este de Europa y sus capacidades de intervención en el sur. Así pretenden evitar un posible acercamiento entre Washington y Moscú y tratar a la vez de obtener todo lo que puedan antes de tener que aumentar su propia contribución a la alianza atlántica.

Los ministros de Defensa de la OTAN reunidos en Bruselas, en el marco del Consejo del Atlántico Norte, decidieron nuevos pasos para el «fortalecimiento de la Alianza», ante todo en el frente del este, con el despliegue de nuevas «fuerzas de disuasión» en Estonia, Letonia, Lituania y Polonia. Al mismo tiempo, decidieron aumentar la presencia de la OTAN en todo el este de Europa con la realización de ejercicios terrestres y navales. En junio, estarán completamente operativos 4 batallones multinacionales que deben desplegarse en esa región.

También se acrecentará la presencia naval de la OTAN en el Mar Negro. Se inició además la creación de un mando multinacional de fuerzas especiales, que inicialmente contará con unidades de Bélgica, Dinamarca y Holanda. Finalmente, el Consejo del Atlántico Norte felicita a Georgia por sus progresos en el proceso que llevará ese país a convertirse en miembro pleno de la OTAN, con lo cual se convertiría –junto a Estonia y Lituania– en el tercer miembro de la alianza atlántica directamente fronterizo con Rusia.

En el frente sur, directamente vinculado con el frente del este, sobre todo debido a la confrontación Rusia-OTAN-Siria, el Consejo del Atlántico Norte anuncia una serie de medidas para «contrarrestar las amenazas provenientes del Medio Oriente y del norte de África y para proyectar estabilidad más allá de nuestras fronteras».

En el Mando de la Fuerza Conjunto Aliada en Nápoles se creó el Polo hacia el Sur, cuyo personal se eleva a 100 militares y cuya misión consistirá en «evaluar las amenazas provenientes de la región y enfrentarlas junto a las naciones y organizaciones socias». Para ello dispondrá de aviones-espías AWACS y de drones que rápidamente entrarán en disposición operativa en la base de Sigonella, situada en Sicilia [Italia].

Para las operaciones militares ya está lista «Fuerza de Respuesta» de la OTAN, con 40 000 soldados, sobre todo su «Fuerza de Avanzada de Muy Alta Rapidez Operativa».

El Polo hacia el Sur, según explica el secretario general de la OTAN Jens Stoltenberg– aumentará la capacidad de la OTAN para «prevenir las crisis». En otras palabras, la OTAN podrá efectuar intervenciones militares «preventivas». La alianza atlántica adopta así, en conjunto, la doctrina del «halcón» Bush hijo sobre la guerra preventiva.

Los primeros en desear un reforzamiento de la OTAN, ante todo con objetivos anti-rusos, son, en este momento, los gobiernos europeos miembros de la alianza, que generalmente se presentan como «palomas». Su temor es que la administración Trump les coja la delantera o acabe marginándolos si decide abrir negociaciones directas con Moscú.

Particularmente activos están los gobiernos del este de Europa. Varsovia, que no se conforma solamente con la 3ª Brigada blindada estadounidense enviada a Polonia por la administración Obama, ahora solicita a Washington, por boca del influyente Kaczynski, la protección del «paraguas nuclear» estadounidense, o sea el despliegue en suelo polaco de armas nucleares estadounidenses que apunten hacia Rusia.

Kiev, por su parte, retomó en la región de Donbass la ofensiva contra los rusos de Ucrania recurriendo tanto a intensos bombardeos artilleros como al asesinato sistemático de líderes de la resistencia mediante atentados tras los cuales también se esconde la participación de los servicios secretos occidentales. Al mismo tiempo, el presidente Porochenko anunció un referéndum para incorporar Ucrania a la OTAN.

Y ¿quién corrió a respaldarlo? El primer ministro griego Alexis Tsipras, quien, de visita oficial en Kiev –los días 8 y 9 de febrero–, expresó al presidente Porochenko «el firme apoyo de Grecia a la soberanía, la integridad territorial y la independencia de Ucrania» y, por tanto, su no reconocimiento a lo que Kiev llama «la ilegal anexión rusa de Crimea». Según Tsipras, su encuentro con Porochenko creó las bases para «años de estrecha colaboración entre Grecia y Ucrania» y contribuirá a «alcanzar la paz en la región».

Manlio Dinucci

Manlio Dinucci: Geógrafo y politólogo.

Artículo original en italiano:

Le colombe armate dell’Europa

Edición del martes 21 de febrero de 2017 de il manifesto.

https://ilmanifesto.it/le-colombe-armate-delleuropa/

Traducido al Español por la Red Voltaire.

IMAGEN: Enrique García Rodríguez, economista y presidente ejecutivo de la Corporación Andina de Fomento (CAF) por 25 años.

Para un economista latinoamericano con el recorrido de Enrique García, la irrupción de Donald Trump en Estados Unidos o el nuevo papel estratégico de China hacen que este sea “un momento para repensar la integración regional en América Latina”.

Veterano de muchas crisis, Enrique García está a punto de terminar su mandato de ¡veinticinco años! al frente de la CAF, el Banco de Desarrollo de América Latina al que llegó en 1991 después de ser ministro de Planeamiento en su país, Bolivia, y desempeñar puestos de gran responsabilidad en el Banco Mundial, el Fondo Monetario o el Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo.

Dice que “el cuadro internacional es muy diferente y más complejo que hace unos años”, que “hay que ser cauteloso con Trump”, que “China es un jugador importante pero su ritmo de crecimiento no es el que tenía hace cinco años”, o que “los extremos (en política, en economía) no son nada buenos”…

Durante su entrevista con Efe, se le nota un lenguaje corporal tan prudente y sosegado como sosegado y prudente es su criterio, marcado siempre por una actitud templada, pragmática, cautelosa.

Aunque consciente de las medidas que está tomando el presidente Trump, García apunta que la estabilidad del sistema en Estados Unidos, la firmeza que equilibra los tres grandes poderes de la Unión -el Ejecutivo, el Legislativo y el Judicial- aconsejan no precipitar el juicio.

Y sin embargo opina que decisiones como las que afectan a México, por ejemplo, o a asuntos como el comercio o la inmigración son “señales” para que América Latina vaya tomando posiciones.

“Creo que es un buen momento para repensar la integración regional en América Latina; una integración que no está funcionando como se soñaba -es la verdad- pero que, en este punto de inflexión, se puede avanzar en aspectos concretos”.

Su idea es “identificar aquellos temas o cuestiones que hagan progresar a la región a un ritmo más acelerado; que la hagan más competitiva”.

García opina que “América Latina no está en crisis”, y puntualiza que “aunque algunos países tengan problemas, su potencial de crecimiento es alto”, y que la Alianza del Pacífico -México, Colombia, Perú y Chile- puede, a su juicio, acercarse al Mercosur “si se estabiliza la macroeconomía en ambas regiones”.

Aunque haya corrientes, tendencias políticas muy diversas en el ámbito latinoamericano, el aún presidente de la CAF (su mandato concluye el 31 de marzo) sostiene, tajante, que la macroeconomía no tiene ideología”. Números son números.

Insiste en que “los extremos no son nada buenos”, en que “ni estatismo ni neoliberalismo a ultranza”, en que “hay que buscar el equilibrio entre el Estado y el mercado”, principalmente porque hay cosas que aquél no puede hacer sin éste y viceversa.

Cuando habla de España, Enrique García entiende que su presencia política en América Latina -no la económica- fuera más limitada durante la crisis porque “tenía que mirar más hacia su problema interno”, aunque cree que “es momento de retomar la iniciativa ahora que la situación ha mejorado”.

Echando un vistazo a sus veinticinco años al frente de la CAF (con sede en Caracas), su presidente se queda con varios logros, entre ellos que este organismo haya pasado de estar formado por cinco países andinos a convertirse en una gran institución con 19 naciones de América Latina y el Caribe más España y Portugal.

La capacidad de préstamo de la CAF ha pasado durante su mandato de 400 millones de dólares a 12.000, y su situación financiera es tal que las agencias de calificación de riesgos (Standard and Poor’s, Fitch o Moody’s) han aumentado hasta catorce veces su nivel de solvencia.

García señala que la CAF ha podido desarrollar “una agenda integral centrada en la estabilidad macroeconómica, la eficiencia microeconómica, la equidad y la cohesión social, y el equilibrio medioambiental”.

Y, en fin, como problemas críticos que siguen amenazando al mundo, el veterano economista señala dos viejos conocidos: la falta de transparencia y la lacra de la corrupción.

Enrique García

Enrique García: Economista y presidente ejecutivo de la Corporación Andina de Fomento (CAF).

Desde los años treinta, cada vez que el capitalismo entra en crisis, el liberalismo se desprende de los ropajes democráticos y regresa a sus feudos. Engañan a los pueblos buscando a alguien que diga con palabras escogidas lo que los pueblos golpeados quieren escuchar. Cada ciclo histórico, como si fuera una condena, los pueblos vuelven a votar a sus verdugos. Pero no todos. Esa es la disputa en América Latina. A los poderosos, no les resulta tan sencillo regresar. Por eso, para asustar a los que no convencen, encarcelan a los que protestan. Especialmente a quienes tienen cabeza y corazón. Por ejemplo, a Milagro Sala. En esa pelea andamos a ambos lados del Atlántico. Los amigos y los adversarios cruzan océanos y se encuentran. Por eso, nosotros, aquí, en España, nos sentimos encarcelados con Milagro.

Macri visita España, y Madrid tiene que saludarle como Jefe del Estado de un país hermano. Conocemos las reglas del protocolo, pero duele. Sabemos que Macri está haciendo sufrir a nuestras hermanas y hermanos argentinos. Sabemos que Macri prometió en campaña no tocar los programas sociales, pero está sembrando la Argentina de pobres e indigentes. Sabemos que Macri vuelve a matar simbólicamente a las víctimas del terrorismo de Estado y sabemos que Macri desprecia los derechos humanos. Sabemos que Macri forma parte de esa internacional conservadora que apoya golpes de Estado parlamentarios y que defiende la esclavitud por deudas de los países de la periferia, incluida la Argentina.

Sabemos que Macri está con los jueces y no con la justicia, que está con las empresas multinacionales y no con las cooperativas, que está con los que contaminan y no con los contaminados. Sabemos que Macri está con el lenguaje del imperio y no con las lenguas indígenas, que está con los torturadores y no con los torturados, que está con Satanás aunque siempre ha tenido una cuenta en algún banco del viejo Vaticano. Sabemos que está con Juan Pablo II pero no puede estar con el papa Francisco. Sabemos que Macri está con los que desahucian y no con los desahuciados, que está con los financieros y no con los hipotecados, que está con las petroleras y no con la Madre Tierra. Sabemos que Macri es un presidente manchado con el escándalo de los paraísos fiscales y sabemos que tiene el corazón donde descansa su cartera. Sabemos que Macri alza la voz defendiendo los derechos humanos en los países que intentan gobernar para las mayorías pero mantiene encarcelada injustamente a una mujer, Milagro Sala, porque no le tiene miedo a ese mundo dorado y podrido que representan los Macri de este mundo. Sabemos que Milagro está con el vaso de leche a los niños y Macri está con los fondos buitre. Sabemos que Milagro es la vida de la solidaridad y de los pobres y Macri un recuerdo torpe del Rey Midas al que nunca le enterraron con todo su oro. En España nos topamos con Macri pero nos acordamos de Milagro.

Y aquí, en Madrid, le recordamos al Presidente de la Argentina que los mandatarios pasan pero la solidaridad de los pueblos permanece, que él quedará en la historia como un triste momento de marcha atrás, mientras Milagro Sala vive en cada pueblo que no tiene miedo a los poderosos. Macri, como Rajoy, como Trump, como Temer son el fantasma lúgubre del  neoliberalismo y Milagro es la respuesta que siempre los heraldos de la muerte van a encontrar cada vez que toquen la dignidad del pueblo. Por eso estamos con Milagro. Por eso sabemos que Macri no es uno de los nuestros porque es, con toda la evidencia, uno de los de ellos. Uno de los de siempre.

Uno de los que nos ponen en marcha para evitar que nos vuelvan a robar la democracia.

Rafael Mayoral

Juan Carlos Monedero

Rafael Mayoral: Diputado de Podemos. 

Juan Carlos Monedero: Profesor de Ciencia Política y cofundador de Podemos.

Los tiempos no podían ser más desafortunados para recibir noticias negativas sobre la crisis en Grecia. Después de algunos meses en el congelador, el tema de la moratoria y de una posible salida griega de la esfera del euro vuelve a sembrar la alarma en Europa. Pero ahora esto se combina con los exabruptos de las primeras semanas de Trump en la Casa Blanca, así como con las peripecias sobre las negociaciones del Brexit y las perspectivas de las elecciones en Francia, Holanda y Alemania en los próximos meses. Este torbellino de acontecimientos corre el riesgo de entorpecer el desenlace de las negociaciones sobre el rescate en Grecia y sus consecuencias.

Las relaciones entre Vietnam y Rusia muestran hoy bases más sólidas tras la visita aquí de la presidenta del Consejo de la Federación, Valentina Matvienko, marcada por la reafirmación de la voluntad común de continuar ampliando los nexos.

El tema dominó los encuentros de la líder parlamentaria con el jefe de Estado vietnamita, Tran Dai Quang, el primer ministro, Nguyen Xuan Phuc, la presidenta de la Asamblea Nacional, Nguyen Thi Kim Ngan, y el secretario general del Partido Comunista, Nguyen Phu Trong.

De las coincidencias destaca la referida a la meta de elevar el comercio bilateral a 10 mil millones de dólares para 2020, que fue de tres mil 500 millones de dólares en los primeros 11 meses de 2016.

Al respecto, Dai Quang llamó a coordinar estrechamente para implementar de manera efectiva el Tratado de Libre Comercio entre Vietnam y la Unión Económica Eurasiática, a la que pertenecen también Armenia, Belarús, Kazajstán y Kirguistán, y aprovechar las ventajas de ese acuerdo para incrementar las exportaciones y las inversiones.

Ese tema estuvo presente en todos los encuentros de la visitante con las autoridades anfitrionas.

El presidente comunicó también a Matvienko el deseo de fomentar los vínculos de cooperación en defensa, seguridad, educación, cultura, turismo y ciencia-tecnología, así como entre localidades de las dos naciones.

Mientras, el jefe de gobierno precisó que además de los proyectos de colaboración en marcha en la industria petrolera, este país favorece las inversiones de la otra parte en áreas como energía renovable, incluida la hidroeléctrica, e infraestructura ferroviaria.

Por su parte, la presidenta de la Asamblea Nacional reiteró que Vietnam siempre prioriza el fortalecimiento de la asociación estratégica integral y desea perfeccionar la coordinación entre los dos países, legislaturas y localidades.

La posición del otro territorio en ese sentido se infiere de las declaraciones de Motvienko en sus pláticas con el presidente Dai Quang: reforzar la cooperación con Vietnam en todos los sectores es una prioridad absoluta en la política exterior de Rusia.

Añadió que el Consejo de la Federación y los parlamentarios rusos harán todo lo posible por contribuir al fortalecimiento de las relaciones bilaterales y señaló que su nación quiere importar más productos agrícolas de este mercado, al resaltar que el objetivo de su visita es profundizar los nexos bilaterales.

Para ello, entre las medidas con vistas a fortalecer la coordinación entre los dos órganos legislativos, se acordó intensificar el intercambio de delegaciones y de información, impulsar la supervisión del cumplimiento de los acuerdos gubernamentales y consolidar el apoyo mutuo en los foros multilaterales.

Además de los aspectos mencionados, estas relaciones tienen en el turismo un sector de creciente importancia, apreciable en la cifra de 430 mil viajeros rusos a la nación indochina el año pasado, lo que favorece el desarrollo de los nexos entre ambos pueblos.

Otro actividad destacada de los vínculos bilaterales tiene que ver con las frecuentes contactos de alto nivel.

En mayo de 2016 el primer ministro Xuan Phuc realizó una visita oficial a Rusia durante la cual se alcanzaron importantes acuerdos y cinco meses después el presidente Dai Quang se entrevistó con su homólogo Vladimir Putin en Lima, Perú, donde asistieron a la Cumbre del Foro de Cooperación Económica Asia-Pacífico.

Como Vietnam será la sede de igual cita del bloque este año, es muy posible que ambos estadistas dialoguen nuevamente en esa ocasión para beneficio de las relaciones entre los dos países.

Teresita Vives Romero

Fleeing to Canada is no longer an option

Liberals are supposed to be antiwar, right? I went to college in the 1960s, when students nationwide were rising up in opposition to the Vietnam War. I was a Young Republican back then and supported the war through sheer ignorance and dislike of the sanctimoniousness of the protesters, some of whom were surely making their way to Canada to live in exile on daddy’s money while I was on a bus going to Fort Leonard Wood for basic combat training. I can’t even claim that I had some grudging respect for the antiwar crowd because I didn’t, but I did believe that at least some of them who were not being motivated by being personally afraid of getting hurt were actually sincere in their opposition to the awful things that were happening in Southeast Asia.

As I look around now, however, I see something quite different. The lefties I knew in college are now part of the Establishment and generally speaking are retired limousine liberals. And they now call themselves progressives, of course, because it sounds more educated and sends a better message, implying as it does that troglodytic conservatives are anti-progress. But they also have done a flip on the issue of war and peace. In its most recent incarnation some of this might be attributed to a desperate desire to relate to the Hillary Clinton campaign with its bellicosity towards Russia, Syria and Iran, but I suspect that the inclination to identify enemies goes much deeper than that, back as far as the Bill Clinton Administration with its sanctions on Iraq and the Balkan adventure, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and the creation of a terror-narco state in the heart of Europe. And more recently we have seen the Obama meddling in Libya, Yemen and Syria in so called humanitarian interventions which have turned out to be largely fraudulent. Yes, under the Obama Dems it was “responsibility to protect time” (r2p) and all the world trembled as the drones were let loose.

Last Friday I started to read an op-ed in The Washington Post by David Ignatius that blew me away. It began “President Trump confronts complicated problems as the investigation widens into Russia’s attack on our political system.” It then proceeded to lay out the case for an “aggressive Russia” in the terms that have been repeated ad nauseam in the mainstream media. And it was, of course, lacking in any evidence, as if the opinions of coopted journalists and the highly politicized senior officials in the intelligence community should be regarded as sacrosanct. These are, not coincidentally, the same people who have reportedly recently been working together to undercut the White House by leaking and then reporting highly sensitive transcripts of phone calls with Russian officials.

Ignatius is well plugged into the national security community and inclined to be hawkish but he is also a typical Post politically correct progressive on most issues. So here was your typical liberal asserting something in a dangerous fashion that has not been demonstrated and might be completely untrue. Russia is attacking “our political system!” And The Post is not alone in accepting that Russia is trying to subvert and ultimately overthrow our republic. Reporting from The New York Times and on television news makes the same assumption whenever they discuss Russia, leading to what some critics have described as mounting American ‘hysteria’ relating to anything coming out of Moscow.

Rachel Maddow is another favorite of mine when it comes to talking real humanitarian feel good stuff out one side of her mouth while beating the drum for war from the other side. In a bravura performance on January 26th she roundly chastised Russia and its president Vladimir Putin. Rachel, who freaked out completely when Donald Trump was elected, is now keen to demonstrate that Trump has been corrupted by Russia and is now controlled out of the Kremlin. She described Trump’s lord and master Putin as an “intense little man” who murders his opponents before going into the whole “Trump stole the election with the aid of Moscow” saga, supporting sanctions on Russia and multiple investigations to get to the bottom of “Putin’s attacks on our democracy.” Per Maddow, Russia is the heart of darkness and, by way of Trump, has succeeded in exercising control over key elements in the new administration.

Unfortunately, people in the media like Ignatius and Maddow are not alone. Their willingness to sell a specific political line that carries with it a risk of nuclear war as fact, even when they know it is not, has been part of the fear-mongering engaged in by Democratic Party loyalists and many others on the left. Their intention is to “get Trump” whatever it takes, which opens the door to some truly dangerous maneuvering that could have awful consequences if the drumbeat and military buildup against Russia continues, leading Putin to decide that his country is being threatened and backed into a corner. Moscow has indicated that it would not hesitate use nuclear weapons if it is being confronted militarily and facing defeat.

The current wave of Russophobia is much more dangerous than the random depiction of foreigners in negative terms that has long bedeviled a certain type of American know-nothing politics. Apart from the progressive antipathy towards Putin personally, there is a virulent strain of anti-Russian sentiment among some self-styled conservatives in congress, best exemplified by Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Graham has recently said “2017 is going to be a year of kicking Russia in the ass in Congress.”

It is my belief that many in the National Security State have convinced themselves that Russia is indeed a major threat against the United States and not because it is a nuclear armed power that can strike the U.S. That appreciation, should, if anything constitute a good reason to work hard to maintain cordial relations rather than not, but it is seemingly ignored by everyone but Donald Trump.

No, the new brand of Russophobia derives from the belief that Moscow is “interfering” in places like Syria and Ukraine. Plus, it is a friend of Iran. That perception derives from the consensus view among liberals and conservatives alike that the U.S. sphere of influence encompasses the entire globe as well as the particularly progressive conceit that Washington should serve to “protect” anyone threatened at any time by anyone else, which provides a convenient pretext for military interventions that are euphemistically described as “peace missions.”

There might be a certain cynicism in many who hate Russia as having a powerful enemy also keeps the cash flowing from the treasuring into the pockets of the beneficiaries of the military industrial congressional complex, but my real fear is that, having been brainwashed for the past ten years, many government officials are actually sincere in their loathing of Moscow and all its works. Recent opinion polls suggest that that kind of thinking is popular among Americans, but it actually makes no sense. Though involvement by Moscow in the Middle East and Eastern Europe is undeniable, calling it a threat against U.S. vital interests is more than a bit of a stretch as Russia’s actual ability to make trouble is limited. It has exactly one overseas military facility, in Syria, while the U.S. has more than 800, and its economy and military budget are tiny compared to that of the United States. In fact, it is Washington that is most guilty of intervening globally and destabilizing entire regions, not Moscow, and when Donald Trump said in an interview that when it came to killing the U.S. was not so innocent it was a gross understatement.

Ironically, pursuing a reset with Russia is one of the things that Trump actually gets right but the new left won’t give him a break because they reflexively hate him for not embracing the usual progressive bromides that they believe are supposed to go with being antiwar. Other Moscow trashing comes from the John McCain camp which demonizes Russia because warmongers always need an enemy and McCain has never found a war he couldn’t support. It would be a tragedy for the United States if both the left and enough of the right were to join forces to limit Trump’s options on dealing with Moscow, thereby enabling an escalating conflict that could have tragic consequences for all parties.

Numerosas tareas pendientes en el camino de la integración, iniciado por la Comunidad Caribeña (Caricom) hace 44 años, figuran en un extenso comunicado emitido por esa agrupación subregional al finalizar aquí su 28 Cumbre.

Con sede en esta capital, Caricom fue creada en 1973 para transformar la Asociación Caribeña de Libre Comercio en un Mercado Común y enfrentar los desafíos de sus 15 países miembros, fomentando el comercio y las relaciones económicas.

Irwin LaRocque, secretario general de la agrupación, expresó satisfacción por el desarrollo de la reciente cumbre (16-17 de febrero) y la marcha del proceso integracionista, pese a la necesidad de seguir avanzando. Más que nunca antes, resumió, debemos unir nuestros esfuerzos y nuestros recursos.

No es poca la incertidumbre y la preocupación reinante entre los caribeños, que insistieron en la necesidad de unirse para alcanzar el crecimiento económico y el desarrollo, particularmente debido a lo que algunos mandatarios definieron como un ‘hostil escenario global’.

Pese a ello, la conferencia de ocho jefes de Estado, cinco cancilleres y numerosos otros funcionarios, cerró con un llamamiento positivo, de orgullo caribeño, y la decisión de cumplir las tareas pendientes y de enfrentar colectivamente sus grandes retos.

El presidente de Guyana y de Caricom, David Granger, recordó la vulnerabilidad de estos países por sus reducidas dimensiones territoriales y poblacionales y el azote frecuente de violentos fenómenos naturales.

Se trata de 18 millones de personas que viven, como dijo, en siete mil cayos, islas, islotes y arrecifes diseminados en 2,4 millones de kilómetros cuadrados de mar. Fuentes internacionales estiman que una cantidad similar, pero no precisada, de caribeños radica en Estados Unidos, Canadá y Reino Unido, entre otros países.

El mandatario guyanés subrayó: ‘estamos viviendo en un escenario económico revuelto. Muchas de nuestras mercancías y servicios quedaron deprimidas en el mercado internacional en los dos últimos años… Nuestra primera preocupación ahora es la economía’.

Por ello, la cumbre de dos días abarcó números temas, pero se concentró en tres grandes capítulos: la economía y el pretendido establecimiento del mercado único subregional (CSME); la criminalidad y seguridad, no como problemas nacionales sino de toda la región; y las relaciones internacionales de Caricom.

Los mandatarios indicaron que tomarán prontas medidas para enfrentar prácticas de bancos globales, que perciben al Caribe como una zona de riesgo y pretenden retirarle sus servicios de corresponsalía, lo cual afectará el comercio, las inversiones, el turismo y las remesas.

Trascendió también que persiste la expectativa por los lazos comerciales y económicos de la región, especialmente con Estados Unidos, potencia que -al igual que el Reino Unido- acaba de dar un nuevo rumbo a su política exterior.

Varios líderes caribeños manifestaron en privado y en público su esperanza de que los lazos de Caricom con ambos países continúen como los desarrollados con sus anteriores administraciones.

El actual problema migratorio fue abarcado bajo el titulo ‘un análisis de la comunidad caribeña a la luz de los hechos políticos en Estados Unidos’, que incluyó su impacto en los países de la subregión.

El primer ministro de Granada, Keith Mitchell, quien asumirá la presidencia rotativa de Caricom en julio próximo, precisó que sigue la incertidumbre ante las medidas migratorias anunciadas por Washington. Tenemos que esperar y ver, comentó, respecto a la huella que dejará esa política en el Caribe.

Ralph Gonsálves, primer ministro de San Vicente y las Granadinas, por su parte, dijo a Prensa Latina desconocer detalles de la nueva política migratoria, pero opinó que ‘tiene potencial para un impacto negativo. Dependerá de cuán grande sea la red cuando caiga. Pero, sin duda, no es algo que instintivamente nos inspire a inclinarnos a apoyarla’.

Durante la cumbre, se realizaron varios encuentros bilaterales y se firmaron algunos acuerdos puntuales, sobre seguridad, comercio, turismo, cultura, infraestructura, transporte y el traslado de personas y mercancías dentro de la comunidad.

Figuraron también la proyectada regulación de servicios tecnológicos de información y comunicación, las relaciones con República Dominicana, la situación en Surinam, los temas fronterizos Belice-Guatemala y Guyana-Venezuela y un importante acuerdo comercial Cuba que otorga mutuas concesiones arancelarias para numerosos productos.

Paralelamente, las esposas de los jefes de Gobierno sostuvieron una reunión para denunciar problemas como el embarazo juvenil, la violencia contra mujeres y niños y el tráfico de personas, así como la transmisión de HIV de madre a hijo en el Caribe.

Jorge Luna

Obama was notoriously called America’s “deporter-in-chief” for conducting sweeping Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids nationwide – expelling record numbers, more than all his predecessors combined.

He largely targeted undocumented Mexicans and Central Americans, averaging over 1,000 deportations daily – people in the United States because destructive NAFTA and DR-CAFTA trade deals destroyed their jobs at home, or sought asylum from domestic violence and chaos.

Trump appears bent on exceeding Obama’s viciousness. Thousands of new ICE and border patrol agents are being hired. Stepped up sweeping raids will follow, more than already.

Family members will be separated, including spouses from each other and children from parents.

Under new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) guidelines, ICE agents have broad latitude to arrest and detain undocumented and legal immigrants with offenses on their record as minor as traffic violations or alleged long ago inconsequential misdemeanors.

New guidelines cover interior and border enforcement. Immigrants of color have cause for concern, especially Latinos.

According to the Migration Policy Institute, over half of nearly two million immigrants legally in America have past offenses on their records – in many cases minor infractions or wrongful charges.

US prisons hold mostly nonviolent offenders – either wrongfully convicted, incarcerated for illicit drug related charges, or other minor ones  most developed countries punish by small fines or community service, not hard time locked in cages.

DHS guidelines prioritize deporting immigrants who’ve allegedly abused public benefits, or “in the judgment of an immigration officer,” misrepresented themselves or “otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.”

ICE agents are being given sweeping authority to target, arrest, detain and abuse immigrants for their ethnicity and race ahead of mass deportations.

Millions are vulnerable to police state mistreatment. DHS will “no longer will exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement.”

The Department will no longer afford Privacy Act rights and protections to persons who are neither US citizens nor lawful permanent residents.

“…ICE is committed to arresting and processing all removable aliens.” Many details remain to be determined. Roundups and deportations will be expedited.

Expect lots of immigrants to be harmed, including many here lawfully, because sweeping arrests grab legal and undocumented individuals alike, besides separating family members.

How dozens of so-called sanctuary cities will be affected remains to be seen. Their authorities refuse to help round up undocumented immigrants.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals still protects them from deportation – young people referred to as Dreamers.

Trump promised an enhanced get tough on immigrants policy. Millions potentially are vulnerable.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. 

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

Let us stop debating what newly-elected US President Trump is doing or might do and look at him in terms of historical importance. Put simply, Trump marks the end of an American cycle!

Like it or not, for the last two centuries the entire planet has been living in an Anglophone-dominated world. First there was Pax Britannica (from the beginning of the 19th century when Britain started building its colonial empire until the end of the Second World War, followed by the United States and Pax Americana with the building of the so-called West).

The United States emerged from the Second World War as the main winner and founder of what became the major international institutions – from the United Nations to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) – with Europe reduced to the role of follower. In fact, under the Marshall Plan, the United States became the force behind the post-war reconstruction of Europe.

As winner, the main interest of the United States was to establish a ‘world order’ based on its values and acting as guarantor of the ‘order’.

Thus the United Nations was created with a Security Council in which it could veto any resolution, and the World Bank was created with the US dollar as the world’s currency, not with a real world currency as British economist and delegate John Maynard Keynes had proposed. The creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) – as a response to any threat from the Soviet Union – was an entirely American idea.

The lexicon of international relations was largely based on Anglo-Saxon words, and often difficult to translate into other languages – terms such as accountability, gender mainstreaming, sustainable development, and so on. French and German disappeared as international languages, and lifestyle became the ubiquitous American export – from music to food, films and clothes. All this helped to reinforce American myths.

The United States thrust itself forward as the “model for democracy” throughout the world, based on the implied assertion that what was good for the United States was certainly good for all other countries. The United States saw itself as having an exceptional destiny based on its history, its success and its special relationship with God. Only US presidents could speak on behalf of the interests of humankind and invoke God.

The economic success of the United States was merely confirmation of its exceptional destiny – but the much touted American dream that anyone could become rich was unknown elsewhere.

The first phase of US policy after the Second World War was based on multilateralism, international cooperation and respect for international law and free trade – a system which assured the centrality and supremacy of the United States, reinforced by its military might,

The United Nations, which grew from its original 51 countries in 1945 to nearly 150 in just a few decades, was the forum for establishing international cooperation based on the values of universal democracy, social justice and equal participation.

In 1974, the UN General Assembly unanimously adopted the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States – the first (and only) plan for global governance – which called for a plan of action to reduce world inequalities and redistribute wealth and economic production. But this quickly became to be seen by the United States as a straitjacket.

The arrival of Ronald Reagan at the White House in in1981 marked an abrupt change in this phase of American policy based on multilateralism and shared international cooperation. A few months before taking office, Reagan had attended the North-South Economic Summit in Cancun, Mexico, where the 22 most important heads of state (with China as the only socialist country) had met to discuss implementation of the General Assembly resolution.

Reagan, who met up with enthusiastic British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, stopped the plan for global governance dead in its tracks. I was there and saw how, to my dismay, the world went from multilateralism to the old policy of power in just two days. The United State simply refused to see its destiny being decided by others – and that was the start of the decline of the United Nations, with the United States refusing to sign any international treaty or obligation.

America’s dream and its exceptional destiny were strengthened by the rhetoric of Reagan who even went as far as slogan sing “God is American”.

It is important to note that, following Reagan’s example, all the other major powers were happy to be freed of multilateralism. The Reagan administration, allied with that of Thatcher, provided an unprecedented example of how to destroy the values and practices of international relations and the fact that Reagan has probably been the most popular president in his country’s history shows the scarce significance that the average American citizen gives to international cooperation.

Under Reagan, three major simultaneous events shaped our world. The first was deregulation of the financial system in 1982, later reinforced by US President Bill Clinton in 1999, which has led to the supremacy of finance, the results of which are glaringly evident today.

The second was the creation in 1989 of an economic vision based on the supremacy of the market as the force underpinning societies and international relations – the so-called Washington Consensus – thus opening the door for neoliberalism as the undisputed economic doctrine.

Third, also in 1989, came the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the end of the “threat” posed by the Soviet bloc.

It was at this point that the term “globalisation” became the buzzword, and that the United States was once again going to be the centre of its governance. With its economic superiority, together with the international financial institution which it basically controlled, plus the fact that the Soviet “threat” had now disappeared, the United States was once again placing itself at the centre of the world.

As Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State under presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, once said, “Globalisation is another term for U.S. domination.”

This phase ran from 1982 until the financial crisis of 2008, when the collapse of American banks, followed by contagion in Europe, forced the system to question the Washington Consensus as an undisputable theory.

Doubts were also being voiced loudly through the growing mobilisation of civil society /the World Social Forum, for example, had been created in 1981) and by the offensive of many economists who had previously remained in silence.

The latter began insisting that macroeconomics – the preferred instrument of globalisation – looked only at the big figures. If microeconomics was used instead, they argued, it would become clear that there was very unequal distribution of growth (not to be confused with development) and that delocalisation and other measures which ignored the social impact of globalisation, were having disastrous consequences.

The disasters created by three centuries of geed as the main value of the “new economy” were becoming evident through figures showing an unprecedented concentration of wealth in a few hands, with many victims – especially among the younger generation.

All this was accompanied by two new threats: the explosion of Islamic terrorism, widely recognised as a result of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the phenomenon of mass migration, which largely came after the Iraq war but multiplied after the interventions in Syria and Libya in 2011, and for which the United States and the European Union bear full responsibility.

Overnight, the world passed from greed to fear – the two motors of historical change in the view of many historians.

And this is brings us to Mr. Trump. From the above historical excursion, it is easy to understand how he is simply the product of American reality.

Globalisation, initially an American instrument of supremacy, has meant that everyone can use the market to compete, with China the most obvious example. Under globalisation, many new emerging markets entered the scene, from Latin America to Asia. The United States, along with Europe, have become the victims of the globalisation which both perceived as an elite-led phenomenon.

Let us not forget that, after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, ideologies were thrown by the wayside. Politics became mere administrative competition, devoid of vision and values. Corruption increased, citizens stopped participating, political parties became self-referential, politicians turned into a professional caste, and elite global finance became isolated in fiscal paradises.

Young people looked forward to a future of unemployment or, at best temporary jobs, at the same time as they watched over four trillion dollars being spent in a few years to save the banking system.

The clarion call from those in power was, by and large, let us go back to yesterday, but to an even better yesterday – against any law of history. Then came Brexit and Trump.

We are now witnessing the conclusion of Pax Americana and the return to a nationalist and isolationist America. It will take some time for Trump voters to realise that what he is doing does not match his promises, that the measures he is putting in place favour the financial and economic elites and not their interests.

We are now facing a series of real questions.

Will the ideologue who helped Trump be elected – Stephen Bannon, chief executive officer of Trump’s presidential campaign – have the time to destroy the world both have inherited Will the world will be able to establish a world order without the United States at its centre? How many of the values that built modern democracy will be able to survive and become the bases for global governance?

A new international order cannot be built without common values, just on nationalism and xenophobia.

Bannon is organising a new international alliance of populists, xenophobes and nationalists – made up of thee likes of Nicholas Farage (United Kingdom), Matteo Salvini and Beppe Grillo (Italy), Marine Le Pen (France) and Geert Wilders (Netherlands) – with Washington as their point of reference.

After the elections in the Netherlands, France and Germany this year, we will know how this alliance will fare, but one thing is clear – if, beyond its national agenda, the Trump administration succeeds in creating a new international order based on illiberal democracy, we should start to worry because war will not be far away.

Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister has said the kingdom is prepared to send ground troops to Syria to fight the Islamic State group [IS], as US Senator John McCain met with the Saudi King.

Adel al-Jubeir told the German Press Agency on Tuesday that Saudi forces could battle IS alongside US special forces assisting US-backed Kurdish-Arab fighters.

The minister said the aim of the deployment would be to ensure that “liberated areas did not fall under the control of Hizballah, Iran or the regime,” adding that recaptured areas could be handed over to rebels.

Jubeir has recently expressed optimism that US President Donald Trump will be more engaged in the region, particularly in containing Iran which backs Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria and the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Last February, a Saudi military spokesman said the kingdom was ready to send ground troops to Syria provided coalition leaders agreed.

Ahmed Asiri said that Saudi Arabia has taken part in coalition airstrikes against IS since the US-led campaign began in September 2014, but could now provide ground troops.

Jubeir said at the time that the US had welcomed the plan to deploy Saudi ground troops.

Saudi Arabia has long provided military and financial support to rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

In December, the US announced that some 200 US troops would be sent to Syria to help a Kurdish and Arab fighters seize the IS bastion of Raqqa.

The new batch of fighters complemented 300 US special forces already in Syria to assist the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces [SDF].

Also on Tuesday, influential US Senator John McCain, a critic of Trump, held talks with Saudi Arabia’s King Salman.

McCain, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, arrived in Riyadh after talks on Syria with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The Saudi Press Agency gave no details of McCain’s meeting at Salman’s office, except to say that the friendly ties between their two countries were discussed.

McCain’s visit comes two days before Syria’s government and the opposition gather in Geneva on Thursday for a new round of United Nations-brokered talks aimed at ending six years of fighting.

The West’s “humanitarian interventionists” howl over bloody conflicts when an adversary can be blamed but go silent when an ally is doing the killing, such as Saudi Arabia in Yemen, reports Jonathan Marshall.

Only a few months ago, interventionists were demanding a militant response by Washington to what George Soros branded “a humanitarian catastrophe of historic proportions” — the killing of “hundreds of people” by Russian and Syrian government bombing of rebel-held neighborhoods in the city of Aleppo.

Billionaire currency speculator George Soros. (Photo credit: georgesoros.com)

Leon Wieseltier, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former New Republic editor, was denouncing the Obama administration as “a bystander to the greatest atrocity of our time,” asserting that its failure to “act against evil in Aleppo” was like tolerating “the evil in Auschwitz.”

How strange, then, that so many of the same “humanitarian” voices have been so quiet of late about the continued killing of many more innocent people in Yemen, where tens of thousands of civilians have died and 12 million people face famine. More than a thousand children die each week from preventable diseases related to malnutrition and systematic attacks on the country’s food infrastructure by a Saudi-led military coalition, which aims to impose a regime friendly to Riyadh over the whole country.

“The U.S. silence has been deafening,” said Philippe Bolopion, deputy director for global advocacy at Human Rights Watch, last summer. “This blatant double standard deeply undermines U.S. efforts to address human rights violations whether in Syria or elsewhere in the world.”

Official acquiescence — or worse — from Washington and other major capitals is encouraging the relentless killing of Yemen’s civilians by warplanes from Saudi Arabia and its allies. Last week, their bombs struck a funeral gathering north of Sanaa, Yemen’s capital, killing nine women and a child and injuring several dozen more people.

A day earlier, officials reported a deadly “double-tap” airstrike, first targeting women at a funeral in Sanaa, then aimed at medical responders who rushed in to save the wounded. A United Nations panel of experts condemned a similar double-tap attack by Saudi coalition forces in October, which killed or wounded hundreds of civilians, as a violation of international law.

The Tragedy of Mokha

On Feb. 12, an air strike on the Red Sea port city of Mokha killed all six members of a family headed by the director of a maternal and childhood center. Coalition ground forces had launched an attack on Mokha two weeks earlier.

Xinhua news agency reported, “the battles have since intensified and trapped thousands of civilian residents in the city, as well as hampered the humanitarian operation to import vital food and fuel supplies . . . The Geneva-based UN human rights office said that it received extremely worrying reports suggesting civilians and civilian objects have been targeted over the past two weeks in the southwestern port city . . . Reports received by UN also show that more than 200 houses have been either partially damaged or completely destroyed by air strikes in the past two weeks.”

The U.N.’s humanitarian coordinator further reported that “scores of civilians” had been killed or wounded by the bombing and shelling of Mokha, and that residents were stranded without water or other basic life-supporting services.

That could be Aleppo, minus only the tear-jerking photos of dead and wounded children on American television. However, unlike Syria, Yemen’s rebels don’t have well-financed public relations offices in Western capitals. They pay no lip service to the United States, democracy, or international human rights. Their foe Saudi Arabia is a friend of Washington, not a long-time adversary. In consequence, few American pundits summon any moral outrage at the Saudi-led coalition, despite findings by a United National Panel of Experts that many of its airstrikes violate international law and, in some cases, represent “war crimes.”

Aiding and Abetting

The United States hasn’t simply turned a blind eye to such crimes; it has aided them by selling Saudi Arabia the warplanes it flies and the munitions it drops on Yemeni civilians. It has also siphoned 54 million pounds of jet fuel from U.S. tanker planes to refuel coalition aircraft on bombing runs. The pace of U.S. refueling operations has reportedly increased sharply in the last year.

Billionaire currency speculator George Soros. (Photo credit: georgesoros.com)

Saudi King Salman bids farewell to President Barack Obama at Erga Palace after a state visit to Saudi Arabia on Jan. 27, 2015. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

The Obama administration initially supported the Saudi coalition in order to buy Riyadh’s reluctant support for the Iran nuclear deal. Over time, Saudi Arabia joined with anti-Iran hawks to portray Yemen’s rebels as pawns of Tehran to justify continued support for the war. Most experts — including U.S. intelligence officials — insist to the contrary that the rebels are a genuinely indigenous force that enjoys limited Iranian support at best.

As I have documented previously, all of the fighting in Yemen has damaged U.S. interests by creating anarchy conducive to the growth of Al Qaeda extremists. They have planned or inspired major acts of terrorism against the West, including an attempt to blow up a U.S. passenger plane in 2009 and a deadly attack on the Parisian newspaper Charlie Hebdo in January 2015. The Saudis tolerate them as Sunni allies against the rebels, in the name of curbing Iran.

Though the Obama administration is gone, the Trump administration is flush with ideologues who are eager to take a stand against Tehran through Yemen and look tough on “terrorism.” Within days of taking office, President Trump approved a commando raid targeting an alleged Al Qaeda compound in central Yemen that went awry, killing an estimated 10 women and children. The administration has also diverted a U.S. destroyer to patrol Yemen’s coast.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, to his credit, has cited “the urgent need for the unfettered delivery of humanitarian assistance throughout Yemen,” according to a department spokesman. But no amount of humanitarian aid will save Yemen’s tormented people from the bombs made in America and dropped from U.S.-made warplanes, with little protest from Washington’s so-called “humanitarian interventionists.”

Jonathan Marshall is author of many recent articles on arms issues, including “Obama’s Unkept Promise on Nuclear War,” “How World War III Could Start,” “NATO’s Provocative Anti-Russian Moves,” “Escalations in a New Cold War,” and “Ticking Closer to Midnight.”

On President’s Day, The Washington Post published a front-page article about Thomas Jefferson’s mansion, Monticello, finally restoring Sally Hemings’s room, which was next door to Jefferson’s bedroom, a further grudging acknowledgement that Hemings was his concubine.

Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States.

But the Post could not bring itself to state the obvious. It described Jefferson imposing himself sexually on his female slave as a “relationship,” rather than a serial rape that apparently began when Hemings was around 14 years of age.

The Post reported that in 1941, the caretakers of Monticello transformed Hemings’s room into a restroom as “the floor tiles and bathroom stalls covered over the story of the enslaved woman, who was owned by Jefferson and had a long-term relationship with him.”

But – as grotesque as it may be to erase her room by installing toilets – it is equally grotesque to describe as a “relationship” an older powerful man having sex with a young female slave who had little choice but to submit to his predations and bear his children.

It may be hard for the American people to accept but the evidence increasingly indicates that the author of the Declaration of Independence and the third president of the United States was a pedophile and a rapist.

That is the story that Jefferson’s many apologists have most desperately tried to obscure along with his wretched record on race, including the sickening racism in his Notes on the State of Virginia, that includes his pseudo-science of assessing physiological and mental traits of African-Americans to prove that all men were not created equal.

For generations, the apologists also have challenged slave Sally Hemings’s late-in-life remembrance to one of her sons, Madison Hemings, describing how Jefferson had imposed himself on her sexually in Paris after she arrived in 1787 as a teen-age slave girl attending one of his daughters.

According to Madison Hemings’s account, his mother “became Mr. Jefferson’s concubine [in Paris]. And when he was called back home she was enciente [pregnant] by him.” Jefferson was insistent that Sally Hemings return with him, but her awareness of the absence of slavery in France gave her the leverage to insist on a transactional trade-off; she would continue to provide sex to Jefferson in exchange for his promise of good treatment and the freedom of her children when they turned 21, Madison Hemings said.

Smearing Hemings

The traditional defense of Jefferson was to portray Sally Hemings as a promiscuous vixen who lied about her relationship with the Great Man to enhance her humble standing. After all, whose word would you believe, that of the estimable Jefferson who publicly decried race mixing or a lowly African-American slave girl?

Thomas Jefferson’s mansion at Monticello near Charlottesville, Virginia.

For decades, the defenders stuck to that dismissive response despite the curious coincidence that Hemings tended to give birth nine months after one of Jefferson’s visits to Monticello and the discovery of male Jefferson DNA in Hemings’s descendants.

Still, the Jefferson apologists raised finicky demands for conclusive proof of the liaison, as if it were absurd to envision that a relatively young man then in his mid-40s, a widower since his wife died in 1782, would have initiated a sexual relationship with an African-American female, even an attractive light-skinned mulatto like Hemings (who was the illegitimate daughter of Jefferson’s father-in-law and thus Jefferson’s late wife’s half-sister).

Though it’s true that unequivocal evidence does not exist — Hemings did not save a semen-stained blue dress so it could later be subjected to DNA analysis — historians have increasingly come to accept the reality of Jefferson’s sexual involvement with his young slave girl who was only 14 when she moved into Jefferson’s residence in Paris.

So, with this ground shifting under Jefferson’s defensive lines, his apologists retreated to a new position, that the relationship was a true love affair and/or that Jefferson’s behavior fit with the moral behavior of the times as slave owners frequently raped their female slaves (and thus Jefferson’s behavior should not be judged adversely).

Hemings was transformed into a kind of modern-day independent woman making her own choices about matters of the heart. However, given her age and her status as Jefferson’s property the relationship could be more accurately described as serial rape.

But the reality may be even worse. Recent historical examinations of records at Jefferson’s Monticello plantation have provided support for contemporaneous accounts of Jefferson having sex with at least one other slave girl beside Hemings and possibly more.

Fathering of Slaves

Some scholars, such as historian Henry Wiencek in his 2012 book, Master of the Mountain: Thomas Jefferson and His Slaves, give credence to old reports about Jefferson having a direct role in populating Monticello by fathering his own dark-skinned lookalikes.

An artist’s depiction of Sally Hemings.

“In ways that no one completely understands, Monticello became populated by a number of mixed-race people who looked astonishingly like Thomas Jefferson,” wrote Wiencek. “We know this not from what Jefferson’s detractors have claimed but from what his grandson Jeff Randolph openly admitted. According to him, not only Sally Hemings but another Hemings woman as well ‘had children which resembled Mr. Jefferson so closely that it was plain that they had his blood in their veins.’

“Resemblance meant kinship; there was no other explanation. Since Mr. Jefferson’s blood was Jeff’s blood, Jeff knew that he was somehow kin to these people of a parallel world. Jeff said the resemblance of one Hemings to Thomas Jefferson was ‘so close, that at some distance or in the dusk the slave, dressed in the same way, might be mistaken for Mr. Jefferson.’”

During a dinner at Monticello, Jeff Randolph recounted a scene in which a Thomas Jefferson lookalike was a servant tending to the table where Thomas Jefferson was seated. Randolph recalled the reaction of one guest: “In one instance, a gentleman dining with Mr. Jefferson, looked so startled as he raised his eyes from the latter to the servant behind him, that his discovery of the resemblance was perfectly obvious to all.”

In the 1850s, Jeff Randolph told a visiting author that his grandfather did not hide the slaves who bore these close resemblances, since Sally Hemings “was a house servant and her children were brought up house servants so that the likeness between master and slave was blazoned to all the multitudes who visited this political Mecca” and indeed a number of visitors did make note of this troubling reality.

Even Jefferson admirer Jon Meacham accepted the truth of the Hemings liaison in Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power. Meacham cited a quote from Elijah Fletcher, a visitor from Vermont: “The story of Black Sal is no farce — That he cohabits with her and has a number of children by her is a sacred truth and the worst of it is, he keeps the same children slaves an unnatural crime which is very common in these parts This conduct may receive a little palliation when we consider that such proceedings are so common that they cease here to be disgraceful.”

Meacham observed that Jefferson “was apparently able to consign his children with Sally Hemings to a separate sphere of life in his mind even as they grew up in his midst.

“It was, to say the least, an odd way to live, but Jefferson was a creature of his culture. ‘The enjoyment of a negro or mulatto woman is spoken of as quite a common thing: no reluctance, delicacy or shame is made about the matter,’ Josiah Quincy Jr. of Massachusetts wrote after a visit to the Carolinas. This was daily reality at Monticello.”

Family Doubts

This “daily reality” was also a troubling concern among Jefferson’s white family though the Great Man would never confirm or deny his parentage of a number of Monticello’s slaves.

In the Broadway musical “Hamilton,” actor Daveed Diggs (left) who played Thomas Jefferson (as something of a hypocrite) and the musical’s creator Lin-Manuel Miranda, who played Alexander Hamilton (who was Jefferson’s adversary during the first years of the Republic).

“Frigid indifference forms a useful shield for a public character against his political enemies, but Jefferson deployed it against his own daughter Martha, who was deeply upset by the sexual allegations against her father and wanted a straight answer Yes or no? an answer he would not deign to give,” wrote Wiencek.

Before his death, Jefferson did free several of Sally Hemings’s children or let them run away presumably fulfilling the commitment made in Paris before Hemings agreed to return to Monticello to remain his slave concubine.

“Jefferson went to his grave without giving his family any denial of the Hemings charges,” Wiencek wrote.

The historical record increasingly makes Jefferson out to be a serial rapist, exploiting at least one and possibly more girls who were trapped on his property, who indeed were his property, and thus had little choice but to tolerate his sexual advances.

Whipping the Children

The evidence of Jefferson’s sexual predations must also be viewed in the context of his overall treatment of his slaves at Monticello. Though Jefferson’s apologists pretend that he was a kind master distressed over the inequities of a slave system that he could somehow neither correct nor escape, the latest evidence much of it concealed for generations to protect Jefferson’s image reveal him to be a cruel slave-owner who carefully calculated the net worth that his human chattel provided him and having boys as young as 10 whipped.

Some of Jefferson’s mistreatment of his slaves derived from another of his hypocrisies, his views about simplicity and solvency. As historian John Chester Miller wrote in his 1977 book, The Wolf by the Ears, “To Jefferson, the abandon with which Americans rushed into debt and squandered borrowed money upon British ‘gew-gaws’ and ‘trumpery’ vitiated the blessings of peace.

“From Paris an unlikely podium from which to sermonize Jefferson preached frugality, temperance, and the simple life of the American farmer. Buy nothing whatever on credit, he exhorted his countrymen, and buy only what was essential. ‘The maxim of buying nothing without money in our pocket to pay for it,’ he averred, ‘would make of our country (Virginia) one of the happiest upon earth.’

“As Jefferson saw it, the most pernicious aspect of the postwar preoccupation with pleasure, luxury, and the ostentatious display of wealth was the irremediable damage it did to ‘republican virtue.’”

But Jefferson himself amassed huge debts and lived the life of a bon vivant, spending way beyond his means. In Paris, he bought fancy clothes, collected fine wines, and acquired expensive books, furniture and artwork. It was, however, his slaves back at Monticello who paid the price for his excesses.

“Living in a style befitting a French nobleman, his small salary often in arrears, and burdened by debts to British merchants which he saw no way of paying, Jefferson was driven to financial shifts, some of which were made at the expense of his slaves. In 1787, for example, he decided to hire out some of his slaves a practice he had hitherto avoided because of the hardship it wreaked upon the slaves themselves,” Miller wrote.

Exploiting His Slaves

Upon returning to the United States, Jefferson reinvented himself as a more modestly attired republican, but his tastes for the grandiose did not abate. He ordered elaborate renovations to Monticello, which deepened his debt and compelled his slaves to undertake strenuous labor to implement Jefferson’s ambitious architectural designs.

Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and the third president of the United States.(in a 1788 portrait by John Trumbull, credit: Thomas Jefferson Foundation)

Needing to squeeze more value from his slaves, Jefferson was an aggressive master, not the gentle patrician that his apologists have long depicted.

According to historian Wiencek, Jefferson “directed his manager, Nicholas Lewis, to extract ‘extraordinary exertions’ of labor from the slaves to stay current with his debt payments. Some slaves had endured years of harsh treatment at the hands of strangers, for to raise cash, Jefferson had also instructed Lewis to hire out slaves. He demanded extraordinary exertions from the elderly: ‘The negroes too old to be hired, could they not make a good profit by cultivating cotton?’”

Jefferson was callous as well toward his young slaves. Reviewing long-neglected records at Monticello, Wiencek noted that one plantation report to Jefferson recounted that the nail factory was doing well because “the small ones” ages 10, 11 and 12 were being whipped by overseer, Gabriel Lilly, “for truancy.”

His plantation records also show that he viewed fertile female slaves as exceptionally valuable because their offspring would increase his assets and thus enable him to incur more debt. He ordered his plantation manager to take special care of these “breeding” women.

“A child raised every 2. years is of more profit than the crop of the best laboring man,” Jefferson wrote. “[I]n this, as in all other cases, providence has made our duties and our interests coincide perfectly.”

According to Wiencek, “The enslaved people were yielding him a bonanza, a perpetual human dividend at compound interest. Jefferson wrote, ‘I allow nothing for losses by death, but, on the contrary, shall presently take credit four per cent. per annum, for their increase over and above keeping up their own numbers.’ His plantation was producing inexhaustible human assets. The percentage was predictable.”

To justify this profiting off slavery, Jefferson claimed that he was merely acting in accordance with “Providence,” which in Jefferson’s peculiar view of religion always happened to endorse whatever action Jefferson wanted to take.

Part of that “Providence” presumably supplied him with comely slave girls such as Sally Hemings and allowed Jefferson to do his part in “breeding” his slave stock and assuring more compound profits from his investments.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

Film examines how civil rights and advances in space technology took the United States into unexplored realms of space and societal transformation

Review: Hidden Figures

Director: Theodore Melfi

This feature film provides a glimpse into the role of African American women in the development of the United States space program during the early 1960s.

These events coincided with the escalating struggle for civil rights and self-determination, a movement which dated back to the pre-Civil War era when even freed Africans were subjected to inhuman treatment despite their existence in a nation that professed equality for all men and later women.

At the same time, as revealed somewhat in the film, starring Taraji P. Henson, Octavia Spencer and Janelle Monae, the U.S. was involved in a political and military struggle with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the People’s Republic of China and other non-capitalist countries over which social system would become dominant in the proceeding decades.  The fact that the U.S. had never been true to its projected image of a free and equitable society provided the socialist world with an ideological weapon against capitalism and imperialism.

The three women in the film were portraying mathematicians and physicists such as Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughn, Mary Jackson and Dr. Christine M. Darden whose calculations and verifications were essential components in the capacity of the U.S. to both launch and maintain its space program. This film is based on a book of the same name written by Margo Lee Shetterly published in 2016.

Johnson began her career at Langley Research Center in 1953. Her tasks were numerous including co-authoring a report on the trajectory equations needed for placing a spacecraft into orbit around the Earth. The film depicts Johnson’s role surrounding the orbital launch of John Glenn, a historical turning point in the technological competition between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

2017 represents the centenary of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia which led to the founding of the USSR some five years later in 1922. Even though the Soviet Union collapsed twenty five years ago, the level of anti-Russian propaganda has reached new heights of both political absurdity as well as dangerous military encounters.

In addition to the continuing hostility towards Moscow, there is also a threat of military conflict with China over the south seas of the Pacific where Washington is attempting to maintain its presence as a superior military force. The decline in capitalism as an economic system exemplified by the Great Recession of the previous decade and the burgeoning levels of income and wealth inequality, places the West in a very vulnerable position amid the rapid trajectory of Beijing which could become the leading world power in a matter of a few years.

The Space Program and the Cold War

After the successive launching of the Sputnik I satellite on October 4, 1957, it established the-then superiority of the socialist system as it related to scientific inquiry and technological development. The event was of world significance since it exposed the false notions promoted by capitalism that socialism provided no material incentives which were essential in promoting scientific innovations and social progress.

Within a year the National Aeronautics Space Administration (NASA) was formed at the aegis of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. NASA was created through the liquidation of the previous aviation program known as the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) which was established on March 3, 1915 during World War I.

As revealed by the NASA website: “The Sputnik launch changed everything. As a technical achievement, Sputnik caught the world’s attention and the American public off-guard. Its size was more impressive than Vanguard’s intended 3.5-pound payload. In addition, the public feared that the Soviets’ ability to launch satellites also translated into the capability to launch ballistic missiles that could carry nuclear weapons from Europe to the U.S. Then the Soviets struck again; on November 3, Sputnik II was launched, carrying a much heavier payload, including a dog named Laika.” (https://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/)

This same entry continues noting: “Immediately after the Sputnik I launch in October, the U.S. Defense Department responded to the political furor by approving funding for another U.S. satellite project. As a simultaneous alternative to Vanguard, Wernher von Braun and his Army Redstone Arsenal team began work on the Explorer project.”

Consequently, the space program had a distinctly military imperative. While socialism as a political ideology and economic system was challenging the hegemony of capitalism and imperialism, there was the emergence of the national liberation movements throughout Africa, Asia and Latin America which both the socialist camp and the West were attempting to win over to the respective world outlooks.

African Americans objectively had no real material interest in maintaining capitalism and imperialism. The system of exploitation and world conquest had been made possible as a result of the capital accrued from the profits generated from the Atlantic Slave Trade and the rise of colonialism.

Hidden Figures addresses this dilemma by focusing on the role of Jim Crow as a facilitator of racial capitalism and social containment. Nonetheless, it was the African American people themselves who opened up the challenge to institutional racism in the U.S.

The character portrayed by Kevin Costner was purely fictional. The struggle against racism was influenced by the overall international situation and the self-emancipatory role of the African American people. Costner, who the film falsely depicts as Al Harrison, becomes a reluctant ally of the Black women. In the movie Harrison is shown as taking a sledge hammer and knocking down the signs for separate restrooms at Langley.

Renee Graham wrote in the Boston Globe that: “Unfortunately, this rousing moment is as phony as the Bowling Green massacre — yet not at all uncommon in Hollywood films. In ‘Hidden Figures,’ a movie where African-American women are the clear heroines, the filmmakers still felt compelled to make up a white male savior who literally strikes a blow against 1960s segregation. Without fail, such unnecessary scenes are condescending, insulting, and patronizing to their audiences, regardless of race.” (Feb. 19)

African Americans, many of whom had studied at Hampton Institute and other Historic Black College and University (HBCU), began to work in larger numbers at the Langley Center during World War II and its successive years. Mary Jackson was the first African American woman engineer at NASA beginning in 1958. Dorothy Vaughn assisted in the pioneering of the transformation of human computers, largely women, to the main frame machines which would later dominate the industry well into the 1970s.

Science and Societal Transformation

Shetterly notes in her book that it was the military necessities of the Second World War that created opportunities for African American women at the NACA Langley Center. She emphasizes: “The black female mathematicians who walked into Langley in 1943 would find themselves at the intersection of these great transformations, their sharp minds and ambitions contributing to what the United States would consider one of its greatest victories.”

The breaking down of some aspects of segregation at NACA and later NASA was mirrored within the broader society. Nonetheless, institutional resistance to African American advancement was rooted in the system of national oppression and economic exploitation.

NASA has promoted the societal benefits of the space program ranging from contributions in the areas of communications, road safety, military affairs, food safety, etc. However, these purely scientific advances have not brought about the total liberation of the African American people and other oppressed nations in the U.S.

The capitalist relations of production are reflected in the increasing concentration of wealth among smaller numbers of multi-national corporations and financial institutions.  The imperialist system has enhanced class divisions and consequent militarization on a global scale.

Moving towards the conclusion of the second decade of the 21^st century, economic and social inequality is increasing at a phenomenal rate. The advent of the first self-identified president of African descent, Barack Obama, did not fundamentally change the realities of disempowerment and state repression.

Scientific inquiry and application must be designed to foster the elimination of inequality among people within society. These are the stark lessons of the space program and the proliferation of computerized technology.

A revolution within society is essential for the liberation of humanity. African Americans must continue to play their historic role in this transformative process.

It was recently announced that US President Donald Trump selected US Army Lieutenant General Herbert Raymond McMaster as his National Security Adviser.

The New York Times in their article, “Trump Chooses H.R. McMaster as National Security Adviser,” would report:

President Trump appointed Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster as his new national security adviser on Monday, picking a widely respected military strategist known for challenging conventional thinking and helping to turn around the Iraq war in its darkest days.

In reality, what President Trump has done, is select a man who will bring very little of his own thoughts with him to the position. Instead, he will – verbatim – repeat the talking points, reflect the agenda of, and serve the interests driving the collection of corporate-financier funded think tanks that devise – and have devised for decades – US-European foreign policy.

What General McMaster Represents

In a talk given at one such think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies – funded by corporations such as ExxonMobil, Hess, Chevron, and Boeing and chaired by individuals including President Trump’s Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson and representatives from Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Betchel – General McMaster provides a well-rehearsed pitch collectively reflecting the worldview hashed out by not only the CSIS itself, but admittedly the worldview and objectives of the Brookings Institution, the Council on Foreign Relations, and a myriad of other special-interest driven policy think tanks.

The talk, published on CSIS’ YouTube channel in May of 2016, features General McMaster in his military uniform accusing Russia of “invading Ukraine” and China of  “challenging US interests at the far reaches of American power.” When describing China’s “challenging” of US interests, he presents a map of China itself and the surrounding South China Sea – quite decidedly nowhere near the United States or any logical or legitimately proximal sphere of influence Washington could justify in maintaining.

General McMaster predicates allegations that Russia and China pose a threat to “US interest” abroad – not US national security itself – by challenging the post World War 2 international order – an order admittedly created by and for the US and its European allies, granting them military, sociopolitical, and financial unipolar hegemony over the planet.

He predictably lists North Korea and Iran as threats to the US as well, despite neither nation attacking the US nor possessing a desire or capability to do so. He accuses Iran in particular of “fighting a proxy war against us since 1979,” referring to when Iranians finally, successfully overthrew the US-installed and buttressed brutal dictatorship of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi in 1979.

General McMaster accuses Iran of “building militias” beyond the control of Middle Eastern governments to both support them but also to use as leverage against them – not unlike what the US has done both through occupation forces deployed across the region and state sponsored terror groups armed, funded, trained, and directed by the US and its Persian Gulf allies everywhere from North Africa to the Middle Eastern nations of Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon.

During his 2016, McMaster then moved on to address the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (ISIS). He presents a slide of ISIS’ territorial holdings clearly depicting supply lines running directly out of NATO-member Turkey, leading deep into Syria and Iraq, with a lesser line emanating out of US-ally Jordan. He makes no mention of the source of ISIS’ fighting capacity, depicting the conflict in the similarly cartoonish manner US-European media presents it to the general public.

General McMaster presents to his audience a defense strategy based on “deterrence by denial, and deterrence at the frontier to ratchet up the cost [for] potential adversaries at the frontier,” referring to regions of the planet thousands of miles from US shores where the US seeks to either maintain or reassert it power and influence, or to project its power into regions hitherto independent of Wall Street and Washington’s influence.

Seamless Continuity of Agenda 

President Trump’s pick of General McMaster as National Security Adviser ensures that national security remains dominated by the corporate-financier funded think tanks that have devised, determined, and dominated US foreign policy for decades. Policy papers General McMaster repeatedly cites in every talk he gives, at one corporate-financier funded think tank after another, are the products of these very think tanks.

That General McMaster identifies Russia, China, and Iran as “threats” to the United States, not because they seek to harm the US within its territory or within any logical proximal sphere of influence, but simply for attempting to secure their own respective proximal spheres of influence from systematic and overt US subversion, influence, and encirclement, means a continuation of the destructive global spanning warfare seen under the administrations of numerous other presidents, including Presidents Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr. Reagan, and even Carter.

While the United States poses as a “democratic” nation, driven by the interests of its people, it is apparent that special interests on Wall Street and in Washington have a singular agenda that transcends both the presidents the people “elect,” and the policies they believe they elected these presidents to carry out. That President Trump’s supporters labor under the delusion that he will roll back US aggression and regime change worldwide, only to put in place General McMaster as his National Security Adviser – a man who openly and repeatedly supports the pursuit of American global hegemony – indicates that yet again the people have been deceived and that this singular agenda will move forward unabated.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

For 15 years, the Middle East “peace process” initiated by the Oslo accords has been on life support. Last week, United States president Donald Trump pulled the plug, whether he understood it or not.

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu could barely stifle a smile as Mr Trump demoted the two-state solution from holy grail. Instead, he said of resolving the conflict: “I am looking at two states or one state … I can live with either one.”

Given the huge asymmetry of power, Israel now has a free hand to entrench its existing apartheid version of the one-state solution – Greater Israel – on the Palestinians. This is the destination to which Mr Netanyahu has been steering the Israel-Palestine conflict his entire career.

This week it emerged that at a secret summit in Aqaba last year – attended by Egypt and Jordan, and overseen by US secretary of state John Kerry – Mr Netanyahu was offered a regional peace deal that included almost everything he had demanded of the Palestinians. And still he said no.

Much earlier, in 2001, Mr Netanyahu was secretly filmed boasting to settlers of how he had foiled the Oslo process a short time earlier by failing to carry out promised withdrawals from Palestinian territory. He shrugged off the US role as something that could be “easily moved to the right direction”.

Now he has the White House where he wants it.

In expressing ambivalence about the final number of states, Mr Trump may have assumed he was leaving options open for his son-in-law and presumed peace envoy, Jared Kushner.

But words can take on a life of their own, especially when uttered by the president of the world’s only superpower.

Some believe Mr Trump, faced with the region’s realities, will soon revert to Washington’s playbook on two states, with the US again adopting the bogus role of “honest broker”. Others suspect his interest will wilt, allowing Israel to intensify settlement building and its abuse of Palestinians.

The long-term effect, however, is likely to be more decisive. The one-state option mooted by Mr Trump will resonate with both Israelis and Palestinians because it reminds each side of their historic ambitions.

The international community has repeatedly introduced the chimera of the two-state solution, but for most of their histories the two sides favoured a single state – if for different reasons.

From the outset, the mainstream Zionist movement wanted an exclusive Jewish state, and a larger one than it was ever offered.

In late 1947, the Zionist leadership backed the United Nations partition plan for tactical reasons, knowing the Palestinians would reject the transfer of most of their homeland to recent European immigrants.

A few months later they seized more territory – in war – than the UN envisioned, but were still not satisfied. Religious and secular alike hungered for the rest of Palestine. Shimon Peres was among the leaders who began the settlement drive immediately following the 1967 occupation.

Those territorial ambitions were muffled by Oslo, but will be unleashed again in full force by Mr Trump’s stated indifference.

The Palestinians’ history points in a parallel direction. As Zionism made its first inroads into Palestine, they rejected any compromise with what were seen as European colonisers.

In the 1950s, after Israel’s creation, the resistance under Yasser Arafat espoused a single secular democratic state in all of historic Palestine. Only with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Palestinians’ growing isolation in the early 1990s, did Arafat cave in and sign up for partition.

But for Palestinians, Oslo has entailed not just enduring Israel’s constant bad faith, but also created a deeply compromised vehicle for self-government. The Palestinian Authority has split the Palestinian people territorially – between Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza – and required a Faustian pact to uphold Israel’s security, including the settlers’, at all costs.

The truth, obscured by Oslo, is that the one-state solution has underpinned the aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians for more than a century. It did not come about because each expected different things from it.

For Israelis, it was to be a fortress to exclude the native Palestinian population.

For Palestinians, it was the locus of national liberation from centuries of colonial rule. Only later did many Palestinians, especially groups such as Hamas, come to mirror the Zionist idea of an exclusive – if in their case, Islamic – state.

Mr Trump’s self-declared detachment will now revive these historic forces. Settler leader Naftali Bennett will compete with Mr Netanyahu to take credit for speeding up the annexation of ever-greater blocs of West Bank territory while rejecting any compromise on Jerusalem. Meanwhile, Palestinians, particularly the youth, will understand that their struggle is not for illusory borders but for liberation from the Jewish supremacism inherent in mainstream Zionism. The struggle Mr Trump’s equivocation provokes, however, must first play out in the internal politics of Israelis and Palestinians.

It is a supremely clarifying moment. Each side must now define what it really wants to fight for: a fortress for their tribe alone, or a shared homeland ensuring rights and dignity for all.

Jonathan Cook is an independent journalist in Nazareth.

President Trump’s first National Security Advisor Mike Flynn got kicked out of office for talking with Russian officials. Such talks were completely inline with Trump’s declared policies of détente with Russia. (I agree that Flynn should have never gotten the NSA job. But the reasons for that have nothing to do with his Russian connections.)

Allegedly Flynn did not fully inform Vice-President Pence about his talk with the Russian ambassador. But that can not be a serious reason. The talks were rather informal, they were not transcribed. The first call is said to have reached Flynn on vacation in the Dominican Republic. Why would a Vice-President need to know each and every word of it?

With Flynn out, the war-on-Russia hawks, that is about everyone of the “serious people” in Washington DC, had the second most important person out of the way that would probably hinder their plans.

They replaced him with a militaristic anti-Russian hawk:

In a 2016 speech to the Virginia Military Institute, McMaster stressed the need for the US to have “strategic vision” in its fight against “hostile revisionist powers” — such as Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran — that “annex territory, intimidate our allies, develop nuclear weapons, and use proxies under the cover of modernized conventional militaries.”

General McMaster, the new National Security Advisor, gets sold as a somewhat rebellious, scholar-warrior wunderkind. When the now disgraced former General Petraeus came into sight he was sold with the same marketing profile.

Petraeus was McMaster’s boss. McMaster is partially his creature:

He was passed over for brigadier general twice, until then-Gen. David Petraeus personally flew back to Washington, D.C., from Iraq to chair the Army’s promotion board in 2008.

When Petraeus took over in the war on Afghanistan he selected McMaster as his staff leader for strategy,

McMaster was peddled to the White House by Senator Tom Cotton, one of the most outlandishRepublican neocon war hawks.

McMaster’s best known book is “Dereliction of Duty” about the way the U.S. involved itself into the Vietnam War. McMaster criticizes the Generals of that time for not having resisted then President Johnson’s policies.

He is the main author of an Army study on how to militarily counter Russia. McMaster is likely to “resist” when President Trump orders him to pursue better relations with Moscow.

Trump has now been boxed in by hawkish, anti-Russian military in his cabinet and by a hawkish Vice-President. The only ally he still may have in the White House is his consigliere Steve Bannon. The next onslaught of the “serious people” is against Bennon and especially against his role in the NSC. It will only recede when he is fired.

It seems to me that Trump has been rolled with the attacks on Flynn and the insertion of McMaster into his inner circle. I wonder if he, and Bannon, recognize the same problematic development and have a strategy against it.

This morning I listened, with a lot of frustration, to the usually very informative and usually quite balanced morning radio interview program “On Point Radio with Tom Ashbrook”

(http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2017/02/14/depression-teens-girls-study).

The program “revealed” supposedly new information about the high incidence of so-called “clinical depression” among American girls. The two guests on the program were actually academic psychiatrists who had recently had their research published in the Journal of Pediatrics.

The high incidence of long-lasting sadness and behavioral dysfunction among girls is actually very old news and the fact that it is getting worse should come as no surprise. 99% of our celebrity-worshipping and excessively fashion-conscious American girls are trying to survive in a junk culture while simultaneously being mal-nourished, sleep-deprived, over-stressed, over-drugged, over-vaccinated, sexually-harassed, sexually-abused, and screen time- and pornography-toxified all the while trying to pretend to be happy and not emotional distressed! Impossible!

Here is the bulk of my letter that I emailed to host Tom Ashbrook:

Tom, at the end of the radio program this morning, many of you listeners will surely have come to the mistaken conclusion that the solution to the vast problem of pervasive adolescent female sadness isn’t to logically address the obvious potentially preventable causes of mental ill health. I got the impression that the solution was to get them seem by a prescribing psychiatrist and “get them treated with drugs!”

Nothing that was said from your guests put much emphasis on anything other than drug treatment. I noticed that there were no call-ins from the millions of folks who surely have experienced psychiatric drug-induced suicidality, homicidality, psychosis, worsening depression, etc, etc.

What wasn’t mentioned this morning was that a person who is sad or anxious because he or she is a victim of cyber-abuse should NOT be given dangerous psych drugs!! The guests did not mention that most psych drugs haven’t been FDA-approved for use in the under-18 age group!

Nor are potentially addictive, potentially brain-damaging drugs the cure when someone’s abnormal thinking and/or behaviors have been caused by being a victim of poverty, racism, sexism, xenophobia, psychological trauma, malnutrition, living in a war zone or just living in a junk culture that teaches junk values! The cure can only come when root causes are addressed.

The first step that all doctors are taught in med school when starting therapy with ANY patient is a PROLONGED, flexible intake history that will examine ALL aspects of the patient’s past, including details of pre-natal life, infancy, childhood, adolescence and adulthood, including psychological traumas, neglectful or abusive parenting, toxic environmental exposures, drug use, nutritional status through the life cycle, toxic interpersonal relationships, and even, in the face of the new evidence of cumulative vaccine toxicity and the fairly recently described ASIA syndrome – of which psychiatrists, pediatricians and most physicians are studiously ignorant.

Although the enormously over-looked vaccine injury issue is a huge topic that can’t be thoroughly discussed here, it is important to point out that repeated exposures to the intramuscularly injected and highly neurotoxic metals that are in most vaccines (especially mercury, aluminum and the many other metallic vaccine contaminants) are not appreciated for being the central nervous system and DNA toxins that they are, and therefore the neurological disorders that they can cause are usually mis-diagnosed and therefore mis-treated as mental illnesses.

If they have active clinical practices at all, academic psychiatrists such as your two guests usually only see tertiary patients who have already been mis-diagnosed with a mental illness of unknown etiology and therefore mis-treated with drugs and perhaps even electroshocked. Surely most of them will have been neurologically sickened by the over-drugging for years and they may even have suffered withdrawal syndromes over that time that also may have been mis-diagnosed as relapses.

By the time such potentially doomed patients come to see academic psychiatrists (or even non-academic psychiatrists) they will likely have developed psychiatric drug-induced brain disorders that can make them appear or act like they have a mental illness. But rather than being diagnosed with a mental illness “of unknown etiology”, these tertiary patients actually have an iatrogenic disorder (doctor-caused or prescription drug-caused), namely, a psychiatric drug-induced brain disorder. It is important at this point to understand that America’s large numbers of iatrogenic illnesses are not to be discussed in polite company and are therefore covered-up with another diagnosis that claims to be “of unknown etiology”.

The underlying motivation of your two guests seemed to me to be to get everybody alarmed that these girls are being inadequately diagnosed with mental illnesses and therefore are being insufficiently “treated” (read “drugged with psychiatric medications”).

Therefore, I implore you and your producers to arrange a series of interviews with a number of the authors listed in the bibliography at the end of the article below. They will convincingly refute much of the Big Pharma propaganda that your guests were able to spout without a dissenting voice.

Your guests were obviously firmly in the pro-Big Pharma camp. It is well-known that most psychiatrists reflexively prescribe cocktails of psych drugs to 99+% of their patients, and they usually do it in an alarmingly unscientific trial and error manner. And what should be truly alarming it that those cocktails have never been proven to be safe in either animal labs or in clinical trials.

It is also well known that most academic psychiatrists have heavy financial conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry, and, of course, most physicians have deep professional conflicts of interest (and thus they often blindly – and obediently – follow the community standards of care that have been set up by authorities that may also have been under the influence of corporate powers that may have undeclared conflicts of interest).

It seemed obvious to me that your guests were not-so-subtly promoting the specialty psychiatric industry (and thus indirectly promoting the increased use of Big Pharma’s lucrative brain-disabling drugs).

The publication of their research in the Journal of Pediatrics, probably means that the psychiatric industry must be trying to promote the diagnosing and drugging of more and more so-called mental illnesses by pediatricians (and therefore indirectly attracting more referrals to psychiatrists). One of the negative consequences for increased diagnosing and increased prescribing of potentially addictive psych drugs to more and more kids is that most of these kids may only have temporary symptoms that may spontaneously disappear or be cured by good psychotherapy. Starting kids on drugs almost always has seriously negative long-term consequences, including psych drug-induced dementia.

It needs to be pointed out that the first of your guests, Dr Mark Olfson, was a major player in the now-discredited TeenScreen program that, unbeknownst to most parents at the beginning of the program, was allowed into middle schools and high schools and then tried to convince very suggestible, otherwise normal kids, that they were mentally ill and should consult with a professional. TeenScreen was conceived, funded and promoted by BigPharma, and Dr Olfson was deeply involved. His bio at Columbia makes it sound like he is still proud of that effort!

Enough said. Tom, I want to say that I think that your show is one of the best on radio, but I hope, in the interest of balance, that you and your staff will study the following article about why Big Psychiatry’s pro-corporate agendas desperately need exposure.

Otherwise your listeners will become accomplices to and promoters of the over-diagnosing and over-drugging of vulnerable American children.

Gary G. Kohls, MD, Duluth, MN

(Many of my articles that enlarge upon and provide the documentation for the statements above are archived at: http://duluthreader.com/search?search_term=Duty+to+Warn&p=2,)

Dr Kohls is a retired physician from Duluth, MN, USA. In the decade prior to his retirement, he practiced what could best be described as “holistic (non-drug) and preventive mental health care”. Since his retirement, he has written a weekly column for the Duluth Reader, an alternative newsweekly magazine.

His columns mostly deal with the dangers of American imperialism, friendly fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, and the dangers of Big Pharma, psychiatric drugging, the over-vaccinating of children and other movements that threaten American democracy, civility, health and longevity and the future of the planet. 

Part Two of Three Parts

(Part One is here.)

The Sauds pay undisclosed sums, amounting perhaps to billions of dollars annually, to support the U.S. CIA, and especially to finance U.S. training and weapons to Al Qaeda and other jihadists in Syria for the overthrow of Assad, and they have for decades financed efforts to overthrow and replace Syria’s secular non-sectarian government. The Sauds’ contribution, according to The New York Times, is «by far the largest from another nation to the program to arm the rebels against President Bashar al-Assad’s military». They hire us — and not only for the Syrian operation.

After the bloody CIA coup that had replaced democracy with fascism in Chile in 1973, and the U.S. Senate’s Church Committee hearings revealed how evil the CIA is and the CIA thus became subjected to some public scrutiny for a brief period, the Sauds took up much of the slack, filling in for the CIA until the matter faded from the headlines. «In the late 1970s, the Saudis organized what was known as the ‘Safari Club’ — a coalition of nations including Morocco, Egypt and France — that ran covert operations around Africa at a time when Congress had clipped the C.I.A.’s wings over years of abuses». This program continued: «In the 1980s, the Saudis helped finance C.I.A. operations in Angola, where the United States backed rebels against the Soviet-allied government». Moreover, «Prince Bandar bin Sultan [al-Saud]… directed Saudi spies to buy thousands of AK-47 assault rifles for Syrian rebels». Such is ‘The Western Alliance’ of ‘the free world’ of ‘the democracies’, who work for the Sauds. And what’s publicly known about it, is only the most palatable part of the reality.

For this reason, President Obama vetoed a bill that would allow America’s victims of the 9/11 attacks to sue in U.S. courts the government of Saudi Arabia, including the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar, and his wife, both of whom had been regularly paying thousands of dollars to the Saudi officials who were paying the 9/11 terrorists during the immediate lead-up to 9/11. Obama’s argument for their being above the law was that if the Sauds were to be held liable for what they did to produce 9/11, then the U.S. President and other U.S. officials could be held liable for what they do (bombings, coups, invasions, etc.) to other countries. Obama’s argument was the Medieval concept of ‘sovereign immunity’, or ‘the king can do no wrong’. However, since Congress was up for re-election at the time, it overrode Obama’s veto. «‘I would venture to say that this is the single most embarrassing thing that the United States Senate has done, possibly, since 1983,’ [White House] press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters» on that occasion. For the first time ever, Congress had voted against the Saud family. Obama, like Bush before him, did all he could to protect his masters; but, finally, it could no longer be enough. Even a king can’t always get what he wants.

Within a day after America’s September 17th bombing of the Syrian government’s soldiers at Der Zor, enough details of the operation became known so that Russia’s government was already saying, in essence, that Obama had been negotiating in bad faith and that Russia’s attempts to work cooperatively with him on Syria were ended — not because of Obama’s Secretary of State John Kerry’s having had any ill intent or lying in the negotiations, but because «The White House is defending Islamic State. Now there can be no doubts about that». It was «the White House», not the Secretary of State (and not ‘the Pentagon’), who sabotaged those peace talks. Obama ditched Kerry on Syria, just like he had earlier ditched him on Ukraine (the other flashpoint, with regard to Russia).

The independent German journalist Jurgen Todenhofer managed to get a video interview with an ISIS commander («NF»), and Todenhofer headlined his interview on 26 September 2016, «Inside IS». The following passage from it (Todehofer is fluent both in German and Arabic, and here is my translation of his German translation of it into English) was typical, regarding America’s back-stage support not only of Al Qaeda, but even of ISIS — the group that Obama’s bombing of the Syrian army at Der Zor on September 17th was helping — and of all of the other jihadist groups in Syria:

JT: Is this only true for «Jabhat al Nusra» or also for the allies of «Jabhat al Nusra» here. 

NF: This is valid for all groups, who are our allies. 

JT: Islamic Front, Islamic Army?

NF: They are all with us. We are all the «Al Nusra-Front». A group is formed and calls itself «Islamic Army» or «Fateh Al Scham». Each group has its own name, but the belief is uniform. The overall name is «Al Nusra-Front» (Jabhat al Nusra).

For example, one person has 2000 fighters. Then a new group is formed from there an calls itself «Ahrar Al Scham» — brothers, whose faith, thoughts and aims are identical with the «Al Nusra-Front».

As Steve Chovanec had aptly summarized, on 4 March 2016, Obama’s position in negotiations with Russia on Syria: «Please Don’t Attack Al-Qaeda». Obama kept that position till the end of his Presidency (though Kerry did not). Eliminating Assad was far more important to him than was eliminating Al Qaeda; it even caused him to fire or otherwise sideline any of his top national-security officials who didn’t share his passion in this regard.

Seymour Hersh reported on 4 April 2014:

The former intelligence official said, ‘the White House rejected 35 target sets provided by the joint chiefs of staff as being insufficiently «painful» to the Assad regime.’ The original targets included only military sites and nothing by way of civilian infrastructure. Under White House pressure, the US attack plan evolved into ‘a monster strike’.

Gareth Porter reported on 16 February 2016:

Information from a wide range of sources, including some of those the United States has been explicitly supporting, makes it clear that every armed anti-Assad organization unit in those provinces is engaged in a military structure controlled by Nusra militants. All of these rebel groups fight alongside the Nusra Front and coordinate their military activities with it.

Christina Lin noted, on 8 April 2016:

Reports say some American-backed jihadi groups are being equipped with US-made MANPADS. Indications are they’re obtaining these advanced weapons either directly or indirectly from the US or its Mideast allies in connection with a recent escalation in the fighting in Syria.

Izat Charkatli headlined on 12 August 2016, «Nusra commander defects to ISIS with his battalion», and reported:

The leader of Jabhat Al Nusra’s, now Jabhat Fath Al-Sham, Barraq Battalions, defected from the Al-Qaeda affiliated terror group and joined the notorious ISIS group.

Nominally, Obama was opposed to ISIS in Syria, but he wasn’t even nominally opposed to Al Nusra (except publicly to American audiences): he instead insisted that during the peace negotiations, there would be no bombing allowed against any of the anti-Assad forces except ISIS — especially Nusra and its allies were being treated by Obama as ‘moderate rebels’, ‘freedom fighters against Assad’; and he insisted that, during the peace negotiations, only ISIS could still be bombed. Russia always refused to accept that condition. Russia insisted that no exception be made for Al Nusra and the other non-ISIS jihadist groups. Russia insisted to be allowed to continue bombing all jihadists that don’t put down their arms during the negotiations — that there be no cease-fire against any of them that don’t. Russia’s minimal demand was that the existing bombing and other attacks by Russia and Syria against Nusra be allowed to continue while the peace talks continue. Finally, Kerry managed to get Obama nominally to agree to that minimal condition; but, within less than a week thereafter (the September 9th agreement went into force on September 12th, and Obama bombed the Syrian army post on September 17th), Obama’s bombers killed over 60 Syrian soldiers at Der Zor — the attack that terminated the peace-talks. This was in such blatant violation of the September 9th agreement, so that, since then, the U.S. has been out of the picture: the talks resumed with only Syria, Russia, Iran, and Turkey, as governmental participants.

The tactic of using jihadists against Russia had started late in the 1970s, as a means of weakening the Soviet Union, during America’s war against communism.

The U.S., and the royal family of Saudi Arabia, had created Al Qaeda back in 1979, to be their «boots on the ground» against the Soviet Union, and used them not only in Afghanistan but also in Russia’s own Chechnya region, to weaken, first the Soviet Union itself, helping to break it up, and then, after the Cold War ended on the Russian side in 1991 when the Soviet Union and its communism and its Warsaw Pact military alliance all ended, America and the Sauds continued arming and funding Al Qaeda, so as to create terror in Russia and to overthrow Russia’s allies abroad, such as Assad. Perhaps communism wasn’t the reason for the Cold War but merely the excuse for the Cold War; but, certainly, this has been and is the case after communism ended but America’s war against Russia didn’t. Only the excuse is gone. The U.S. subterranean policy since the termination of the Soviet Union and of its communism and of its Warsaw Pact military alliance in 1991 has been to continue the Cold War now against Russia, by bringing its former Warsaw Pact allies, and even the other states that had been parts of the Soviet Union, into America’s anti-Russia military club, NATO. Syria had never been a part of the Soviet Union, nor of the Warsaw Pact, but it had been an ally of the Soviets and then of Russia, and the Sauds wanted to take it over and bring it into ‘The Western’ fold.

Whereas NATO is the European wing of America’s continuing war against Russia, the African or southern wing of America’s permanent (meaning: until conquest) war against Russia is led by the Saud family, who dominate their Gulf Cooperation Council of other Arabic royal families. So: whereas the U.S. aristocracy leads the anti-Russia war in Europe, the Saudi aristocracy leads it in Africa (basically in the other countries that are owned by the other fundamentalist-Sunni Arab royal families). On 15 December 2015, the Saud family announced that they had created and gotten 34 nations signed onto their new «Islamic Military Alliance», but the Sauds’ main ally remains the U.S. aristocracy.

Those two aristocracies — U.S. and Saudi — control The West. The U.S. controls the dollars, and the Sauds and their fundamentalist-Sunni allies control enough of the oil and gas, so that between them the petrodollar-era has been the American-Saudi Empire; and, after the end of the Soviet Union, the U.S. and Sauds have been doing all they can to crush all challengers but especially Russia and its allies including Iran and Syria — two Muslim-majority countries that refuse to subordinate themselves to the Saud family and its Wahhabist-Salafist clergy.

So, the U.S. government sometimes arms, and sometimes arms against, Al Qaeda (a joint U.S.-Saudi product, fundamentalist-Sunni like the Sauds themselves): it all depends on where, but basically it depends upon whether Al Qaeda is fighting against Russia (which both the U.S. and the Saudi aristocracies want to become conquered — that aim is Al Qaeda’s original reason for being). Whereas the U.S. sometimes is against Al Qaeda, and at other times is arming Al Qaeda, Russia is always against Al Qaeda and against all of the Sauds’ other terrorist groups (such as the ones Al Qaeda leads in Syria).

(Part Three is here.)

Novos passos no “fortalecimento da Aliança” foram decididos pelos ministros da Defesa da Otan, reunidos em Bruxelas no Conselho do Atlântico Norte.

Antes de tudo, na frente oriental, com o deslocamento de novas “forças de dissuasão” para a Estônia, Letônia, Lituânia e Polônia, em conjunto com uma acrescida presença da Otan em toda a Europa oriental com exercícios terrestres e navais. Em junho estarão plenamente operacionais batalhões multinacionais que se instalarão na região.

Ao mesmo tempo, aumentará a presença naval da Otan no Mar Negro. Igualmente, começa a criação de um comando multinational das forças especiais, formado inicialmente de forças belgas, dinamarquesas e holandesas. Enfim, o Conselho do Atlântico Norte, felicita a Geórgia por seus progressos no caminho que a fará entrar na Aliança, tornando-se o terceiro país da Otan (com a Estônia e a Letônia) diretamente fronteiriço com a Rússia.

Na frente meridional, diretamente ligada à oriental em particular através da confrontação Rússia-Otan na Síria, o Conselho do Atlântico Norte anuncia uma série de medidas para “enfrentar as ameaças provenientes do Oriente Médio e o Norte da África e para projetar uma estabilidade para além de nossas fronteiras”.

Junto ao Comando da força conjunta aliada em Nápoles, foi constituído o Hub para o Sul, com um  pessoal de cerca de 100 militares. Ele terá por missão “avaliar as ameaças provenientes da região e enfrentá-las juntamente com as nações e organizações parceiras”. Disporá de aviões espiões  Awacs e de drones que se tornarão rapidamente operacionais em Sigonella (Sicília).

Para as operações militares já está pronta a “Força de resposta” da Otan de 40 mil soldados, em particular sua “Força de ponta com elevada rapidez operacional”.

O Hub para o Sul – explica o secretário geral Stoltenberg – aumentará a capacidade da Otan para “prever e prevenir as crises”. Em outros termos, uma vez que o Hub “preveja” uma crise no Oriente Médio, no Norte da África ou em outra parte, a Otan poderá efetuar uma intervenção  militar “preventiva”. Desse modo, a Aliança Atlântica adota completamente a doutrina do “falcão” Bush sobre a guerra preventiva.

Os primeiros a querer um fortalecimento da Otan, totalmente com funções anti-Rússia, são neste momento os governos europeus da Aliança, estes mesmos que se travestem de “pombas”. De fato, eles temem ser ultrapassados ou marginalizados se a administração Trump abrir negociações diretas com Moscou.

Os governos do Leste são particularmente ativos. Varsóvia, não contente com a 3ª Brigada blindada enviada à Polônia pela administração Obama, demanda agora a Washington, pela boca do influente Kaczynski, ser coberta pelo “guarda-chuva nuclear” estadunidense, ou seja, ter em seu território armas nucleares estadunidenses apontadas para a Rússia.

Kíev relançou a ofensiva no Donbass contra os russos da Ucrânia, seja através de pesados bombardeios, seja através do assassinato sistemático de chefes da resistência nos atentados por trás dos quais se encontram também os serviços secretos ocidentais. Ao mesmo tempo, o presidente Porochenko anunciou um referendo sobre a adesão da Ucrânia à Otan.

E o primeiro-ministro grego Alexis Tsipras foi dar-lhe um forte aperto de mão: em visita oficial a Kíev em 8 e 9 de fevereiro, ele expressou ao presidente Porochenko “o firme apoio da Grécia à soberania, integridade territorial e independência da Ucrânia” e, em consequência, o não reconhecimento do que Kíev chama de “ilegal anexação russa da Crimeia”. O encontro, declarou Tsipras, lançando as bases para “anos de estreita colaboração entre a Grécia e a Ucrânia”, contribuirá para “alcançar a paz na região”.

Manlio Dinucci

Artigo original em italiano :

Le colombe armate dell’Europa

il manifesto, 21 de fevereiro de 2017

Tradução de José Reinaldo Carvalho para Resistência

Ulteriori passi nel «rafforzamento forzamento dell’Alleanza» sono stati decisi dai ministri della Difesa della Nato, riuniti a Bruxelles nel Consiglio Nord Atlantico. Anzitutto sul fronte orientale, col dispiegamento di nuove «forze di deterrenza» in Estonia, Lettonia, Lituania e Polonia, unito ad una accresciuta presenza Nato in tutta l’Europa orientale con esercitazioni terrestri e navali.

A giugno saranno pienamente operativi quattro battaglioni multinazionali da schierare nella regione. Sarà allo stesso tempo accresciuta la presenza navale Nato nel Mar Nero. Viene inoltre avviata la creazione di un comando multinazionale delle forze speciali, formato inizialmente da quelle belghe, danesi e olandesi. Il Consiglio Nord Atlantico loda infine la Georgia per i progressi nel percorso che la farà entrare nella Alleanza, divenendo il terzo paese Nato (insieme a Estonia e Lettonia) direttamente al confine con la Russia.

Sul fronte meridionale, strettamente connesso a quello orientale in particolare attraverso il confronto Russia-Nato in Siria, il Consiglio Nord Atlantico annuncia una serie di misure per «contrastare le minacce provenienti dal Medioriente e Nordafrica e per proiettare stabilità oltre i nostri confini». Presso il Comando della forza congiunta alleata a Napoli, viene costituito l’Hub per il Sud, con un personale di circa 100 militari. Esso avrà il compito di «valutare le minacce provenienti dalla regione e affrontarle insieme a nazioni e organizzazioni partner».Disporrà di aerei-spia Awacs e di droni che diverranno presto operativi a Sigonella.

Per le operazioni militari è già pronta la «Forza di risposta» Nato di 40mila uomini, in particolare la sua «Forza di punta ad altissima prontezza operativa».

L’Hub per il Sud – spiega il segretario generale Stoltenberg – accrescerà la capacità della Nato di «prevedere e prevenire le crisi». In altre parole, una volta che esso avrà «previsto» una crisi in Medioriente, in Nordafrica o altrove, la Nato potrà effettuare un intervento militare «preventivo». L’Alleanza Atlantica al completo adotta, in tal modo, la dottrina del «falco» Bush sulla guerra «preventiva».

I primi a volere un rafforzamento della Nato, anzitutto in funzione anti-Russia, sono in questo momento i governi europei dell’Alleanza, quelli che in genere si presentano in veste di «colombe». Temono infatti di essere scavalcati o emarginati se l’amministrazione Trump aprisse un negoziato diretto con Mosca. Particolarmente attivi i governi dell’Est. Varsavia, non accontentandosi della 3a Brigata corazzata inviata in Polonia dall’amministrazione Obama, chiede ora a Washington, per bocca dell’autorevole Kaczynski, di essere coperta dall’«ombrello nucleare» Usa, ossia di avere sul proprio suolo armi nucleari statunitensi puntate sulla Russia.

Kiev ha rilanciato l’offensiva nel Donbass contro i russi di Ucraina, sia attraverso pesanti bombardamenti, sia attraverso l’assassinio sistematico di capi della resistenza in attentati dietro cui vi sono anche servizi segreti occidentali. Contemporaneamente, il presidente Poroshenko ha annunciato un referendum per l’adesione dell’Ucraina alla Nato.

A dargli man forte è andato il premier greco Alexis Tsipras che, in visita ufficiale a Kiev l’8-9 febbraio, ha espresso al presidente Poroshenko «il fermo appoggio della Grecia alla sovranità, integrità territoriale e indipendenza dell’Ucraina» e, di conseguenza, il non-riconoscimento di quella che Kiev definisce «l’illegale annessione russa della Crimea». L’incontro, ha dichiarato Tsipras, gettando le basi per «anni di stretta cooperazione tra Grecia e Ucraina», contribuirà a «conseguire la pace nella regione».

Manlio Dinucci

The volume of international transfers of major weapons has grown continuously since 2004 and increased by 8.4 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16, according to new data on arms transfers published today by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Notably, transfers of major weapons in 2012–16 reached their highest volume for any five-year period since the end of the cold war.

The flow of arms increased to Asia and Oceania and the Middle East between 2007–11 and 2012–16, while there was a decrease in the flow to Europe, the Americas and Africa. The five biggest exporters—the United States, Russia, China, France and Germany—together accounted for 74 per cent of the total volume of arms exports.

Asia: major increases for some states

Arms imports by states in Asia and Oceania increased by 7.7 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16 and accounted for 43 per cent of global imports in 2012–16.

India was the world’s largest importer of major arms in 2012–16, accounting for 13 per cent of the global total. Between 2007–11 and 2012–16 it increased its arms imports by 43 per cent. In 2012–16 India’s imports were far greater than those of its regional rivals China and Pakistan.

Imports by countries in South East Asia increased 6.2 per cent from 2007–11 to 2012–16. Viet Nam made a particularly large jump from being the 29th largest importer in 2007–11 to the 10th largest in 2012–16, with arms imports increasing by 202 per cent.

‘With no regional arms control instruments in place, states in Asia continue to expand their arsenals’, said Siemon Wezeman, Senior Researcher with the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Programme. ‘While China is increasingly able to substitute arms imports with indigenous products, India remains dependent on weapons technology from many willing suppliers, including Russia, the USA, European states, Israel and South Korea’.

Middle East: arms imports almost double

Between 2007–11 and 2012–16 arms imports by states in the Middle East rose by 86 per cent and accounted for 29 per cent of global imports in 2012–16.

Saudi Arabia was the world’s second largest arms importer in 2012-16, with an increase of 212 per cent compared with 2007–11. Arms imports by Qatar went up by 245 per cent. Although at lower rates, the majority of other states in the region also increased arms imports. ‘Over the past five years, most states in the Middle East have turned primarily to the USA and Europe in their accelerated pursuit of advanced military capabilities’, said Pieter Wezeman, Senior Researcher with the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Programme. ‘Despite low oil prices, countries in the region continued to order more weapons in 2016, perceiving them as crucial tools for dealing with conflicts and regional tensions.’

Arms exporters: the USA accounts for one-third of total

With a one-third share of global arms exports, the USA was the top arms exporter in 2012– 16. Its arms exports increased by 21 per cent compared with 2007–11. Almost half of its arms exports went to the Middle East.

‘The USA supplies major arms to at least 100 countries around the world—significantly more than any other supplier state’, said Dr Aude Fleurant, Director of the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Programme. ‘Both advanced strike aircraft with cruise missiles and other precision-guided munitions and the latest generation air and missile defence systems account for a significant share of US arms exports.’

Russia accounted for a 23 per cent share of global exports in the period 2012–16. 70 per cent of its arms exports went to four countries: India, Viet Nam, China and Algeria.

China’s share of global arms exports rose from 3.8 to 6.2 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16. It is now firmly a top-tier supplier, like France and Germany which accounted for 6 per cent and 5.6 per cent, respectively. The ongoing lower rate of French arms export deliveries may end soon because of a series of major contracts signed in the past five years. Despite a spike in arms exports in 2016, German arms exports—counted over a five-year period—decreased by 36 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16. 

Other notable developments

• Algeria was the largest arms importer in Africa with 46 per cent of all imports to the region.
• The largest importers in sub-Saharan Africa—Nigeria, Sudan and Ethiopia—are all in conflict zones.
• Total arms imports by states in the Americas decreased by 18 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16. However, changes in import volumes varied considerably. Colombia’s arms imports decreased by 19 per cent, while Mexico’s arms imports grew by 184 per cent in 2012–16 compared with 2007–11.
• Imports by states in Europe significantly decreased by 36 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16. Initial deliveries to Europe of advanced combat aircraft as part of major contracts started in 2012–16 and further deliveries will drive import volumes up in the coming years.
• Imports by Azerbaijan were 20 times higher than those of Armenia in 2012–16.

The SIPRI Arms Transfers Database contains information on all international transfers of major weapons (including sales, gifts and production licences) to states, international organizations and armed non-state groups from 1950 to the most recent full calendar year, 2016. SIPRI data reflects the volume of deliveries of arms, not the financial value of the deals. As the volume of deliveries can fluctuate significantly year-onyear, SIPRI presents data for 5-year periods, giving a more stable measure of trends.

For information or interview requests contact Stephanie Blenckner ([email protected],  or Harri Thomas ([email protected].

The volume of international transfers of major weapons has grown continuously since 2004 and increased by 8.4 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16, according to new data on arms transfers published today by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Notably, transfers of major weapons in 2012–16 reached their highest volume for any five-year period since the end of the cold war.

The flow of arms increased to Asia and Oceania and the Middle East between 2007–11 and 2012–16, while there was a decrease in the flow to Europe, the Americas and Africa. The five biggest exporters—the United States, Russia, China, France and Germany—together accounted for 74 per cent of the total volume of arms exports.

Asia: major increases for some states

Arms imports by states in Asia and Oceania increased by 7.7 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16 and accounted for 43 per cent of global imports in 2012–16.

India was the world’s largest importer of major arms in 2012–16, accounting for 13 per cent of the global total. Between 2007–11 and 2012–16 it increased its arms imports by 43 per cent. In 2012–16 India’s imports were far greater than those of its regional rivals China and Pakistan.

Imports by countries in South East Asia increased 6.2 per cent from 2007–11 to 2012–16. Viet Nam made a particularly large jump from being the 29th largest importer in 2007–11 to the 10th largest in 2012–16, with arms imports increasing by 202 per cent.

‘With no regional arms control instruments in place, states in Asia continue to expand their arsenals’, said Siemon Wezeman, Senior Researcher with the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Programme. ‘While China is increasingly able to substitute arms imports with indigenous products, India remains dependent on weapons technology from many willing suppliers, including Russia, the USA, European states, Israel and South Korea’.

Middle East: arms imports almost double

Between 2007–11 and 2012–16 arms imports by states in the Middle East rose by 86 per cent and accounted for 29 per cent of global imports in 2012–16.

Saudi Arabia was the world’s second largest arms importer in 2012-16, with an increase of 212 per cent compared with 2007–11. Arms imports by Qatar went up by 245 per cent. Although at lower rates, the majority of other states in the region also increased arms imports. ‘Over the past five years, most states in the Middle East have turned primarily to the USA and Europe in their accelerated pursuit of advanced military capabilities’, said Pieter Wezeman, Senior Researcher with the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Programme. ‘Despite low oil prices, countries in the region continued to order more weapons in 2016, perceiving them as crucial tools for dealing with conflicts and regional tensions.’

Arms exporters: the USA accounts for one-third of total

With a one-third share of global arms exports, the USA was the top arms exporter in 2012– 16. Its arms exports increased by 21 per cent compared with 2007–11. Almost half of its arms exports went to the Middle East.

‘The USA supplies major arms to at least 100 countries around the world—significantly more than any other supplier state’, said Dr Aude Fleurant, Director of the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Programme. ‘Both advanced strike aircraft with cruise missiles and other precision-guided munitions and the latest generation air and missile defence systems account for a significant share of US arms exports.’

Russia accounted for a 23 per cent share of global exports in the period 2012–16. 70 per cent of its arms exports went to four countries: India, Viet Nam, China and Algeria.

China’s share of global arms exports rose from 3.8 to 6.2 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16. It is now firmly a top-tier supplier, like France and Germany which accounted for 6 per cent and 5.6 per cent, respectively. The ongoing lower rate of French arms export deliveries may end soon because of a series of major contracts signed in the past five years. Despite a spike in arms exports in 2016, German arms exports—counted over a five-year period—decreased by 36 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16. 

Other notable developments

• Algeria was the largest arms importer in Africa with 46 per cent of all imports to the region.
• The largest importers in sub-Saharan Africa—Nigeria, Sudan and Ethiopia—are all in conflict zones.
• Total arms imports by states in the Americas decreased by 18 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16. However, changes in import volumes varied considerably. Colombia’s arms imports decreased by 19 per cent, while Mexico’s arms imports grew by 184 per cent in 2012–16 compared with 2007–11.
• Imports by states in Europe significantly decreased by 36 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16. Initial deliveries to Europe of advanced combat aircraft as part of major contracts started in 2012–16 and further deliveries will drive import volumes up in the coming years.
• Imports by Azerbaijan were 20 times higher than those of Armenia in 2012–16.

The SIPRI Arms Transfers Database contains information on all international transfers of major weapons (including sales, gifts and production licences) to states, international organizations and armed non-state groups from 1950 to the most recent full calendar year, 2016. SIPRI data reflects the volume of deliveries of arms, not the financial value of the deals. As the volume of deliveries can fluctuate significantly year-onyear, SIPRI presents data for 5-year periods, giving a more stable measure of trends.

For information or interview requests contact Stephanie Blenckner ([email protected],  or Harri Thomas ([email protected].

US President Donald Trump named Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster as his new national security adviser Monday, one week after firing retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the previous head of the National Security Council. The replacement of one general by another underscores the dominant role of the military in the Trump administration.

McMaster’s appointment does not require Senate confirmation, so he assumed his new duties as soon as he accepted the position. He will reportedly not retire from the Army but rather take a leave of absence for the duration of his stint at the White House.

Retired or active-duty military brass hold four top positions: Secretary of Defense James “Mad Dog” Mattis and Secretary of Homeland Security John F. Kelly are both retired Marine Corps major generals. McMaster will head the NSC, and retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, who had been acting head during the week since Flynn’s dismissal, will resume his position as NSC chief of staff, now as McMaster’s deputy.

While McMaster’s appointment does not increase the number of generals in the top ranks of the administration—since he replaces General Flynn—his elevation to head the NSC could well signal a shift in the foreign policy orientation of the Trump administration, and represent a concession to the anti-Russian campaign being waged by the intelligence agencies, the Democratic Party and sections of the Republican Party.

The appointment was backed by many of those who have been denouncing Trump for his alleged “softness” on Russia. The ultra-right magazine National Review hailed the appointment, comparing it to the nomination of Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court, and writing that “Trump’s key generals—James Mattis, John Kelly, and now H.R. McMaster—represent the best of modern military leadership. Their presence in the government is deeply reassuring. It’s now incumbent on President Trump to heed their counsel and give them the level of authority that they have earned.”

Senator John McCain, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, fresh from a speech to the Munich Security Conference in which he portrayed the new administration as a potential threat to world stability, praised the nomination as well. “I give President Trump great credit for this decision, as well as his national security cabinet choices,” McCain said in a statement. “I could not imagine a better, more capable national security team than the one we have right now.”

Michael Hayden, the former director of the CIA and NSA who supported Hillary Clinton for president, described McMaster as “a big-picture thinker. And he stands up for what he believes. What a perfect choice for this administration.” Representative Adam Smith, the senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, called McMaster “obviously very well qualified,” adding, “to say that he’s an improvement over Mike Flynn is an understatement.”

Herbert Raymond McMaster, 54, is leaving a position as commander of the Army Capabilities Integration Center (ARCINC), where he was responsible for strategic planning for the “army of the future.” He was a tank commander in the first Persian Gulf War, in 1991, and commanded a combat brigade during the occupation of Iraq, where he came to the attention of General David Petraeus as the first commander to successfully recruit local Sunni tribal leaders to assist military operations against insurgent groups.

McMaster’s tactics in the northern Iraqi city of Tal Afar were the model for the surge of US forces in 2006-2007, and McMaster became closely associated with Petraeus in his subsequent rise through the upper echelons of the Army.

The appointment has special significance in terms of policy towards Russia because McMaster has been engaged in a major military project to study the conflict in Ukraine and the lessons to be drawn by US military planners preparing for war in Eastern Europe against the Russian army and air force. He said in 2016 that the Ukraine conflict has “revealed that the Russians have superior artillery firepower, better combat vehicles, and have learned sophisticated use of UAVs [drones] for tactical effect.”

According to a report last year in Politico, “McMaster is quietly overseeing a high-level government panel intended to figure out how the Army should adapt to this Russian wake-up call.” He told a Senate committee, “Russia possesses a variety of rocket, missile and cannon artillery systems that outrange and are more lethal than US Army artillery systems and munitions.” He called for developing advanced weapons to replace the two main Army armored vehicles, the Abrams tank and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

This background suggests that McMaster will be aligned with Secretary of Defense Mattis in viewing Russia as the main strategic adversary of US imperialism in both the Middle East and Europe. That accounts for the widespread praise for his selection by those who have been spearheading the anti-Russian campaign on behalf of the US military-intelligence apparatus.

McMaster first came to public attention in 1997 as the author of a volume analyzing the Pentagon command performance during the early stages of the war in Vietnam, from 1963 through 1965. The book’s title, Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chief s of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam, suggests a more critical attitude to the Vietnam War than the author actually espouses. He indicts the lies that the civilian and military leaders of the day told each other, not the lies they both told to the American people.

A wide range of political commentators praised the book, ranging from Rush Limbaugh on the ultra-right to historian Stanley Karnow to journalist Peter Arnett, a critic of the war. It provides a detailed analysis of the day-to-day relations between the Pentagon brass and the Johnson White House, based on documents then newly declassified.

More significant from the standpoint of his current position is the attitude McMaster adopted towards social and political constraints on the military. His book strongly attacked the Joint Chiefs of Staff of that period, 1963-1965, for failing to demand the all-out mobilization of up to 700,000 troops they believed necessary to win the war. They did not press these demands because Johnson was committed to a strategy of limited war in order to provide resources for domestic social reforms such as Medicare, Medicaid and the “war on poverty.”

Such an approach suggests that General McMaster, like Trump himself, would favor the plundering of social programs in order to pay for the rapid and extensive military buildup that both have advocated, preparing for an explosion of American militarism on a scale that would dwarf both Vietnam and the current wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

The American ruling class is locked in a ferocious internal conflict centered on issues of foreign policy and war. The Democratic Party, along with a section of Republicans and most of the media, is conducting a hysterical campaign against Donald Trump for his supposed conciliatory attitude toward Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin. These forces are fronting for the intelligence establishment, which is determined to prevent any retreat from the policy of aggressive confrontation with Moscow carried out by the Obama administration.

Trump, for his part, speaks for elements in the ruling elite and the state who view Iran and China to be the more immediate targets for US provocation and preparations for war, and would like to tamp down the conflict with Russia for now so as to peel it away from Tehran and Beijing.

There is not an ounce of democratic content on either side of this struggle between reactionary and war-mongering factions of US imperialism. The Democrats, however, are seeking to use unsubstantiated allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election to hijack popular opposition to the Trump administration and corral it behind the drive to war with Russia.

For months, the front pages of leading newspapers have featured “news” stories, based on the alleged statements of unnamed officials, about supposed meddling by Russia in the political affairs of the US and other countries. Nationally syndicated columnists have denounced Putin as a dictator, tyrant and murderer bent on dominating Europe and subverting American democracy.

Members of congress have declared Russia’s alleged intervention in the US election an “act of war” (in the words of John McCain) and vowed to “kick Russia’s ass” (Lindsey Graham).

This campaign takes place in the context of a major buildup of US and NATO military forces—troops, tanks, heavy weapons—on Russia’s western border, and an imminent military escalation in Syria, where US-backed “rebel” militias are fighting Syrian government forces supported by Iranian troops and Russian war planes and military advisors.

Whether in the Baltics or the Middle East, conditions are present for a clash between US and Russian forces, even if unintentional, to spark a full-scale war between the world’s two biggest nuclear-armed powers.

Yet neither the media nor the politicians agitating for a more aggressive posture toward Moscow discuss where their policy is leading, much less the likely consequences of a war between the US and Russia.

How many people would die in such a war? What are the odds that it would involve the use of nuclear weapons? On these life-and-death questions, the commentators and politicians, who drone on endlessly about Trump’s supposed softness toward Putin, are silent.

Behind the scenes, however, the intelligence agencies and Pentagon, along with their allied geo-strategic think tanks, are engaged in intense discussions and detailed planning premised on the possibility, indeed inevitability, of a major war with Russia. Plans are being laid and preparations made to wage and “win” such a war, including through the use of nuclear weapons.

One does not have to look far to find the people who are heading up the war planning. Yesterday, President Trump appointed Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, an army strategist, as his new national security advisor.

The selection of McMaster is broadly seen as a concession to Trump’s anti-Russia critics in the political and intelligence establishment. He is the leading figure in an Army project called the Russia New Generation Warfare study, whose participants have made repeated trips to the battlefields of eastern Ukraine to study Russia’s military capabilities and devise strategies and weapons systems to defeat them. McMaster has called on the US to prepare for high-intensity conventional war with Russia, involving not only long-range missile systems and stealth aircraft, but also “close” combat.

Beyond conventional warfare, US think tank strategists are discussing what it would take to “win” a nuclear war. The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) recently put out a 140-page report, “Preserving the Balance: A US Eurasia Defense Strategy,” which discusses this issue in detail. The CSBA is headed by Andrew Krepinevich, the report’s author, and includes on its Board of Directors figures such as former Under Secretary of the Army Nelson Ford, former CIA Director James Woolsey and retired general Jack Keane.

“There is a need to rethink the problem of limited nuclear war in which the United States is a direct participant, or between other parties where the United States has a major security interest,” Krepinevich writes. “As opposed to the global apocalypse envisioned in the wake of a superpower nuclear exchange during the Cold War, there will very likely be a functioning world after a war between minor nuclear powers, or even between the United States and a nuclear-armed Iran or North Korea. US forces must, therefore, be prepared to respond to a range of strategic warfare contingencies along the Eurasian periphery.”

In an earlier report entitled “Rethinking Armageddon,” Krepinevich argued that the use of a “small number” of battlefield nuclear weapons should be included among the appropriate responses by a US president to conventional threats from Russia.

During the Cold War, the “limited” use of nuclear weapons was seen as an invitation for a full-scale nuclear exchange and the destruction of the planet. Now such discussions are considered “respectable” and prudent.

These plans are being realized in the US military arsenal. The US is currently in the midst of a $1 trillion nuclear weapons modernization program commissioned under Obama. The program centers on the procurement of lower-yield, maneuverable nuclear weapons that are more likely to be used in combat. However, the Defense Science Board, a committee appointed to advise the Pentagon, recently called on the Trump administration to do more to develop weapons suitable for a “tailored nuclear option for limited use.”

What would be the human toll from such an exchange? Numerous Pentagon war games conducted during the Cold War concluded that the “limited” use of nuclear weapons would not only cause millions of civilian casualties, but quickly escalate into a full-scale nuclear exchange that would destroy major cities.

A 1955 war game titled Carte Blanche, which was responding to a Russian invasion of German territory with the use of a “small” number of battlefield nuclear weapons, resulted in the immediate deaths of 1.7 million Germans, the wounding of 3.5 million more, and millions more dead as a result of fallout radiation.

In one 1983 war game code-named Proud Prophet, NATO initiated a limited nuclear first strike on Soviet military targets. But rather than backing down, the USSR initiated a full-scale nuclear retaliation, prompting the US to reply in kind. When the proverbial dust had settled, half a billion people were dead and European civilization destroyed.

More contemporary studies have shown similarly disastrous outcomes. A 2007 report by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War suggested that a “limited” nuclear exchange could lead to the deaths of over a billion people, mostly as a result of widespread climate disruption. The US National Academy of Sciences concluded that a “large-scale nuclear war” would lead directly to the deaths of up to four billion people.

The eruption of such a war at the hands of the nuclear arsonists who preside over crisis-ridden American capitalism is a real and present danger. In fact, as the McCarthyite-style anti-Russia agitation indicates, absent the independent and revolutionary intervention of the working class in the US and around the world, it is an inevitability.

Such is the criminality and recklessness of the American ruling elite and its political representatives on both sides of the aisle. Escalating war is a conspiracy of the elites, into which the masses of people are to be dragged and sacrificed.

Anyone who doubts that the American ruling class is capable of such acts should look to the historical record. The United States dropped nuclear bombs, which today would be considered “low-yield” and even “tactical,” on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, just to warn off the Soviet Union. Truman and company killed over 100,000 people on the day the bombs were dropped, and another 100,000 died from radioactive poisoning over the ensuing four months.

Today, when the United States faces economic and geopolitical challenges far greater than those of an earlier period, it will operate all the more ruthlessly and recklessly.

The growing movement in opposition to the Trump administration must be inured against any and all efforts of the Democratic Party to infect it with the virus of imperialist war-mongering. The ongoing protests against Trump’s billionaire cabinet and his attacks on immigrants and democratic rights are only the heralds of a movement of the working class. It is necessary to politically arm this emerging movement with the program of socialist internationalism and the understanding that the fight against war and dictatorship is the fight against capitalism.

Last year, President Rafael Correa said he wouldn’t seek a third term after 10 years in office.

In December 2015, Ecuador’s constitution was amended to permit unlimited re-election runs, including for president – term limits eliminated after May 24, 2017, following this year’s general elections, held on February 19, including for five regional MPs, 137 federal lawmakers, the nation’s president and vice president.

With nearly 90% of votes counted as this is written, Lenin Moreno, Correa’s former vice president, leads right-wing banker Guillermo Lasso by a 39.11 – 28.28 percent margin – close to the 40% threshold needed to avoid a second round runoff.

Ecuador’s National Electoral Council said final results may take several more days as results trickle in from isolated areas, Ecuadoreans abroad, bureaucratic delays, and inconsistencies in some ballots.

Six other candidates competed. Moreno, a paraplegic, was nominated for the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize because of his advocacy for handicapped people.

In 1998, he was seriously wounded in a Quito robbery attempt, paralyzed, unable to walk. Years of therapy restored his ability to move around in a wheelchair, able to continue working in the public sector.

He promotes humor and joy as a way to overcome serious physical limitations. It worked for him, a remarkable story, especially if he becomes Ecuador’s next president.

As vice president, he increased the federal budget for disabled people manyfold. Hundreds of thousands are helped.

Guillermo Lasso is a banker, businessman, running for president after losing to Correa decisively in 2013.

As Banco de Guayaquil president and largest shareholder, he coordinated right-wing attacks on Correa’s agenda. During former Ecuadorian president Lucio Gutierrez’s neoliberal tenure, he developed relations with US business elites.

Pre-election, Moreno was favored to win. His lead over Lasso makes him most likely to become Ecuador’s next president.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

Zagreb sold a record amount of aging weapons and ammunition to Saudi Arabia in 2016, ignoring evidence the arms are regularly being diverted to Syria.

Croatia has drastically increased its sales of decades-old arms and ammunition to Saudi Arabia despite mounting evidence that the deliveries are being diverted to Syria in breach of European Union (EU) and international law.

The Nour al-Din al-Zenki Movement, part of the Free Syrian Army, using a Croatian-made RAK-12 in April 2016. Credit: YouTube

Though it has one of the best and most expensively equipped armies in the Middle East, the Gulf Kingdom imported US$ 81.7 million in aging ammunition, including bullets, mortars, rockets, and rocket and grenade launchers worth $5.8 million from Croatia during the first nine months of 2016. This total is already double Croatia’s sales to Saudi Arabia over the previous four years, and the final value will likely be higher, as figures for the last quarter have not yet been published.

Igor Tabak, a Croatian defense analyst, said that the country does not currently produce ammunition. “It is quite likely that the exports come from old ammunition,” he said, “possibly from the inventory of the former Yugoslavia and Eastern [Bloc] production.”

2012 Report by the Croatian Ministry of Defense
2013 Report by the Croatian Ministry of Defense
2014 Report by the Croatian Ministry of Defense

While Croatia has consistently refused to acknowledge that it is profiting from liquidating its old stocks on the Syrian battlefields, defense ministry documents reviewed by the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN) and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) show a major surge in sales from its stockpile coinciding with the start of the civil war in 2012.

According to those reports, the Ministry of Defense, which has a stockpile of around 18,000 tons, sold at least 5,000 tons of surplus ammunition in 2013 and 2014—as much as it had sold in the preceding decade.

A still photo on the left from a video posted by Sword of al-Sham on May 18, 2016, shows Croatian-made RAK-12 rockets marked “AL.” The right photo shows a Croatian soldier with an identical rocket showing the same markings.

The Ministry of Defense did not respond to a request for additional information on who bought the armaments and whether additional sales were made in 2015 and 2016.

Arms Exports: A State Secret

Croatia was among the first countries to supply weapons to Syrian rebels in the winter of 2012. The shipment was routed via Jordan with logistical support from the CIA and paid for by Saudi Arabia, according to a 2013 investigation by the New York Times.

Following a flurry of embarrassing news coverage, Croatia abruptly started removing key information, such as the final destination of its exports, from official reports in an attempt to keep the details of this trade out of the headlines.

A still from a video published by the Fist Coastal Division on August 5, 2015, shows a box containing RAK-12 rocket marked KS (believed to indicate the defunct Koncar factory in Sesvetski Kraljevec, Croatia) produced in 1995. Credit: YouTube

The Ministry of Economy, which is responsible for issuing import/export licenses for weapons and ammunition, told BIRN and OCCRP that a 2012 law on personal data protection prohibits it from giving out this information. This is disputed by the Croatian Data Protection Agency, which said the legislation applies only to individuals, not to companies or governments.

Five non-governmental organizations described the removal of information as a “troubling decline in transparency” in their submission to a United Nations (UN) Human Rights Panel on Croatia in March 2015.

Reporters, however, obtained the data via a little-known UN database, Comtrade, which contains annual international trade statistics from more than 170 countries.

The UN database revealed that Croatia exported $36 million worth of ammunition to Jordan in the two years since the Syrian conflict began in 2012. After Croatia’s role became public, Saudi Arabia took over importing more than $124 million worth of ammunition since 2014 – two thirds in the first nine months of 2016 alone.

A still from a video published by the Fist Coastal Division on June 16, 2015, shows a RAK-12 rocket marked KS (believed to indicate the defunct Koncar factory in Sesvetski Kraljevec, Croatia) produced in 1994. The photo also shows a RAK-12 multiple rocket launcher, also produced in Croatia. Credit: YouTube

The two countries also imported more than $21 million in weapons, including rocket and grenade launchers, since 2012.

Prior to 2012, the arms trade between Croatia, Jordan and Saudi Arabia was virtually nonexistent. Since 2012, all but a few hundred thousand dollars of Croatia’s ammunition sales have gone to Jordan or Saudi Arabia.

A spokesperson of the Croatian Ministry of Economy said that the latest exports took place in accordance with licenses approved in 2015. He also added that some export licenses to Saudi Arabia were rejected in 2015, and none were issued in 2016 but refused to provide any further detail.

An earlier investigation by BIRN and OCCRP revealed that Croatia approved $302 million worth of arms export licenses over this period. Unless these licenses are revoked, millions of dollars in future exports are approved to go forward.

Falling Into the Wrong Hands

While experts have previously highlighted video and photographic evidence of Croatian-made RBG-6 grenade launchers and RAK-12 multiple-launch rocket systems in Syria, Croatian officials have disputed their origin, pointing out that similar weapons are produced elsewhere.

However, new analysis by BIRN and OCCRP of the social media profiles used by brigades fighting in Syria, as well from online enthusiasts who monitor the spread of weapons, provide clear evidence that these weapons are Croatian-made.

Among the weapons and ammunition identified in large quantities in Syria are the RBG-6 grenade launchers and RAK-12 multiple-launch rocket systems, as well as rockets and mortar shells manufactured in the mid-1990s, after Croatia seceded from Yugoslavia:

• Two videos of arms stashes captured from rebels by Syrian government troops – filmed in December 2016 by Russia Today – reveal unused Croatian-made mortar shells and rockets.
• Three images shared on Twitter in 2015 and 2016 show grenade-launchers marked RBG-6 in use or for sale in Syria. This model is made only in Croatia.
• Two videos also show the First Army and the Noureddine Zanki movement, which are moderate, US-backed factions in Syria, using rocket launchers with RAK visible on their sides. Croatia was the only producer of RAK-12s.

But so-called moderate Syrian opposition groups are not the only military formations to have secured Croatian-made weaponry. “We’ve now seen groups like ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra using these weapons, although how they acquired them is unclear,” said Eliot Higgins, a London-based citizen journalist.

“[These weapons] could have been looted from other groups, sold between groups, or provided directly (…)” he said. Higgins is the founder of Bellingcat, which uses open source information and social media to track weapons in conflict areas. He was one of the first to identify Balkan-sourced armaments in use in the Syrian war.

Both Amnesty International and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy reported that ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra obtained Croatian and Yugoslav-made rocket and grenade launchers as early as 2013.

Government Denials

Darko Kihalic, head of Croatia’s arms licensing department at the Ministry of Economy, told BIRN and OCCRP that Zagreb has no qualms about selling arms to Saudi Arabia as long as it provides the correct documents.

He said there were no restrictions on exporting to Saudi Arabia and Croatian firms have a right to earn an income.

A photo from a December 28, 2016 RT report about a captured rebel arsenal shows a RAK-12 rocket marked KS (believed to indicate the defunct Koncar factory in Sesvetski Kraljevec, Croatia) produced in 1993. Credit: Youtube

Asked whether he was aware that Croatian weapons bought by Saudi Arabia were turning up in Syria, Kihalic said: “There is nothing more for us to check, as the [export] document says their ministry of defense or police forces [in Saudi Arabia] will use it [the weapon] and that they won’t resell it or export it.”

Human rights groups dispute Kihalic’s view. Patrick Wilcken, an arms researcher for Amnesty International, said that Croatia is obliged to take measures to prevent both weapons from being diverted to another country, and from being used to commit serious human rights violations. Given the mounting evidence of the systematic diversion of arms from Saudi Arabia to armed groups in Syria, Croatia’s failure to take due diligence to prevent further diversion could result in a breach of the EU Common Position and the Arms Trade Treaty.

Bodil Valero, a Green Party member of the European Parliament from Sweden and the parliament’s rapporteur on arms, criticized Croatia and called on the EU to tighten its grip on its members’ arms exports.

“Croatia has used Saudi Arabia as it is not allowed to export to Syria, and it ends up in the hands of ISIS and the Kurds,” she told BIRN and OCCRP. “We have to do much more.”

The number of nuclear weapons in the world has declined significantly since the Cold War: down from a peak of approximately 70,300 in 1986 to an estimated 14,900 in early-2017.

Government officials often portray that accomplishment as a result of current arms control agreements, but the overwhelming portion of the reduction happened in the 1990s. Moreover, comparing today’s inventory with that of the 1950s is like comparing apples and oranges; today’s forces are vastly more capable. The pace of reduction has slowed significantly. Instead of planning for nuclear disarmament, the nuclear-armed states appear to plan to retain large arsenals for the indefinite future.

Despite progress in reducing Cold War nuclear arsenals, the world’s combined inventory of nuclear warheads remains at a very high level: approximately 14,900 warheads as of early-2017. Of these, roughly 9,400 are in the military stockpiles (the rest are awaiting dismantlement), of which more than 3,900 warheads are deployed with operational forces, of which nearly 1,800 US, Russian, British and French warheads are on high alert, ready for use on short notice.

Approximately 93 percent of all nuclear warheads are owned by Russia and the United States who each have roughly 4,000-4,500 warheads in their military stockpiles; no other nuclear-armed state sees a need for more than a few hundred nuclear weapons for national security:

The United States, Russia and the United Kingdom are reducing their warhead inventories, but the pace of reduction is slowing compared with the past 25 years. France and Israel have relatively stable inventories, while China, Pakistan, India and North Korea are increasing their warhead inventories.

All the nuclear weapon states continue to modernize their remaining nuclear forces and appear committed to retaining nuclear weapons for the indefinite future. For an overview of global modernization programs, see this 2014 article.

Read Complete FAS article

El diálogo y la paz están entronizados hoy como las prioridades esenciales de los venezolanos, pese a que el mazo pretende aplastar al olivo que el gobierno extiende a sus adversarios internos y externos.

Contra esta nación sudamericana está en marcha una campaña de muchos años donde confluyen operaciones políticas, diplomáticas y económicas, y un actor nada solapado ganó protagonismo en los últimos días, la cadena estadounidense de televisión CNN con sus ataques al gobierno y al vicepresidente ejecutivo Tareck El Aissami.

Este lunes el presidente de la República, Nicolás Maduro, sostuvo un encuentro con el expresidente de España, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, uno de los acompañantes internacionales que ven en las conversaciones la única alternativa para evitar males mayores en momentos en que aumentan las presiones contra la paz.

En la cita en el Palacio de Miraflores, en Caracas, estuvieron presentes la ministra para Relaciones Exteriores, Delcy Rodríguez; el coordinador del diálogo por parte del Gobierno Nacional, Jorge Rodríguez; y la ministra para el Despacho de la Presidencia, Carmen Meléndez, aunque no trascendió el contenido de las pláticas.

En octubre del 2016 la oposición venezolana aceptó la convocatoria del Presidente para trabajar juntos en una mesa de diálogo por la paz del país pero, desde entonces a la fecha poco hacen los integrantes de la llamada Mesa de la Unidad Democrática (MUD) para acercar posiciones e insisten en acciones que muchos califican de ‘traición a la patria’.

Luego de un primer encuentro en el cual se conformaron cuatro mesas temáticas: 1. Paz, Respeto al Estado de Derecho y a la Soberanía Nacional; 2. Verdad, Justicia, Derechos Humanos, Reparación de Víctimas y Reconciliación; 3. Económico-Social; 4. Generación de Confianza y Cronograma Electoral, poco se avanzó.

Ante esta situación, tanto Zapatero como los demás acompañantes, el expresidente dominicano Leonel Fernández y el panameño Martín Torrijos, la Unión de Naciones del Sur y El Vaticano, insisten en que se necesitan más encuentros entre quienes piensan diferente a fin de encontrar puntos en común imprescindibles para la reconciliación de las partes.

Sin embargo, hay que ver qué hacen algunos miembros de la MUD para favorecer algo que Aristobulo Istúriz, ministro para las Comunas, calificó este lunes de guerra global.

Recientemente Maduro denunció que Julio Borges, Freddy Guevara y Luis Florido, son los principales responsables de que exista una intervención contra Venezuela, plan que tratan de vender en Washington, en el Senado colombiano y en reuniones secretas con funcionarios de la embajada estadounidense en Bogotá, según fuentes de crédito.

Venezuela sufre una guerra global, subrayó Istúriz, al referirse a las acciones realizadas por la oposición que busca ante organismos internacionales y en ‘otras puertas’ que el país sea blanco de una agresión.

Es llamativo que los parlamentarios de la MUD, Julio Borges, Freddy Guevara y Luis Florido, abusen de su inmunidad buscando que triunfe el mazo contra el olivo y provocando una acción del gobierno contra ellos por promover una intervención contra Venezuela, algo que en otro país muy probablemente sería un delito de alta traición.

Según Istúriz, ellos van a abrirle las puertas a una intervención criminal del imperio, en cualquier país del mundo es delito, frente a nuestra Constitución es traición a la Patria, las instituciones tienen que accionar más temprano que tarde, el pueblo pide justicia, dijo el dirigente bolivariano.

Ojala impere la cordura, y los tambores de la guerra no acallen el clamor favorable a las negociaciones pacíficas, esperan la mayoría de los venezolanos que la apoyan, según las encuestas.

Luis Beaton

El presidente Donald Trump cumple hoy un mes en el cargo con un nivel de popularidad muy bajo, escándalos, renuncias de algunos consejeros, litigios judiciales y un enfrentamiento ininterrumpido con los medios de prensa.

Una encuesta reciente de la empresa Gallup mostró que apenas 38 por ciento de los estadounidenses aprueba la labor de Trump, mientras el promedio de sondeos que elabora el sitio RealClearPolitics le otorgó 45 por ciento de apoyo entre los ciudadanos y 50,2 por ciento de rechazo.

Las cifras lo convierten en el mandatario con menor aceptación en la historia norteamericana a un mes de su inauguración, de acuerdo con estudiosos del tema, a lo que se une una cobertura negativa de los medios frente a sus polémicas decisiones y planteamientos.

El bloqueo en los tribunales federales a la orden ejecutiva para evitar la entrada a Estados Unidos de ciudadanos de Irán, Iraq, Siria, Yemen, Somalia, Sudán y Libia fue de acuerdo con criterio de expertos, el acto más controversial del mandatario hasta la fecha.

En ese sentido, recibió dos golpes decisivos, el primero cuando el juez James Robart, del occidental estado de Washington, congeló dicho decreto y después en el momento en que esa decisión la ratificaron tres jueces de la Corte de Apelaciones del Noveno Circuito, en San Francisco, California.

Uno de los reveses más significativos para Trump en las últimas semanas fue la renuncia del exgeneral Michael Flynn, asesor de Seguridad Nacional, ante alegaciones de que no informó de manera apropiada sobre sus conversaciones con el embajador ruso en Washington, Sergey I. Kislyak.

Entre los logros de Trump en el período, publicaciones especializadas señalan la confirmación en el Senado de la nueva secretaria de Educación, la multimillonaria Betsy DeVos, y de Scott Pruitt, quien estará al frente de la Agencia de Protección del Medio Ambiente.

También dio luz verde a la reanudación de las obras de los oleoductos Keystone XL y Dakota Access, a pesar de las protestas de los ambientalistas y la oposición de los demócratas.

Durante un acto celebrado este sábado en Melbourne, Florida, el gobernante volvió a su habitual tono de campaña, y logró reunir allí a más de nueve mil personas, de acuerdo con estimaciones de la policía local.

En su discurso, Trump afirmó que ‘la Casa Blanca funciona muy bien’, una afirmación que según medios de prensa contradice los reportes de sus propios ayudantes, aliados y adversarios.

Trump mencionó en Melbourne un número de supuestos enemigos: los demócratas, terroristas, jueces, miembros de bandas y carteles de la droga, desconocidos que llegan desde otros países y sobre todo los periodistas.

El jefe de la Casa Blanca prometió allí reducir los impuestos a las grandes corporaciones, aumentar los gastos militares, disminuir las regulaciones destinadas a proteger el medio ambiente; así como reemplazar la Ley de Salud Asequible (Obamacare), aprobada en 2010 por el presidente Barack Obama.

Algunos señalan que el principal problema de Trump es que está más interesado en participar en campañas proselitistas que en dirigir el país, y según sus propios consejeros, es incapaz de centrarse en asuntos de Gobierno durante períodos prolongados, pues prefiere ver la televisión o llamar a sus amigos en Nueva York.

Las posiciones cambiantes y los frecuentes twits de Trump en diferentes aspectos de la vida política y económica del país, obstaculizan el control de la estructura del poder federal y la concreción de las medidas que debe adoptar, estima Josh Dawsey en un artículo publicado este lunes en RealClearPolitics.

Según, Niall Stanage, el presidente Trump conmemora su primer mes en la Casa Blanca golpeado por una serie de controversias, pero con una posición inflexible al aseverar que está cumpliendo las promesas que lo llevaron a la victoria electoral en las presidenciales del 8 de noviembre pasado.

Stanage recordó este lunes en el diario The Hill que la credibilidad del nuevo gobernante sufrió un fuerte daño, incluso el día de su estreno el 20 de enero, cuando el Secretario de Prensa de la Casa Blanca, Sean Spicer, insistió, en que la audiencia asistente a la inauguración de Trump fue la más grande en la historia del país, a pesar de las evidencias en sentido contrario.

Prensa Latina

Bolivia y en Ecuador los movimientos sociales se han cansado de tumbar a gobiernos neoliberales y han decidido, finalmente, fundar sus propios partidos y lanzar candidatos a la presidencia de la nación. Mientras tanto, en el marco del Foro Social Mundial, o al lado de él, ONGs, algunos movimientos sociales e intelectuales de Europa y América Latina se oponían a esa vía y proponían la “autonomía de los movimientos sociales”. Esto es, no deberían meterse en política ni con el Estado, menos todavía con la  política. 

En Argentina, frente a la peor crisis económica, política y social de su historia, los movimientos renunciaron a lanzar candidaturas a la presidencia de la República con el slogan: “Que se vayan todos”. El resultado: Menem ganó en la primera vuelta, prometiendo que iba a dolarizar definitivamente la economía argentina, con lo cual llevaría a la ruina sin retorno no sólo a la Argentina, sino a todos los procesos de integración latinoamericana.

La ilusión despolitizada y corporativa del “Que se vayan todos” dejaría el campo libre para esa monstruosa operación menemista, con los efectos negativos en toda la región. La ilusión era la de que ellos se irían, sin que se los hicieran irse, sin que fueran derrotados con un proyecto superador del neoliberalismo. Felizmente apareció Néstor Kirchner, que asumió la presidencia del país, para iniciar el rescate más espectacular que Argentina haya conocido de su economía, de los derechos sociales de los trabajadores y del prestigio del Estado.

Mientras tanto, movimientos que habian adherido a la tesis de la autonomía de los movimientos sociales, como los piqueteros argentinos, simplemente desaparecieron. En México, después del enorme prestigio que habían tenido, al asumir una posición semejante –”Cambiar el mundo sin tomar el poder”, de John Holloway y Toni Negri, quien condenaba a los Estados como superados instrumentos conservadores–, los zapatistas han desaparecido de la escena política nacional, recluidos en Chiapas, el estado más pobre de México. Más de 20 años después, ni Chiapas, ni Mexico fueron transformados sin tomar el poder, hasta que los zapatistas han decidido lanzar a una dirigente indígena a la presidencia del país. Aun sin decir que van a transformar el país con una victoria electoral, pero saliendo de su aislamiento en Chiapas para volver a participar de la vida política nacional de México, abandonando sus posiciones de simple denuncia de las elecciones y de abstención.

Mientras tanto, Bolivia y Ecuador, rompiendo con esa visión estrecha de restringir a los movimientos sociales solamente a la resistencia al neoliberalismo, han fundado partidos –MAS en Bolivia, Alianza PAIS en Ecuador–, presentaron candidatos a la presidencia –Evo Morales y Rafael Correa–, han triunfado y pusieron en práctica los procesos de mayor éxito en la transformación económica, social, política y cultural de América Latina en el siglo XXI. Han refundado sus Estados nacionales, impuesto el desarrollo económico con distribución de la renta, se han aliado a los procesos de integración regional, al mismo tiempo que han integrado las más amplias capas del pueblo a los procesos de democratización política.

Al contrario del fracaso de las tesis de la autonomía de los movimientos sociales, que han renunciado a la disputa por la hegemonía alternativa a nivel nacional y de lucha por la construcción concreta de alternativas al neoliberalismo, bajo la dirección de Evo Morales y de Rafael Correa, Bolivia y Ecuador han demostrado como solamente la articulación entre la lucha social y la lucha política, entre los movimientos sociales y los partidos políticos, es posible construir bloques de fuerza capaces de avanzar decisivamente en la superación del neoliberalismo.

Las tesis de Toni Negri sobre el fin del imperialismo y de los Estados nacionales fueron rotundamente desmentidas ya desde la acción imperialista después de las acciones del 2001, mientras que los gobiernos sudamericanos han demostrado que solamente con el rescate del Estado es posible implementar políticas antineoliberales, como el desarrollo económico con distribución del ingreso. La pobreza persistente en Chiapas puede ser comparada con los avances espectaculares realizados, por ejemplo, en todas las provincias de Bolivia, para demostrar, también por las vias de los hechos, cómo la acción desde abajo tiene que ser combinada con la acción de los Estados, si queremos efectivamente transformar al mundo.

Otras tesis, como las de varias ONG o de Boaventura de Sousa Santos, de optar por una “sociedad civil” en la lucha en contra del Estado, no puede presentar ningún ejemplo concreto de resultados positivos, aun con las ambiguas alianzas con fuerzas neoliberales y de derecha, que también se oponen al Estado y hacen alianza con ONGs y con intelectuales para oponerse a gobiernos como los de Evo Morales y de Rafael Correa, pero también en contra de otros gobiernos progresistas en América Latina.Tienen en común visiones liberales del mundo.

Además del fracaso teórico de las tesis de la autonomía de los movimientos sociales, se les puede contraponer los extraordinarios avances económicos, sociales, políticos, en países como Argentina, Brasil, Venezuela, Uruguay, además de los ya mencionados, como pruebas de la verdad de las tesis de la lucha antineoliberal como la lucha central de nuestro tiempo.

Emir Sader

Emir Sader: Sociólogo y científico político brasileño, es coordinador del Laboratorio de Políticas Públicas de la Universidad Estadual de Rio de Janeiro (UERJ).

Aunque hasta ayer no se conocía el resultado definitivo de los comicios presidenciales del domingo pasado en Ecuador, las tendencias sobre 88.75 por ciento de los votos escrutados indican que el candidato oficialista, Lenin Moreno, se quedó a unas décimas del 40 por ciento de los votos requeridos para ser proclamado presidente electo, por lo que el país andino habrá de ir a una segunda vuelta, que deberá disputarse entre Moreno y el opositor derechista Guillermo Lasso.

Es pertinente recordar que, según las leyes electorales ecuatorianas, para que un aspirante presidencial pueda ganar en primera vuelta debe obtener, además del 40 por ciento de los votos válidos, diez puntos de ventaja sobre su rival más cercano. Este segundo requisito podría cumplirse, habida cuenta de que hasta el cierre de esta edición Lasso, con cerca del 28.31, estaba por debajo de esa diferencia.

Lo cierto es que, aun si Alianza País, el partido progresista del presidente saliente Rafael Correa, logra conservar el gobierno en una segunda vuelta, Ecuador experimenta el reflujo de los programas políticos similares que fueron desalojados del poder el año pasado, en elecciones en Argentina y por medio de un golpe de estado parlamentario en Brasil.

Al desgaste lógico del ejercicio de la presidencia debe sumarse el retroceso económico experimentado en los últimos años por la región, pero acaso también el sistemático golpeteo oligárquico en contra del gobierno de Correa y las desavenencias en la izquierda por el respaldo de éste a los sectores extractivistas, que generó un malestar inocultable en pueblos indígenas y movimientos ambientalistas.

ONU Mujeres está profundamente preocupada por la brutal violencia sexual y el asesinato de mujeres y niñas que ha sido recientemente señalada por las mujeres en Argentina y que repercute en toda América Latina y más allá.

Esta es una forma de terror íntimo que ha sido normalizada en su magnitud y a través de la aceptación de su inevitabilidad en algunas partes. Pero no es normal y no puede continuar. Más allá de los costos personales inaceptables, se revelan profundos y perjudiciales fallos de la sociedad que últimamente tienen un alto costo en la pérdida de progreso en cada país. Unimos nuestras voces a todos aquellos que dicen “Ni una menos” y llamamos a acciones urgentes en todos los niveles, desde los gobiernos hasta las personas que impulsan cambios, para prevenir que no haya ni un solo asesinato más.

La violencia contra las mujeres y las niñas debe parar. Primero de todo, el reciente caso de femicidio de una adolescente en Argentina y el asesinato de una niña de 9 años en Chile no deben quedar sin castigo. Globalmente, la impunidad es un elemento clave en la perpetuación de la violencia y la discriminación contra las mujeres.

Si los hombres pueden tratar a las mujeres tan mal como quieran con pocas o ninguna consecuencia, ello niega todos los esfuerzos para construir un mundo que sea seguro para las mujeres y las niñas y en el que ellas puedan florecer. Globalmente, unas 60.000 mujeres y niñas son asesinadas cada año, con frecuencia como una escalada de violencia doméstica. Estudios nacionales en Sudáfrica y Brasil estiman que cada seis horas una mujer es asesinada por su compañero íntimo.

El hogar no es un refugio y es arriesgado para las mujeres denunciar a sus agresores. Salir al exterior también comporta peligros. Estudios recientes en Brasil indican que el 85 por ciento de las mujeres tienen miedo a salir a la calle. En Port Moresby, Papúa Nueva Guinea, en torno al 90 por ciento de mujeres y niñas han experimentado alguna forma de violencia sexual cuando acceden al transporte público. Como comunidad internacional hemos articulado fuertemente su espacio propio para una población pujante de mujeres y niñas, y las múltiples formas en que esto es mejor para todos.

Desde la Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible adoptada en septiembre de 2015 hasta la Nueva Agenda Urbana adoptada esta semana, está claro que debemos acabar con la violencia y prevenir su repetición. Ello requiere de leyes y políticas públicas, ciudades seguras, transporte público, mejores servicios y el compromiso de hombres y niños en la construcción de una cultura que acabe con todas las formas de discriminación contra las mujeres y niñas y que lleve al fin del femicidio.

El cambio debe suceder a muchos niveles, tanto en las estructuras culturales como físicas de nuestras sociedades. Trabajamos de cerca con la sociedad civil y el movimiento feminista, que han sido actores clave en la denuncia de la violencia, impulsando el cambio de políticas y proponiendo soluciones. Para recoger más información y apoyar el fin de la impunidad, junto a la Oficina del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos (OACNUDH), hemos desarrollado un modelo de protocolo que permite investigar este tipo de crímenes adecuadamente para acabar con la impunidad, además de identificar las brechas en la cadena de investigación para lograr prevenir los femicidios.

Vamos a usarlo inicialmente para la investigación del femicidio en América Latina, donde el número de países con altas tasas de femicidio está creciendo. Estamos alineadas con la Relatora Especial de Naciones Unidas para la Violencia contra las Mujeres, sus causas y sus consecuencias, que ha llamado al establecimiento de un observatorio global de femicidio con un panel interdisciplinario de expertos para recolectar y analizar datos sobre femicidios. Existen algunos progresos alentadores: en América Latina, 16 países —casi la mitad de los países en la región— han adoptado legislación para asegurar que el femicidio es adecuadamente investigado y castigado. Esto debe ser una tendencia global.

No es la responsabilidad de un solo sector, pero sí un esfuerzo colectivo y coordinado. Llamamos a que los gobiernos reconozcan la magnitud y las implicaciones de la violencia contra las mujeres y las niñas, y se comprometan a recoger datos con los cuales cuantificarla y no sólo a proveer servicios para las sobrevivientes y víctimas, sino a incrementar sustantivamente una fuerte acción judicial para lograr el cierre de casos y las respectivas condenas; además de esfuerzos constructivos y creativos para prevenir y castigar todos los crímenes violentos contra las mujeres y las niñas.

A nivel mundial, el año pasado suscribimos el objetivo de igualdad de género y eliminación de todas las formas de violencia contra las mujeres y las niñas. Lograr esto no es solo el fin de una terrible violación de los derechos humanos, es la clave para la construcción de un mundo mejor y más equitativo —un planeta 50–50.

Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka

Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka: Directora Ejecutiva de ONU Mujeres.

Vitaly Churkin was one of the wisest voices in international diplomacy.  His voice will no longer echo in the halls of the United Nations. Articulate, polite yet commanding, wise yet affable, he oversaw some of Russia’s and the world’s most important events in a position he occupied since 2006.

Churkin had to face a great deal of hostile criticism from both the Bush and Obama administrations during his time at the UN, but he always did so with grace. He never failed to explain the Russian position with the utmost clarity.

Standing next to some of his colleagues, he often looked like a titan in a room full of school children.

His death, a day before his 65th birthday, is a tragedy first and foremost for his family, friends and colleagues. It is also a deeply sad day for the cause of justice, international law and all of the principles of the UN Charter which Churkin admirably upheld in the face of great obstacles.

His death however raises many uncomfortable questions…

Here are 5 things that must be considered:

1.  A Macabre Pattern Has Emerged

Beginning in 2015, there were several deaths within the Russian Diplomatic corps and a special Russian Presidential adviser.

–LESIN

First there was Russia’s RT founder and special adviser to President Putin, Mikhail Lesin. He died in November of 2015 in his hotel room. Reports said that he appeared discombobulated during his last sighting before he died. Later it emerged that he died of a blunt head trauma. Drinking was blamed, but many questions were left unanswered.

–MALANIN

Earlier last month, Andrei Malanin, a Senior Russian Diplomat to Greece was found dead in his bathroom. The causes of death remain unknown.

–KADAKIN

Just last month, Russia’s Ambassador to India, Alexander Kadakin, an always prestigious role, died of a heart attack, although no one was aware of any previous health issues.

–KARLOV

In December of last year Russia’s Ambassador to Turkey was assassinated by a lone jihadi gunmen in an art gallery.  There was no effective security as the killer simply walked up to Ambassador Andrei Karlov and shot him multiple times in the back.

–CHURKIN

Vitaly Chirkin is the highest profile member of Russia’s diplomatic corps to die in recent years.

2. A Motive For Foul Play?

Each of the recently deceased Russian Ambassadors were high profile targets for miscreants and criminals, whether state actors, mercenaries or fanatics.

Lesin was a instrumental in the creation of RT, a news outlet which has come under constant attack from the western establishment.

Malanin had overseen a period of warming fraternal relations between Greece and Russia at a time when Greece is feeling increasingly alienated from both the EU and NATO.

Karlov is said to be responsible for helping to facilitate the rapprochement between Presidents Erdogan and Putin.

Kadakin oversaw a period of renewed tensions between India and Pakistan at a time when Russia was trying to continue its good relations with India whilst building good relations with Pakistan.

On the 31st of December, 2016, Churkin’s resolution on a ceasefire in Syria passed in the UN Security Council after months of deadlock. The resolution is still in force.

Anyone who wanted to derail the diplomatic successes that the aforementioned men achieved for Russia would have a clear motive to extract vengeance.

3. Who Stands To Gain?

In the matter of Karlov, any derailment of restored Russo-Turkish relations would be good for those happy for Turkey to continue her support of jihadists in Syria rather than moving towards accepting a Russian and indeed Iranian brokered peace process which respects the sovereignty of Syria as Russia and Iran always have, but Turkey has not.

In the case of Lesin, anyone wanting ‘vengeance’ for RT’s popularity would be able to say that a kind of former media boss was taken down.

For Malanin, many fear that if ‘Grexit’ happens, Russia will become an increasingly important partner for Greece. The EU would not like one of its vassal states enjoying fruitful relations with Russia, a country still under sanctions from Brussels.

For Kadakin, it is a matter of interest for those wanting Pakistan to continue favouring western powers and not wanting Russia to be able to mediate in conflict resolutions between New Delhi and Islamabad.

Churkin had come to dominate the UN in ways that his counterparts on the Security Council simply could not. No one really stood a chance in a debate with Churkin. His absence leaves open the possibility for a power vacuum that would makes other peoples’ jobs easier.

4. Where The Deaths Took Place

Each death took place on foreign soil. Mr. Karlov’s killing in particular, exposed the weakness of his security contingent. If security was that weak in a comparatively volatile place like Turkey, it goes without saying that security in states considered more politically stable would be even more lax.

Again it must be said that a non-biased detective might say that the only pattern which has emerged is that many people in the Russian diplomatic corps and related institutions have heart attacks. Maybe they eat fatty foods every day and drink and smoke too much. But if this was this case, why are the heart attacks all on foreign soil?

If all of the former Ambassadors except Karlov were really in bad health, is it really just a coincidence that none of these men had a health scare on Russian soil? Again, a pattern has emerged.

5. The Ethics of Speculation?

Many will say that it is too early to suspect foul play. Indeed, I must make it clear that this is simply speculation based on a pattern of tragic and at times unexplained events, combined with the objective reality that because of Russia’s recently elevated profile as a born-again geopolitical superpower, Russia is a bigger target for international criminals than it was in the broken 1990s or the more quiet early 2000s.

When such events happen, one’s duty is to speculate so that better health and  safety precautions are taken to ensure the wellbeing of Russia’s important diplomats. Furthermore, if foul play is a factor, it means that such seemingly unrelated events must be investigated more thoroughly.

Russia has historically suffered from invasion, revolution and more recently from immense international pressure. The Russian people, like Russia’s ambassadors are entitled to the peace and long lives deserved by any member of a country that has suffered for too long.

It is not a secret that on January 25, 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump proposed to set up so-called “safe zones” in Syria. In addition, recently, he said that Gulf States would pay for them.

Nowadays, it is unclear whether these plans are directed to the benefit of the Syrian people, or it is just another maneuver to delay the process of the peaceful settlement of the Syrian crisis.

Talking about the reasons of his proposal, Donald Trump confined himself to a massive influx of refugees from Syria and Iraq in the EU. According to him, “safe zones” are able to defend Europeans from terrorists, who sneak into Europe disguised as migrants.

According to Reuters, Trump is expected to order the Pentagon and the State Department in the coming days to come up with a plan for the zones. However, it isn’t clear, what these safe zones mean for Trump. If this is the territory, in which the civilian population would be guaranteed safety, it is one matter. If this plan includes the establishment of no-fly zones, it is a different one.

After Trump’s statement about his plans to establish a so-called “safe zone” in Syria, foreign media reported that Donald Trump intends to establish no-fly zones in it. In addition, the protection of these areas is likely to require the deployment of the U.S. military in the region. Barack Obama once tried to avoid this for fear of getting bogged down in the Syrian conflict.

Apparently, in any case, it is not allowed to set up such zones in places, where the Syrian Army conducts combat operations against terrorists. This will eliminate the possibility of effective fighting against extremists, who may take shelter from the air strikes in these zones.

However, the initiative of the U.S. president on the establishment of “safe zones” was supported by Turkey. In addition, according to reliable sources, a few days ago, the United States and Turkey made arrangements for joining efforts to establish such zones.

Meanwhile, it should be mentioned that the King of Saudi Arabia, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, during a telephone conversation with Donald Trump, also supported the establishment of “safe zones” in Syria and Yemen. So, why did Saudi Arabia support this idea? What is its real aim? It is known that Saudi Arabia financed and armed terrorists in Syria throughout the conflict.

Apparently, the idea of “safe zones” only seems like a step aimed at the settlement of the issue of refugees. In fact, there are many pitfalls, which the U.S. administration prefers not to talk about.

It’s most likely that the idea about the establishment of the “safe zones” was suggested because of the desire of some countries to continue to provide support to illegal armed groups, and to slow down the process of political settlement of the Syrian crisis as much as possible. It is possible that the establishment of such zones means that it can actually be created an enclave, where militants and terrorists will be under the protection of their powerful patrons on the territory of Syria.

Two days ago the Takfiri Islamist leader Omar Abdul-Rahman , the so called “Blind Sheik”, died in a U.S. prison. He had been found guilty of involvement in the 1993 attempt to bring down the World Trade Center in New York and of other crimes.

The obituaries of Omar Abdul-Rahman in U.S. media are an example of white washing of the U.S. exploitation of radical Islamism for its imperial purposes. While extensively documented in earlier media and official reports the CIA’s facilitation and involvement with Abdul-Rahman is seemingly stricken from history.

Since the 1970s Omar Abdul-Rahman was involved in the growth of radical Sunni Islamism:

Founded in 1976, Faisal Islamic Bank of Egypt (FIBE) is part of the banking empire built by Saudi Prince Mohammed al-Faisal. Several of the founding members are leading members of the Muslim Brotherhood, including the “Blind Sheikh,” Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman.

Financed by Saudi sources Abdul-Rahman created various groups of radicals in Egypt and gets deeply involved with Al-Qaeda, recruiting fighters for Afghanistan in cooperation with the CIA and the Pakistani secret services. He was the ideological leader of Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, an Islamic radical organization in Egypt responsible for several terrorist attacks. He traveled to the U.S. several timed between 1986 and 1990 to further his violent ideology. His visas were issued by CIA agents despite his appearance on a State Department terrorism watch list. In 1990 he moves to the U.S. where he preached his violent Islam and continued to recruit fighters for radical causes.

In December 1990 the New York Times reported:

The 52-year-old religious leader, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, entered the country more than five months ago despite being on a State Department list of people with ties to terrorist groups, the authorities said. He illegally obtained a tourist visa from a consul in the United States Embassy in Khartoum, the Sudan, in May, according to records of the Federal Immigration and Naturalization Service and State Department officials.

In July 1993 the NYT reported that “illegally obtained tourist visa” was not illegal at all:

Central Intelligence Agency officers reviewed all seven applications made by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman to enter the United States between 1986 and 1990 and only once turned him down because of his connections to terrorism, Government officials said today.
…
Mr. Abdel Rahman helped to recruit Arab Muslims to fight in the American-backed war in Afghanistan, and his lawyer and Egyptian officials have said he was helped by the C.I.A. to enter the United States.
…
American officials had acknowledged last week that the diplomat at the United States Embassy in Khartoum who signed the May 1990 visa request that allowed Mr. Abdel Rahman to enter the United States was in fact a C.I.A. officer.

Several attempts to remove Abdel-Rahman from the U.S. mysteriously failed. In 1991 he was inexplicably granted a Green Card despite still being blacklisted.

His involvement in the 1993 WTC bombing was a typical “blowback” from the CIA’s chronic support of radical takfiri Islamism, supported by Saudi Arabia, whenever it helps its “regime change” plans here or there. Over the last years such CIA support led to the growth of Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.

After the recent death of Omar Abdul-Rahman several obituaries appeared in U.S. media. But none of them mention or dig into his deep and long CIA connections and the continuing CIA support for radical Islamism.

There is zero mentioning of the CIA and the visa shenanigans in his NYT obit, despite its earlier reporting. Neither the Associated Press nor AFP mention any connection to the CIA. The British service Reuters buries the visa story in one sentence in the 12th paragraph.

That the deep involvement over the years of the CIA (and FBI) in the crimes Omar Abdul-Rahman is now swept under the carpet and forgotten is not just coincidentally. It is a distinct feature of U.S. political culture.

The British poet Harold Pinter referred to this in his 2005 Nobel lecture:

It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest.

I have called this chronic forgetfulness the concept of immaculate conception of U.S. (foreign) policy. There never is an acknowledged history of U.S. misdeeds that may have led to this or that current blowback. When there is one it immediately gets buried, pushed out of sight, never to be talked about. The same applies to partisan policies within the U.S.

Currently the fake “resistance” against a Trump presidency blasts his policy of seeking better relations with Russia, his temporary travel ban reference to seven specific countries and his words against media leaks. But it was the Secretary of State Clinton who initiated a “reset” with Russia, it was the Obama administration that set a ban on those seven countries and it was the Obama justice department that used the espionage act against journalists for publishing leaked material. That all is now forgotten and not to be talked about.

Likewise the deep CIA connection with Omar Abdul-Rahman is now scrubbed from any of the semi-official media reporting. This at the same time the CIA continues its involvement with radical Islamists in Syria and elsewhere.

Pinter continued his lecture:

The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.
…

To not be taken in by the “immaculate conception” mechanism I recommend to reread or watch Pinter’s lecture every once a while.

One hardly expects a story of political struggle to feature a team of intemperate young women racing their cars around a dusty, fenced-in track. But in a Palestinian context, everything is political. Even if the new film Speed Sisters  doesn’t chronicle an explicit struggle, it’s a portrait of a people whose determination will remind Israelis that resistance to their occupation is not moribund.

My January review of Ghada Karmi’s memoir Return, points to inexorable expressions of what it means to be Palestinian, how memories ofPalestine are inexhaustible. Surely a half century of pursuits by writers, journalists, artists, lawyers, and three generations of boys-with-stones testify to the compelling Palestinian narrative, propelled by the unquenchable energy of these people and the virtue of their mission.

Some stories are tragic, some heroic (and at the same time tragic), some little more than nostalgia, and others simply facts-on-the-ground. Some, like Return, are forlorn and, grudgingly, sadly honest.

Filmmaking too documents the unfolding, always unfolding, story of Palestine. There was The Wanted 18, Amer Shomali’s 2014 animated Palestinian film told from the viewpoint of dairy cows deemed a threat to Israeli security. Elia Suleiman’s productions (Chronicle of a Disappearance, Divine Intervention, The Time That Remains) are augmented by Nida Sinnokrot’s documentary Palestine Blues, focusing on the destiny of a farm tractor. Mai Masri, director of nine films, continues a distinguished career with a new production, “3000 Nights”, now opening in several US cities.

Veteran filmmaker Masri is joined by a notable new generation of mainly women, among them Palestinians Annemarie Jacir (Salt of the Sea), and Cherien Dabis (Amreeka). Canadians Ruba Nadda (Cairo Time) , and Nadine Labaki (Caramel and Where Do We Go Now? ) are well established feature filmmakers. Among newcomers are Rola Nashef (Detroit Unleaded) and Amber Fares, director of Speed Sisters opening inNew York this month. A new twist on the Palestinian experience, these ‘speed sisters’ are four feisty women and their team captain. They’re race car drivers spinning and screeching their vehicles through courses inBethlehem,Jericho, and their hometown Ramallah. In sync with these women, the film is a fast-paced, raucous adventure that follows their pride, their energy and their drive to win.

Fares sets her camera sometimes from within the women’s vehicles, sometimes in the middle of the dusty course as the racer spins and roars around her, sometimes in her home, sometimes among youths cheering her on from the bleachers, all this within sight of ubiquitous Israeli troops. (All spaces here are militarily occupied.)

Car racing started in Palestine in 2005 and women joined the sport hardly a year later. One can’t help admiring these women. Each snaps on her helmet and grits her teeth, jaws set firmly on victory even against competing teammates. We have the firm impression that each knows what she’s doing and knows what she wants. Director Fares interweaves raucous racing scenes into the women’s encounters with military occupation—passing through checkpoints en route toJerusalem, slipping away for a day at the beach near Tel Aviv, courting a tear gas attack when they playfully approach an Israeli patrol.

If we as viewers remove ourselves from the excitement of the chase and the energy of each racer’s personality, we might ask: where could this thrilling hobby possibly lead, for the individual women, and for Palestinian political aspirations?

On her drive to Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem to pray, team captain Maysoon is assaulted by young boys selling balloons. In the moments when the camera catches their stubborn exchange with Maysoon, we can feel the boldness of those boys, the same resolve that infuses these women racers. Their life is really tough, and they won’t give up. You don’t want to mess with this crowd.

Barbara Nimri Aziz, a New York-based anthropologist and writer, hosted RadioTahrir on Pacifica-WBAI in New York City for 24 years. Her 2007 book Swimming Up the Tigris: Real Life Encounters with Iraq is based on her 13 years covering Iraq. Aziz’ writings and radio productions can be accessed at www.RadioTahrir.org.

The petition: 

Canada’s military mission to Ukraine expires in March. For several reasons, it shouldn’t be renewed.

First, the present Ukrainian government, installed in a coup orchestrated by Washington, isn’t  worthy of our support. According to the BBC, former US Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, admitted that the U.S.A. spent $5 billion over a number of years to instigate regime change in Ukraine.

Second, the agents of regime change recruited by Nuland were none other than gangs of thugs from several fascist parties, remnants of the very same Ukrainian fascists allied to Hitler in WW 2. They fought soldiers and police in the main squares of Kiev and other cities.  Canadian veterans might be surprised to learn that the Trudeau government is considering renewing Canada’s military mission to a country with the same fascists they fought in WW 2.

Third, the Ukrainian junta immediately implemented divisive policies, such as banning some of the country’s most popular political parties as well as the use of the Russian language. It seems logical that Crimea would have been less likely have voted to leave and rejoin Russia, and Eastern Russian-speaking regions would been much more hesitant to seek independence if a more moderate and tolerant government took office in the proper constitutional methods.

A fourth reason is the reaction of the Ukrainian government to the brutal Odessa massacre of May 2, 2014. On that day, over 40 peaceful anti-government protesters were killed and some 200 injured when pro-government thugs set fire to the Trade Union House in which they had taken shelter. This incident has not been properly investigated and no culprits arrested or punished.

The fifth reason to be against renewal of Canada’s military mission is that contrary to the promises made to the last Soviet president, Mikhaill Gorbachev, NATO expansion continued to the east, along with a continuing military build up along its western borders, even bringing in former Soviet republics into NATO. It is understandable why the Russians would think there is an attempt to encircle them, especially now with the possibility of Ukrainian membership in NATO. We should remember that Russia was invaded twice in the twentieth century from the West costing tens of millions of Russian lives and huge devastation. A major war, possibly WW 3, could develop from western war games and aggressive expansion along the Russian frontier and being involved in conflict zones in Eastern Ukraine.It’s time that the Trudeau government broke with aggressive Harper-era policies and dealt fairly and diplomatically with the Russian Federation.

For this reason, it would be far wiser for the Trudeau government not to extend the military mission to Ukraine and to pull its troops and equipment out of all the frontier states with Russia. Indeed, Canadians would benefit from cutting ties with NATO altogether and pursuing instead a peaceful, humane, and independent foreign policy.

The petition has garnered 96 signatures in four days.

The HCSW intends to lobby local MP’s on the issue and co-ordinate with anti-war groups across the country to do the same.

For further information, please contact Ken Stone at 905-383-7693 or [email protected].

Pro-Turkish militants and the Turkish army have still been facing difficulties in breaking ISIS defenses around al-Bab. Turkey-led forces have failed to seize Qabasin and Bzaah, and retreated from almost all areas seized inside al-Bab. Intense fighting is ongoing.

Meanwhile, the Syrian army, supported by the Russian Aerospace Forces, continued its operation against ISIS terrorists east of the Kuweires Airbase, outflanking Deir Hafer from the northern direction.

The Syrian army has liberated a number of sites along the Homs-Palmyra highway from ISIS and is now in about 13km from the Palmyra triangle, an important logistical site near the western gates of Palmyra. However, government forces still have to liberate at least Jazar fields, the Hamrah Mount and the Hayal Mount in order to at least partly secure their flags before the storm of Palmyra.

Fighting has been ongoing in the Manshiyah neighborhood of the city of Daraa in southwestern Syria. According to pro-militant sources, 30 government troops, including 12 officers, had been killed, 2 battle tanks, two 23mm guns and a buldozer belonging to the Syrian army had been destroyed. The joint forces of the Free Syrian Army’s Southern Front and Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda) had allegedly captured a 14,5mm gun and tank projectiles. However, the militant advance faced a deadlock and now sides are engaged in a positional warfare in an urban area.

Turkey has suggested to the United States two plans of an operation to “liberate” the city of Raqqah from ISIS, the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet reported on Saturday. According to the report, the Turkish military chief Hulusi Akar had submitted the proposals to his US counterpart Joseph Dunford. Then, Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım said that Turkey will not get directly involved in an operation to liberate Syria’s Raqqa from ISIS, but instead it will provide tactical support. “The United States, Turkey along with local forces, civilian forces, the FSA and other militias… they are at the forefront while we are at the back,” Yıldırım told reporters in Munich where he is attending a security conference. In other words, Turkey’s involvement in the operation remains unclear.

Turkey launched a military intervention in Syria in August 2016, deploying troops and heavy military equipment, backed up by warplanes across the border in an operation allegedly aimed against ISIS terrorists. However, another clear goal of this move was to prevent expansion of the Kurdish YPG in northern Syria along with the Turkish border. This creates significant tensions between US-backed Kurdish forces involved in the ongoing operation against ISIS in the Raqqah countryside and Turkish forces.

The Writers Guild Awards on Sunday night took a cue from the rest of awards season in being fairly Trump-heavy, including several shots at the commander-in-chief. But Oliver Stone, who was on hand at the WGAW ceremony to accept the Laurel Award, gave a more bipartisan critique of America in an impassioned message to young filmmakers.

After being introduced by James Wood, Stone told reminded filmmakers that “you can be critical of your government and your society.”

You don’t have to fit in,” the Oscar-winner went on. “It’s fashionable now to take shots at Republicans and Trump and avoid the Obamas and Clintons. But remember this: In the 13 wars we’ve started over the last 30 years and the $14 trillion we’ve spent, and the hundreds of thousands of lives that have perished from this earth, remember that it wasn’t one leader, but a system, both Republican and Democrat. Call it what you will: the military industrial money media security complex. It’s a system that has been perpetuated under the guise that these are just wars justifiable in the name of our flag that flies so proudly.

DAVID BUCHAN/VARIETY/REX/SHUTTERSTOCK

 

Stone continued that our “country has become more prosperous for many but in the name of that wealth we cannot justify our system as a center for the world’s values. But we continue to create such chaos and wars. No need to go through the victims, but we know we’ve intervened in more than 100 countries with invasion, regime change, economic chaos. Or hired war. It’s war of some kind. In the end, it’s become a system leading to the death of this planet and the extinction of us all.”

He concluded with advice based on his own experiences. “I’ve fought these people who practice war for most of my life. It’s a tiring game. And mostly you’ll get your a– kicked. With all the criticism and insults you’ll receive, and the flattery too, it’s important to remember, if you believe in what you’re saying and you can stay the course, you can make a difference,” he said.

I urge you to find a way to remain alone with yourself, listen to your silences, not always in a writer’s room. Try to find not what the crowd wants so you can be successful, but try instead to find the true inner meaning of your life here on earth, and never give up on your heart in your struggle for peace, decency, and telling the truth.

Stone has never been one to shy away from politics — to say the very least. During a speech at the Gotham Independent Film Awards in November, the “Snowden” director made a point to reference national security under a Trump administration. “The surveillance state, ‘1984,’ cyberwarfare, drone warfare is with us,” he said at the time. He’s been open about his political beliefs, and voted for Jill Stein in the 2016 presidential election.

Pentagon wars and capitalist exploitation at the root of instability and dislocation

Members of the United States government spoke in Germany at the Munich Security Conference (MSC) held from February 17-19 in an effort to assuage growing fears in Europe over the apparent escalating official and public disaffection from the administration of President Donald Trump.

Vice President Mike Pence told the MSC that the U.S. commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was “unwavering.” Pence later said that the Russian Federation would be held accountable for actions internationally dispelling the myth that a Trump White House will lessen tensions with Moscow.

Republican Senator John McCain, however, raised questions about the stability of the current regime in Washington assessing that the Trump presidency was in “disarray and had a lot of work to do.” He cited the recent scandal and departure of National Security Advisor Gen. Michael Flynn as firm evidence for his viewpoint on the White House.

Everyday across the U.S. there are demonstrations being held against Trump’s policies which are being enacted through executive orders and presidential memorandums.

From the concerns over escalating military tensions with Iran and China to the domestic protests against the targeting of Muslims, immigrants, women, African Americans, etc., people have come out in the millions to register their opposition. At the same time, high-ranking Democratic Party spokespersons have sought to blame unverified claims of interference from the Russian Federation into the 2016 national presidential elections for the contradictions in the present administration.

Excessive propaganda against Moscow has reached levels not seen since the years prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Socialist states of Eastern Europe. Trump is falsely portrayed by the corporate media as being too close to Russia while at the same time his appointees within the administration are continually voicing hostilities towards the Kremlin.

Sanctions enacted against Russia by former President Barack Obama remain in effect. The Pentagon military buildup within the NATO states in the closing days of the previous administration has not been withdrawn.

These are some of the factors that are fueling speculation over the stability and internal consistency of the Trump White House. During the period leading up to his inauguration, Trump held a conversation with the Taiwanese leader indicating a possible shift in the “one China” policy which has been in operation since 1979. Nevertheless, in recent days it has now been reported that Trump engaged in a conversation with the People’s Republic of China government saying that the “One China” policy is still enforce.

Background to the Munich Security Conference

The annual gathering of the MSC brings together officials and analysts to discuss the major questions surrounding the continuing hegemony of imperialism. Amid economic difficulties and massive population shifts throughout Africa, the Middle East, Asia-Pacific and Europe, the capitalist ruling class of Europe and North America are concerned over the impact of these developments.

This meeting was not only addressed by officials of the leading western imperialist states in Europe and North America. Contrastingly, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke as well calling for the creation of a ‘Post-West World Order.” He described NATO as a relic of the cold war which is not serving the interests of peace and stability.

People’s Republic of China Foreign Minister Wang Yi utilized the summit to express the Asian nation’s opposition to the U.S. defense missile system known as Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD). The Republic of Korea government is scheduled to deploy the system by the end of 2017 ostensibly in response to missile developments taking place in the neighboring Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).

In a post on its website, the MSC says: “Over the past five decades, the Munich Security Conference (MSC) has become the major global forum for the discussion of security policy. Each February, it brings together more than 450 senior decision-makers from around the world, including heads-of-state, ministers, leading personalities of international and non-governmental organizations, as well as high ranking representatives of industry, media, academia, and civil society, to engage in an intensive debate on current and future security challenges.”

This same entry goes on noting that: “In addition to its annual flagship conference, the MSC regularly convenes high-profile events on particular topics and regions and publishes the Munich Security Report. All its activities aim at offering the best possible platforms for a frank and open exchange of ideas and opinions.”

Nonetheless, there is a seemingly unease between the White House and the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany combined with the Brussels-based and U.S.-directed NATO military alliance.

Moreover, Merkel has clashed with other European states of the former socialist bloc such as Hungary in a dispute over the influx of migrants from Africa, the Middle East and Asian-Pacific countries. Pressure is emerging strongly from right-wing political parties not only in Germany but many other states including the Netherlands, Britain and France who are saying that the existing governments are not going far enough in curtailing immigration from these above-mentioned nations along with Eastern Europe.

In this MSC context what is often not discussed in detail are the reasons behind the current instability and dislocation around the world. The wars of occupation and genocide waged against the peoples of Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Libya, Syria and Yemen are to blame in part for the current crisis.

At the same time the role of international finance capital is also responsible for the mass poverty and economic underdevelopment. Over the last two years the impact of the over production of oil and natural gas has triggered problems of declining growth rates, growing unemployment and poverty. People are fleeing their home countries due to the horrendous social conditions that are in existence.

Several years prior, reports abounded of the phenomenal economic growth that was taking place in Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Latin America. However, the dependence upon oil revenues in countries such as Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador, Russia, Nigeria, Angola, etc., has plunged millions back into poverty and uncertainty.

Domestic War Against People in the U.S.

Simultaneously huge sections of the U.S. population are being targeted for political and economic reasons by the administration.

A travel ban on people from seven African and Middle Eastern states was temporarily halted as a result of mass demonstrations and court actions. The Federal Court of Appeals in the Ninth Circuity unanimously upheld a temporary restraining order on the implementation of the ban placed by a lower Federal Court in Washington State.

These efforts by the Trump administration represent the continuation of U.S. military policy against Africa and the Middle East. The populations of these states have been displaced by the war and economic policies of the imperialist governments led by the U.S. The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNRA) has declared that the degree of displacement internationally is the worst on record so far in history.  Approximately 75 million people have been driven from their homes both internally and outside of their geographic borders.

Compounding the domestic attacks against people from Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iran and Iraq, the administration has intensified its targeting, detention and deportations of people from Mexico and other Central and South American countries. Many of these migrants have been displaced as well due to the economic policies of Washington which has made agricultural production and energy extraction largely non-viable industries within their national economies.

Trump administration Secretary of Homeland Security Gen. John Kelly stated in a draft memorandum that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) along with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will hire 10,000 new agents to pursue, detain and deport so-called “criminal aliens” from the U.S. Other reports which have been denied by the White House advance proposals which will federalize 100,000 National Guard troops to assist in the search and remove policy towards people considered as undesirables.

These policy initiatives are related to the promise made by Trump during the national presidential elections of 2016 to construct a wall along with border between the U.S. and the Republic of Mexico. Trump insists that the funding taken from the tax dollars of working families to build the wall will be authorized by Congress. Nonetheless, he says that a tariff on imported goods to Mexico will serve as a reimbursement for the expenses related to the building of the wall.

Any reasonable observers within the European Union (EU) member-states as well as the Russian Federation realize that the situation inside the U.S. is quite politically fluid. The burgeoning hostility towards the administration from various sectors of the population is bound to influence the attitudes of governments and civilian organizations in Europe.

Update: according to Reuters, Vladimir Putin was deeply upset to learn of the death of Vitaly Churkin, Russian news agencies cited Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov as saying on Monday.

“The head of state highly valued Churkin’s professionalism and diplomatic talent,” Peskov said.

* * *

Vitaly Churkin, who served as Russia’s permanent representative to the United Nations since 2006, “died suddenly” in New York, the Russian Foreign Ministry announced. Churkin died one day before his 65th birthday. Russia’s deputy U.N. ambassador, Vladimir Safronkov, told AP that Churkin became ill and was taken to Columbia Presbyterian Hospital, where he died Monday.

Churkin was at the Russian embassy on East 67th Street when he became sick with a “cardiac condition” around 9:30 am, sources told the New York Post. A Russian Embassy spokesperson told CBS News that they believe Churkin died of a heart attack but they do not yet have official word on the cause of death.

As the AP adds, Churkin has been Russia’s envoy at the United Nations for a little over a decade and was considered Moscow’s great champion at the U.N. He had a reputation for an acute wit and sharp repartee especially with his American and Western counterparts. He was previously ambassador at large and earlier served as the foreign ministry spokesman.

Colleagues took to social media to react to Churkin’s death, starting with Churkin’s old nemesis Samantha Power:

The announcement “of Churkin’s passing this morning” was met with shock when it was delivered during a session at the UN headquarters. “He was a dear colleague of all of us, a deeply committed diplomat of his country and one of the finest people we have known,” a UN official who delivered the news to her colleagues said.

The Russian foreign ministry gave no details on the circumstances of his death but offered condolences to his relatives and said the diplomat had died one day before his 65th birthday. Here is the statement issued moments ago from the Russian Foreign Ministry:

 A prominent Russian diplomat has passed away while at work. We’d like to express our sincere condolences to Vitaly Churkin’s family.

The Russian Foreign Ministry deeply regrets to announce that Russia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Vitaly Ivanovich Churkin has died suddenly in New York on February 20, a day ahead of his 65th birthday.

“He was an outstanding person. He was brilliant, bright, a great diplomat of our age,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said, adding that the news of Churkin’s death was “completely shocking.”

According to Sputnik, Russia’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations Yevgeniy Zagaynov said about Churkin that he kept working “till the very end.” The representative of the UN Secretary-General said that the UN was shocked by the news, extending their condolences to Moscow.

Perhaps the best known Russian diplomat alongside Sergey Lavrov, Vitaly Ivanovich Churkin was born in Moscow in 1952. He graduated from the Moscow State Institute of International Relations in 1974, beginning his decades-long career at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs shortly.

Ambassador Churkin, who held a Ph.D in history, served as Russia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations since 2006, where he has clashed on numerous occasions with opposing members of the Security Council whose decisions Russia has vetoed more than once. Prior to this appointment, he was Ambassador at Large at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation (2003-2006), Ambassador to Canada (1998-2003), Ambassador to Belgium and Liaison Ambassador to NATO and WEU (1994-1998), Deputy Foreign Minister and Special Representative of the President of the Russian Federation to the talks on Former Yugoslavia (1992-1994), Director of the Information Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the USSR/Russian Federation (1990-1992).

Churkin is survived by his wife and two children.

Uno de los principales factores en que se apoyó Donald Trump en campaña –y que ahora usa para justificar absurdas medidas anti-inmigrantes, altos impuestos a las importaciones y otras– fue la promesa de reducir la pérdida de empleos.  Sin embargo, según las estadísticas oficiales de Estados Unidos, la mayor parte de la pérdida de empleos en Estados Unidos se debió al aumento de automatización y robotización de las industrias.

Estados Unidos produce ahora 85 por ciento más bienes de los que producía en 1987, pero con una planta laboral de dos tercios de la que existía entonces (FRED Economic Data). La proyección es que con mayor uso de sistemas de inteligencia artificial, la automatización se expandirá a más industrias y sectores, eliminando más puestos de trabajo.

Las industrias que anunciaron recientemente que se quedarán o relocalizarán plantas a Estados Unidos, como Ford y General Motors, ya tienen una parte importante de su producción automatizada y van por más. Gran parte de los supuestos nuevos “puestos de trabajo” que crearán serán en realidad realizados por robots. General Motors se ufana de ser la empresa automotriz que más ha invertido en nuevas tecnologías, incluyendo el desarrollo de vehículos no tripulados, lo cual también redundará en menos puestos de trabajo (choferes, distribución de productos y otras ramas).

Carrier, que anunció que dos plantas de producción de equipos de aire acondicionado se quedarán en Estados Unidos en lugar instalarse en México (lo cual se presenta como logro de Trump) reconoció a la prensa que los incentivos fiscales que Trump le prometió, serán usados para aumentar notablemente la automatización de sus plantas, con lo cual aumentará sus ganancias a mediano plazo, pero reducirá los puestos de trabajo.(Business Insider 5/12/16)

Ya como presidente electo, el New York Times le preguntó a Trump si los robots iban a remplazar a los trabajadores que votaron por él. Trump reconoció alegremente “Lo harán, pero nosotros vamos a construir los robots también”. (NYT, 23/11/16  https://tinyurl.com/juymes5).

Sólo que por ahora, el país con mayor fabricación de robots industriales en el mundo es China, que ya ha realizado grandes inversiones para ser además el primer productor global de robots aplicados a la agricultura y a nuevos campos de manufactura industrial. (NYT 25/1/17  https://tinyurl.com/hwmd4p6).

El traslado de grandes plantas de manufactura industrial a México y otros países del Sur en las últimas décadas se debió a que las trasnacionales encontraron así formas de aumentar exponencialmente sus ganancias, explotando una situación de bajos a ínfimos salarios, pésimas condiciones y derechos laborales y terreno impune para la contaminación y devastación ambiental, además de ahorrarse el pago de impuestos en su sede. Todo lo cual fue asegurado y aumentado con los tratados de libre comercio. La vuelta de algunas plantas industriales a Estados Unidos se basa en una reevaluación de sus ventajas comparativas a partir de las crisis actuales. Seguramente, la amenaza de Trump de colocar altos impuestos a las importaciones es un componente, pero la nueva ola de automatización “inteligente” juega un rol clave. Si Trump, como prometió a las empresas, les subvenciona con dinero del erario un desarrollo más rápido hacia la nueva generación de automatización inteligente, esto sin duda forma parte de la ecuación de ganancias de esas empresas. Claro que también le sirve a Trump como supuesta demostración de fuerza y como imagen de que está revirtiendo la pérdida de empleos.

Pero las predicciones sobre la cantidad de empleos que se perderán por la aplicación industrial de nuevas formas de robótica e inteligencia artificial en ese país varían de 9 a 47 por ciento, según el estudio que se tome de referencia.  A nivel global, recientes reportes de la OCDE, la Universidad de Oxford y el Foro de Davos –entre los más citados en el tema– todos prevén mayor pérdida neta de empleos que la que ya ha ocurrido, una tendencia que afirman se ha acelerado desde el año 2000. UNCTAD, el organismo de Naciones Unidas sobre comercio y desarrollo, prevé que en los llamados países en desarrollo hasta dos tercios de los empleos pueden ser sustituidos por robots (UNCTAD 2016, https://tinyurl.com/zu2r3vc)

Pero la automatización y la robótica están lejos de ser novedades. La “novedad” es el salto exponencial en el desarrollo de la inteligencia artificial y la convergencia con esa y otras nuevas tecnologías, como nano y biotecnología, que se está expandiendo más allá de la fabricación industrial, a la agricultura y alimentación, transporte, comunicación, servicios, comercio, industrias extractivas, entre otros sectores claves; con múltiples impactos ambientales, a la salud, y también sobre el empleo.

Un proceso de convergencia que en el Grupo ETC llamamos BANG desde 2001 (bits, átomos, neuronas, genes) y que el Foro de Davos desde 2016 llama “cuarta revolución industrial”.  La automatización de las últimas décadas ha significado un aumento de la productividad, pero no mayor bienestar social, sino lo contrario: estancamiento de salarios y aumento de la desigualdad. Nótese que de los ocho hombres más ricos del planeta ­–que concentran más riqueza que la mitad de la población mundial– la mayoría son empresarios informáticos o cuya actividad está fuertemente vinculada a la digitalización y robotización.

Y según los reportes mencionados, la expansión de la nueva ola de automatización “inteligente” eliminará más empleos de los que generará, afectando también sectores distintos de los que ya venían siendo sustituidos por ella. Cómo intentará Trump resolver esa contradicción, es un enigma.

Silvia Ribeiro

Silvia Ribeiro: Investigadora del Grupo ETC.

Annual Munich security conferences have been held since 1963. It’s the most important world forum on current and future security issues and challenges.

Numerous heads of state, other senior government officials, high-ranking military ones, along with business, media and other private sectors figures attend.

This year’s conference began Friday, continuing on Saturday. Sergey Lavrov will speak later today, presenting Russia’s views on international security, followed by a Q & A session.

Foreign ministers from Normandy contact group members Russia, Germany, France and Ukraine will discuss renewed conflict in Donbass on the sidelines of the conference.

Lavrov will also hold several bilateral meetings. On Friday, he met with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. The US dominated alliance maintains adversarial relations with Russia.

Bilateral cooperation was suspended over Ukraine. Hostile policy toward Russia remains in place. Trump so far hasn’t changed things – other than express lip service intentions.

In February 2007, Vladimir Putin delivered a memorable straight talk address at the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy.

“(S)ecurity for one is security for all,” he said, quoting Franklin Roosevelt at the onset of WW II, saying “(w)hen peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger.”

Cold War thinking remains, he explained – at the same time denouncing unipolarity, saying “it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.”

It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.

And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.

…Russia – we – are are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves. I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world.

He said Washington turned the OSCE “into a vulgar instrument of ensuring the foreign policy interests of one country.”

Powerful words not going down well in Washington or other Western capitals. Putin called unipolarity flawed, unacceptable in today’s world, creating global human tragedies and tensions.

Endless wars rage. “Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of (military) force,” a world of permanent conflicts, making political settlements difficult to impossible.

Fundamental principles of international law are violated, Putin explained, naming America as the world’s leading offender, leaving humanity unsafe.

Putin stressed the urgency to step back from the brink, reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles, wage peace, not war.

He stressed the importance of multi-world polarity, warned against the militarization of space. He called NATO expansion “a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust.”

“(A)gainst whom is this expansion intended,” he asked? Russia seeks cooperative relations with all other countries, “a fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few, but for all,” he concluded.

Since he spoke, Washington raped and destroyed Libya, Syria and Yemen. It continued endless aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia, along with partnering with three Israeli wars on Gaza and aiding Kiev putschists wage war on Donbass.

The world is less safe today than when he spoke. His warnings went unheeded. Bilateral relations with America are as fraught with dangers as at any time during the Cold War era.

The risk of nuclear war by design or accident remains real.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. 

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

Damascus-SANA-President Bashar al-Assad affirmed that victory in Aleppo is an important step in the way to defeat and to eliminate the terrorism from our country, adding “we don’t think that we can talk about winning the war unless we defeat the terrorists everywhere in Syria.”

The president added in an interview given to French TF1 TV and EUROPE 1 Radio that the west supported terrorists in Syria under the name of “moderate,” but it was supporting the same basis of al-Qaeda and ISIS.

following is the full text of the interview:

Journalist: President Bashar al-Assad, thank for accepting this encounter with TF1 and with Europe 1 here in Damascus. We’re going to speak about the future of Syria, about the war on terror, about the recent gains and support that you can count on, as well as the heavy accusations you’re still facing.

Journalist: Good morning, Mr. President, bonjour monsieur le président.

President Assad: Good morning.

Question 1: A simple question to start with: after the fall of Aleppo two months ago, can one say that you have won the war?

President Assad: No, we don’t think that we can talk about winning the war unless we defeat the terrorists everywhere in Syria. It’s just an important step in the way to defeat and to eliminate the terrorism from our country, but I think it’s going to be a long way for one reason, a simple reason; because they still have the support of many Western countries including France, including UK, including Turkey and Saudi Arabia and Qatar in our region.

Question 2: You talk about a long way; can you summarize from a military point of view the objectives that you have still to reach?

President Assad: Definitely, when I talk about eliminating the terrorists from our country, it means to take over every inch of our country, to bring it back under the control of the government, and that’s the duty of any government; is to take control of every place.

Question 3: In which part of Syria particularly, which town?

President Assad: You mean next after Aleppo?

Journalist: Yes.

President Assad: Of course, now you have to, and we are, we continue our campaign in the area surrounding Aleppo, just to make Aleppo more immune against any other terrorist attacks from the western and northern part that’s been supported by Turkey directly, by the Turkish army.

Question 4: But the next step is Idleb? This is what people say; next big battle will be Idleb.

President Assad: Could be Idleb, could be Raqqa, could be anywhere. Now, it depends on the situation on daily basis, because you change your plans. So, we didn’t put that plan before finishing Aleppo as city and rural area. So, it’s still early to talk about which is next. That depends on the development of the battles in the different areas.

Question 5: But the situation is far better off now for you as it used to be, militarily speaking.

President Assad: Of course, every place you can liberate from the terrorists means the situation is better, but it’s not enough for us.

Question 6: Sir, for France, the main terrorist threat is Daesh, there’s no question about this. For you, all armed groups, or most of them, are terrorists. Why is Daesh not a specific threat for you?

President Assad: Let me answer you about two points: the first one, it’s not for us, when we say they are terrorists, not for us as government; it’s for the law, and for the international law. Whoever carries a machinegun in my country or in your country and starts killing people and destroying properties is a terrorist. This is an international concept, so it’s not for us. For us, whoever wants to give up his armament is not a terrorist anymore, according to the law. But if you talk about Daesh, I think when you say that the French people or the Europeans worry about Daesh, I think this is misunderstanding of the situation; Daesh is a product, it’s not the problem. The problem is the ideology of Daesh, which is the same for al-Nusra, the same for many other organizations, like-minded organizations in Syria, and maybe in Libya or any other country. So, you should be worried about those terrorists; they don’t care about being ISIS or al-Nusra, they implement what their ideology is telling them to do, mainly terrorist acts.

Question 7: So, there’s no difference between Daesh and the other groups?

President Assad: Definitely, in Syria the grassroots are the same; the same people who were in ISIS were before in al-Nusra, now they are moving from organization to organization, because it’s the same ideology: it’s Wahabi ideology, this is the source of this terrorism.

Question 8: This is the same enemy for you, all the terrorists are the same?

President Assad: Yeah, of course, according to the law, not for me. As I said, according to the law and the international law, no-one has the right to hold armaments except the army and the police in any country. I think the same in France, unless I’m wrong, you can tell me, but that’s what I think, everywhere in the world.

Question 9: So, Raqqa, which is the heartland of Daesh, where the terror attacks in France were prepared, Raqqa is not a priority target for you?

President Assad: No, again, they’re not necessarily prepared in Raqqa. Raqqa is a symbol of ISIS.

Journalist: It’s a symbol.

President Assad: You have ISIS close to Damascus, you have them everywhere, you have them in Palmyra now, you have them in the eastern part of Syria, so no, it’s not about al-Raqqa; everywhere is a priority, depending on the development of the battle, but for us all the same: Raqqa, Palmyra, Idleb; all the same.

Question 10: Sir, you present yourself as the main shield against terrorism. There’s a lot of people, in the West in particular, would think that ISIS on the one hand and your regime on the other hand are the two sides, the two faces of a same evil trying to crush any form of democratic and free expression in this country. What would you answer to them? It’s a real question.

President Assad: First of all, we’re not a regime; we are a state, institutions. Second one, that’s the demonization of the Western mainstream media and political strata regarding Syria and the Syrian government and Syrian army, because they supported those “moderates” at the very beginning, and at the beginning they said they are “peaceful demonstrators,” then they said “they’re not peaceful, they are fighters but they are moderate,” but they couldn’t recognize that they were supporting the same grassroots of Al Qaeda and ISIS. That’s why they say that we are trying to promote those terrorists and to use them as alternative so the West cannot choose. First of all, the West doesn’t have to choose between me and ISIS: my people have to choose, because this is a Syrian issue, to be frank with you. So, we don’t care about what the Western officials think about this; they have to worry about their people and to protect their people from the terrorist attacks that’s been happening because of their policies.

Question 11: Sir, of course we are extremely shocked, particularly in France, by the horror of terrorism, but we are also horrified by a report from Amnesty International released a few days ago, last week. It’s about the prison of Sednaya. It’s not far from here, not far from Damas. 13,000 executed prisoners, massive hangings, torture. Amnesty speaks – I read the report – of a place where the Syrian state silently slaughters its own people, the Syrian state, your government. Mr. President, is everything permitted in order to win the war? Can you do everything that you want?

President Assad: No, everything legal. You cannot do anything…

Journalist: But according to Amnesty report, seems to be illegal.

President Assad: No. There’s difference between me and you talking about facts in this… in Syria, or talking about allegations. If you want to talk about allegations, we can spend the time talking about allegations, never-ending allegations. Anyone can say whatever he wants, and we can discuss it, but in that case, we’re not going to talk about facts. But if you want to talk about Amnesty, because Amnesty is known around the world, it’s shameful for such an organization to build a report on allegations. If you take any allegations to a court in your country, you have court, you have judicial system, could they take any decision regarding allegations, or they have to look for the evidence? This report is built on allegations, not a single shred of documents, not a single evidence. They didn’t say 13,000; they said between 5,000 and 13, which is double and half the number, it means it’s not precise. There’s no mentioning of names, of anyone who is from the victims; only 36 out of those thousands, and there are many flaws. They said, for example, the Grand Mufti is endorsing the execution. The religious figures in Syria has nothing to do with any judicial process. The execution in Syria is legal, it’s part of the law since the independence, so the government can execute anyone legally; why to do it illegally?

Journalist: You can tell us that there’s no torture in the prison of Sednaya as Amnesty said?

President Assad: The question is torture for what? I mean, if you want to say that we are committing torture, for what? What do I get? Why? Just for sadism? We are sadists? What is it for? I mean, to get information? We have all the information, so we don’t use it, it’s not our policy, because for a simple reason: if we commit such atrocities, it’s going to play into the hands of the terrorists, they’re going to win. It’s about winning the hearts of the Syrian people. If we committed such atrocities at any stage of this conflict, we wouldn’t have the support after six years. It’s a very simple fact. But again, if you go back to the reports, reports should be built on fact. There’s not a single fact in that report, and they have to prove it, they cannot.

Question 12: But Amnesty is suggesting to send international observers to the detention centers in Syria, to get some proof, or to prove that you’re right, and that there’s no crime being committed. What’s your answer to this proposal?

President Assad: I think we need an investigation on the Amnesty itself, when they adopt a report based on allegations. This is a shame, shame on such an organization that has never been impartial, it’s always biased.

Journalist: Testimonies of former guards and prisoners?

President Assad: It’s about the sovereignty. If you have allegations every day and reports every day, you can spend the time receiving delegations. Would you accept now, if you ask your government, to send a Syrian delegation to investigate why your army, through Sarkozy and later Hollande, attacked the Libyans and killed tens or hundreds of thousands? Can we go investigate the money that Sarkozy got from the Libyan leader? It’s a matter of sovereignty. No, we’re not going to allow Amnesty to be here, for any reason. I’m not talking about that report, but you have to – as mainstream media – investigate; that report is based on what? Just allegations? You don’t take it seriously.

Journalist: So, your answer is no to the visit of international observers.

President Assad: Definitely, no, no. We don’t care about such a childish report based on nothing, just allegations. And they said they interviewed a few witnesses who are opposition and defected, so it’s a biased report.

Question 13: But you acknowledge that there are some executions, numerous executions, official, legal executions in Syria, going on.

President Assad: Since the independence, you have it, since the independence. It’s part of the Syrian law, execution, if there’s a killing act, there is execution. So, it’s not about the crisis, not about that report, it’s not about that prison. You have legal ways to do it, and it’s a judicial way.

Question 14: Sir, let’s talk about relation between France and Syria. In a few weeks from now, a new president will be elected in France, and among the debates we have in our country there is the issue of resuming dialogue with your government. Do you hope for the renewal of diplomatic relations with France?

President Assad: It’s not about the diplomatic relations. First of all, it’s about the policy of France. So, if we don’t have this diplomatic relation, it’s not that big problem for the time being now. Maybe in the long-term, you need to have good relations with any country, including diplomatic relations.

Journalist: So, let’s talk about the policy of France.

President Assad: Exactly. The policy of France, that started from day one, to support the terrorists in Syria, and is responsible directly of the killings in our country.

Journalist: How can you say it… it’s a serious accusation against France. How can you say that France is supporting terrorism?

President Assad: They said, I didn’t accuse them. They said, many times, they supported the war, and Hollande recently said it was a mistake not to launch war in 2013. They said that they send armaments to whom they call “moderate” groups, which are terrorists. They said that, I didn’t say. The Americans said the same, the French said the same. So, your officials – go back to their statements during the last two, three, four years, maybe – you have more than one self-accusation by the French officials.

Question 15: Francois Hollande is about to leave the power in France. You’re still there. Did you win your struggle, your arm-wrestling with Francois Hollande?

President Assad: It’s not between me and him, it’s not something personal, I never met him, I don’t care about him, to be frank, and his popularity is 11 percent recently, which is rock-bottom, I think, for any president in the history of France. Actually, it’s between me and the terrorists, and between me and whoever supports the terrorists. Till this moment, the terrorists couldn’t win the war, but they’ve been destroying Syria, they killed hundreds of thousands of Syrians, so I cannot say I won the war. They didn’t succeed in their plan, but till this moment we haven’t finished our war, so I cannot say that I won the war.

Question 16: Do you have any contacts… do you follow, first of all the French political campaign, the presidential campaign going on right now?

President Assad: We follow it in general, not in details, because we don’t bet on the Western elections for one reason, a simple reason; that we don’t take the Western officials at their word during the campaign, because they say something for the voters, not for the sake of the country, for the voters to go and vote. This is reality, I’m being frank with you.

Question 17: Sir, you see, even the difference between the right wing and the left wing in France considering relation with Syria, you see a difference?

President Assad: Yes, you can feel it, but at the end whoever becomes president, what’s his policy going to be? The same as we used to see it as rhetoric before the elections, or what? That’s the question. So, it’s not something you bet on. Of course, you prefer somebody who doesn’t take the position of warmonger, you prefer it, but you don’t know…

Journalist: For example, who do you think, who is the best one who doesn’t want war?

President Assad: We don’t see any big difference now, but again, I wouldn’t bet on their rhetoric. Regarding rhetoric, there’s no big difference.

Question 18: And do you have some contacts with some of the candidates? None of them?

President Assad: No, we don’t have any contacts with any of them.

Journalist: And with intelligence service?

President Assad: In some cases, we had some indirect contacts.

Journalist: With French intelligence service?

President Assad: Yes.

Journalist: You personally, you have contact with intelligence service?

President Assad: Actually, in one of the delegations that came to Syria, it was parliamentarian, one from the intelligence was part of the delegation. So, it’s involved. Of course, the French government said “they are parliamentary delegation, we’re not involved, we don’t agree,” which is not true. Of course, we have so many channels.

Question 19: A country already changed its president; that is the United States. One of the first contested decisions of Donald Trump is the Muslim ban. It intended to forbid citizens from some Muslim countries, including Syria, to travel to US. As a Syrian citizen, as president of Syria, do you feel some humiliation there?

President Assad: No, no, because it’s not against the Syrian people, first of all, it’s against the terrorists that could infiltrate some of the immigrants to the West, and that happened; happened in Europe, mainly in Germany, and it could happen in the United States. So, I think the aim of Trump is to prevent those people from coming, so he took it this way. Second…

Journalist: So, he’s in the right way, when he…

President Assad: No, no, I’m talking about something we can disagree or agree on as persons, but for me as president, I wouldn’t worry about that. I’m worried about how can I bring the Syrian people to Syria, not to send them to the United States. I wouldn’t feel happy if they could access other countries, I will feel happy when they can come back to Syria, because they want to come back to Syria, the majority of the Syrians left because of the terrorism and the embargo, the Western embargo. So, if I want to deal with that decision, I would ask Trump and the Western countries to lift the embargo and to stop supporting the terrorists. They wouldn’t have problem with this. They won’t have immigrants or terrorists infiltrating the immigrants. Second, this is another important point, all the fuss that we heard about Trump’s decisions is not because they are worried about the Syrians or about any other countries; it’s because they want to use our cause, our problem, our conflict, as the fuel for their conflict with Trump, because you have other decisions that have been taken by Obama few months ago regarding the same issue, the mainstream media in the United States didn’t talk about it; it only talked about Trump when he announced it publicly and he took it in a stark way.

Question 20: So, you feel more comfortable, you, with Donald Trump than with Mr. Barack Obama?

President Assad: No, I cannot feel comfortable unless I see his policy towards Syria; I haven’t seen it yet. So, again we have to be cautious with every Western leader because they can say something and do the opposite, and then they can say something… do something in the morning and do the opposite in the evening. They wouldn’t commit to anything; they are very pragmatic till they sell their values, they don’t have values in their policies.

Question 21: But at least there is one thing that didn’t change so far, is this sort of disengagement of the US from the region, this is pretty obvious. A second round of negotiations is starting now in Astana, in Kazakhstan, and it’s very striking; the Western countries are totally out of the game, they’re out of the picture. Is this really good for the future of the negotiations and the future of peace in the region?

President Assad: No, the more support you have for any political process, the better, but the Western countries that been involved in those processes, mainly France and UK, lost the chance of achieving anything in Geneva, twice; two rounds in Geneva and they couldn’t achieve anything because they supported those groups that represented the terrorists against the government. They didn’t want to achieve peace in Syria; they wanted to achieve their goals through the peace axis of the whole process.

Question 22: But the fact that the destiny of the Middle East is supervised right now by two countries, Iran and Russia, that by the way don’t have a fantastic democratic record of their own, is that a good thing?

President Assad: Again, the more involvement you have around the world, the better, and that’s not only our vision; that’s even the Russian vision, and the Russians invited many countries to come and help them in fighting terrorism and supporting this political process, but the Western countries isolated themselves, not Iran, not Russia. They were very passive in dealing with all these initiatives, like Astana; where are they? Did the Russians tell them not to come? No, they didn’t. They didn’t come.

Journalist: So, Iran and Russia are promoters of peace, and the Western countries of war?

President Assad: Exactly, a hundred percent, hundred percent.

Question 23: Let’s continue to talk about Russia. Would you say that Vladimir Putin is finally the real decision-maker in the region and even in your country, in Syria?

President Assad: No, no, he’s not. We are the decision-maker regarding Syria. Regarding other countries, I cannot talk on behalf of the others. They respect our sovereignty; every step they took, whether strategic step or tactical step, it was in cooperation with Syria. They never did take a single step without us. They base their politics on values and on their interests, especially regarding fighting terrorism. So, no, it’s our decision.

Question 24: But would you say that without Russia, your government would have collapsed a long time ago?

President Assad: This is a hypothetical question; nobody can tell you about the war because it’s in fluctuation. Of course, which is definite for everyone, that without the Russian support, it would have been worse. How much worse? I cannot tell you, no-one can tell you. Collapsed, withstood, I cannot tell you, but definitely, the Russian support was very crucial in order for ISIS and al-Nusra to re-shrink; because they were expanding after the American alliance started its attacks, cosmetic campaign in Syria, they were expanding till the Russians intervened, they started shrinking. This is reality. This is a fact.

Question 25: Are you stricken by the fact that a few years ago, most of the observers and analysts were saying that you wouldn’t last very long in power, and especially after Aleppo, now the possibility that you may stay is agreed by a large number of people. So, the question is, the question about you remaining in power, this is a question also in Astana in the negotiations. In our country, when a political man has a bad record, usually, usually he doesn’t stay in power very long time. After seventeen years in power, six years of war, three hundred thousand plus dead in this country, a destroyed and divided country, would you say from a moral perspective, not a legal one, a moral perspective, that this record allows you to remain in power, whatever the outcome of the negotiations might be?

President Assad: You know about that terrorists who committed the recent attacks in France last year, and then the police killed some of them, you know about that. What do you go to tell that policeman? Do you tell him you’re a killer or a savior? He killed. The same for a doctor who could take out a leg because there is gangrene in the leg. Would you tell him you committed atrocity, or you saved the life of the patient? So, it’s about the reason why you commit an act, this is first. And in our case, we were fighting the terrorists to protect the people. It’s not my point of view; it’s a duty according to the constitution and to the law. If I don’t do that, I would be the killer, because I will allow the terrorists to kill more Syrians in Syria, and that’s the duty of your army to protect the French, otherwise, they will say “no, we don’t do anything, because they call us a killer.”

Question 26: So, you would say eventually that you have done everything you could and you should for your country?

President Assad: What I could?Definitely. What I should? The Syrian people say, would say what I should have done, because we have different points of view. But regarding who’s going to say this is a bad record when you talk about the moral part of your question, it’s only related to the Syrian people, not the European officials to say this is bad record or good record. They were talking about “Assad must go,” now they don’t talk about “Assad must go.” I don’t care about either. I never cared about this, since the very beginning. I care about our war against the terrorism, about fighting their plans to destroy our country. That’s my worry since the beginning. That’s why it’s the same for me whatever they say. The record is a Syrian record, not a European record by any means.

Question 27: But when Syrian people can say if they approve or not your policy?  We have election in France now, when is the next one in Syria?

President Assad: You have two means: the current means and the one that comes in the future at the end of the war. That time, you can talk about any means, whether you have ballot box, you have elections, you have anything. In the meantime, the people can have one means: either to support you or not. After six years of the war, if that president has bad record according to the Syrian people, why would they support him? A simple question: why do they have to support him? Why they didn’t they support the terrorists? And according to that question when you talk about three hundred thousand or four hundred thousand killed, and you talk about the president killing them, it’s like you’re giving the terrorists a certificate of good behavior because we are killing the people and they are protecting the people; Al Qaeda and al-Nusra and ISIS are protecting the people. So, this is the content of that question. Actually, no, we are fighting for the Syrian people. That’s why the Syrian people supported their government and their army and their president.

Journalist: Thank you Mr. President for receiving Europe 1 and TF1.

President Assad: Thank you very much for coming.

Equatorianos vão às urnas neste domingo (19) em eleições presidenciais e legislativas

Por Edu Montesanti
Especial para Caros Amigos

Neste domingo (19) será decidido no Equador, em eleições presidenciais e legislativas, se a Revolução Cidadã que rompeu com o Consenso de Washington e mudou historicamente o país sul-americano seguirá, ou se a direita que aposta na financeirização da economia retornará ao poder.

A campanha eleitoral, encerrada no dia último dia 16, esteve envolvida em mentiras e em manipulação da informação por parte da oposição, uma campanha da difamação inflada pela mídia oligárquica, ou “campanha suja” segundo o presidente Rafael Correa, eleito presidente pela primeira vez em 2006 e reeleito duas vezes (2009 e 2013).

Pois a “campanha suja recheada de demagogias não se limitou aos candidatos de oposição pró-Washington: “Na campanha eleitoral, as elites empresariais que sempre usaram as instituições estatais em benefício de seus interesses privados, tomaram a iniciativa de apresentar queixas contra a corrupção para aparecer como defensores da ética pública”, aponta o economista equatoriano Jorge Orbe León, professor do Instituto de Altos Estudos Nacionais (IAEN) de Quito, capital do Equador.

O presidenciável Lenín Moreno, do governista Movimiento Alianza PAÍS, desde o início da campanha lidera as pesquisas de opinião pública. Seus principais adversários, Cynthia Viteri e Guillermo Lasso, disputam o segundo lugar para a presidência equatoriana alternando-se na disputa pelo segundo turno: as últimas pesquisas de opinião pública divulgadas em 8 de fevereiro, apontam o ex-vice-presidente de Correa com 32,3%, Lasso com 21,5%, e Viteri com 14%. “É pouco provável que tenha segundo turno”, avalia o professor doutor Orbe.

Os resultados destas sondagens, diante de todo o jogo baixo da direita e da manipulação midiática, são um dos grandes exemplos de que a Revolução Cidadã, que ao longo dos anos sofreu constantes tentativas de golpe arquitetadas e financiadas por Washington, e até de magnicídio em 2010, soube qual caminho seguir a fim de dar continuidade às conquistas sociais, em diversos casos entre as maiores da região (a menor taxa de desemprego latino-americana hoje é do Equador: 5,3%): transformar as classes menos favorecidas não somente em consumidoras, mas em cidadãs que pudessem, junto da ascensão da extrema pobreza à classe média, resistir aos ataques das classes dominantes e de todo o tipo de manipulação midiática.

O projeto de continuidade da Revolução Cidadã, que em dez anos simplesmente triplicou o salário mínimo proporcionando ganhos reais aos trabalhadores como jamais antes, passa por isto: “Protagonismo da sociedade: alcançar maior politização da sociedade, única garantia de que qualquer mudança programática que realize a Revolução Cidadã, não seja passageira. A irreversibilidade do processo depende apenas de uma sociedade consciente de seus direitos e da importância de suas lutas históricas. Neste sentido, coloca-se muita ênfase no território, em “escutar as pessoas. Democracia radical: governar os mercados, colocar a economia a serviço da cidadania (o termo cidadania denota que o cidadão é considerado muito mais que consumidor enquanto dotado de consciência política, de igualdade de direitos diante de um Estado que lhe garante serviços básicos como saúde, educação, segurança, saneamento como direito e não como bens de consumo). Além disso, incentivar os mecanismos de participação cidadã para que a sociedade possa imiscuir-se de uma melhor maneira no governo.

Mais que tudo, a Revolução Cidadã tem transformado e se apoiado na educação, a qual, consequentemente, tem proporcionado consciência cidadã. “Em matéria de segurança, nos últimos dez anos o país deu um salto impressionante, a tal ponto que hoje  o Equador é um dos lugares mais seguros para se viver na América Latina”, lembra o docente da Iaen. É exatamente isto que está em jogo no país andino nas eleições deste dia 19: a soberania nacional e o protagonismo da sociedade em relação à história do país, tendo o exercício da cidadania como seu grande pilar.

Nesta entrevista, o economista e docente Jorge Orbe León faz um balanço dos candidatos, da própria Revolução Cidadã há dez anos no poder equatoriano, e apresenta perspectivas para o país andino.

Para o economista, que aponta importantes dados envolvendo conquistas sociais no Equador nos últimos anos, Lenín Moreno “representa a força das mudanças econômicas, políticas e sociais que a Revolução Cidadã proporcionou nos últimos dez anos no Equador, em favor dos setores sociais com menor renda”, enquanto os adversários, um retrocesso a tempos em que as elites eram as que se beneficiavam de um Estado promotor da concentração de riquezas, através do que qualifica de Estado mínimo sem sentido.

Confira a seguir a entrevista sobre uma das campanhas presidenciais mais importantes da América Latina nos últimos anos.
Caros Amigos – Qual sua visão, professor dr. Jorge Orbe, sobre os candidatos que lideram os três primeiros lugares nas pesquisas, pela ordem segundo as últimas pesquisas: Lenin Moreno (Movimiento Alianza PAÍS), Guillermo Lasso (CREO – SUMA), e Cynthia Viteri (Partido Social Cristão)?
Jorge Orbe – Nas eleições de 19 de fevereiro, a população equatoriana deverá decidir entre defender seu futuro ou um retorno ao passado.

Lenin Moreno incorpora a possibilidade de recriar um sistema político baseado na democracia participativa e na política econômica redistributiva, que promove o emprego e a recuperação econômica de grandes, médias e pequenas empresas, desde que estejam dispostas a investir com base em responsabilidade social, fiscal e ambiental.

As candidaturas de Cynthia Viteri e de Guillermo Lasso representam o desejo das elites econômicas de recuperar o poder do Estado para implementar políticas públicas voltadas à concentração da riqueza, em benefício dos setores de grandes atividades.

Quando Rafael Correa tomou posse em 2007 como presidente da República, encontrou um país destruído, propondo então a necessidade de refundar a nação com uma nova constituição que estabeleceu a base jurídica para um novo sistema econômico e político, projetado para superar os problemas gerados pelo neoliberalismo que, durante três décadas, afetou gravemente a dignidade e os interesses dos setores mais vulneráveis da sociedade.

As mudanças políticas impulsionadas pela Revolução Cidadã tornaram possível reconstruir a economia nacional e reformar o Estado, a fim de garantir os direitos econômicos, sociais e culturais da população; preparar o país para o século XXI inserindo o país, de forma inteligente, na economia mundial através de uma nova estratégia de desenvolvimento endógeno centrado no ser humano. Esta nova estratégia de desenvolvimento exclui a possibilidade do mercado, ou do Estado, tornar-se eixo da história nacional.

No início, a Revolução Cidadã descartou a possibilidade de construção de uma sociedade centrada no mercado, bem como uma sociedade centrada no Estado. Rafael Correa se propõe a estabelecer a supremacia do ser humano sobre o capital, para o qual era necessário articular uma mudança nas relações de poder observando que o ser humano não deve estar a serviço do mercado ou do Estado. Pelo contrário, o mercado e o Estado devem estar em função do interesse da sociedade e não das elites econômicos ou políticos. PAÍS visa a construção de uma sociedade com mercado, não uma sociedade de mercado com um Estado moderno e eficiente, cujas políticas são definidas com base no exercício da democracia participativa.

Lenin Moreno, candidato do Movimiento Alianza PAÍS, tem a melhor chance de sucesso uma vez que representa a força das mudanças econômicas, políticas e sociais que a Revolução Cidadã tem proporcionado nos últimos dez anos no Equador, em favor dos setores sociais de menor renda.

Guillermo Lasso é um banqueiro próspero que, em 2012, fundou uma política de acesso ao poder do partido do Estado e, a partir daí, promoveu políticas econômicas em favor do capital financeiro.

Em grande medida, sua riqueza vem dos lucros gerados por sua participação como super ministro da Economia em um governo que, em 1999, desencadeou uma crise bancária de grandes proporções, com consequências desastrosas para o país: inflação, desvalorização, recessão, falência de empresas, desemprego, aumento da pobreza e da miséria, mortes, suicídios e mais uma onda migratória na história nacional.

Cynthia Viteri pertence ao Partido Social Cristão, de direita. Seu programa propõe a defesa conservadora do capitalismo e da promoção de uma economia social de mercado.

É a favor da privatização da economia, da redução de impostos das empresas e da anulação da regulação e do controle do Estado; representa os interesses de um setor produtivo e financeiro ligado à economia agro-exportadora.

O Partido Social Cristão encarna uma postura autoritária, o tempero necessário a fim de estabelecer uma economia de mercado organizada para servir os interesses das empresas, especialmente aqueles setores empresariais que estão ligados ao mercado externo.

O candidato governista promete continuar com as políticas do presidente Correa. Em que pontos, especificamente, o senhor concorda com essas propostas? 
A meta nacional é que o Equador deixe para trás os flagelos do passado, e um deles é ter uma economia dedicada exclusivamente para a produção de commodities. Busca-se privilegiar uma economia que promova uma exportação diversificada, eco-eficiente e de valor agregado, bem como com base nos serviços economia do conhecimento e da biodiversidade. Em outras palavras, a mudança da matriz produtiva requer uma maior geração de riqueza envolvendo o desenvolvimento produtivo em outras linhas de ação, como o turismo ou as relacionadas com ciência e tecnologia, capazes de alcançar um desenvolvimento sustentável.

Para fazer isso o Estado deverá recuperar o controle sobre setores estratégicos, e definir suas prioridades na transformação da matriz energética para se deslocar de energia cara e poluente, com base em hidrocarbonetos (usinas), a uma mais barata, renovável e limpa. Neste sentido, desde 2010 foram investidos cerca de 5 bilhões de dólares na construção de oito usinas hidrelétricas para gerar energia renovável e de repotencialização de outras estações.

Neste momento, já estão em operação a Usinas Hidrelétricas Manduriacu, Sopladora e Coca Codo Sinclair as quais, com a Hidropaute, Mazar e outras que se incorporem como Toachi Pilatón, Delsitanisagua e Minas-San Francisco, serão pilares da mudança da matriz energética. Desde novembro de 2016, o país já exporta energia para Colômbia e Peru.

Assim, podemos dizer que a nova matriz energética, com base na geração de energia limpa e renovável, é quase completa, embora no longo prazo, a falta ainda a ser feito; não a mudança da matriz produtiva, como a economia equatoriana permanece primário-exportadora. Portanto, para superar essas limitações, é necessário promover investimentos de longo prazo público-privadas, especialmente os que estão relacionados com o conhecimento e as novas tecnologias.

A mudança da matriz produtiva coloca o desafio de aumentar as exportações de produtos equatorianos mais representativos, mas com alto valor agregado, ou seja,processando-os bem como reduzindo as importações e aumentando a produção doméstica. Este processo requer o investimento produtivo sustentável, especialmente nas áreas da educação e tecnologia de processo de ponta.

La defunción del nonato Tratado Transatlántico, el retiro de Estados Unidos del TPP, la –por ahora– comedia de Trump con Peña Nieto por el muro y el NAFTA, las medidas xenófobas promulgadas –luego frenadas por la Justicia– y las acaloradas discusiones sobre el “impuesto fronterizo”, hablan por sí solos tanto de los límites de la “globalización” como de los obstáculos para cercenarla. Señalamos desde esta columna que el choque entre “éxitos” y desventuras de la globalización dibujaba el terreno más escabroso que tendría que transitar el novel presidente norteamericano. Y, efectivamente, si Wall Street recibió su asunción con una cálida bienvenida superando la barrera de los 20 mil puntos, la firma del decreto que suspendía temporalmente el programa para aceptar refugiados y limitaba el ingreso de ciudadanos de siete países de mayoría musulmana, no tuvo igual acogida. Wall Street mostró su peor caída en un año. Es que Wall Street habla y en un sentido parece estarle diciendo a Trump que se cuide con el nivel arancelario para importaciones mexicanas y chinas… Discúlpesenos la digresión pero Trump también respondió decretando el inicio del proceso de revisión de la ley Dodd Frank –una regulación financiera débil implementada en 2010 por la administración Obama- y adelantó luego que anunciaría rebajas impositivas. Las bolsas volvieron a subir…Hay ahí un diálogo sintomático e imperdible.

En cuanto al decreto xenófobo, las estrellas chispeantes de Silicon Valey pero también Goldman Sachs –origen del flamante Secretario del Tesoro-, la Ford Motors, la General Electric, la Boeing, Nike y otras “no tecnológicas”, salieron inmediatamente a repudiarlo. Incluso las que como Ford están negociando a cuenta gotas sus planes de deslocalización empresaria, le están avisando a Trump que no se meta demasiado con la globalización –o por lo menos que no se pase de la raya. A causa del decreto, el CEO de Uber tuvo que renunciar a su cargo de asesor económico del gobierno mientras el mayor impulsor de los autos eléctricos prefirió permanecer dentro del consejo –del que entre otros también forman parte los directivos de las súper “globals” innovadoras Tesla, Space X, IBM y la cadena de ventas internacionales Wal-Mart Stores- para así poder influir en la opinión de Trump, según sus palabras…Los organismos y élites “globales” políticas y económicas internacionales incluyendo desde la ONU hasta Mutter Ángela –como retrató a Merkel hace no mucho tiempo el influyente semanario alemán Der Spiegel- jugaron su carta filantrópica defendiendo a refugiados y migrantes a quienes –de más no está recordar- dejan morir por miles a diario en las aguas del Mediterráneo, segregan en campos de concentración o –en el “mejor” de los casos- usan como mano de obra barata.

El asunto es que “globalización” y baratura de la mano de obra extranjera –cuestión para la cual la inmigración representa un potente símbolo- son aspectos inescindibles y resultan “la” sustancia mediante la cual el capital reestableció su dominio tras el fin de las condiciones excepcionales de los años de posguerra. Y esta sustancia es –nada más ni nada menos- que lo que hoy está en cuestión. Donald Trump es el símbolo más cabal de un proceso que durante los últimos 8 o 9 años fue perdiendo –moderadamente, hay que remarcarlo- su dinámica económica y que en ese curso fue horadando con mayor virulencia el pilar de los mecanismos políticos que le daban sustento. Este movimiento complejo reúne en la figura de Trump gran parte de los difíciles interrogantes sobre el derrotero próximo de la economía capitalista.

Sobre glorias y paradojas

Señalamos reiteradamente desde esta columna la dualidad entre éxito y fracaso del neoliberalismo que, en lo fundamental, puede distinguirse temporalmente. Para decirlo sintéticamente: la más amplia libertad al movimiento de capitales –incluida la conquista de nuevos espacios para la acumulación– y una “libertad” restringida y opresiva al movimiento de personas, acompañada del creciente retroceso de las condiciones de existencia de las clases trabajadoras de los países centrales, constituyó la esencia de las décadas de moderado crecimiento neoliberal que siguieron a la crisis de los años ’70. Este trípode que alentó la instauración de una nueva división mundial del trabajo y se erigió en garantía de continuidad del liderazgo norteamericano tras la ruptura del “pacto social” de posguerra, no estuvo exento de la creación de elementos de nuevos “consensos”. El lugar del crédito como estímulo al consumo, máscara del estancamiento salarial y pérdida de beneficios de amplias franjas de trabajadores en los países centrales –Estados Unidos es un paradigma- fue escalando posiciones.

La ilusión de la “democratización de las finanzas” alcanzó su máximo impulso con las hipotecas subprime en los años 2000. En paralelo, la inversión de capital se fue localizando en regiones y países que adquirían la fisonomía de “talleres industriales” como el Sudeste Asiático, México, la India y luego China y Europa del Este. En el mismo proceso en el que el capital foráneo usufructuaba altos estándares de explotación de la mano de obra, incorporaba a millones –muchos de los cuales pasaban de la miseria absoluta a un ingreso miserable- al mercado de trabajo y de consumo capitalista. Al calor de la industrialización de algunas regiones periféricas particulares surgieron tanto sectores de trabajadores especializados y mejor pagos, como nuevas clases medias numerosas que -como en los casos de China o México- tuvieron roles protagónicos en el desarrollo del proceso “consumista”. En síntesis crédito y consumo –como formas derivadas de un capital ficticio creciente- resultaron las estrellas más brillantes de las últimas décadas neoliberales, a la vez que la desigualdad crecía a ritmos desconocidos desde fines del siglo XIX.

Pero no sólo de raigambre económica fueron los elementos de lo que podría llamarse un “consenso” frágil. En un interesante artículo, la intelectual feminista estadounidense, Nancy Fraser, habla de un neoliberalismo “progresista” al que define como “alianza de las corrientes principales de los nuevos movimientos sociales (feminismo, antirracismo, multiculturalismo y derechos de los LGBTQ), por un lado, y, por el otro, sectores de negocios de gama alta ‘simbólica’ y sectores de servicios (Wall Street, Sylicon Valey y Hollywood).” Agrega Fraser que “En esta alianza las fuerzas progresistas se han unido efectivamente con las fuerzas del capitalismo cognitivo, especialmente la financiarización. Aunque maldita sea la gracia lo cierto es que las primeras prestan su carisma a este último.”

Quizás lo más significativo –al menos para el asunto que estamos tratando- resulte que el antirracismo –o la antidiscriminación, da igual- le haya “prestado su carisma” a aquellos cuyas ganancias se encuentran “ontológicamente” asociadas a la superexplotación –sujeta en múltiples oportunidades a prácticas aberrantes e incluso “ilegales”– de mano de obra extranjera tanto migrante como en su lugar de origen. Hoy las multinacionales cognitivas –y las que no lo son no tanto- están embanderando ese “carisma” para defender las bases de una producción “globalizada”, el secreto de su ascenso.

El desencanto

El asunto es que el armado de aquellos múltiples consensos neoliberales sufrió un shock tras la caída de Lehman y comenzó a hacer agua al calor de las débiles condiciones de recuperación que le siguieron. Como explicamos en diversas oportunidades no existió “tierra arrasada” durante el pos 2008 –cuestión que en parte se debió la puesta en escena de una relativa coordinación interestatal. La recuperación económica resultó lo suficientemente “sólida” como para aventar el fantasma de los años ’30 pero lo suficientemente débil –y este es el núcleo del “estancamiento secular”- como para demoler los frágiles consensos internos conquistados hasta entonces. En el curso de esos años la carroza se fue transformando en calabaza… el hechizo del crédito estaba roto y amplios sectores de las clases trabajadoras –fundamentalmente de los países centrales- empezaron a sentir el peso de las conquistas perdidas en décadas previas –incluyendo entre ellas, empleos de buena calidad.

Y ¿qué hay del “neoliberalismo progresista”? Dice bien Fraser que “la victoria de Trump no es solamente una revuelta contra las finanzas globales. Lo que sus votantes rechazaron no fue el neoliberalismo sin más, sino el neoliberalismo progresista.” Y se explica: “Clinton fue el principal ingeniero y portaestandarte de los ‘Nuevos Demócratas’ (…) en vez de la coalición del New Deal entre nuevos obreros industriales sindicalizados, afroamericanos y clases medias urbanas, Clinton forjó una nueva alianza de empresarios, suburbanitas, nuevos movimientos sociales y juventud.” Y agrega que “Durante todos los años en los que se abría un cráter tras otro en su industria manufacturera el país estaba animado y entretenido por una faramalla de ‘diversidad’, ‘empoderamiento’ y ‘no discriminación”. Y resulta que fue “Fue esa amalgama la que desecharon in toto los votantes de Trump (…) Para esas poblaciones, al daño de la desindustrialización se añadió el insulto del moralismo progresista que se acostumbró a considerarlos culturalmente atrasados. Rechazando la globalización, los votantes de Trump repudiaban también el liberalismo cosmopolita identificado con ella.”

Cabe agregar –otra vez- que aquella amalgama “liberal progresista antidiscriminatoria” constituyó la base de una potente operación ideológica destinada a ocultar la discriminación de los trabajadores chinos o mexicanos cuyos salarios resultan, para el último caso, entre 6 y 10 veces menoresque aquellos de sus pares norteamericanos. Trabajadores estos últimos que por supuesto y a la vez, también fueron “discriminados” con la pérdida de sus empleos, viéndose sometidos luego a múltiples formas de precarización. Pero al producirse esa especie de movimiento en reversa en el que tienden a desarmarse múltiples consensos, las cosas aparecen invertidas de resultas que un lado de las víctimas –la mano de obra barata- emerge como victimaria, como quienes “robaron” el trabajo a los “locales” que integran, por supuesto, la otra parte de las víctimas. Y en ese perverso juego de cambio de roles –que tuvo una contraparte poderosa en el voto a Bernie Sanders y en sectores de los electores de Trump que al parecer se oponen a las políticas antiinmigrantes- las empresas “globales” especializadas en explotación de mano de obra extranjera, asoman como los “progres”, defensores/salvadores de quienes son en realidad sus víctimas directas.

China y Vietnam: consensos en “deconstrucción”

Si bien el fenómeno de desencanto y repudio a las élites políticas y económicas está localizado primordialmente en los países centrales, hay quienes están hablando de elementos de un proceso similar en China, una suerte de “The end of the chinese dream” –con todas las limitaciones que se le deben reconocer al “chinese dream”. Contrariamente a lo sucedido en Estados Unidos y en el “centro”, durante los últimos años y por esas cuestiones de la “demanda”, los miserables salarios chinos devinieron bastante menos miserables. El asunto bastó para que comenzaran las deslocalizaciones…hacia Vietnam –donde el salario básico oscila entre los 150 y 200 dólares mensuales contra un promedio de 650 en China (ver Le Monde diplomatique, febrero 2017)-, Bangladesh, Birmania e incluso…México. Nike, Adidas, Puma, Lacoste, Foster, Samsung, Foxconn, Apple, Cannon, son algunas de las empresas filantrópicas que se están retirando de China hacia localizaciones más “económicas” (Idem).

Mientras el desarrollo tecnológico avanza en China, parece estar adquiriendo cierto peso un sector de trabajadores cuya fuerza de trabajo no resulta lo suficientemente barata ni posee los perfiles tecnológicos requeridos. Cuestión que a su vez se encuentra íntimamente relacionada al hecho de que China no puede continuar sosteniendo –también debido a la debilidad de la recuperación mundial- el modelo exportador que construyó el consenso chino-americano de las últimas décadas. Un consenso que –vale aclarar- se sostuvo sobre sus pies en los años pos Lehman y empezó a exteriorizar debilidades a partir del año 2014. Para seguir pensando derivaciones de la “deconstrucción” de los consensos, los límites al modelo exportador chino y su tortuosa –y necesaria- lucha por convertirse en algo más que la segunda economía mundial, están transformando al gigante asiático de un soporte para el modelo anglosajón en una amenaza potencial.

Hay ahí una suerte de diálogo profundo entre la economía y la política, al que venimos haciendo referencia hace ya tiempo. Si Donald Trump –por solo hablar del más shockeante de los fenómenos recientes- es el resultado de las características económicas particulares de la recuperación posterior a la crisis de 2008, la defunción del Tratado Transpacífico es una consecuencia -previsiblemente- derivada del ascenso de Trump.

Y el fin del Tratado Transpacífico, entre otras cuestiones de alto calibre como las aún inciertas consecuencias geopolíticas y económicas sobre la relación chino-norteamericana, le está cortando el aliento a países que, como Vietnam, se imaginaban como el “segundo taller del mundo” (ver Le Monde…) tras el encarecimiento de la mano de obra china y el cerco económico que se le dibujaba al gigante asiático si se concretaba el tratado. Es decir que la pretensión de eventuales “nuevos consensos” internos y externos, parecería estar quedando relegada al mundo de la ilusión.

Comienzan a ponerse en juego variados factores que como mínimo delinean una tendencia hacia la ruptura de los múltiples consensos construidos durante las últimas décadas, algunos de ellos prorrogados con bastante habilidad –como el chino-norteamericano- o forjados –como los elementos de coordinación interestatal- en el escenario pos Lehman.

Ser o no ser global… 

Si Trump tiene el objeto de mostrarse a sí mismo como el representante del más radical de todos los cambios, lo cierto es que enfrenta la ímproba tarea de intentar conformar a sus electores –a quienes prometió el oro y el moro…- sin atacar demasiado las bases de la internacionalización del capital. Justamente una de las contradicciones actuales más flagrantes –venimos insistiendo sobre este asunto– es aquella que muestra que no es la catástrofe económica sino las derivaciones políticas de una crisis potencialmente catastrófica, el fenómeno que está colocando en el centro al “nacionalismo” y al –por ahora- discurso proteccionista.

Pero el tipo de “protección” al que pueden aspirar en las condiciones actuales las grandes empresas de origen norteamericano es naturalmente muy distinto al que pueden ansiar los hombres y mujeres -trabajadores comunes- para los cuales el “sueño americano” se está transformando en pesadilla. Aunque dicho un poco esquemáticamente, si la “protección” que persiguen los primeros tiene básicamente la forma de los mal llamados “Tratados de libre comercio” –una práctica habitual de las últimas décadas asentada en pactos sobre los derechos internacionales de los inversores-, la que buscan los segundos está asociada a una –difícilmente imaginable- reindustrialización de Estados Unidos. Un tercer sector -parte fundamental de los electores de Trump- lo integra la pequeña y mediana empresa naturalmente interesada en exenciones impositivas y un crecimiento del consumo interno, aunque a la vez estrechamente dependiente –en múltiples oportunidades, al menos- del trabajo súper barato de los inmigrantes ilegales.

Pero cuando Trump envía señales del carácter pretendidamente “real” de su discurso, sugiriendo que frenará la inmigración e impondrá fuertemente las importaciones, “amigos” y enemigos le saltan a la yugular. Por solo dar dos ejemplos, el iPod de Apple viene con un sello que dice “Hecho en China, diseñado en California” y la propia Boeing –la mayor empresa exportadora de bienes manufacturados de Estados Unidos- produce una porción significativa de las piezas de avión en Méxicodesde donde además importa –entre otros productos- cocinas para los aviones, sistemas de cableado, aires acondicionados, timbres y mantas de aislamiento. Pero no sólo las “top” estarían en problemas, sino también los empresarios tamberos…Las deportaciones podrían provocar la desaparición de más de7000 tambos que no tendrían quién les trabaje… Más allá de negociaciones parciales -como en el caso de Carrier, Ford o Boeing, entre otros- Trump no puede modificar cualitativamente una estructura de cadenas de valor diseñada para aprovechar múltiples ventajas en diversos rincones del planeta y construida con tanto “esmero” durante los últimos cuarenta años. Estructura que –de más no está repetir- constituyó la esencia de la salvación del capital posterior a la crisis del ’70. Es difícil imaginar cuál podría ser la nueva “gran empresa” capitalista que sustituya el armado neoliberal.

En el terreno que podríamos llamar “financiero” vale dejar planteado como interrogante –aunque no vamos a desarrollar el asunto aquí- si la previsible liquidación de la ley Dodd Frank y la resurrección de los proyectos de construcción de los polémicos oleoductos de Keystone XL y Dokota Access, implican una apuesta de Trump al armado de alguna nueva burbuja petrolera. Cuestión que empero nacería rodeada de múltiples contradicciones como la muy probable revaluación del dólar que –sin ser el único factor que lo determina- repercutirá negativamente sobre el precio de las materias primas incluido, por supuesto, el petróleo.

Con toda la incertidumbre que sigue sobrevolando la escena, lo cierto es que las políticas de Trump apuntarán como mínimo a una “reforma” de la globalización, asunto que –amén de las formas políticas, es claro- tiene elementos de contacto con las sugerencias de distintos liberales “aterrados” o neokeynesianos pro global, como Paul Krugman. El problema es que la idea de “reformar la globalización” con medidas proteccionistas –aunque sean débiles- tiene aroma a contrasentido y es muy probable que en su intento derrame crisis de todo tipo. En el plano interno, profundizando grietas en las alturas que tenderán a combinarse con la crisis de consenso latente. En el plano internacional, incrementando las fricciones –cuestión que ya es evidente- y tal como observamos desde esta misma columna, estableciendo un límite estricto a la “coordinación interestatal” que cumplió un rol tan destacado en la contención de la crisis durante los últimos años.

Paula Bach

Paula Bach: Economista egresada de la Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA).

El pasado 21 de diciembre de 2016 salía a la luz pública que el emporio brasileño Odebrecht, la mayor constructora de América Latina con más de 168 000 empleados e ingresos de más de 40 000 millones de dólares y cuyo presidente ya fuera juzgado y encarcelado en 2015 en el marco del escándalo Petrobras, había recurrido de manera masiva al pago de sobornos a políticos, partidos y funcionarios por un monto estimado por el Departamento de Justicia de Estados Unidos en 788 millones de dólares para conseguir la concesión de licitaciones públicas en varios países latinoamericanos (Brasil, Panamá, República Dominicana, México, Guatemala, Ecuador, Perú, Venezuela, Colombia, Argentina y Guatemala) y africanos. Los impactos políticos y económicos del caso están aún por calibrarse, a medida que las informaciones van filtrándose, pero conviene detenerse en aquello que el caso Odebrecht no debería ocultarnos en su espectacular estallido mediático.

Una Púnica a escala latinoamericana

Para dimensionar adecuadamente la magnitud del delito y a la vez curarnos preventivamente de cualquier prejuicio chovinista, la suma comprometida a lo largo y ancho del caso Odebrecht se corresponde con la suma total de lo defraudado en España por las tramas Púnica, ERE de Andalucía, Gürtel y el caso Saqueo, por sólo escoger algunos de los más de 120 casos de corrupción censados en nuestro país.

Más allá de su magnitud, el entramado Odebrecht revela tanto la intensidad como el modus operandi (relativamente simple y homogéneo) mediante el cual se ha generalizado esta inmensa dinámica de colusión entre los intereses de las grandes corporaciones transnacionales (especialmente aquellas dedicadas a la extracción de materias primas y a la realización de grandes obras públicas) y los defendidos por las élites político-administrativas de numerosos estados periféricos del Sistema-Mundo, por recuperar la terminología de Wallerstein.

Al mismo tiempo, muestra que la impunidad se ha banalizado a tal punto que difícilmente será un desafío superable en los dos próximos decenios en América Latina y quizás de manera más acusada en un continente africano, que sigue siendo la presa más inerme de los grandes entramados crematísticos en torno a los cuales se despliega el capitalismo internacional: hasta el momento, sólo en Brasil (con el PT vastamente tocado), en Colombia y, desde la semana pasada en Perú (con el expresidente Toledo directamente implicado) hay personas juzgadas o imputadas.

Pero lo que subyace tras el que ha sido ya definido como el mayor caso de corrupción en la historia reciente de América Latina no es otra cosa sino la consecuencia del despliegue del capitalismo en su nueva fase de acumulación, embarrancada ya en el pillaje compulsivo de lo que hasta ahora pertenecía al dominio público, al Estado social, o seguía bajo el control de las comunidades locales, y que está siendo, en tiempos de la gobernanza neoliberal, llevado a cabo por la alianza entre los Estados (los centrales como promotores y los periféricos como cómplices necesarios) y los oligopolios privados.

Más allá de Odebrecht

El neoextractivismo es una estrategia de desarrollo económico adoptada por la mayoría de los gobiernos de América del Sur, con especial intensidad a principios del siglo XXI. Apoyada argumentalmente en la necesidad de alimentar las arcas públicas en pos de la aplicación de políticas redistributivas, se basa en la intensificación al interior de la matriz productiva de aquellas actividades de explotación de la naturaleza para la obtención de recursos no procesados, dirigidos de forma prioritaria a la exportación.

Si bien en su modo de operación el neoextractivismo se basa en el extractivismo convencional, difiere de éste en el papel protagónico que adquieren los Estados periféricos en un proceso productivo cuya mayor plusvalía es captada por los Estados centrales. Esta participación puede adoptar una forma directa, a través de empresas estatales, o indirecta, a través de la operación de empresas transnacionales a las que se aplican tributaciones especiales y regalías, así como otros diversos mecanismos de regulación, permitiéndose la obtención de un porcentaje mayor de ingresos para las arcas estatales. Parte de estos recursos sirven para la puesta en marcha de programas sociales y otras iniciativas públicas que dotan a los gobiernos de cierto grado de legitimidad y de hecho, es sobre esta base sobre la que reposa el argumentario de los gobiernos neoextractivistas al enfrentar las críticas desde la izquierda, el ecologismo, las comunidades indígenas, los sectores urbanos de clase media y estudiantiles y los activistas altermundialistas, que se encuentran cada vez con mayor intensidad denunciando los estragos de esta estrategia de desarrollo.

Sin embargo, como se han encargado de demostrar diversos autores latinoamericanos (Gudynas, Svampa, Acosta, Escobar, Lander, entre otros) los mayores ingresos que supuestamente podrían percibir las economías de los países en los que se ceba ahora con especial intensidad el sistema capitalista global en busca de commodities cada vez más escasas, no se contabilizan enormes “externalidades” tales como la pérdida de biodiversidad, el deterioro de ecosistemas y de los servicios y funciones ambientales que prestan, la desestructuración y paulatina disolución de culturas ancestrales, ni los recursos económicos que será necesario destinar para descontaminar los vectores ambientales (agua, aire, agua y suelo).

Según Maristella Svampa, las políticas de lo que ella denomina el neo-extractivismo progresista (en referencia a los gobiernos latinoamericanos de izquierda que adoptaron este modelo) deben ser reevaluadas, puesto que “en la medida en que no se ha realizado un balance objetivo que dé cuenta de los activos y pasivos que provocarán las nuevas explotaciones extractivas, la afirmación sobre mayores ingresos debe al menos relativizarse”[1]. En realidad, la “maldición de la abundancia” a la que se refiere acertadamente Alberto Acosta[2] cuando describe la condena que sufren los países ricos en materias primas a vivir permanentemente en el esquema primario-exportador subordinado al metabolismo capitalista internacional operado desde los Estados centrales en co-gobernanza con las corporaciones transnacionales y los grandes organismos internacionales, se ha cumplido con su factura de profundización de las dinámicas uniformizadoras y ampliadoras de los cercamientos privatizadores del capitalismo global, incluso en aquellas circunstancias histórico-políticas más favorables a una posible ruptura con el orden económico imperante.

¿Pero es que de este balance catastrófico para las posibilidades de un desarrollo sustentable en América Latina y en el mundo no han sido conscientes los gobernantes de la región, en su mayoría progresistas y de izquierdas en el primer quinquenio? Todo tiende a hacernos pensar que sí lo han sido, pero que lo que ha operado aquí es la visión pragmática y sobre todo, lo que Marx llamaría la “subsunción bajo el capital”, y que Wolin ha descrito posteriormente como la gran simbiosis entre el capital y el Estado[3], convertido en gran empresa extractiva, y por la cual las nuevas élites políticas latinoamericanas, que eran en un principio en sus discursos y primeras acciones de gobierno radicalmente refractarias a constituirse en piezas subordinadas al engranaje global, acaban siendo cooptadas por y para la supervivencia del capital en una de sus fases críticas (que Harvey achaca más a la sobreacumulación de capital que a la sobreproducción de mercancías).

La pregunta aquí es obligada: ¿de qué nos sirven los Estados como propietarios (soberanos) de nuestros bienes comunes estratégicos cuando, cediendo el usufructo de nuestros territorios de manera prácticamente ilimitada a las grandes transnacionales, se convierten en meros administradores/legitimadores del pillaje? El avance de los grandes espacios de liberalización comercial y financiera, que ocurre actualmente bajo la forma de Acuerdos de Libre Comercio y de Inversiones (TTIP, CETA, TPP, etc), es tan sólo la expresión más mediatizada de las nuevas apuestas del cosmocapital para dar el golpe de gracia tanto a la soberanía de Estados (cuyas élites administrativas han sido vastamente cooptadas) como a los Derechos Humanos (en especial los económicos y sociales y ambientales) y al Derecho Internacional en general…

La pista de Odebrecht nos lleva por tanto hasta el verdadero meollo de la cuestión detrás del inmenso nubarrón de corrupciones: el expolio programado que se lleva dando en toda América Latina y en África por parte del entramado trans-estatal-corporativo, en perjuicio no sólo de las poblaciones donde se localizan los recursos extraídos sino, de manera agregada y en la asunción de nuestra cada vez mayor interconexión e interdependencia, del desarrollo sustentable de todas las sociedades.

Sin lugar a dudas, el espacio paradigmático de esa operación de expolio a gran escala es la Amazonía, y su puntal y mayor exponente ya operativo, la Iniciativa de Integración Regional Sudamericana (IIRSA). Un mega-proyecto iniciado justo a comienzos del milenio compuesto de centenas de proyectos viales, hidrocarburíferos, mineros, agro-forestales, hidrológicos y de ocupación y destrucción progresiva del ecosistema amazónico y las culturas que lo habitan que se ha desarrollado contra todas las advertencias científicas y sin consulta ciudadana alguna. La columna vertebral del IIRSA, la Carretera Interoceánica Brasil-Perú, ha tronchado ya por la mitad el que es el segundo mayor pulmón del planeta, su segunda reserva de agua dulce (quizás la primera, cuando se pueda calcular el volumen total de aguas subterráneas que posee) y su principal sumidero de carbono. Odebrecht, por cierto, empresa constructora de uno de sus tramos, pagó 20 millones de dólares al entonces presidente Alejandro Toledo para asegurarse la concesión.

Preparar nuestras sociedades para abordar una transición inteligente hacia una era post-capitalista (la transición forzosa será el colapso sistémico, ecológico y civilizatorio, que nos espera en caso de seguir sosteniendo el actual sistema) supone no sólo denunciar y actuar con toda la fuerza del derecho y de las movilizaciones sociales contra la inmensa tela corrupción, sino poner en cuestión el entramado de intereses geopolíticos y puramente crematísticos que la sostiene y la estira cada día más hacia nuestro colapso como especie.

Juan Peris-Mencheta Barrio

Juan Peris-Mencheta Barrio: Politólogo, asistente acreditado en el Parlamento Europeo.

El sufrimiento en que está hundida la gran mayoría de la población griega puede ser ilustrado con estas cifras: el 49,2 % de las familias solo disponen como única fuente de ingresos la jubilación de uno de sus miembros; el 37,1 % de las familias afirman vivir con menos de 10 000 euros al año. Oficialmente, el 73,3 % de la gente declarada en paro está clasificada como parada de larga duración. En este contexto, es evidente que el 73,5 % de las familias interrogadas durante el período que se extiende del 14 al 26 de noviembre de 2016 “pronostican” que su situación financiera se deteriorará en el futuro. Estos datos no revelan el descalabro de los servicios públicos, en primer lugar el de la salud y el de la educación.

El salario mínimo para la gente asalariada mayor de 25 años era el siguiente: 1 de enero de 2010: 739,56 euros; 1 de julio de 2011: 751, 39 euros; 14 de febrero de 2012: 580,08 euros. Los datos publicados por Eurostat indican que, en el seno de los países de la Unión Europea, Grecia es el único en el que el salario mínimo de 2016 era claramente inferior al de 2008. Hay que precisar también que es un salario mínimo por un empleo a tiempo completo. Ahora bien, solo el 42,6 % de los y las asalariadas trabajan a tiempo completo. De cuatro personas asalariadas que hayan obtenido un empleo en 2016, dos obtienen un salario inferior a 600 euros. Y los empleos de dos o de cuatro horas por semana son corrientes, como exige la “flexibilidad del trabajo” que debe asegurar la “competitividad” de la economía griega y, sobre todo, una estadística a la baja del paro. El salario horario en numerosos sectores está a la altura de 3 euros y el Ministro de Trabajo ha tenido que reconocer que 125 000 personas asalariadas ganan menos de 100 euros por mes, lo que plantea interrogantes sobre su “seguridad social” y su futura jubilación.

La distribución por determinados patronos de cupones de alimentos es algo cada vez más frecuente. Por ejemplo, un persona empleada en una sociedad puede cobrar un salario de 800 euros y 160 euros en bonos de compra para obtener bienes. La empresa tiene la obligación de pagar el salario mínimo, pero puede proponer bonos de compra para la parte que depasa el salario mínimo. La prensa indica la extensión de este sistema en el sector bancario, el comercio y la construcción.

El sociólogo Christos Papatheodorou de la Universidad Panteion de Atenas confía al periodista de Le Monde (14/02/2017): Las últimas medidas tomadas por el gobierno de Alexis Tsipras van a empobrecer aún más a la población griega y van a aumentar las desigualdades. La subida de los impuestos ataca una vez más a las clases medias y no a las personas más acomodadas, que han abierto desde hace mucho cuentas en el extranjero y encontrado los medios para escapar al fisco. En 2009, el 18 % de la ciudadanía griega estaba amenazada de pobreza o de exclusión social. En 2013, según las últimas cifras conocidas, era el 49 %. Tal empobrecimiento es algo nunca visto.

Desde 2013, la situación no ha hecho sino agravarse. Los desahucios, por imposibilidad de pago de los préstamos se han disparado. Comienza a darse un movimiento análogo a lo que se ha producido en regiones del Estado español contra estos desahucios; por ejemplo, en Tesalónica. En cuanto a las decenas de miles de personas refugiadas, están encerradas y son víctimas de una tortura cotidiana.

Desde hace 15 días existe una amplia movilización de agricultores con bloqueo de carreteras, de acceso a aeropuertos, etc. Se ven estrangulados por los nuevos impuestos, la supresión de subvenciones al gasoil, la revisión drástica de las jubilaciones, etc. La convergencia de la movilización en Atenas está a debate.

Ha habido diversas luchas sectoriales entre los estudiantes, los jubilados, los bomberos, el sector de la salud… Sin embargo, el frente de los acreedores no está dispuesto a ceder. Hundir a la mayoría de la población griega en lo que, en el pasado, se llamaban “casas de reeducación” remite a las exigencias de un “orden nuevo” que se oculta tras la pantalla de las “negociaciones en el seno de una Europa democrática” y de una “bendición por una mayoría parlamentaria” que apoya a un gobierno “democráticamente elegido”. La contrarrevolución del ordoliberalismo toma arraigo en Grecia, con la decrepitud del sistema político que se deriva de ello. Publicamos a continuación una entrevista con Antonis Ntavanellos, que analiza la evolución política desde 2010. En próximas fechas analizaremos la coyuntura política.

Liz Walsh: En la medida en que Syriza se ha revelado incapaz de poner fin a la austeridad, ¿valía la pena construir un partido amplio que implicara a diferentes corrientes de la izquierda radical, revolucionarias y reformistas? ¿La lucha por un gobierno de izquierdas era el camino adecuado?

Antonis Ntavanellos: Syriza fue fundada a comienzos de 2004, sobre la base de la experiencia acumulada anteriormente en el Foro Social Griego (FSG). El FSG era un frente unificado en el seno de los movimientos sociales. Reunía en la acción a fuerzas cuyas tradiciones y orígenes ideológicos eran diferentes (por decirlo de forma resumida: reformistas, centristas y marxistas revolucionarios).

El período estaba caracterizado por ataques capitalistas intensos, una crisis de la izquierda tradicional así como un declive de los sindicatos y de las organizaciones sociales. En este contexto, el FSG logró organizar una ola de grandes movilizaciones contra el neoliberalismo y manifestaciones masivas contra la guerra. El FSG constituyó la forma principal tomada en Grecia por el movimiento internacional contra la mundialización capitalista neoliberal.

Al mismo tiempo, el FSG era una afirmación del valor de un frente común, aportando una renovación en los debates en el seno de la izquierda griega, en donde las tradiciones estalinistas seguían teniendo fuerza.

Tras los acontecimientos de Génova, en 2001 [movilizaciones masivas contra la cumbre del G7 en Génova, momento fuerte del “movimiento antiglobalización”], toda la izquierda europea estuvo atravesada por el debate que consistía en saber si y cómo podíamos expresar en las luchas políticas la unidad de acción que habíamos establecido ya en las calles. Estaba claro que esto implicaba la perspectiva de una participación común en elecciones. En 2004, aceptamos este desafío, participando en la creación de Syriza.

Syriza era la forma griega adoptada como respuesta al debate general sobre los “partidos amplios” de la izquierda radical. A la vez que aceptaba el desafío participando en Syriza, la Izquierda Obrera Internacionalista (OEA) tenía una orientación sobre los partidos amplios que era diferente de la que dominaba entonces, tal como estaba expresada por ciertas secciones de la IV Internacional, por ejemplo.

No considerábamos, en primer lugar, a los partidos amplios como la “respuesta final” a la cuestión del partido. Considerábamos que se trataba de un proceso transitorio en una situación muy específica, con el telón de fondo de una crisis de los movimientos de resistencia y de la izquierda.

En segundo lugar, por esta razón, no prometimos jamás y jamás hemos aceptado la disolución de nuestra organización. No hemos relegado nunca a un segundo plano nuestros propios “instrumentos” independientes de construcción y de “comunicación” política con las personas interesadas: periódico, revista, reuniones y actividades públicas propias.

Además, defendimos públicamente, desde el comienzo, la necesidad de una corriente de izquierdas organizada en el seno de Syriza. Aunque nuestre formación, DEA, gozara del respeto y del reconocimiento de una amplia parte de los miembros de Syriza, no se sumó jamás a la mayoría dirigente; ni siquiera en la fase más “radical” de Alexis Tsipras.

Este planteamiento se reveló de una gran importancia en el momento de la crisis. Esto explica -parcialmente- la rapidez de la reacción de la izquierda de Syriza en 2015, si se compara con lo que ocurrió, por ejemplo, en Brasil [cuando el primer gobierno Lula de enero de 2003] o en Italia [crisis del Partido de la Refundación Comunista].

Los once años de la experiencia Syriza han contribuido a la formación de una amplia capa de militantes políticos en Grecia. Esta capa es más fuerte numéricamente (en términos relativos) que en otros muchos países de Europa. Es también más fuerte políticamente: está entrenada por la lucha y ha superado la “enfermedad infantil” de la dispersión de las fuerzas en un “movimientismo social”.

Es la razón por la que, quienes hemos combatido con vigor las políticas del gobierno Syriza-Griegos Independientes desde febrero de 2015, defendamos la experiencia del primer período de acción radical de Syriza.

Estamos convencidos de que esta capa de activistas políticos, hombres y mujeres, no ha dicho su última palabra. Estamos convencidos de que esas personas protagonizarán luchas contra el gobierno Tsipras y jugarán un papel muy importante en la configuración de la nueva situación, dando forma a la época “post-Syriza”.

Tras haber firmado [en julio 2015] el tercer memorándum con los acreedores, el gobierno de Tsipras pone en marcha políticas neoliberales típicas: disminución de los salarios, de las jubilaciones y de las prestaciones sociales; privatizaciones y creación de un sistema de relaciones laborales más “flexibles”; aumento de los impuestos a los sectores populares, etc. Con estas políticas económicas reaccionarias, el gobierno Tsipras sigue siendo incapaz de realizar reformas democráticas, ni siquiera las más elementales, ni siquiera las que no tienen “coste financiero”. Para gobernar, necesita apoyarse en el aparato represivo del Estado.

Para los marxistas revolucionarios, la cuestión de un “gobierno de la izquierda” ha sido espinosa siempre. La primera vez que fue propuesto como estrategia en el seno de Syriza, en 2008, le rechazamos considerándola una estrategia parlamentario-reformista. No fue aceptada. Todo cambió como consecuencia del estallido de la crisis y sobre todo como consecuencia de las masivas luchas sociales de 2010-2011. En ese momento, amplios sectores de la población se movilizaban masivamente -y con tenacidad- para echar abajo los memorándums [impuestos por la Troika y aceptados por los gobiernos griegos]. Comprendían que para alcanzar este objetivo, debían derrocar el gobierno.

A pesar de la importancia de las luchas y de la determinación de las masas, la situación no era revolucionaria en Grecia: el enfrentamiento no había alcanzado el nivel de una “lucha a muerte”, el enfrentamiento no había adoptado la forma clara de la “lucha de una clase contra otra”. Y la clase trabajadora no disponía de sus propias organizaciones sociales independientes capaces de reivindicar un poder real. Estos límites hicieron que la voluntad de derrocamiento fuera “desviada” hacia la reivindicación de un gobierno de la izquierda, incluso en el ambiente de una victoria electoral.

Debíamos reconcer este contexto y buscar la línea política más radical en estos parámetros. Reintrodujimos en el debate público en Grecia las discusiones sobre el gobierno de izquierdas que se desarrollaron en el IV Congreso de la Internacional Comunista [1923]. Este Congreso consideraba esta cuestión como una política transitoria en dirección a una emancipación socialista.

Hemos luchado en este sentido y todas nuestras iniciativas tácticas estaban determinadas por este planteamiento. Esto nos ha permitido mantenernos firmes en nuestra orientación de clase y conservar el respeto hacia nuestra organización tanto de numerosos miembros de la base de Syriza como por militantes exteriores.

Actualmente, Nuestro balance crítico del eslogan de un gobierno de izquierdas gira principalmente sobre dos puntos.

· El primero concierne a los factores objetivos. Se ha demostrado que una política transitoria que integre un gobierno de la izquierda supone un grado más elevado de intervención política de las masas a través de sus propias organizaciones sociales que el que habíamos creado en Grecia en 2015.

· El segundo tiene que ver con factores subjetivos: el equilibrio de las fuerzas entre reformistas y revolucionarios en el seno de la coalición y en el movimiento social. El proyecto de un “gobierno de la izquierda” supone una determinación política bastante más fuerte para un enfrentamiento de este tipo que lo que significó la resolución de Syriza en su conjunto en 2015.

Es importante señalar que DEA no afirmó jamás que Syriza lograría llevar a cabo, de forma auténtica, un proyecto “gobierno de la izquierda”. En nuestra opinión, se trataba más bien de una fórmula que servía de marco ideológico para nuestras acciones -acciones que comprendían el enfrentamiento en el seno de Syriza contra el grupo dirigente alrededor de Tsipras- que una apreciación de lo que ocurriría finalmente.

En el corazón de los acontecimientos trascendentales, las ideas son siempre importantes, aunque permanezcan en la superficie. En el momento del test decisivo, la mayoría dirigente de Syriza puso sus orígenes eurocomunistas en primer plano y se volvió hacia esa configuración política.

El gobierno de Tsipras claudicó tan rápidamente porque rechazó enfrentarse a la clase dominante local durante los seis cruciales primeros meses de 2015 y porque tenía la ilusión de que era posible llegar a una solución de consenso gracias a negociaciones con la UE (Unión Europea), revisando las posiciones anteriores de Syriza y modificándolas a fin de “permanecer a cualquier precio en el seno de la Eurozona”. El resultado de estas dos importantes retrocesos condujo a la firma del tercer memorándum por Alexis Tsipras en julio de 2015.

Cuando el primer gobierno Tsipras, DEA jugó un papel central reforzando la determinación de la izquierda en el seno de Syriza, la Corriente de Izquierdas, a oponerse a la claudicación. En el desastre de Syriza, emergió un nuevo partido-movimiento político, la Unidad Popular (LAE), a fin de mantener la esperanza en la existencia de un camino diferente al seguido por Syriza.

¿Cuál es el clima en el seno de la clase trabajadora y cuál es la orientación de LAE tanto para favorecer la resistencia a la austeridad como la construcción de fuerzas de izquierda? ¿Cuál es la posición de LAE sobre la pertenencia a la UE teniendo en cuenta que el eslogan de DEA en el seno de Syriza era “ningún sacrificio por el euro, ninguna ilusión en el dracma”? ¿Ha cambiado esto tras la experiencia de Syriza?

En 2013, DEA fundó la Plataforma de Izquierdas (PIG) en el seno de Syriza, con la Corriente de Izquierdas (la tendencia de izquierdas del partido Synaspismos cuyo portavoz más conocido es Panayiotis Lafazanis). La PIG era el centro de la resistencia contra Tsipras, y alrededor de ella se produjo una ruptura rápida y masiva en el curso del verano de 2015 cuando alrededor del 50 % de los miembros y cuadros del partido se nos sumaron fuera de Syriza.

La PIG cofundó la Unidad Popular (LAE por sus iniciales griegas) con dos organizaciones que rompieron con Antarsya, la coalición de la izquierda anticapitalista. En las elecciones de septiembre de 2015, LAE no consiguió tener su propio grupo parlamentario puesto que reunimos el 2,9 % de los votos, es decir, menos del 3 % que es el umbral que permite entrar en el Parlamento. Este fracaso puede ser atribuido al plazo extremadamente corto que podíamos utilizar (menos de tres semanas para organizar un “nuevo partido” y realizar la campaña electoral) y sobre todo a las calumnias unánimes de los medios de masas contra el “ala izquierda de Syriza”, definiéndonos como “peligrosos aventureros”.

Algunos meses más tarde, alrededor de 5 000 activistas organizados participaron en la conferencia fundadora de LAE. Es evidente que LAE reúne la mayor parte de la izquierda organizada opuesta al memorándum en Grecia fuera del Partido Comunista (KKE).

Vale la pena decir algo a propósito de la evolución del KKE. Su dirección parece estar poniendo en práctica un giro a la izquierda en el terreno de las ideas: habla de socialismo, rechaza la estrategia de las “etapas” intermedias, renueva la historia del partido sobre una base crítica, abriendo de nuevo el debate sobre su estrategia durante la resistencia entre 1940 y 1944 así como durante la guerra civil que le siguió. Este proceso tiene por objetivo principal descartar toda colaboración con otras fuerzas de izquierda, toda acción común, ni siquiera la más pequeña. Esto se parece más a la política estalinista del tercer período (1927-1928 a 1935) que a una vuelta hacia una política revolucionaria efectiva.

En el seno de LAE, DEA plantea una forma organizativa democrática que permita a otras fuerzas sumarse a LAE, incluyendo Antarsya y otras fuerzas que han abandonado Syriza. Intentamos, de nuevo, construir una corriente común de la izquierda radical opuesta al memorándum.

Sin embargo, lo hacemos en una situación política diferente.

· La rapidez de la capitulación de Syriza -y el giro abrupto pasando del No expresado en el referéndum del 5 de julio de 2015 al Si al tercer memorándum de Tsipras de los días 12-13 de julio en la reunión del Eurogrupo- y el cinismo de la política gubernamental que siguió engendraron la desmoralización entre una gran parte de la gente. El hundimiento de la confianza hacia Syriza ha sido rápido, pero la amplia mayoría popular sigue silenciosa por el momento. No se ha expresado directamente en luchas sectoriales (y defensivas, hay que subrayar), sino en un giro hacia la lucha individual para sobrevivir en medio de la crisis.

· El mantenimiento de movilizaciones, aunque sean muy pequeñas, necesita un esfuerzo organizado de la izquierda política bastante más importante. La contribución de LAE en este sentido es manifiesta. A través de nuestras acciones anteriores, hemos heredado un programa común en términos de objetivos contra la austeridad: la defensa de los salarios y de las jubilaciones; la lucha contra la flexibilidad, la oposición a las privatizaciones; la batalla contra los desahucios, etc.

LAE sigue defendiendo también, de forma unánime, la nacionalización-socialización de los bancos así como la suspensión del pago de la deuda, con el objetivo de su anulación. Se trata de “nudos” indispensables para un programa transitorio necesario para derrotar la austeridad y dirigirse hacia el socialismo.

· Sin embargo, emergen nuevas cuestiones de forma permanente. Has preguntado sobre lo que ocurría con nuestra antigua consigna de “ningún sacrificio por el euro-ninguna ilusión en el dracma”. Era una consigna “algebraica” en el momento del ascenso de Syriza. Cuando nos vimos confrontados a posiciones rígidas de los acreedores y de los dirigentes de la UE, que exigían muchos más sacrificios, tuvimos que radicalizar la consigna y defender abierta y claramente la salida de la zona euro como precondición necesaria para derrotar la austeridad y anular los memorándums. Hay también unanimidad en el seno de LAE en torno a ello.

Si la salida de la zona euro es efectivamente una precondición necesaria, esto no significa no obstante que sea suficiente en términos de programa de izquierdas, de la clase trabajadora. Afirmamos que una salida de la zona euro y un enfrentamiento con los dirigentes de la UE solo tendrá un contenido emancipador si está combinada a un programa más amplio de medidas anticapitalistas que abra una perspectiva socialista. Otros compañeros y compañeras, en el seno del LAE, piensan que una salida de la zona euro es objetivamente una solución progresista en la medida en que prepararía el camino a un crecimiento de la economía griega, lo que crearía objetivamente más ocasiones para la acción de las clases trabajadoras y populares.

· Se trata, en cierta forma, de una repetición de la controversia entre los partidarios de una estrategia socialista revolucionaria y quienes son favorables a una estrategia de “independencia nacional”, es decir una estrategia de las “etapas intermedias”. Un debate que atravesó a la izquierda durante los años 1960 y 1970. Ahora mismo, en el seno de LAE existe una discusión de ese tipo.

Este debate se ha vuelto más importante aún tras el voto favorable al Brexit, el ascenso de Marine Le Pen en Francia, de Geert Wilders en los Países Bajos (Partido de la Libertad) o también después del referéndum contra la reforma constitucional de Matteo Renzi en Italia (diciembre de 2016). Algunas fracciones de las clases dominantes europeas parecen perder confianza en la zona euro y volverse hacia el proteccionismo así como hacia políticas de “preferencia nacional”. Esta tendencia está claramente favorecida por la victoria electoral de Donald Trump en Estados Unidos.

En Grecia no hay una fracción seria de la clase capitalista que contemple mejores perspectivas fuera de la zona euro o que defienda una vuelta al dracma. Esto podría cambiar porque la crisis del capitalismo griego es extremadamente profunda, porque todo el mundo sabe que el tercer memorándum conduce a un callejón sin salida y porque numerosos capitalistas temen que al final del camino de las “devaluaciones internas” en el seno de la zona euro no existe ningún tipo de recompensa por parte de los acreedores, sino la bancarrota y la expulsión de la zona euro. Ya empiezan a aparecer en la prensa las primeras voces provenientes del coro del establishment sobre la necesidad de prepararse para todas esas eventualidades.

Syriza participa también en las tentativas de la Unión Europea de crear una fortaleza Europa encerrando a las personas refugiadas en campos y devolviendo a algunas a Turquía. ¿Puedes describirnos la situación de las personas refugiadas en Grecia y, en particular, en las islas? Hemos asistido en toda Europa al ascenso de partidos de extrema derecha. ¿Ha sido Amanecer Dorado capaz de capitalizar la decepción representada por Syriza, así como la llamada crisis de las personas refugiadas?

El destino de las personas refugiadas ha sido determinada por el acuerdo reaccionario y racista concluido entre la UE, Turquía y Grecia. Es importante subrayar que a fin de “controlar” la aplicación del acuerdo, una flota de guerra de la OTAN ha entrado en el mar Egeo (principalmente debido a la insistencia del gobierno Tsipras) y vigila la situación en Siria así como los navíos de guerra rusos estacionados en el Este del Mediterráneo.

El acuerdo atribuye a Turquía la responsabilidad de mantener a la mayoría de las personas refugiadas dentro de sus fronteras. Implica igualmente el “encierro” de ciertos refugiados (más de 60 000) en Grecia, haciendo extremadamente difícil sus esfuerzos para llegar a Europa central y luego, finalmente, a Europa occidental. A fin de desanimar a las personas refugiadas para entrar en Grecia, el poder organiza una abominable “acogida”: son encerradas en campos aislados, principalmente en las islas, sin esperanza ni perspectivas.

En las jornadas más difíciles de este invierno, la situación en los campos se ha vuelto totalmente insostenible. Ha habido revueltas contra esas condiciones execrables, así como contra los ataques racistas organizados por la extrema derecha.

¡En un país que recibe cada verano 21 millones de turistas, el gobierno afirma que le es difícil ofrecer hospitalidad decente para 60 000 personas! A pesar de todo, lo que es positivo es que una gran parte de la población griega manifiesta una solidaridad firme.

Las principales tareas a las que hace frente el movimiento antirracista organizado son las siguientes: en primer lugar cambiar la situación en los campos imponiendo un control social y democrático de las condiciones que prevalecen en ellos, así como presionar para la transferencia de las personas refugiadas a espacios de acogida abiertos y decentes, en las ciudades. En segundo lugar, exigir que los y las hijas de las personas refugiadas sean aceptadas de pleno derecho en las escuelas públicas [los cursos se organizan a veces oficialmente, pero fuera de las clases de los niños y niñas “griegos”] así como un acceso por entero a la atención sanitaria en los hospitales públicos. En fin, una oposición a los esfuerzos de Amanecer Dorado y de la extrema derecha que intentan organizar una respuesta racista.

La dirección de Amanecer Dorado y un gran número de sus militantes, están siendo acusados de ser miembros de una organización criminal. Debido a ello, se han retirado con precaución: sus “tropas de asalto” han sido retiradas de las calles y ha habido un fuerte declive del número de “incidentes” ligados a la violencia racista.

La desilusión masiva que representa Syriza aporta sin embargo nuevas posibilidades a Amanecer Dorado. Esta formación se sitúa constantemente en tercera posición en los sondeos, con una estimación del 8 % en las intenciones de voto. La dirección intenta explotar esta ocasión mediante un giro parlamentario: presentan un perfil más “respetable”, se expresan sobre todo como “nacionalistas” y no como neonazis, intentando así introducir en el espíritu de sus partidarios que existe la perspectiva de que puedan jugar un papel en un gobierno futuro. Sin embargo, este giro engendra también tensiones en el seno de Amanecer Dorado.

Al mismo tiempo, otros políticos de extrema derecha lanzan iniciativas de cara a crear un partido nacionalista amplio, que sería capaz de cooperar con Nueva Democracia en el caso de que la “gestión” de la crisis en Grecia tuviera que necesitar un gobierno de la “derecha dura”.

Nuestra tarea no es permanecer pasivos y hacer predicciones sobre la evolución de los neonazis y de la extrema derecha. Debemos continuar movilizándonos a fin de hacer quebrar a Amanecer Dorado, una organización que es una amenaza seria para la izquierda y el movimiento de las y los trabajadores. La mejor forma de hacerlo es ligar la lucha antifascista con la lucha por derrotar a la austeridad y por la anulación de los memorándums.

Antonis Ntavanellos

Liz Walsh

Artículo original en francés:

La gauche radical après Syriza, publicado el 14 de febrero de 2017.

Traducido por Faustino Eguberri para VIENTO SUR.

El próximo 19 de febrero se decide en Ecuador, a través de elecciones presidenciales y legislativas, si sigue la Revolución Ciudadana, que ha cambiado históricamente el país suramericano, o si vuelve la derecha al poder.

La campaña electoral ha estado involucrada en mentiras y manipulación de informaciones por parte de la oposición, una “campaña sucia” como ha denominado el presidente Rafael Correa, electo presidente por primera vez en 2006 y reelecto dos veces más.

En esta entrevista el profesor doctor Jorge Orbe, del Instituto de Altos Estudios Nacionales de Ecuador (IAEN), hace un balance de los candidatos con perspectivas para el país andino.

El economista Jorge Ober también analisa el significado de las próximas elecciones en Ecuador para América Latina, que vive entre gobiernos progresistas y al ataque de una derecha golpista, sin proyectos y financiada por Washington.

A seguir, la versión íntegra de la entrevista sobre una de las campañas electorales más importantes de América Latina en los últimos años.

Entrevista a Jorge Orbe León por Edu Montesanti para Caros Amigos.

¿Cuál es su visión, profesor doctor Jorge Orbe, sobre los candidatos que encabezan los tres primeros puestos en las encuestas, Lenin Moreno (Movimiento Alianza PAIS), Cynthia Viteri (Partido Social Cristiano) y Guillermo Lasso (CREO – SUMA)?

En las elecciones del próximo 19 de febrero, la población ecuatoriana deberá decidir entre defender su futuro o retornar al pasado.

Lenin Moreno encarna la posibilidad de recrear un sistema político basado en la democracia participativa y una política económica redistributiva que fomente el empleo y la reactivación económica de la grande, mediana y pequeña empresa, siempre y cuando estén dispuestas a invertir con responsabilidad social, fiscal y ambiental. Las candidaturas de Cynthia Viteri y Guillermo Lasso representan el afán de las élites económicas por retomar el poder del Estado, a fin de aplicar políticas públicas orientadas a la concentración de la riqueza, en beneficio de los grandes sectores empresariales.

Cuando Rafael Correa asumió en 2007 la presidencia de la república, se encontró con un país destruido, por lo que planteó la necesidad de refundar la nación, con una nueva Constitución que configuró una nueva arquitectura institucional y estableció las bases jurídicas de un nuevo sistema económico y político, orientado a superar los problemas generados por el neoliberalismo que,durante tres décadas, afectó severamente la dignidad y los intereses de los sectores más vulnerables de la sociedad.

Los cambios políticos impulsados por la Revolución Ciudadana permitieron reconstruir la economía nacional y reformar el Estado, a fin de garantizar los derechos económicos, sociales y culturales de la población; preparando al país para el Siglo XXI e insertándolo inteligentemente en la economía mundial, a través de una nueva estrategia de desarrollo endógeno, centrada en el ser humano. Esta nueva estrategia de desarrollo descarta la posibilidad de que el Mercado, o el Estado, se convierta en el eje articulador de la historia nacional.

En sus inicios, la Revolución Ciudadana descartó la posibilidad de construiruna sociedad centrada en el mercado, así como también una sociedad centrada en el Estado; Rafael Correa se propuso lograr la supremacía del ser humano por sobre el capital, para lo cual era necesario articular un cambio en las relaciones de poder, señalando que el ser humano no debe estar al servicio del mercado ni del Estado; por el contrario, el mercado y el Estado deben estar en función de los intereses de la sociedad y no de las élites económicas o políticas. Alianza PAÍS aspira a construir una sociedad con mercado, no una sociedad de mercado, con un Estado moderno y eficiente, cuyas políticas se definan en base al ejercicio de la democracia participativa.

Lenin Moreno, candidato del Movimiento Alianza PAÍS, tiene las mayores probabilidades de triunfo, puesto que representa la fuerza de los cambios económicos, políticos y sociales que la Revolución Ciudadana ha propiciado en los últimos diez años en Ecuador, a favor de los sectores sociales con menos ingresos.

Guillermo Lasso es un banquero próspero que, en 2012, fundó un partido político a fin de acceder al poder del Estado y, desde allí, promovió políticas económicas a favor del capital financiero. En gran medida, su riqueza proviene de los beneficios generados gracias a su participación como Superministro de Economía en un gobierno que, en 1999, provocó una crisis bancaria de grandes proporciones, con terribles consecuencias para el país: inflación, devaluación, recesión, quiebra de empresas, desempleo, mayor pobreza e indigencia, muertes, suicidios y la mayor ola migratoria de la historia nacional.

Cynthia Viteri pertenece al Partido Social Cristiano, que es un partido político de derecha. Su programa propone la defensa conservadora del capitalismo y el impulso de una economía social de mercado. Es partidaria de privatizar la economía, reducir los impuestos empresariales y anular la regulación y control del Estado; representa los intereses de un sector productivo y financiero, vinculado con la economía agro exportadora. El Partido Social Cristiano encarna una postura autoritaria, condimento necesario para instaurar una economía de mercado que se organice al servicio de los intereses empresariales, especialmente de aquellos sectores corporativos que están vinculados con el mercado externo.

Los principales candidatos de oposición plantean la eliminación de diferentes instituciones públicas – en el caso de Lasso, la Secretaría Nacional de Educación Superior, Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (SENESCYT) y el Consejo de Participación Ciudadana y Control Social (CPCCS), mientras que Viteri, el Consejo de Participación Ciudadana y Control Social. Lo afirma la Organización Internacional del Trabajo que Ecuador es el segundo país con menor porcentaje de empleados públicos en la región, mayormente concentrados en el sector de la educación y la salud. Por lo tanto, ¿el achicamiento previsto por Lasso y Viteri no supondría la reducción del número de médicos y docentes? Su visión sobre todo eso, profesor Orbe.

Luego de haber encontrado instalaciones destruidas: carreteras, escuelas, colegios y hospitales públicos, el Gobierno de Rafael Correa asumió la responsabilidad de invertir en 10 años 22.000 millones de dólares en el sector de la educación y 16.000 millones de dólares en la salud.

Ahora los niños y jóvenes realizan sus estudios en edificios modernos, con laboratorios apropiados y profesores capacitados. Para mejorar la calidad de la educación, la política educativa incluyó también la capacitación y evaluación de los docentes. La capacitación docente fue una prioridad, pero también se han efectuado mejoras salariales: en 2006 un maestro recibía un salario entre 90 y 200 dólares mensuales; hoy su sueldo oscila entre 600 y 1.600 dólares. En materia de Educación Superior, se estableció un sistema de acreditación y certificación universitaria que condujo al cierre de 17 universidades que no cumplían con los estándares requeridos. Ahora, según la Unesco, Ecuador es el segundo país que ha mejorado más en la región y el que más invierte en educación superior: 2% del PIB (2.000 millones de dólares), aunque todavía hay mucho por hacer. El mejoramiento de la calidad y la gratuidad de la educación hizo que, entre 2007 y 2015, subieran las matrículas en bachillerato de la población más pobre, cuyos indicadores aumentaron de 36,5% a 57,3%. Ahora, el 60% de los jóvenes gozan de educación pública con el desafío de mejorar aún más su calidad.

La atención a personas con discapacidad dejó de ser dádiva y se volvió una política de Estado. Entre 2007 y 2012, el trabajo del vicepresidente de la República, Lenin Moreno, se concentró en el área social. El objetivo central fue ofrecer calidad de vida a las personas con discapacidad e implementar los contenidos de la Convención de la ONU sobre los derechos de las personas con discapacidad. El proceso se inició declarando en estado de emergencia a todo el sistema de prevención de discapacidad, luego se otorgó atención y provisión de ayudas técnicas e insumos médicos, accesibilidad, registro y capacitación. En Ecuador el cambio fue drástico: hasta 2006 se atendía a 5.000 personas y en 2015 esa cifra llegó a más de 128.000 ciudadanos de todas las edades, muchos de ellos en condiciones de extrema pobreza. El acceso de estas personas a un mejor nivel de vida está reconocido en la Constitución como un derecho; de allí que, el Gobierno se encarga de facilitar a las personas con discapacidad el acceso a una vivienda digna. Hasta 2017, el gobierno tiene previsto entregar 20.000 casas para las personas con discapacidad. El programa Manuela Espejo es un referente en Latinoamérica y se replica en otros países, con asesoría y asistencia de Ecuador.

Un tema prioritario del Gobierno fue mejorar la Salud Pública: la inversión acumulada en salud, durante la última década, bordea los 16.000 millones de dólares. Solo en 2015 se invirtieron más de USD 1.800 millones, es decir, 3 veces más de los 535 millones de dólares invertidos en 2006. El Presidente ha destacado, en varias ocasiones que, durante varios años, antes de su gobierno, no se había construido en el país ni un solo hospital. En la última década, en cambio, se inauguraron 11 hospitales y 51 centros de salud. La ciudadanía recobró su confianza: la atención médica en el sistema público de salud pasó de 16 millones en 2006 a 39 millones de pacientes en 2015. Para mejorar los servicios de salud, el estado contrató miles de profesionales capacitados, nacionales y extranjeros. Entre 2008 y 2015, el Estado contrató a 34.000 médicos.

En materia de seguridad social, las cifras son igualmente relevantes: los afiliados pasaron de 1,57 millones a 3,5 millones, lo que elevó la demanda de servicios, especialmente de salud. En ese contexto, el Estado firmó un convenio con las clínicas privadas para que reciban a los pacientes, pero el excesivo costo provocó que se limitara dicho sistema. En 2015 se desembolsaron 780 millones de dólares, pero investigaciones al respecto hallaron sobreprecio, por eso se tomó la decisión de construir nuevas casas de salud con fondos propios.

Los candidatos empresariales plantean la reducción de impuestos y la reducción de empleados públicos, lo que significaría el advenimiento de una lenta agonía de la institucionalidad estatal y de lo público, con el fin de privatizar los servicios estatales, especialmente en materia de energía, comunicaciones, educación y salud. La reducción de impuestos implica el recorte de derechos económicos y sociales de la mayoría de la población.

Viteri y Lasso coinciden en eliminar las restricciones a importaciones, eliminar impuestos, entre otros a la salida de divisas y a la tierra agrícola. La candidata del Partido Social Cristiano propone dar autonomía e independencia del Banco Central, la suscripción de un tratado de comercio con Estados Unidos. ¿Tales propuestas no están destinadas a beneficiar a los sectores empresariales, banqueros y exportadores siendo claramente un beneficio personal en detrimento de las mayorías? ¿Qué significaría para Ecuador la política económica prometida por ambos candidatos?

Según los datos proporcionados por el Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos (INEC), entre 2007 y 2016, la pobreza por ingresos a nivel nacional disminuyó de 62% a 44% de la población, y, la pobreza extrema se redujo en 6 puntos porcentuales, ubicándose, en marzo de 2016, en el 10%. En la última década, más de un millón de ecuatorianos dejaron atrás la pobreza extrema. Una de las razones para obtener estos resultados es la mejor recaudación de impuestos y la redistribución de la riqueza, traducida en inversiones que benefician a la población y mejoran su calidad de vida. En los últimos 10 años más personas pasaron a formar parte de la clase media.

En cuanto a la pobreza por necesidades básicas insatisfechas, en 2008 la cifra llegaba al 47%, mientras que en 2015 bajó al 32%. El tema de la equidad fue uno de los puntos más controversiales durante el último período del gobierno de Rafael Correa. Entre 2007 y 2015 el quintil más pobre duplicó su ingreso mensual per cápita. En 2006, el 10% más rico registraba 42 veces más ingresos que el 10% más pobre. Esa brecha se redujo 25 veces. La desigualdad es un problema mundial que también afecta a Ecuador y, sin duda, Rafael Correa trabajó para vencerla, con avances importantes, pero con desafíos pendientes. Entre 2007 y 2015, se trabajó para mejorar las obras de saneamiento, sobre todo en el sector rural. Se registraron importantes avances en la cobertura de servicios de eliminación de excretas (de 41% a 72%). A ello se sumó la reducción del hacinamiento, del 28% al 15%, según la encuesta realizada por el INEC. La erradicación del trabajo infantil y de adolescentes (de entre 5 y 17 años) también disminuyó en 6 puntos. En 2007 ese índice se ubicó en el 12,5%, mientras que para 2015 ese porcentaje disminuyó a 5,9%.

Entre 2007 y 2016 se invirtieron 357 millones de dólares en la renovación de la Red Nacional de Aeropuertos y, según el Foro Económico Mundial, entre 2006 y 2015, Ecuador escaló 57 posiciones en el ranking de mejor calidad en vías; antes, el país estaba en el puesto 82, y hoy se encuentra en el 25. Desde 2007 hasta 2016, el Gobierno actual ha invertido cerca de 10.000 millones de dólares para mejorar la red vial estatal; esta inversión cambió la vida de miles de personas y dinamizó la economía de los ecuatorianos. Sobre esta base, ahora, varias empresas extranjeras tienen interés de invertir en Ecuador: las concesiones de los puertos de Manta, Posorja y Puerto Bolívar, traen consigo una inversión de 2.100 millones de dólares que provienen de transnacionales con sede en: Turquía, Chile y Dubái.

Hace 10 años eran muy comunes las inundaciones en la temporada invernal, así como también las sequías que impedían sembrar en los meses de verano. Ese escenario va quedando atrás, sobre todo para quienes habitan en las comunidades cercanas a los ríos o para quienes viven de la agricultura. Para afrontar este problema, el Gobierno invirtió más de 1.000 millones de dólares en 6 proyectos multipropósitos, que protegen miles de hectáreas de cultivo. El fenómeno de El Niño, que se registró en 2015, no tuvo el mismo efecto devastador que en años anteriores, precisamente gracias a esas construcciones. En la actualidad, 142.000 hectáreas de terreno se benefician de la infraestructura creada para el control de inundaciones.

En síntesis, el Gobierno de la Revolución Ciudadana recuperó lo público. Un informe especial elaborado por el Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID) ubica a Ecuador arriba de los niveles regionales, respecto a la eficiencia de los servicios públicos. En 2011, el país ocupaba el puesto 15 y, a fines del año 2015 escaló al sexto casillero. Ese progreso va de la mano de la valoración del trabajo del servidor público. Según el Presupuesto General del Estado consolidado por Grupo de Gastos de 2016, el rubro de sueldos y salarios de funcionarios públicos representa el 29% del Presupuesto General del Estado (PGE); es decir, el 8,9% del Producto Interno Bruto (PIB). Los parámetros internacionales precisan que este gasto no debe superar, en promedio, el 25% del presupuesto.

Una de las premisas del actual Gobierno es que “lo público debe tener alta calidad”. El inicio del cambio -y lo más visible- fue el adecentamiento de las entidades públicas. En gobiernos anteriores se generalizó la idea de que lo público no valía, por ello se privatizaron muchos servicios, como las empresas eléctricas y telefónicas. Entre las instituciones que experimentaron modernización y cambios están el Registro Civil, las empresas eléctricas, Correos del Ecuador, la Corporación Nacional de Telecomunicaciones; las instituciones de Justicia y, en general, todas las entidades estatales. Todas se guían por un principio básico: brindar una muy buena atención al ciudadano. En esta década se cambió también la visión del servidor público y el valor de la eficiencia.

Una política económica como la que plantean los candidatos, Guillermo Lasso o Cynthia Viteri, representa el retroceso de todos los avances antes descritos. Ahora que se han modernizado las instituciones y los servicios públicos, las élites empresariales buscan privatizar esos servicios, puesto que significa una gran oportunidad de negocios a su favor. En las actuales condiciones históricas del Ecuador, el afán de las élites empresariales es apoderarse de la gran inversión pública realizada en los últimos años, lo que traerá consigo el encarecimiento de los servicios públicos, especialmente comunicaciones, electricidad, seguridad, educación y salud, con el consiguiente recorte de los derechos sociales para la mayoría de la población.

El candidato oficialista promete seguir con las políticas del presidente Correa. ¿En qué puntos está Usted de acuerdo con tales propuestas?

Un objetivo nacional es que Ecuador deje atrás sus lacras del pasado; una de ellas es tener una economía dedicada solamente a producir bienes primarios. Se busca privilegiar una economía que promueva una exportación diversificada, eco-eficiente, con valor agregado, así como con servicios basados en la economía del conocimiento y en la biodiversidad. En otras palabras, el cambio de la matriz productiva exige generar más riqueza, involucrando en el desarrollo productivo otras líneas de acción como el turismo, o, aquellas ligadas al desarrollo científico y tecnológico, capaz de lograr un desarrollo sostenible.

Para ello, el Estado debía recuperar el control sobre los sectores estratégicos y definir sus prioridades en la transformación de la matriz energética, para pasar de una energía cara y contaminante, basada en hidrocarburos (centrales térmicas), a una más barata, renovable y limpia. En esta dirección, desde 2010, se invirtieron cerca de 5.000 millones de dólares en la construcción de 8 centrales hidroeléctricas, para generar energía renovable y para repotenciar otras estaciones. Al momento, ya se encuentran en operación las Centrales Hidroeléctricas Manduriacu, Sopladora y Coca Codo Sinclair que, junto a HidroPaute, Mazar y otras que se incorporen, como ToachiPilatón, Delsitanisagua y Minas-San Francisco, serán pilares del cambio de la matriz energética. Desde noviembre de 2016, el país ya exporta energía a Colombia y Perú.

De allí que, se puede afirmar que la nueva matriz energética, basada en la generación de energías limpias y renovables, prácticamente está completa, aunque, en el largo plazo, falta aún por hacer; no así el cambio de la matriz productiva, pues la economía ecuatoriana sigue siendo primario-exportadora. Por tanto, para superar estas limitaciones, se requiere promover inversiones público-privadas a largo plazo, especialmente aquellas que están vinculadas con el conocimiento y las nuevas tecnologías.

El cambio de la matriz productiva plantea el desafío de incrementar las exportaciones de los productos ecuatorianos más representativos, pero añadiendo alto valor agregado, es decir, procesándolos; además de reducir importaciones y aumentar la producción nacional. Este proceso requiere un proceso sostenido de inversión productiva, sobre todo en áreas de educación y de tecnología de vanguardia.

En materia de seguridad, durante los últimos diez años, el país ha dado un salto impresionante, a tal punto que, en la actualidad, Ecuador es uno de los países más seguros para vivir en América Latina. El informe del Igarapé Institute Homicide Monitor, publicado el año pasado, señala que las ciudades ecuatorianas de Ambato, Quito y Cuenca están entre las 10 más seguras de toda América Latina. La medición se hizo tomando en cuenta la tasa de homicidios por cada 100.000 habitantes. Sin embargo, hay mucho por hacer, sobre todo para controlar el micro-tráfico de estupefacientes y el asentamiento del crimen organizado transnacional.

¿Cuáles son los grandes desafíos económicos, políticos y sociales de Ecuador?

Debido a la disminución del precio internacional del petróleo, la crisis económica y financiera de la Unión Europea, la apreciación del dólar y los daños ocasionados por el terremoto, el país tuvo que incrementar su nivel de endeudamiento externo y establecer salvaguardias para controlar el déficit en la Balanza de Pagos. Como Ecuador no tiene moneda propia, el gobierno se vio obligado a adquirir deuda pública, que en este momento representa el 37% del PIB. Si bien en la fase descendente del ciclo no era apropiado hacer un ajuste fiscal, el nuevo gobierno tendrá que hacerlo; el problema es si los costos del ajuste descansarán sobre los más pobres, o, si se protege a los sectores más vulnerables de la sociedad.

En Ecuador no se necesita menos Estado, como proponen los opositores al gobierno. Por el contrario, se necesita un Estado fuerte y eficaz, con capacidad de apoyar todos los esfuerzos productivos y redistributivos necesarios para garantizar los derechos económicos y sociales de la población. Necesitamos eficiencia en el Estado, pero no eficiencia entendida como ajuste y disminución de funcionarios públicos, especialmente: maestros, médicos, policías, como quieren los opositores a la Revolución Ciudadana, sino la eficiencia de un Estado capaz de apoyar a sus ciudadanos con servicios básicos orientados a garantizar los derechos sociales.

Uno de los aspectos sobre los que gira la campaña electoral en Ecuador es la necesidad de generación de empleo. Más allá del enunciado general, los candidatos no han explicado las estrategias orientadas a este fin. El asunto se complica cuando, por razones de competencia y competitividad, las empresas incorporan periódicamente máquinas y herramientas que ahorran mano de obra y arrojan a vastos sectores de la población a una situación de desempleo y subempleo. En estas circunstancias, imposibilitados de vincularse a la “economía formal”, con el sector empresarial privado, significativos segmentos de la población urbana impulsan estrategias de supervivencia vinculadas con emprendimientos familiares y el trabajo autónomo.

Un Informe sobre la Inversión Extranjera Directa en América Latina y el Caribe, elaborado por CEPAL en 2012, muestra que la repatriación de utilidades al exterior alcanza el 92% de los ingresos de inversión extranjera directa realizada en la región. Por otra parte, las empresas transnacionales son una fuente secundaria de creación de empleos, pues, entre 2003 y 2013, contribuyeron apenas con el 5% de la creación neta de empleos en Latinoamérica. Las actividades de comercio y de construcción son las que crean más empleo (siete puestos por cada millón de dólares de inversión), seguidas por la industria manufacturera y los servicios (tres puestos). Las actividades mineras (incluido el petróleo) crean un puesto de trabajo por cada 2 millones de dólares.

Según la última Encuesta Nacional de Empleo y Desempleo realizada por el Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos, en junio 2016, el desempleo en Ecuador se ubicó en 5,3%. Sin embargo, el subempleo a nivel nacional alcanzó el 19,9%, mientras que el empleo adecuado llegó al 41,2%.

De igual forma, según la última Encuesta Nacional de Empleo y Desempleo del Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos, la población económicamente activa PEA, es decir el número de personas en condiciones de trabajar en el Ecuador, aumenta en más de 200.000 personas al año. Si asumimos que en la gran industria se requiere invertir 100 mil dólares para generar una fuente de empleo directo, ¡el país necesitaría una inversión anual de 20.000 millones de dólares anuales para atender la demanda de trabajo formal incorporado a la industria! De allí la necesidad de fomentar el desarrollo de la mediana y pequeña empresa que requiere menor capital invertido, preferentemente utiliza materias primas nacionales y emplea más trabajadores.

La pregunta es: ¿no obstante los cambios realizados por el actual gobierno, bajo la racionalidad actual del mercado capitalista que domina la economía global, la economía ecuatoriana puede crear el empleo necesario para atender el número de personas que se incorporan cada año al mercado de trabajo, o, por el contrario, es necesario una transformación estructural que inaugure una nueva etapa en el desarrollo histórico del país y de la humanidad?

Finalmente, quisiera anotar que una deuda pendiente del gobierno de Rafael Correa tiene relación con los fallos existentes en la lucha contra la corrupción. Por el momento, cabe señalar que, en un comunicado público difundido hace un mes, la Contraloría General del Estado manifestó que, en 2.172 informes de auditoría, había establecido glosas a 33.000 funcionarios públicos con órdenes de reintegro por 661 millones de dólares. A pesar de haber entregado esos informes a la Fiscalía, no se conoce aún las acciones que esta institución haya adoptado al respecto.

En la campaña electoral, las élites empresariales que siempre han utilizado la institucionalidad del Estado en beneficio de sus intereses privados, han tomado la iniciativa en denuncias contra la corrupción, para aparecer como defensores de la ética pública

A mi juicio, es poco probable que haya segunda vuelta; empero, si hay segunda vuelta, ésta tendrá lugar entre Lenin Moreno y Guillermo Lasso, lo que significa una disputa entre capitalismo redistributivo vs. neoliberalismo a ultranza; capital financiero internacional vs. capital productivo con afán de acumulación nacional; Democracia Republicana formal vs. autoritarismo financiero despótico; Defensa de lo Público vs. Privatización a ultranza; Teología sin Liberación vs. Opus Dei.

Visto que Ecuador ha logrado mayor soberanía y destaque en la región en los últimos años, diferentemente de lo que pasaba antes de la Revolución Ciudadana, ¿qué importancia tiene para el momento actual de Latinoamérica las elecciones de este 19 de febrero?

Luego de los cambios políticos acaecidos en Brasil y Argentina, el año 2016 significó para América Latina el retorno del neoliberalismo y de las élites económicas al poder. En este momento ese riesgo existe en Ecuador, lo que ratificaría aquello que se ha denominado como el fin del ciclo de los gobiernos progresistas en la región.

Como es conocido, a principios del siglo XXI, en Latinoamérica se establecieron varios gobiernos progresistas. Desde entonces, el pensamiento político latinoamericano se ha caracterizado por la defensa del Estado en favor de los sectores más vulnerables; la defensa de la Soberanía Nacional a escala continental; la búsqueda de la satisfacción de las necesidades básicas para las mayorías de la población; el carácter nacional-popular de las políticas públicas; y, el desarrollo de una democracia económica y social que amplía la democracia formal republicana.Todo ello está en juego, pero, además, la posibilidad de que América Latina se constituya en un bloque económico y político autónomo, que negocie sus intereses de manera soberana con Estados Unidos, China, Rusia, o, la Unión Europea, pues Ecuador ha tenido una participación activa en el proceso de integración latinoamericana.

Jorge Orbe León

Texto en portugués :

Equador decide entre a Revolução Cidadã e neoliberais pró-Washington

Jorge Orbe León: Economista, Diplomado en Población y Desarrollo, Magíster en Administración de Empresas.

Ante la adopción de una ley por parte del Parlamento Israelí, el pasado 6 de febrero, que legaliza de manera retroactiva, los asentamientos ilegales en Palestina, en particular en Cisjordania, son varias las organizaciones internacionales y los Estados que han levantado la voz expresando su repudio y rechazo a dicha iniciativa.

The fate of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will depend in many respects on the results of the Ecuadorian presidential election.

Ecuador is set to hold the first round of elections, comprising eight candidates, on February 19, while the runoff is scheduled for April 2. The country’s President Rafael Correa is not running in the election for the first time in more than a decade.

Assange has been residing at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since 2012 for fear of being extradited to Sweden on rape allegations. The WikiLeaks founder denied the accusations. On December 4, 2015, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention’s (WGAD) ruled that Assange’s detention was arbitrary. The United Kingdom and Sweden have been refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the decision and to end Assange’s prosecution.

While earlier Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Guillaume Long said that the government will not end Assange’s asylum, right-wing presidential candidates have pledged to kick the whistleblower out of the embassy.

In particular, former banker Guillermo Lasso from the Creating Opportunities (CREO) right-wing alliance said that if elected he would insist that Assange leaves the embassy within 30 days. According to polls, Lasso is the main rival to Lenin Moreno from the pro-government bloc PAIS Alliance.

Coming third in polls Cynthia Viteri from the Social Christian Party (PSC) also said that if elected she would evict Assange from the embassy.

Moreno did not comment on the matter but the Foreign Ministry said that it will keep the asylum. At the same time, in November Assange’s access to the internet in the embassy was restricted for the period of the United States election, according to the ministry.

In order to win the presidential election in Ecuador, a candidate must win over 50 percent of votes or no less than 40 percent, with a gap of over 10 percent from the runner-up. If the conditions are not met there is the runoff.

Ahead of the election, Ecuador was hit by a Twitter-storm as people from all over the world have been joining a campaign to pressure the right-wing candidates not to end Assange’s asylum.

The campaign led by WikiLeaks and organized from Ecuador is running under the hashtag “ElMundoConAssange,” which is translated as “the world stands with Assange.”

“In the end, it was a beautiful thing – so much solidarity,” Felipe Ogaz Oviedo, who launched the campaign in Ecuador, told Telesur TV.

He added that the campaign was also aimed at countering the “manipulation” of Assange’s story with right-wing politicians portraying him as a criminal in order to win votes.

The statement on the image reads: “The first victim of war is truth. The second is one who denounces it.”

Serbia faces a set of regular presidential elections this year – but also the prospect of its third parliamentary election in four years. The latter possibility confirms those analyses that have posited the instability of Serbian politics in spite of the appearance of stability, following the ruling coalition winning almost half the votes cast in both previous elections.

Serbia after Milošević: Between West and East

From the fall of Slobodan Milošević in 2000 to the presidential elections of 2012, Serbian politics was primarily divided geopolitically. Serbia’s governments predominantly took the form of liberal coalitions looking West. The opposition was led by the pro-Russian radicals.

In truth, however, Serbia’s governing coalitions were pacts between pro-Western and pro-Russian elements. This reflected the tensions in the Serbian ruling class. Most wanted to enter the European Union, but most also feared losing popularity if they were seen to give up Serbia’s claim to Kosovo. The latter ambition led every government to rely on the Russian veto in the UN.

What occurred in 2012 on the surface represented a return to the pre-2000 era. The new government was made up of the two ruling parties of the 1990s, Milošević’s socialists and the successor party to Milošević’s coalition partners, the Radicals. This was indeed a break with post-2000 Serbian politics, but the break turned out to be superficial.

Serbia: illiberal but unstable since 2012

Tomislav Nikolic

The victory of former radical Tomislav Nikolić in the presidential election of 2012 led to a new series of governments with pro-Western and pro-Russian elements – with a fundamental orientation still towards the West. So there was little change there. The big change was the acceleration of the creep towards an illiberal democracy.

Moreover, Nikolić remained ironically more pro-Russian than his second in command and soon Prime Minister, Aleksandar Vučić. The Progressives, as their party was called, remained itself divided, but Vučić took a decisively pro-Western course since becoming PM in 2014. His popularity had to do with his early moves to arrest unpopular tycoons (Serbian oligarchs) in an anti-corruption campaign. He could also count on his nationalist past and his macho style to win adherents in a population eager for a decisive leadership following years of austerity and crisis.

Vučić: more IMF than the IMF

Aleksandar Vučić

Vučić was however committed to neoliberalism. He was more eager to implement IMF reforms than his predecessors and even said he was “more IMF than the IMF” when announcing he would maintain a freeze on public sector jobs and pensions in summer 2015. He also rammed through anti-strike legislation despite vocal trade union opposition. Geopolitically, he continued the EU-sponsored dialogue with the Kosovo authorities which had begun after 2012. Importantly, he undertook more military exercises with NATO than Russia, a clear indication of his preferences.

Despite this, he managed to win another election in 2016 which he called to consolidate his position. The gamble failed: though he won roughly half the votes, his position in parliament was worse, since more parties crossed the threshold than in 2015. Worse, on election day, masked goons demolished buildings which were a key obstacle to his hopes for the gentrification of Belgrade Waterfront in central Belgrade. A security guard in one of the buildings died.

The return of mass protests

His time in power has since been mired by increasing allegations of corruption against his associates like the Belgrade mayor Siniša Mali. Moreover, mass protests have finally hit the streets in Serbia. Serbia was the only country which had not seen mass protests since the 2008 recession in the entire Balkan region. Finally, it seemed this was coming to an end. Groups, suspended between NGO and social movement activism, organised continued mass demonstrations with tens of thousands turning out. Similar protests recently spread in relation to heating problems in the city of Niš.

So why is he risking another election? Partly, it has to do with Nikolić. Nikolić is up for re-election having served out his first five-year term. Though still a winner in the second round, Nikolić is a risk for Progressive domination. Should an opposition candidate cash in on discontent, like Nikolić had done in 2012, then all could be jeopardised. Polls were suggesting Vučić could win in the first round. Certainly, Vučić’s ambitions to have total control, having got rid of his mentor, are another factor.

The Trump effect – and the continued importance of geopolitics

But in truth, there is also the geopolitical question. As a small country with unsettled borders, Serbia still seeks Great Power sponsors. From this vantage point, Nikolić is seen by many as more pro-Russian than Vučić. Tensions on this question have been simmering for a long time between the two men. It seems that the American elections present the possibility of novel global re-alignments, something Vučić is likely to have wanted to exploit.

To back up this claim, we need only perform a swift mental experiment. What would have happened had Trump not won? Serbia might have needed greater support from Russia in the event of a Hilary Clinton victory. Clinton is known as a tough opponent of Serbia’s claim to Kosovo. In these circumstances, maintaining Nikolić as president would have made sense. He could be the nod to Russia that Serbia still saw Moscow as a valued partner, while Vučić could deal with Clinton.

But in reality, things are now different. Donald Trump is certainly an unknown quantity. His team has suggested Serbia would have to recognise Kosovo to enter the EU – this is unprecedentedly frank. Like most things coming from Washington, it is being greeted with little credulity on the ground. Something, surely, is different in the US now. Trump is a pragmatist. The nervousness in palpable in Kosovo, with the “Newborn” independence monument, which changes every year, this year being re-arranged to read “no walls” – a message to Serbia, but also to Trump.

In this context, it seems Vučić thinks he is the better candidate to make the calls and make a deal with the US if needed. The US has also made fewer signs it supports Serbia’s path to the EU – amid a more lukewarm approach to the EU more generally – but it has praised Serbia’s desire to be closer to NATO. With Montenegro also on the verge of joining NATO despite mass opposition, Serbia remains a key link for the US hopes of ousting Russia from the region. Vučić as president could be seen as an asset in Washington.

New elections: a gamble?

Vučić’s decision to run for president has left Nikolić seething. Since the decision became public on Valentine’s Day, news has reached the press that Nikolić is preparing to stand anyway and break with his party, taking 12 MPs with him. Should this take place, Vučić’s coalition would risk its majority and rely even more heavily onDačić’s pro-Russian Socialists. This may suit Vučić – he is known to have compromising materials on the socialist leader’s links with the mafia underworld. So he could still run things as ceremonial president indirectly, and keep Russian happy by having Dačić as PM.

The trouble is that is still risky. Relying on Trump is a gamble. Taking on a ceremonial position and counting on others is not something Vučić could be keen on, though he has seen Putin do it before. With mass protests against his pilot project in Belgrade continuing, however, Vučić faces continued instability and possibly major challenges in the future. So he may risk a parliamentary election now. Who knows, he may lose out ever more in the uncertain future. Serbia’s balancing game between West and East may yet claim its least expected victim.

What should the left do?

For the left, this renewed instability opens up possibilities. Unfortunately, the majority of those organising protests in Serbia have already come out for the main liberal candidate, Saša Janković. The other liberal is ex-UN head of the General Assembly, Vuk Jeremić, who may yet be seen as a more credible candidate against Vučić. The liberal opposition remains divided and unstable.

Belgrade protests, February 15, 2017

All the same, the masses on the streets are not all middle class liberals, and many are protesting attacks on public space – in other words, they are defending their social rights. The protests surrounding heating in Niš are even more clearly social in character. Worker discontent is palpable.

The left is still small and attempts at regroupment have so far failed. Nonetheless, possibilities for small groups of leftists exist. Intervening with clear demands placing class issues at the forefront can be a major recruiting ground for the left. The revolutionary group Marks21 has recruited from the demonstrations by intervening with a banner and leaflets.

Intervening can also help shift some of social movement actors to the left, changing the dynamic in the protests. Many are sympathetic and want to believe in alternatives. Building fighting united fronts and shifting the mass mood will encourage them. With local elections on the horizon, opportunities exist on that front of struggle as well, which can be used to strengthen the confidence of the movement on the streets and in workplaces.

Making links between similar movements for defence of public space and social rights in Croatia would be a further move forward, and not just because the Croatian movement is in advance of the movement in Serbia.

Creating such linkages across the region of the former Yugoslavia would be a concrete way of combating nationalism and showing the potential of regional federalism as an alternative to leaning West or East.

Similarly, another important campaign which could put the left in a position of prominence could be be emulation of the Movement for Neutrality of Montenegro.

With Greece also on the verge of bankruptcy, the Balkans will certainly return to the news in 2017 and 2018. The anti-capitalist left should not be standing on the side-lines. It should be in the thick of the struggle.

Vladimir Unkovski-Korica is a member of Marks21 in Serbia. He is a historian and researcher who is currently Lecturer in Central and East European Studies at the University of Glasgow. His book The Economic Struggle for Power in Tito’s Yugoslavia: From World War II to Non-Alignment came out of I.B.Taurus in 2016.

Syria’s current conflict, beginning in 2011, was the culmination of decades of effort by the United States to subvert and overthrow the government in Damascus. From training leaders of opposition fronts years before “spontaneous” protests erupted across Syria, to covertly building a multinational mercenary force to both trigger and leverage violence thereafter, the United States engineered, executed, and perpetuated virtually every aspect of Syria’s destructive conflict.

Enlisting or coercing aid from regional allies, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Jordan, and Israel, Syria found itself surrounded at its borders and buried within them by chaos.

“Bringing Real Muscle to Bear Against Syria” 

But recently revealed CIA documents drawn from the US National Archives portrays recent efforts to undermine and overthrow the Syrian government and the Syrian conflict’s relationship with neighboring Lebanon and its ally Iran as merely the most recent leg in a decades-long campaign to destabilize and overturn regional governments obstructing US interests.

A 1983 document signed by former CIA officer Graham Fuller titled, “Bringing Real Muscle to Bear Against Syria” (PDF), states (their emphasis):

Syria at present has a hammerlock on US interests both in Lebanon and in the Gulf — through closure of Iraq’s pipeline thereby threatening Iraqi internationalization of the [Iran-Iraq] war. The US should consider sharply escalating the pressures against Assad [Sr.] through covertly orchestrating simultaneous military threats against Syria from three border states hostile to Syria: Iraq, Israel and Turkey. 

The report also states:

If Israel were to increase tensions against Syria simultaneously with an Iraqi initiative, the pressures on Assad would escalate rapidly. A Turkish move would psychologically press him further. 

The document exposes both then and now, the amount of influence the US exerts across the Middle East and North Africa. It also undermines the perceived agency of states including Israel and NATO-member Turkey, revealing their subordination to US interests and that actions taken by these states are often done on behalf of Wall Street and Washington rather than on behalf of their own national interests.

Also mentioned in the document are a variety of manufactured pretexts listed to justify a unilateral military strike on northern Syria by Turkey. The  document explains:

Turkey has considered undertaking a unilateral military strike against terrorist camps in northern Syria and would not hesitate from using menacing diplomatic language against Syria on these issues.

Comparing this signed and dated 1983 US CIA document to more recent US policy papers reveals a very overt continuity of agenda.

Decades-Spanning Continuity of Agenda 

The corporate-financier funded policy think tank, Brookings Institution, published a 2012 document titled, “Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change” (PDF), which stated:

Some voices in Washington and Jerusalem are exploring whether Israel could contribute to coercing Syrian elites to remove Asad. 

The report continues by explaining:

Israel could posture forces on or near the Golan Heights and, in so doing, might divert regime forces from suppressing the opposition. This posture may conjure fears in the Asad regime of a multi-front war, particularly if Turkey is willing to do the same on its border and if the Syrian opposition is being fed a steady diet of arms and training. Such a mobilization could perhaps persuade Syria’s military leadership to oust Asad in order to preserve itself. 

Just as the CIA sought to covertly apply pressure on Syria via Iraq, Israel, and Turkey in 1983, it seeks to do so today. Instead of to simply reopen a pipeline perceived as vital to the Iraqi war effort vis-a-vis Iran in the 1980s, the goal now is regime change altogether.

It should be noted that, in addition to the 1983 CIA document, US support for violent subversion in Syria during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War also included the 1982 Muslim Brotherhood uprising and its subsequent defeat by Syrian forces within Syria – an almost verbatim analogue to the 2011 unrest that led to the current Syrian conflict – also organized and carried out by US-backed elements of the Muslim Brotherhood.

It should also be noted that while the 2011 conflict in Syria began under the administration of US President Barack Obama – according to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh’s article, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” – planning, training, and staging began at least as early as 2007 under the administration of US President George Bush.

A concerted, continuous conspiracy to manipulate events across the Middle East and North Africa and project American hegemony throughout the region spanning now seven US presidencies is perhaps the most telling evidence that deeply rooted special interests – a deep state – not America’s elected representatives, crafts and executes US policy at home and abroad.

Power is Held by Unelected Special Interests, Not Elected Representatives 

The notion that the recently elected US president, Donald Trump, can, is willing to, or is able to suddenly oppose the immense corporate-financier interests driving a concerted conspiracy spanning three decades lacks any basis in fact. In reality, those who President Trump surrounded himself with both during his campaign for the presidency and upon assembling his cabinet, are among the very conspirators behind this decades-long agenda.

For those who find themselves targets of US subversion and aggression, both overt and covert, understanding the deep state and the corporate-financier interests that comprise it driving these agendas is essential. Devising a means to expose, isolate, and otherwise disrupt the unwarranted power and influence they wield – rather than dealing with their political proxies in Washington – is the only way to balance the currently lopsided equation of global power.

For the American people and citizens of nations beholden to American interests, understanding that change will only come when the corporate-financier interests that constitute the deep state are confronted and decentralized, and not through elections involving proxies wholly beholden to the deep state, will be the first step toward taking back national institutions and resources hijacked by these special interests.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The Trump White House is under increasing pressure from the anti-Russian campaign instigated by the intelligence agencies and spearheaded by the bulk of the corporate-controlled media, the Democratic Party and a section of the Republicans. Over the past several days, the first official action has been carried out by a congressional committee investigating claims of Russian involvement in the 2016 election campaign.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has sent letters to more than a dozen government agencies, organizations and individuals asking them to preserve all materials that may be relevant to the committee’s investigation. The letters were authorized by committee Chairman Richard Burr of North Carolina, a Republican, and the ranking Democrat, Mark Warner of Virginia.

The letters were sent after a two-hour classified briefing by FBI Director James Comey on the alleged Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign. Senators left the hearing without divulging anything of what took place, but hours later, the request was dispatched for the preservation of documents on alleged Russian interference in the campaign and “related issues.”

The “related issues” reportedly include the allegations of “constant contact” during the campaign between Trump advisers and aides and Russian intelligence agents, first made in the New York Times last week and later in a broadcast by CNN. Neither report presented any actual evidence, citing only the claims of unnamed intelligence officials, who said they had monitored phone calls or reviewed telephone transcripts.

The letters from the Intelligence Committee came one day after Senate Democrats sent similar appeals to the White House, the FBI, the Justice Department and other federal agencies asking them to preserve any relevant materials. This letter, signed by all the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was sent to White House Counsel Donald McGahn, asking the administration to preserve “all materials related to contacts between the Trump organization, Trump campaign, Trump transition team, or Trump administration, or others acting on their behalf, and Russian government officials or associates.”

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, speaking on the floor of the Senate last week, warned, “There is real concern that some in the administration may try to cover up its ties to Russia by deleting emails, texts and other records that could shine a light on those connections.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi chimed in: “I’m afraid they’re going to destroy the documents. But the fact that I would even say that, that level of trust has gone so far low in all of this.”

Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, sent their own letter to acting Director of National Intelligence Michael Dempsey requesting “a comprehensive intelligence briefing on Russia by February 28, 2017… This briefing should include information about former Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Michael Flynn’s contacts with Russian officials, and should also provide unredacted transcripts of any intercepted conversations or communications he had with Russian officials.”

Some congressional Democrats are raising the specter of treason charges against Trump or his aides. Representative Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts congressman and Iraq war veteran, said on CNN, “If members of the administration are essentially conspiring with Russia…that’s the definition of treason. This is a very, very serious affair.”

At the same time, Trump’s congressional defenders are pushing back against his opponents within the intelligence apparatus. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes sent a letter Friday to the FBI asking it to investigate leaks of classified information to the media. He suggested that the leaks came from either career officials who oppose Trump’s policies or holdovers from the Obama administration. According to one press report, Nunes “believes that Trump is being targeted by the intelligence community. It’s an abuse of authority.”

White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus appeared on three Sunday television interview programs to denounce the media reports of “constant contact” between the Trump campaign and Russia as false and deliberately aimed at undermining the Trump administration.

Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Priebus acknowledged receipt of the Senate Intelligence Committee letter and said the White House would cooperate with the request. “I know what they were told by the FBI,” he said, “because I’ve talked to the FBI. I know what they’re saying. I wouldn’t be on your show right now telling you that we’ve been assured that there’s nothing to the New York Times story if I actually wasn’t assured.”

He also said that no one at the White House except the now-fired National Security Adviser Michael Flynn had been interviewed by the FBI. Bureau agents interrogated Flynn about his telephone conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak prior to Trump’s inauguration.

Significantly, all three television hosts who interviewed Priebus avoided raising the issue of the political motivation behind the intelligence agency leaks to the media that have fueled the anti-Russian campaign. Nor did Priebus raise the issue himself, even though Trump touched on it in his press conference Thursday, when he suggested that his opponents would praise him if he ordered a Russian spy ship blown up or otherwise took a more belligerent position towards Moscow.

The real driving force of the factional struggle within the US ruling elite is a conflict over foreign policy towards Russia. Dominant sections of the military-intelligence apparatus want to continue and intensify the campaign of sanctions, provocations and military buildup undertaken under the Obama administration, whose logical outcome would be a directly military confrontation between the United States and Russia, the possessors of the vast bulk of the world’s nuclear weapons. They view Trump’s foreign policy—if anything, even more militaristic than Obama’s, but targeting Iran and China first, rather than Russia—as undermining this war buildup.

The most strident voice on this issue is that of Senator John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential candidate and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. McCain gave an address Friday to the Munich Security Conference in Germany, where he warned that the solidarity of the Western imperialist powers against Russia faced its greatest challenge in half a century.

In an interview taped Saturday for broadcast on “Meet the Press,” McCain denounced Trump’s tweet Friday that branded the press as “the enemy of the American people.” A free press was needed to “preserve democracy as we know it,” McCain said. “And without it, I am afraid that we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time. That’s how dictators get started.” While he added that he was not calling Trump a dictator, the implication was nonetheless clear.

In an interview and cover story in New York magazine, published this weekend, McCain elaborated on the anti-Russian campaign in the media. He claimed that the alleged Russian interference in the US presidential election was a grave threat to democracy. “I view it with the utmost seriousness,” he said. “I view it more seriously than a physical attack. I view it more seriously than Orlando or San Bernardino… As tragic as that was, the far-reaching consequences of an election hack are certainly far in excess of a single terrorist attack.”

The logical conclusion of such an analysis is that US imperialism should be even more aggressive in relation to Russia than it has been in relation to ISIS—a formula for military escalation against a nuclear-armed country with catastrophic consequences.

With Donald Trump, nothing is as it seems.

The Michael Flynn episode exemplifies the elusive, unpredictable and deadly nature of the high stakes conflict that continues to unfold.

What is obvious and beyond question is that President Trump is at war with the Deep State in all of its forms, including significant factions of the American intelligence and law enforcement community, the mainstream media (largely controlled by the CIA), and virtually the entire political establishment. Trump is clearly viewed as an existential threat to their criminal enterprise. This apparatus, on every level, is engaged in a coup d’etat.

What is not clear, and extremely difficult to assess, is the nature of Trump’s response to his enemies. Also not clear is the internal state of his administration.

Foes as well as allies have been kept off balance.

Flynn: the lightning rod

Michael Flynn was central to the Trump foreign policy.

Flynn headed the Defense Intelligence Agency under Obama, and brought a wealth of inside knowledge of the intelligence community to his brief, action-packed stint as national security adviser. Flynn, a registered Democrat, is an outspoken critic of the Obama/Clinton foreign policy, and of the CIA’s deliberate use of Al-Qaeda/ISIS/Al-Nusra terrorists in Syria. He sought major reforms to the politicized intelligence community. He pushed for better relations with Russia, and sought to expose and undo the Obama administration’s dealings with Iran.

The controversial Flynn is a hero to the Trump support base. He is for “locking up” Hillary Clinton, and “draining the swamp”.

Trump respects Flynn, and seemed to have no issues with Flynn’s combative style. He was controversial during his tenure under Obama before he joined Trump, and controversial during the campaign and throughout the election. Trump tapped Flynn as national security adviser instead of another cabinet post, to save Flynn from having to go through a brutal congressional approval (that he likely would not have passed).

What changed?

A curious resignation

The Flynn episode has been described as a cover-up without a crime.

Flynn broke no laws. He was cleared by the FBI, as detailed in this Washington Post article. (The Washington Post is among the leading anti-Trump organs.) Flynn acted appropriately and within his authority as the incoming national security adviser, and did not (as opposition propaganda claims) negotiate sanctions while on the phone with the Russian ambassador.

Transcripts bear this out.

Trump himself has repeatedly maintained that Flynn did his job. Why was Flynn asked to resign?

According to the official White House line, Trump and Vice President Mike Pence were not pleased with the manner of Flynn’s communication.

Was Flynn’s resignation merely a matter of internal protocol? A chemistry problem or power struggle within the Trump inner circle? If so, what was the nature of this internal problem, and why wasn’t it handled internally?

Who and what forced a dramatic and publicly damaging scandal?

“Blood in the water”

As succinctly described by Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, “an amazing battle for dominance is playing out between the elected US government and the intelligence community that considers itself to be the “permanent government”. The Flynn ouster was the result of a “destabilization campaign by US spies, Democrats and press”.

In the view of the Deep State, a major victory was achieved with Flynn’s ouster, which decapitated the Trump administration even before it has even been fully formed. Trump lost a key member of his inner circle, and the rest will soon fall. Trump has shown grave weakness, and this weakness will be attacked with relish and severe violence.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the intelligence community is withholding intelligence information from Trump. (Trump and his ODNI deny this.)  Obama loyalists in particular is working against him.

According to Glenn Greenwald, the Deep State leakers who exposed Flynn committed felonies to get at him. The Deep State is now even more emboldened and empowered.

In the words of former congressman Dennis Kucinich, “something wrong is going on here with the intelligence community, which “wants to reignite the Cold War between the United States and Russia so that military, industrial and intelligence axis can cash in”. “Wake up America!”

According to Bloomberg’s Eli Lake, the Flynn episode was a “political assassination”, in which Trump “caved to his bureaucratic and political opposition”.

CNN (the voice of the CIA and the political establishment) has declared that the network will not let go of the Flynn/Russian narrative. Obviously it will be mined for material towards a growing impeachment effort by the Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans.

One by one, the CIA/media can simply scandalize every member of the Trump cabinet, and Trump himself, until finally Trump himself is removed.

There is “blood in the water”.  Like piranha, Trump’s foes are in a frenzy.

But is Trump, in fact, “on the ropes”? Or did Trump pull a Muhammad Ali “rope a dope”?

Tables turned

Following a full day of media onslaught, Trump took to Twitter.  He quickly set up a news conference , during which he publicly reversed the narrative in aggressive fashion.

Leaks are the real story.

Trump: the real story is the illegal leaks (Zero Hedge)

Leaks. Not Flynn, not problems within the administration, not “Russia”.

“The leaks are real. The news is fake.”

Was it a sting operation?

The intriguing speculation, not reported in the mainstream media, is that the entire Flynn scenario could have been an elaborate sting operation, a trap set by Trump deliberately to expose leakers, as part of a larger operation being directed against Deep State.

This operation, in turn, is part of the “draining the swamp” agenda; the long awaited sweeping cleanup campaign to flush out the political establishment.

There are several accounts also argue persuasively that it was a sting operation:

Ousting General Flynn elaborate ruse to expose leakers (Zero Hedge)

Is the Flynn resignation a sting?

Leakers Beware (Trump Leak operation timeline)

According to a detailed analysis (citing Russian intelligence sources), the Flynn episode was “canary trap”—classic spycraft– set up in advance by Trump and Flynn, in coordination with the FBI and other branches of intelligence and law enforcement, to expose and catch leakers and corrupt media figures working on behalf of the Deep State:

FBI Sweep puts US media in terror

Flynn was concurrently running operations targeting major international drug trafficking networks connected to the CIA, Islamic militants, and the Clintons.

Robin Townley, a Flynn aide who was engaged in this operation, was suddenly denied security clearance by the CIA, despite Townley previously having had security clearance for years.

The CIA created the Flynn/Russia scandal as retaliation.

Trump “Shadow Move” of General Michael Flynn

According to the above account, it is believed or rumored that Flynn and his team remain operational, working in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. This suggests that Flynn’s was not really “fired”, but moved to a more covert role, for practical reasons.

The official US Treasury sanction about the most recent case against the network of Samark Jose Lopez Bello headed by Flynn, dated February 13, 2017, can be seen here:

https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/as0005.aspx?src=ilaw

The Flynn trap/operation is not over (the media has not stopped tossing around purposely leaked material). It may not be the only sting operation that the Trump administration has in the works.

According to Jack Posobiec of Citizens for Trump, and a strong Trump supporter, Trump successfully used sting operations throughout his presidential campaign and the election. In Posobiec’s view, the story of Trump’s plan to use the National Guard to round up immigrants was intentionally planted. The Associated Press has been caught with this trap.

Further evidence of a massive cleanup campaign—the long awaited “swamp draining”— includes the “bloodbath” firing of 7th floor State Department officials by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and the dismissal of numerous staff employees, allegedly for failing to pass background checks.

Craig Deare, senior NSC official, was just fired for expressing opinions counter to Trump’s agenda.

Yemen

Flynn’s role behind the Yemen raid could also have triggered CIA retaliation. This high-risk operation resulted in the death of 14 Al-Qaeda militants (including top operational personnel), 25 civilians, and Navy Seal William “Ryan” Owens, and the wounding of six US soldiers.

Although details remain cloaked, the Yemen raid appears to have pitted Special Forces/Navy Seals against Al-Qaeda. Given the fact that Al-Qaeda is a CIA front, the firefight was essentially, the Trump military-intelligence team against the CIA itself.

The target appears to have been tipped off, resulting in the Special Forces/Seal team meeting with fierce resistance. (Did the CIA tip off its own assets in Yemen?)

Although heavily criticized by mainstream media as “botched” and a “disaster”, the administration saw it as a “huge success” that achieved its main objective, which was intelligence documents to aid future anti-terror campaigns.. The Seal team came away with a “treasure trove” of intelligence on computer drives, cell phones and files.

Did Flynn and his team act on the intelligence contained in the files?  Did this further infuriate the CIA, adding impetus to the campaign against him?

The pedophilia connection 

To add to the bizarre nature of the Flynn ouster, there is a connection to pedophilia, or Pizzagate.

In the wake of Flynn’s ouster, Hillary Clinton could not resist posting a nasty comment on Twitter, and reposting a nasty tweet from her functionary, Philippe Reines:

Dear Mike Flynn and Mike Flynn Jr, What goes around COMET around. And given your pizza obsession… jobs.dominos.com/dominoscareer...

Hillary Clinton: Philippe’s got his own way of saying things, but he has a point about the real consequences of fake news…

What is she referring to? In November 2016, Flynn expressed support for the New York Police Department’s investigation of email evidence of Hillary Clinton’s possible involvement in “money laundering and sex crimes with children”. His son, Michael G. Flynn (the elder Flynn’s son and top aide to his father) also expressed support for these investigations.

The John Podesta emails exposed by Wikileaks has exposed what appears to be significant evidence of the high level pedophilia network of the Washington establishment, and more specifically, the part of a network involving Podesta and Clinton/Democratic Party operatives, pizza chains across the country, and in particular, Comet Ping-Pong and Pizza in Washington DC. Numerous independent investigators have continued to doggedly pursue this evidence, despite fierce and malicious political cover-up and severe backlash.

Clinton could have chosen to stay silent on the matter. But she could not resist jabbing at Flynn—not over “Russia”, not about Trump, but Pizzagate.

Why did she go out of her way to call attention to this?

Flynn suffered “real consequences” for something that is “not real”?

Turmoil in the Trump inner circle: conflicting views

Despite continuous warnings of Trump loyalists, Trump has surrounded himself with what would appear to be enemies: Republican neocons and NeverTrumpers. He has filled the “swamp” more than he has “drained” it.

Does Trump believe co-opting and winning over the establishment puts him in a more powerful position? How does he weigh this calculation against the desires of his anti-globalist/anti-establishment base?

There is disagreement even among Trump’s base as to what is going on. The loss of Flynn was a major blow. Trump is surrounded by neocons, led by Pence. Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway are the last remaining Trump loyalists in the inner circle.

Has the Trump administration been penetrated and compromised?

Chief of staff Reince Priebus, former RNC chairman, is viewed by an increasing number of Trump loyalists as the main inside threat. According to Breitbart, Priebus is the key mole. He is accused of purposely not rolling out executive orders, slowing down confirmation of cabinet nominees, and doing nothing about a network of Obama “sleeper cells” as they continue to subvert the administration. Trump, according to Breitbart coverage, has been actively  working to replace Priebus.

Pence and Priebus drive the decision to oust Flynn according to Fox News, over the objections of Bannon and Conway, who believed Flynn should have stayed on.

According to Jerome Corsi of Infowars, Priebus is not only a mole, but the “chief leaker”, and should be next to go.

Mike Cernovich as well as Alex Jones and Roger Stone all see Priebus as a threat. Priebus’ allegiance is to the Republican neocons, and he is actively working against Trump.

Deputy Chief of Staff Katie Walsh has been identified as a possible leaker and is under investigation.

On a February 19 appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, Priebus placed all of the blame on Flynn. Flynn is characterized as dishonest.

The threat of Pence

Vice President Mike Pence is not only a Republican neocon, but specifically a Bush neocon. Pence recently attended the Super Bowl with George H.W. Bush, fawning over the man he claims to idolize. What did Pence discuss with Poppy Bush the arch-criminal, and the leader of the crime apparatus that has not wavered in its desire  to have Trump destroyed?

Pence supports all things Bush. His is the profile of a Trump enemy. He supported the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, is pro-torture (opposes the closing of Guantanamo Bay), and supports war in the Middle East and is hawkish on Russia. He supported the toppling of Libya, and thanked Hillary Clinton for doing it. He supports globalization and free trade, supported NAFTA and CAFTA. He is a corporatist who opposes banking and campaign finance reforms, who praised the criminal Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case that made corporations people. He and Trump have openly disagreed on Russia—differences that the administration has casually dismissed.

Pence wanted Flynn out. Does Pence call the Trump foreign policy shots? Was Pence against Flynn’s covert operations? Does Pence override Tillerson, Mattis, etc.?

In a February 18 speech at the Munich Security Conference, Pence boasted that the US would be “unwavering” in its commitment to NATO and would “stand with Europe”. He also issued threats towards Russia: “Know this: the US will continue to hold Russia accountable!”

This bellicose establishment stance reverses Trump’s rhetoric (which was echoed by Flynn) calling for better relations with Russia, and antagonism towards NATO, which Trump had called “obsolete”. Pence’s view is in sharp contrast to Trump’s frustration that better relations with Moscow are being undermined by the anti-Russia propaganda. But here is his vice president, spewing this propaganda.

Is the Trump-Pence contradiction a “good cop/bad cop” ruse, or is there genuine conflict going on?

Pence is ideally placed to do to Trump what George H.W. Bush did to Ronald Reagan, or what Lyndon B.Johnson did to John F. Kennedy. If Trump is removed from office, Bush-loving, Russia-bashing Pence becomes president.

(And who would a President Pence want as his vice president? Jeb Bush?)

A former CIA operative’s explosive view 

In an explosive interview on the Alex Jones Show, former CIA operative Robert David Steele issued the following opinions:

• The NSA has been spying on citizens, while the CIA has been leaking, and both are part of a coup d’état.
• Reince Priebus is “the Judas in the White House”, enabling and covering up pedophilia.
• (Note: in a previous interview for RT, Steele also named Priebus as part of CIA penetration of Trump.)
• Julian Assange “can take down the Republican Party and Priebus specifically”.
• Having investigated pedophilia for over a decade, Steele stated that “pedophilia is an acquired taste for Democrats”, and that the likes of John Podesta are “pedophilia lite” compared to the Republicans, the banking elite, and the Saudis.
• Pedophilia is the Achilles Heel of the system, and “Trump has figured that out”.
• Corporate foundations and their anarchists are planning massive anarchy and rioting to begin in the spring and into the summer, including a huge event in Washington DC in May.

Specifically in regards to Michael Flynn:

• “Flynn got in trouble because he became too arrogant and tried to tell Mattis and Tillerson what to do.”
• But the reason he was fired, according to Steele, was that Flynn was set to expose a list of Washington pedophiles. One of the names on his list was “Mike Pence’s best friend”.

Steele did not name Pence’s friend. Who was it?

All is well according to Trump

The Trump administration has steadfastly dismissed all criticisms and all suspicions about his cabinet.

In his news conference of February 16, Trump maintained that his administration was “running like a fine-tuned machine” and that there is “zero chaos”. He also repeated his high confidence in Reince Priebus, who is “doing a phenomenal job”.

In his latest Twitter, Trump posted:

“Don’t believe the main stream (fake news) media. The White House is running VERY WELL. I inherited a mess and am in the process of fixing it.”

Trump continued his attack on the media in a February 19 rally.

According to The Hill, Bannon is outraged at accusations that he and Priebus are in any way at odds, and objects to the view being put forth by Breitbart, his former publication.

Former intelligence operative Steve Pieczenik dismisses the Flynn ouster as a routine, pragmatic move. According to Pieczenik, all personnel are eventually “disposable”. He believes that Flynn was never meant to be in the cabinet for very long. In his view, the controversy is exaggerated.

Senator Paul Ryan, leader of the establishment Republicans and considered a bitter NeverTrumper enemy by Trump loyalists, is making conciliatory noises, as if he is on board with Trump.

Ryan’s interview on Fox with Sean Hannity is the first in which he has sounded positively jovial about the Trump agenda. When asked by Hannity about the fact that Ryan and Trump are considered adversarial, Ryan brushed it off as “the past”. Why is Ryan suddenly conciliatory?

Who now replaces Flynn as Trump’s national security adviser? Another neocon.

The list narrows down to three candidates: current acting national security adviser Keith Kellogg, Army strategist H.R. McMaster, and the maniacal former George W. Bush UN Ambassador John Bolton.

Robert Harward (Lockheed Martin, former George W. Bush NSC official) turned down the job after he demanded his own staff (Trump refused to fire remnants of the Flynn team, including K.T. McFarland).

Towards the unexpected

 The Deep State is not “deep”. The Shadow Government is not hidden. The criminality is out in the open like never before, and it is all aimed at Trump.

Open, “government-sponsored” publicly-encouraged sedition and treason. Open calls for a coup d’etat. Open calls for anarchy, domestic terrorism, and mass hysteria.

Is Trump in danger, or is he in control? Is he in the process of being subverted and toppled, or is he successfully waging a war of deception and surprise?

We have entered uncharted territory, with the future of humanity at stake.

Everything in play. Nothing is clear.

En octubre de 2016 se llevó a cabo el primer Paro Nacional al actual gobierno. No fueron organismos sindicales tradicionales quienes lo hicieron, sino mujeres convocadas y autogestionadas por organizaciones de una nueva y originalísima floración del feminismo, bajo el llamado de “Ni una menos. Vivas nos queremos”, sugerente expresión que habla de vacíos y ausencias intolerables. Esta demostración de hastío, de osadía y de bravura colocó definitivamente la cuestión de género en la consideración primaria de la discusión política y obliga a repensar bajo estímulos novedosos los actos de crítica general a todas las formas de la existencia menoscabada y a las agraviantes acciones gubernamentales en estas y otras tantas materias.

La movilización masiva de las mujeres, sus organizaciones lenta y sólidamente construidas, sus manifiestos, reclamos y proclamas, acompañadas por miles de hombres, pusieron en un lugar expectante las luchas por la transformación estructural y las reformas inmediatas de una sociedad capitalista moderna que anida secretos bastiones de un arcaico patriarcalismo. No son lo mismo, pero en su yuxtaposición, capitalismo avanzado y la lengua patriarcal asentada en su impalpable despotismo cotidiano, dan lugar a uno de los rostros más opresivos del mundo contemporáneo. Ambos se especializan en desplegar violencias explícitas y violencias sutiles, entrelazadas en una combinación que alterna la sangre con el tiempo. Las violentas se expresan cuando se desata la furia ante lo que consideran insoportable de las conciencias femeninas que se rebelan. Las sutiles están vinculadas a los vericuetos fraguados en los escondites fósiles del lenguaje, que se inscriben silenciosamente sobre los cuerpos para vejarlos con un sello letal. Ocurre cuando descubren que lo que creen que es el asfixiante nudo que predestina a la subordinación de las mujeres, se va aflojando.

Los brutales femicidios como forma extrema de violencia de género, muchas veces salen de la forma en que va madurando explosivamente un alambique lingüístico antediluviano, que muy habitualmente se esconde en la supuesta inocencia de un chiste o un proverbio que atravesó indemne generaciones desatentas. Todo ello fue originando, precisamente en este nuevo tiempo histórico de sombrías características, el surgimiento masivo de una respuesta de miles de mujeres, hecho de masas inédito en nuestro continente. La voluntad explícita de las mujeres argentinas –de diversas clases sociales y franjas etarias– fue la de no aceptar una rendición hacia estos protocolos de la humillación, sean los más encubiertas o los más costumbristas. Ese núcleo de violencia se expresa bajo invisibles formas cotidianas que muchas veces cobra víctimas que son sentenciadas de antemano en conversaciones aparentemente triviales, donde el lugar común sumado a arcaicas arrogancias, expone el borde amenazante en que se sitúa un lenguaje que le dictamina a las mujeres una inferioridad que creen justificada en imaginarias culpas, ya juzgadas por tribunales misteriosos. Muchos, crédulamente, aceptan que fue esta situación la que ha tallado para siempre órdenes de la naturaleza y mandatos modelados por viejos manuales de biología.

A lo largo de siglos la despolitización del cuerpo de la mujer, sustraído por el Estado, las instituciones confesionales o los pactos de servidumbre que sostienen a los partidos del Orden, pudo ser convertido en un ámbito obsequioso, cuyo acatamiento servil era elogiado como sustento mismo de la vida en común a condición de suprimirle sus posibilidades sensitivas y sus tendencias a la emancipación. Este largo ciclo de hundimiento de vidas en una supuesta culpa de incapacidad, se convirtió en un grito público de protesta, donde habitó desde siempre la intensa voz silenciosa que heredan todas las sociedades en las fisuras donde las mujeres, una y otra vez hicieron saber de sus existencias libres y creadoras.

De la aparición de los feminismos sufragistas a comienzos del siglo XX hasta los movimientos sociales surgidos con distintas motivaciones en largos períodos de nuestra historia, un núcleo social de sensibilidades irredentas buscaba rostros femeninos para manifestarse, sea el de Alicia Moreau de Justo, el de Salvadora Medina Onrubia, Cecilia Grierson, Hermina Brumana, Liliana Maresca, Alejandra Pizarnik, Mary Sánchez, Alicia Eguren, Eva Perón, las Madres y Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo. Las diferencias entre ellas las conocemos, pero el nuevo movimiento feminista las solicita como precursoras y las convoca en las mismas pancartas. Esta historia es conocida, heterogénea y conmocionante. Las distintas etapas, ciclos, obras y teorizaciones del movimiento feminista escriben un largo capítulo de las luchas sociales del siglo que pasó y de éste. Muchos quisieran arrancar estos retratos y nombres –y los que mencionamos son apenas un puñado– con un grotesco manotón administrativo. Pero ellas están adheridas a las paredes públicas donde se guardan los largos adobes de toda memoria social activa.

Los Encuentros Nacionales de Mujeres atravesaron estos últimos 31 años en un crecimiento incesante (llegando el Encuentro 2016 a reunir más de 80 mil asistentes) elevando la calidad, mecanismos, instrumentos y fronteras de nuestra democracia, multiplicando y masificando las organizaciones específicas, sus demandas y la construcción creciente de protagonismo femenino en la vida económica, política, social y cultural del país.

Los temas que se señalan ya son ampliamente conocidos: están vinculados a la reflexión sobre los modelos tradicionales de familia, a la construcción alternativa de subjetividades, a la reflexión sobre las neutralidades supuestas del lenguaje y cómo tratarlas, a la crítica a las imágenes femeninas construidas por los medios masivos, a las formas oblicuas de un nuevo patriarcalismo que se presenta esgrimiendo renovados fetichismos de devoción sobre el cuerpo femenino, al que se le otorgan excepcionalidades sigilosamente vigiladas por nuevos órdenes publicitarios. Estos últimos pueden constituir un patriarcalismo encubierto que imagina pseudo-libertades femeninas que previamente encapsulan en nuevos y refinados prejuicios. Pero, finalmente, las distintas fórmulas de ataque al símbolo cultural de lo femenino, pero en demasiados casos cobrando víctimas concretas, es el odioso y multiplicado femicidio, un atroz fantasma que recorre a la Argentina puntuando con su presencia fatídica lugares públicos o domésticos.

En la actualidad, la eliminación y debilitamiento sistemático de instancias públicas destinadas a garantizar los derechos y asegurar la integridad de las mujeres, se suma a la persecución de dirigentes sociales agravada por su condición de género, como el caso de Milagro Sala en Jujuy.

La lucha social de las clases trabajadoras condujo históricamente a la demanda por la igualdad en la obtención del empleo y en las condiciones de salario y trabajo, y hoy estas luchas miran con interés a las del feminismo, así como estas muchas veces encarnan con sus singularidades nuevas y heredadas luchas, como hoy ocurre en distintas latitudes en materia de minorías étnicas, migrantes y religiosas, entre otras. Constituyen así igual, las luchas de género, un estímulo para los reclamos impostergables de trabajadores en general, niños, personas desvalidas, condenados de la tierra o personas que los sistemas de dominio consideran descartables. Las luchas feministas son también como campanillas de alerta ante las grandes organizaciones sociales y políticas, que a pesar de la función activa que deberían cumplir, parecen paralizadas ante un conjunto de sórdidas decisiones políticas que atemorizan a todo un país y logran en muchos casos un apoyo pasivo.

Pero en estas manifestaciones que recorren ahora ilimitados territorios en todo el mundo, se aprietan memorias disímiles que hoy afloran a la memoria, por ser parte inescindible de las tareas; asoman pues tanto la ley del voto femenino del peronismo como la fuerte participación de las mujeres en las insurgencias de décadas pasadas, las grandes escritoras olvidadas como Eduarda Mansilla o las maestras socialistas Chertkoff, en su pionerismo barrial en la ciudad de Buenos Aires.

El paro de mujeres del 8 de marzo, que apoyamos muy explícitamente, es un aviso general para encontrar la clave que desprenda los nudos que traban el toque de alerta para resistir todas las violencias antidemocráticas y de género hoy en curso. El actual movimiento feminista nos llama porque sus banderas, de tan nítidamente específicas en defensa de la vida, enseguida cobran el rostro activo de la defensa del trabajo y de la democracia. La tradición socialista y anarquista fue la precursora de las luchas por la igualdad de la mujer, junto a los liberales progresistas que acompañaron a los sectores más avanzados de la prédica de la igualdad, y la tradición nacional y popular ofreció siempre su democrática versión de la mujer movilizada y sapiente de sus derechos, y la diseminó masivamente, generando aún más altos niveles de participación política y creciente reconocimiento de la diversidad.

La dictadura de 1976 se ensañó de la manera más brutal con las mujeres en los campos de concentración, no solo acudiendo a las tremendas razones generales del genocidio ya planificado, sino también por haberse atrevido a “tomar el cielo por asalto”. A la tortura que no discriminaba géneros se sumaron los delitos sexuales ejecutados de manera sistemática. La represión dictatorial fue enfrentada como nadie puede ignorarlo, por la acción de las Madres y Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo que produjeron con su lucha un giro copernicano en los combates por los derechos humanos en general, incluidos muy especialmente en ellos las demandas de las mujeres.

Los gobiernos posteriores no incrementaron los avances en el espacio social, más allá de la sanción de la ley de cupo que sostuvo que las listas de legisladores nacionales no podían tener más de dos tercios de candidatos de un mismo sexo y obligó a intercalar uno entre tres a personas de sexo diferente. Y, sin embargo, se generaron e incrementaron los movimientos feministas y de género –colectivos como LGBTTTIQ, incluyendo identidades lésbica, gay, bisexual, transexual, transgénero, travesti, intersexual y queer–, creció la preocupación en distintas organizaciones políticas, sociales y culturales, se produjo una literatura, un cine, una televisión y unas artes plásticas que se sumaron e inspiraron las luchas por generar los cambios que muchas mujeres y también hombres demandaban. Estas acciones fueron enfrentadas desde múltiples frentes, pero en su fondo último, a pesar de mostrarse dadivosos o condescendientes, también fueron atacadas o relativizadas en los grandes medios de comunicación, más allá de excepciones señalables. Es que allí sigue predominando una línea general basada en temáticas, lenguajes y marco publicitarios que deben dejar de considerarse sexistas y discriminatorios.

¿No es tiempo de una reflexión autocrítica de los compañeros hombres del campo popular? Pues muchos no han comprendido aun de qué modo el lenguaje de la violencia manifiesta, habita los mismos prejuicios acerca del carácter pasivo, en todo sentido, que habría de tener la mujer. Lo manifiesto y lo latente se conjugan en forma cómplice, pues bajo un teñido de aceptación de las demandas de género, se sigue sosteniendo la misma lengua inculpatoria hacia el cuerpo femenino.

El movimiento de las mujeres está llamado, al incluir subjetividades excluidas por la sociedad, a un lugar en la construcción política con formas totalmente inéditas, en múltiples formas de acción. El verdadero combate entonces, es el cambio de los núcleos éticos que propone el movimiento de las mujeres, horizonte renovado para el conjunto de la política y marca el futuro de una posibilidad emancipadora. Durante el gobierno de Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, tan injustamente denostado, se aprobaron disposiciones y leyes que es necesario mencionar: la del Matrimonio Igualitario, Regulación del pago de trabajo al personal doméstico, Protección Integral para Prevenir, Sancionar y Erradicar la violencia contra las Mujeres, la de Educación Sexual Integral, de Parto Humanizado, de Anticoncepción Quirúrgica, así como la suscripción de la Convención sobre la Eliminación de todas las formas de Discriminación Contra la Mujer y la sanción de la Ley Contra la Trata de Personas porque –aun contemplando un universo social más amplio– abrió cauce al combate de la trata de mujeres y niñas con destino a la prostitución, su recuperación y reinserción social mediante trabajo digno.

Más temprano que tarde se deberán aprobar leyes de despenalización de la interrupción voluntaria del embarazo, discusión de la que nadie puede desconocer sus delicados aspectos pero que es reclamada por el cuerpo vivo de millones de mujeres. Esta luchas tienen y deben tener autonomía y dirección libre, pero para ser victoriosas debe siempre estar inscriptas en el proceso y el contexto de la marcha del movimiento popular por la soberanía popular, la justicia social, la independencia nacional y la solidaridad con los pueblos de América Latina y el mundo.

Carta Abierta

El gobierno de Donald Trump ha formulado las tácticas para llevar a cabo su anunciada guerra contra los 11 millones de inmigrantes indocumentados en Estados Unidos –la mayoría mexicanos–, que incluyen medidas para ampliar y acelerar las detenciones y deportaciones, multiplicar las filas de los agentes de migración y proceder de inmediato a la construcción del muro.

Dos borradores de memorandos elaborados por el Departamento de Seguridad Interior y firmados por su secretario, el general retirado Michael Kelly, establecen el esquema e instrucciones para la implementación de las órdenes ejecutivas firmadas por el presidente Donald Trump el 25 de enero sobre las nuevas medidas sobre mayor control de la población indocumentada y la construcción del muro fronterizo.

Los borradores fueron filtrados a algunos medios el fin de semana (primero los periódicos McClatchy, después Washington Post y Reuters) están bajo revisión de abogados de la Casa Blanca, pero podrían ser ya aprobados esta semana.

Kelly justifica las medidas con el argumento de que la oleada de inmigración en la frontera sur ha desbordado a las agencias federales y los recursos y ha creado una significativa vulnerabilidad de seguridad nacional para Estados Unidos.

La orden de mayor impacto inmediato es la ampliación dramática de la definición de cuáles indocumentados serán prioridad para aplicar las medidas de persecución, que en esencia pone ahora en riesgo a todo indocumentado.

Ya no sólo un inmigrante condenado por un delito está sujeto a la deportación, sino cualquiera que haya sido simplemente acusado de un delito, o que haya cometido actos que pudieran constituir un delito; que haya cometido fraude o haya mentido en relación con un asunto oficial ante una agencia gubernamental; que haya abusado de los servicios públicos, que esté bajo órdenes de abandonar el país o que a juicio de un oficial de inmigración represente un riesgo a la seguridad pública o la seguridad nacional. O sea, casi todos los 11 millones caben en alguna parte de esta lista.

Las medidas también establecen que inmigrantes indocumentados detenidos –aparentemente con ciertas excepciones– ya no serán liberados antes de sus citas en los tribunales de inmigración, lo cual puede implicar semanas y hasta años de espera y separación de familias.

Más aún, según el abogado de migración Jose Pertierra, las nuevas definiciones son tan amplias que cualquiera que haya cometido incluso una infracción o delito menor es sujeto de deportación. Por lo tanto, afirma el abogado a La Jornada, si él lleva a un cliente ante un tribunal que tiene sólo un antecedente delictivo –tan menor y común como mentirle a una autoridad sobre sus documentos, o ser arrestado por manejar bajo la influencia de alcohol– podría ser sujeto a quedar detenido ahí mismo. No sabemos qué hacer ante eso; estamos ante una situación en la que presentar a un cliente ante un tribunal es como llevar a un cristiano a los leones en la época romana.

A la vez, las medidas permitirán a las autoridades solicitar procedimientos expeditos de deportación para cualquier indocumentado que haya permanecido en este país hasta por dos años; actualmente sólo se aplican a los que han estado dos semanas o menos. Otra medida permite que todo inmigrante mexicano detenido en la frontera sea de inmediato regresado a México para esperar la conclusión de sus audiencias sobre deportación, evitando así que sean detenidos en instalaciones estadunidenses.

Las directrices también se enfocan en frenar el flujo de menores de edad no acompañados (unos 155 mil han llegado a lo largo de los últimos tres años desde Mexico y Centroamérica, indica el documento) e incluyen fiscalizar a sus padres en Estados Unidos por conspirar para violar nuestras leyes de inmigración, con el fin de lograr que sus hijos lleguen por manos de traficantes.

Muros y policías

Se ordena que la agencia de Aduanas y Control Fronterizo (CBP) de inmediato inicie la planeación, diseño, construcción y mantenimiento de un muro fronterizo. Pero aclara que esto será en lugares apropiados y empleando materiales y tecnología apropiada para lograr un control operativo más efectivo de la frontera, lo que de nuevo deja la duda de si, como se ha especulado, no se contempla un muro físico a lo largo de la frontera. Más aún, el memorando deja ambiguo el controvertido tema de los fondos para financiar la construcción del muro.

Los memorandos incluyen instrucciones para iniciar la contratación de 10 mil agentes adicionales de la agencia de control de inmigración (ICE) y 5 mil más para la Patrulla Fronteriza, tal como se indicaba en las órdenes ejecutivas de Trump.

A la vez, se ampliará un programa de colaboración de las agencias federales con policías locales para la persecución de inmigrantes indocumentados. El programa promulgado por el presidente Bill Clinton fue criticado por los abusos de derechos civiles que provocó y fue semi-abandonado por el gobierno de Barack Obama.

Otra medida es que migrantes detenidos que crucen la frontera terrestre contigua a Estados Unidos serán retornados a ese mismo territorio desde donde cruzaron, sin importar su país de origen.

Las nuevas medidas remplazan casi todas las emitidas sobre este rubro por gobiernos anteriores, lo cual incluye el enfoque limitado aplicado por el gobierno de Barack Obama de dirigir los esfuerzos de deportación sólo contra criminales reincidentes o los que tienen vínculos con el terrorismo.

Por ahora las medidas no incluyen a los dreamers

Sin embargo, es notable por su ausencia en estos memorandos el programa de Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA, por sus siglas en inglés), establecido por orden ejecutiva de Barack Obama, que beneficia a 750 mil jóvenes indocumentados. En torno a la DACA, Trump ha repetido que buscará una solución para muchos de estos jóvenes –aunque recordó que entre ellos también hay criminales–, ya que tiene un gran corazón.

Estas medidas se revelan poco después de que se filtró otro documento que indica que el gobierno de Trump estaba considerando el uso hasta de 100 mil elementos de la Guardia Nacional en 11 estados para la persecución de inmigrantes, lo que provocó pánico y furia entre diversos sectores.

Aunque la Casa Blanca declaró que esa propuesta era falsa, varias fuentes informaron a los medios que estaba circulando a los niveles más altos del nuevo gobierno. Sin embargo, no se hace mención de la Guardia Nacional en los memorandos de Kelly.

El nivel de alarma entre comunidades inmigrantes, y sus defensores, se ha elevado cada día desde que Trump llegó a la Casa Blanca.

Joanne Lin, abogado de la Unión Estadunidense de Libertades Civiles (ACLU), afirmó en una declaración que el debido proceso legal, la decencia y el sentido común son tratados como obstáculos inconvenientes en el camino a las deportaciones masivas. El gobierno de Trump está decidido a infligir crueldad sobre millones de familias inmigrantes por todo el país. Agregó que estas políticas son una combinación sin precedente de acciones inconstitucionales radicales al hacer casi todo migrante “una prioridad para la detención y deportación.

Unos 11 millones viven en este país fuera de la ley. De repente, por decreto presidencial, todos son prioridad para la deportación, todos son supuestos criminales, todos son amenazados con destruir su vida, junto con miembros de sus familias. El fin para ellos puede llegar en cualquier momento, comenta el editorial del New York Times. Este es el Estados Unidos de hoy, de este mes, de esta mañana, afirma, al indicar que de repente los inmigrantes se sienten “fugitivos… aterrorizados de que el gobierno de Estados Unidos los encontrará, o a sus padres, o a sus hijos, les exigirán sus papeles y se los llevarán”.

Quizá por primera vez en su historia, el Times invita a resistir todo esto con el poder de la gente en las calles, ante la limitada reacción y poder de legisladores opositores y de los tribunales.

David Brooks

David Brooks

Nota del Editor: La copia de los memorandos se encuentra en el siguiente enlace.

El ciclo intensificado de noticias está rodando pero el verdadero saqueo de Estados Unidos todavía no ha empezado

La cosa empezó en junio de 2015 cuando el escalador de la Torre Trump entró en la carrera por la presidencia al son de Rockin’ in the Free World cantado por Neil Young (Pero hay una señal de alerta en el camino / hay mucha gente que dice que muertos estaríamos mejor / yo no siento como Satán, pero estoy con ellos…). En cierto sentido, la sacudida no ha parado nunca y, en este momento, el mundo –libre o no– ha sido decididamente sacudido. Nadie, desde Beijing a Ciudad de México, de Bagdad a Berlín, de Londres a Washington puede negarlo.

Quien hoy recuerde eso, en esos momentos iniciales de su campaña, ¿había Donald Trump tomado nota ya del tamaño de su primera multitud (parcialmente contratada)? (“Por encima de cualquier expectativa. Nunca ha habido una multitud como esta…”). Y, desde entonces, él ha sido constantemente él mismo –menos un hombre fuerte que un hombre extrañamente cansado. Y en el proceso, mientras se convertía en presidente, emergió como un fenómeno mediático de un tipo que nunca habíamos visto antes.

Primero fueron esos miles de millones de dólares de propaganda gratuita en los medios durante la carrera por la nominación en el Partido Republicano gracias a que lo mostraban sin que importara qué estaba haciendo, diciendo o tuiteando. Cuando ya en la campaña electoral llegó el momento de confrontar con Hillary Clinton, Trump ya era la máxima atracción de la audiencia, y las cámaras y los periodistas se derretían por él; entonces, la cobertura mediática no hizo más que crecer, como volvió a hacerlo durante los meses de la transición. Hoy en día, por supuesto, su presidencia es la historia del segundo –de cada segundo de cada día– y la cobertura semanal se ha duplicado y sus ‘me gusta’ son únicas en la historia.

Pensemos en esto como el ciclo de noticias 25/8*. Desde aquel lejano junio del año pasado hasta ahora, a pesar de que nunca ha parado, de alguna manera todavía no lo hemos captado del todo. Nunca en la historia de los medios ha habido algo singular –un ser humano– que fuera capaz de concentrar la “noticias” de este modo, haciendo de su persona lo fundamental de toda la información. Solo en algunos periodos relativamente breves Trump ha desaparecido de los titulares de prensa o de las pantallas de la TV, por lo general cuando golpeó algún grupo terrorista islámico o atacó algún “lobo solitario” nacional, como en San Barnardino, en París o en Orlando; dada la campaña de Trump, estos acontecimientos han sido del todo funcionales a sus propósitos; no lo hubiera sido el haberse mantenido en el centro de la atención, como será durante su presidencia.

La interminable presidencia de Donald Trump (apenas ha empezado)

Diecinueve meses más tarde, la personalidad de Trump, sus declaraciones, sus tuits, sus discursos, sus azarosos pensamientos, sus comentarios al pasar, sus reclamos, sus quejas y por supuesto, sus actuaciones, están en el centro de todo. El narcisismo de un hombre en particular adquiere un nuevo significado cuando se infla al nivel de la sociedad. Así es; en ciertos momentos –el asesinato de John F. Kennedy, la persecución del Bronco blanco de OJ Simpson, los ataques del 11-S–, un acontecimiento o una personalidad particular lo ha desbordado todo y dominado la primara plana de todos los medios. Pero jamás una persona ha sido capaz de hacer esto en cualquier circunstancia, en momentos de noticias reales y en momentos en que a esa persona no le pasa nada.

Por ejemplo, pensemos en el New Yor Times, el periódico que tanto Steve Bannon, el asesor en alza de Donald Trump, como yo hemos leído religiosamente todos estos años. En este momento, Trump o las personas y acontecimientos relacionados con él monopolizan su primera plana de un modo bastante extraño. Regularmente, él figura hoy en cuatro o cinco de los más o menos seis principales titulares de cada día y frecuentemente un sorprendente 60 por ciento de las seis columnas de las páginas interiores de noticias. Y eso sin contar la nota editorial y la página de opinión opuesta a la anterior, que en estos días se ocupan casi exclusivamente de Trump.

Desde temprano por la mañana hasta tarde por la noche, ahí donde uno mire en los medios de Estados Unidos –y sin duda del mundo–, el último par de semanas no ha sido otra cosa que una avalancha de noticias sobre Trump y sus rasgos, ya sea enfocadas en controversias, polémicas o manifestaciones contra la prohibición de los musulmanes que el presidente y su gente insisten en que no se trata de una prohibición de los musulmanes; o en el tamaño de la multitud en su asunción a la presidencia; o en la chaqueta mal cortada de Sean Spicer; o en la firma de una orden ejecutiva para empezar a construir ese “gran, ancho y hermoso muro” en nuestra frontera sur; o en la cancelación de la visita del presidente de México y los airados o conciliatorios tuits, llamadas telefónicas y boicots que siguieron, por no hablar del arancel del 20 por ciento a las importaciones mexicanas propuesto por la administración Trump (a medias cancelado después) para conseguir que México pague el muro, lo que en realidad obligaría a que los consumidores estadounidenses aflojaran buena parte del dinero (aparentemente, convirtiéndonos a todos en mexicanos): o en inaudito nombramiento del supremacista blanco Steve Bannon en el Consejo Nacional de Seguridad (y el cese del presidente del estado mayor conjunto); o en la expulsión de la secretaria de Justicia en funciones Sally Yates después de que ella ordenara a sus abogados que no acataran la prohibición presidencial de viajar; o en el revuelo provocado por un nuevo nombramiento en la Corte Suprema, presentado en un especial presidencial al estilo de Apprentice, la serie de máxima audiencia de la TV; o en aquella sesión de confirmación boicoteada por los senadores demócratas; o en las intimidaciones a Irán; o en la amenaza de enviar tropas estadounidenses a México para sacar a los “hombres malos de ahí abajo”… pero, ¿para qué continuar? Usted lo ha visto todo (usted no podría elegir otra cosa, ¿acaso podría?). Y dígame si no han parecido por lo menos dos meses, por no decir dos años, de vertiginosos acontecimientos (o no acontecimientos).

En estas interminables semanas, más parecidas a meses, Trump hizo lo aparentemente imposible: estimuló la protesta en todo el mundo; despertó la animosidad –si no la enemistad– y el nacionalismo desde México a Irak, desde el Reino Unido hasta China; en suma, hizo que México se uniera detrás del más impopular de los presidentes de su historia, indujo la creación de un movimiento espontáneo de protesta nacional como no se veía desde hace 50 años, en los tiempos de la guerra de Vietnam, un movimiento que muestra todos los indicios de que crecerá; insultó al primer ministro de Australia, alienando a Estados Unidos de su principal aliado en Oceanía; y este no es más que el inicio de una lista de los “logros” del nuevo presidente en un tiempo que casi no ha pasado.

Por lo tanto, esta es la pregunta del día: ¿cómo podemos poner algo de esto en contexto mientras dibujamos la imagen del momento? Para empezar, tal vez una forma sería tratar de examinar las noticias que todo lo involucran; las de ayer, las de hoy y las de mañana.

De hacerlo, usted podría –pienso– llegar a la conclusión de que, a pesar del ruido y la furia de las dos últimas semanas**, en realidad todavía no ha pasado casi nada. Sé que, dadas las circunstancias, esto resulta difícil de creer, pero en lo fundamental la era Trump –o si usted lo prefiere, el daño Trump– aún esta por empezar (aunque contémosles esto a lo iraquíes, iraníes y otros pillados en vuelo, esposados nada más pisar tierra y, en algunos casos, enviados de vuelta al infierno en la Tierra). Aun así, ¿crisis? Los medios ya están hablando de crisis constitucionales pero, créame, aún no ha visto nada. ¿Conflictos de intereses? De momento, con todo lo nefastas que puedan ser las noticias, apenas ha sido un atisbo de lo que seguramente vendrá. ¿Delitos contra el país? Casi no han empezado.

Es cierto que las personas nombradas por Trump para que se ocupen de la seguridad nacional, desde el Pentágono y la CIA hasta el departamento de Seguridad Interior y el Consejo Nacional de Seguridad, en buena parte están su puesto, aunque se haya informado que, como parte de una situación muy cambiante, el asesor en Seguridad Nacional Michael Flynn parece haber perdido la confianza del nuevo presidente y Steve Bannon –que anteriormente no contaba en el ámbito de la seguridad nacional– está en la cresta de la ola. Aparte de esto, todavía son pocos los nombrados en el gabinete que están de verdad funcionando. En ese conjunto de milmillonarios y multimillonarios, hay quienes apenas han sido confirmados y quienes todavía no. Ni siquiera han empezado a presidir en departamentos en los que hay muchos equipos que parecen dominados por el caos y el miedo o empezando a expresar cierta resistencia.

Esto significa que lo que Bill Moyers ya ha denominado la “carrera de la demolición” de la era Trump todavía no se ha iniciado de verdad, aparte de un congelamiento en la contratación en los sectores del gobierno ajenos a la seguridad nacional. Dicho de otra manera, si usted piensa que lo sucedido en las dos últimas semanas era algo noticiable, solo espere que se instale el gabinete más rico de nuestra historia, una verdadera pandilla de depredadores capitalistas, entre ellos un secretario de Comercio apodado “el rey de las bancarrotas” por su habilidad en la compraventa de empresas quebradas con pasmosos beneficios; o un secretario del Tesoro conocido en California como “el rey de las ejecuciones hipotecarias” por haber desahuciado a miles de propietarios (incluyendo militares en activo) cuyas viviendas fueron compradas a precio vil por él y sus socios en la estela del la crisis financiera de 2008; o el jefe del departamento de Estado que hasta ayer no más dirigía la depredación mundial de ExxonMobil. Como equipo, ellos y sus colegas están preparados tanto para desmantelar las agencias que han de dirigir como hacer pedazos su misión. Probablemente, en esto esté también Scott Pruitt, director de la Agencia de Protección Ambiental (EPA, por sus siglas en inglés) –un hombre que se desempeñó durante mucho tiempo en el sector de la gran energía–, que parece resuelto a reducir la EPA a una entidad que no nos proteja de nada; o un rey de la comida chatarra, que en su nueva función de secretario de Trabajo, está en contra del salario mínimo y a favor de reemplazar a los trabajadores por máquinas. ¿Noticias? ¿Piensa usted que sabe qué son dos semanas de esta administración? Ni de casualidad.

Y no se olvide de la Casa Blanca; ahora se trata de un trabajo en familia –una combinación de una organización global basada en la propiedad inmobiliaria (los Trump) y un imperio de los bienes raíces (el yerno Jared Kusher). Es obvio que las decisiones que se tomen en la Casa Blanca, pero incluso también en las oficinas gubernamentales de la capital de otros países, en las calles de ciudades del extranjero y hasta entre yihadistas afectarán a la fortuna de ambas familias. No soy el primero que señala que ninguno de los países de origen de los siete musulmanes afectados por la prohibición de inmigración de Trump está entre aquellos en los que él tiene tratos comerciales. Por supuesto, en tanto patriarca, Donald J. dirigirá el Despacho Oval y su yerno estará en algún sitio cercano con posibilidad de acceder a su suegro cuando lo desee, mientras su hija Ivanka tendrá alguna función todavía no anunciada (posiblemente aún no decidida) en la administración de su padre. Si ahora mismo viviéramos en el mundo árabe esto parecería algo tan familiar como una tarta de manzana –tal vez debería decir hummus–: un gobierno de orientación familiar regido por un hombre autoritario alrededor del cual se congrega la flor y nata de los predadores capitalistas del país, muchos de ellos con sus propios y graves conflictos de intereses.

Pensado de otra forma, podríamos decir: bienvenidos a Arabia Saudí, o a la Siria de Bashar al-Assad anterior a la catástrofe, o… bueno, tantos otros países del mundo menos desarrollado y cada vez más caótico.

Un gobierno de saqueadores

Desde el cuidado de la salud y la política fiscal hasta la protección medioambiental, este será sin duda un gobierno de los saqueadores, ejercido por los saqueadores y para beneficiar a los saqueadores; en cuanto al Congreso, otro tanto de lo mismo. Aun así, solo hemos visto apenas la vislumbres de lo que se avecina.

En semejante época en la que ningún milmillonario ha quedado fuera, olvidemos las antiguas marismas de Washington (aunque, en realidad, la ciudad no fue levantada en zona de marismas). El gobierno de Donald J. Trump parece destinado a producir un lodazal de ciénagas y seguramente, en algún momento, dará un nuevo significado a la expresión ‘conflicto de intereses’. Aun así, también este proceso no ha hecho más que empezar.

De un gobierno integrado por depredadores del 1 por ciento, ¿qué podemos esperar sino ser saqueados y víctimas de delitos de todo tipo? (preguntemos a los habitantes de la mayor parte de los países árabes). De todos modos, aparte de lo que acaben siendo, no serán otra cosa que los acostumbrados delitos cometidos en la historia del ser humano. Poco de nuevo habrá en ellos, excepto tal vez por los extremos que puedan alcanzarse en Estados Unidos. Causarán dolor, por supuesto –como también beneficios para unos pocos– pero tarde o temprano esos delitos y quienes los cometan saldrán del centro de la escena y con el tiempo caerán en el olvido.

Esto será cierto salvo un solo futuro delito. Es probable que resulte ser el más imperdonable de todos ellos y quienes hayan participado en su comisión serán –sin ninguna duda– los más grandes delincuentes de todos los tiempos. Podríamos llamarles “terraristas”***, y el conjunto de sus acciones sería un “terricidio”. Si hay un personaje único en la administración Trump que concentra la esencia de esto es, por supuesto el ex directivo de ExxonMobil y actual secretario de Estado Rex Tillerson. Su antigua compañía tiene una nefasta historia no solo en la explotación de los combustibles fósiles sino también en el ocultamiento de información sobre el daño hecho por estos combustibles mediante la emisión de gases de efecto invernadero que provocan el calentamiento de la atmósfera y los mares de la Tierra, y la financiación del negacionismo climático; en resumen, la destrucción del planeta en la eterna búsqueda de mayores beneficios.

En este momento, esta persona se suma a la administración de un presidente que una vez dijo que el cambio climático era un “cuento chino”, y quien, con una sorprendente determinación nombró –primero en su equipo de transición y después en su gobierno– a un equipo sin precedente de negacionistas del cambio climático y de los llamados escépticos climáticos. Ellos, y solo ellos, están ocupando posiciones claves en todos los departamentos y agencias del Estado de algún modo conectadas con los combustibles fósiles y el medioambiente. Una de las primeras medidas de esta administración fue dar luz verde a los muy controvertidos oleoductos, uno de ellos destinado a transportar la más sucia de las sustancias con contenido de petróleo, las arenas bituminosas de Canadá desde Alberta a la costa del golfo de México; otra, fue animar a quienes explotan los yacimientos no convencionales de Bakken, North Dakota, utilizando la tecnología de fracturación hidráulica (fracking) para que mantengan su ritmo de producción. En su anhelo por hacer que Estados Unidos regrese a los años cincuenta del siglo pasado, el presidente Trump ha prometido una nueva era de explotación de los combustibles fósiles. Evidentemente, está a punto de arrojar el acuerdo climático de París al basurero de la historia y acabar también con el apoyo al desarrollo de las fuentes de energía alternativas (al hacerlo –la palabra ‘ironía’ es muy débil aquí– cederá una enorme posibilidad de creación de empleo a los chinos, los alemanes y otros).

Se podría pensar en una perfecta programación, pero justamente dos días antes de asumir la presidencia –esto es, dos días antes de que el sitio web de la Casa Blanca eliminara cualquier referencia al cambio climático– tanto la Administración Nacional Oceánica y Atmosférica (NOAA, por sus siglas en inglés) como la Agencia Nacional Aeroespacial (NASA, por sus siglas en inglés) –la página web de cada una de ellas sería sin duda “limpiada” por los negacionistas climáticos de Trump– informaron de que en 2016, por tercera vez consecutiva, la temperatura de la Tierra había roto todos los récords (esto quiere decir que 16 de los 17 años más calurosos lo habían sido en el siglo XXI). Según la NASA, entre 2013 y 2016, el planeta se había calentado bastante más de 0,35 ºC, “el mayor aumento de temperatura registrado por la NASA para un lapso de tres años”.

El año pasado, informó The Guardian, “América del Norte vio el mayor número de tormentas e inundaciones en más de 40 años. Globalmente, en 2016, hemos observado por encima de 1,5 veces más de catástrofes climáticas extremas que en el promedio de los últimos 30 años. Además, la disminución de la capa de hielo en los mares alcanzó un nuevo récord”. Y la lista no ha hecho más que empezar. Ya no se trata de algo terriblemente complicado. No se trata de discutibles datos científicos. Esta es nuestra realidad; es incuestionable que lo que el futuro promete a nuestros hijos y nietos es un mundo con fenómenos climáticos cada vez más intensos: aumento del nivel del mar, supersequías cada vez más prolongadas (al mismo tiempo que lluvias torrenciales), junto con calor, mucho calor.

A menos que se produzcan sorpresivos avances en las tecnologías de las energías alternativas u otras maravillas, esto –una vez más– es demasiado obvio para ponerlo en duda. De este modo, tanto nuestro nuevo presidente y su administración, resueltos a impedir no solo el conocimiento científico cobre el cambio climático sino también cualquier intento de mitigar el fenómeno, como los ex colegas de Rex Tillerson en las empresas de la gran energía, que prefieren sacar de circulación la información sobre toda esta cuestión en favor de los combustibles fósiles y el enriquecimiento personal, estarán cometiendo el más elemental de los crímenes contra la humanidad.

En estos años que vienen, estas personas, como grupo, sacarán el segundo mayor emisor de gases de invernadero del mundo de las apuestas del cambio climático y harán lo necesario para asegurar que el acogedor planeta en el que la humanidad vive desde hace tanto tiempo sea en el futuro un lugar muy lúgubre. En el interminable aluvión de “noticias” centradas en Donal Trump de este momento, esta –la principal de todas– se ha perdido en el barullo. Aun así, al contrario de cualquier otro conjunto de acciones a las que podrían dedicarse (salvo tal vez una guerra atómica), esta es de verdad la definición de la noticia del siglo. Después de todo, los tiempos del cambio climático no son los de nuestra escala de tiempos; forman parte del tiempo planetario, entonces podría ser que fuera un momento definitorio en la historia de la humanidad.

Tom Engelhardt

Tom Engelhardt: Cofundador del American Empire Project, autor de The United States of Fear y de una historia de la Guerra Fría, The End of Victory Culture. Forma parte del cuerpo docente del Nation Institute y es administrador de TomDispatch.com. Su libro más reciente es Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

Notas:

* El inglés de Estados Unidos tiene una expresión (numérica) 24/7 que significa ‘las 24 horas del día durante los siete días de la semana’, es decir, algo que no se interrumpe nunca. Para denotar una intensificación extrema, el autor ha creado una nueva expresión: 25/8, es decir, más de lo que ya era el máximo posible. (N. del T.)

** La nota original en inglés de esta traducción fue publicada el 7 de febrero de 2017. (N. del T.)

*** En realidad, en castellano hay una palabra que define esto; es ‘geocida’, es decir, quien comete ‘geocidio’. A riesgo de escribir un barbarismo, el traductor ha intentado ser fiel a la redacción del autor; aun así, hace esta aclaración… (N. del T.)

Artículo original en inglés:

Crimes of the Trump Era (a Preview), publicado el 7 de febrero de 2017.

Traducido por Carlos Riba García para Rebelión.