Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Thursday, March 17, 2016
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Cuba joins Grupo de Rio
Cuba entró al Grupo de Río
Es el miembro número 23
EFE
BRASIL - El Grupo de Río incorporó el martes a Cuba como miembro pleno en una reunión celebrada por este mecanismo de consultas políticas en el marco de la Cumbre de América Latina y el Caribea la que asistió el presidente de la isla caribeña, Raúl Castro.
Bienvenida
"Es un privilegio dar la bienvenida a Cuba como miembro del Grupo de Río en esta reunión", dijo el mandatario mexicano, Felipe Calderón, que ejerce como presidente pro témpore del Grupo y cuyo anuncio fue seguido de un prolongado aplauso.
Calderón aseguró que "la presencia de este país hermano será muy valiosa para la construcción de un destino común con valores compartidos".
De esta forma, Cuba se convierte en el miembro número 23 del Grupo de Río constituido en diciembre de 1986 en Río de Janeiro como mecanismo de consulta y concertación política.
Sus fundadores fueron Argentina, Brasil, Colombia, México, Panamá, Perú, Uruguay y Venezuela.
A ellos se sumaron en diferentes fechas Belice, Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guayana, Haití, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay y República Dominicana, más la Comunidad del Caribe (Caricom), representada actualmente por Jamaica.
Integración regional
Al dar la bienvenida a Cuba, Calderón expresó su deseo de "aprovechar la capacidad de convocatoria del Grupo de Río para contribuir a los esfuerzos de cooperación e intercambio de experiencias" dentro de los distintos mecanismos de cooperación regional.
"En 20 años se ha consolidado como interlocutor representativo de la región ante otros países y grupos de países", afirmó Calderón, al recordar que el próximo jueves se cumplirán dos décadas de la creación del Grupo de Río.
Raúl Castro agradeció a quienes aprobaron el ingreso de su país, decisión que se tomó el pasado 13 de noviembre en una reunión ministerial celebrada en Zacatecas (México) y resaltó que la misma es un "reflejo del momento singular que viven América Latina y el Caribe".
Momento histórico
"No sé qué pensarán ustedes, pero para nosotros es un momento trascendental de nuestra historia", manifestó el presidente cubano.
Castro, que hizo un recuento de los momentos cruciales vividos por la revolución cubana, principalmente de los combates de todo tipo que ha tenido que librar contra Estados Unidos y sus aliados, evocó a su hermano Fidel, a quien reemplazó de manera interina en la jefatura del Estado en agosto de 2006 y definitivamente en febrero pasado.
"Es un momento trascendental", repitió, y a renglón seguido contó que le había comentado momentos antes a su canciller, Felipe Pérez Roque, "cuánto lamento que no sea Fidel el que esté sentado aquí, aunque nos debe estar viendo por televisión".
Según Castro, Cuba "ingresa con el propósito de fomentar la comprensión y solidaridad" entre las naciones de la región.
"Lo hace con el deseo de trabajar a favor de la justicia, la paz, el desarrollo y el entendimiento entre todos nuestros pueblos", sostuvo.
El mandatario cubano agregó que al ingresar al Grupo de Río, Cuba lo hace "compartiendo el apego mutuo al derecho internacional, a la carta de las Naciones Unidas y a los principios fundamentales que rigen la relaciones entre las naciones".
Entre ellas citó la no injerencia en los asuntos internos de los Estados, el rechazo a la agresión, a la amenaza, al uso de la fuerza y al empleo de medidas coercitivas unilaterales, con el fin de impedir a cualquier Estado el ejercicio del derecho a escoger su propio sistema político, económico y social.
Por su parte, el presidente venezolano, Hugo Chávez, consideró que el de hoy es "un acto de justicia" con la isla caribeña.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Social Summit for Latin America: Chomsky
VII Social Summit for the Latin American & Caribbean
Unity
By Noam Chomsky
ZMagazine
Septmber 30, 2008
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/18958
CARACAS
During the past decade, Latin America has become the
most exciting region of the world. The dynamic has very
largely flowed from right where you are meeting, in
Caracas, with the election of a leftist president
dedicated to using Venezuela's rich resources for the
benefit of the population rather than for wealth and
privilege at home and abroad, and to promote the
regional integration that is so desperately needed as a
prerequisite for independence, for democracy, and for
meaningful development. The initiatives taken in
Venezuela have had a significant impact throughout the
subcontinent, what has now come to be called "the pink
tide." The impact is revealed within the individual
countries, most recently Paraguay, and in the regional
institutions that are in the process of formation.
Among these are the Banco del Sur, an initiative that
was endorsed here in Caracas a year ago by Nobel
laureate in economics Joseph Stiglitz; and the ALBA,
the Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America and the
Caribbean, which might prove to be a true dawn if its
initial promise can be realized.
The ALBA is often described as an alternative to the
US-sponsored "Free Trade Area of the Americas," though
the terms are misleading. It should be understood to be
an independent development, not an alternative. And,
furthermore, the so-called "free trade agreements" have
only a limited relation to free trade, or even to trade
in any serious sense of that term; and they are
certainly not agreements, at least if people are part
of their countries. A more accurate term would be
"investor-rights arrangements," designed by
multinational corporations and banks and the powerful
states that cater to their interests, established
mostly in secret, without public participation or
awareness. That is why the US executive regularly calls
for "fast-track authority" for these agreements -
essentially, Kremlin-style authority.
Another regional organization that is beginning to take
shape is UNASUR, the Union of South American Nations.
This continental bloc, modeled on the European Union,
aims to establish a South American parliament in
Cochabamba, a fitting site for the UNASUR parliament.
Cochabamba was not well known internationally before
the water wars of 2000. But in that year events in
Cochabamba became an inspiration for people throughout
the world who are concerned with freedom and justice,
as a result of the courageous and successful struggle
against privatization of water, which awakened
international solidarity and was a fine and encouraging
demonstration of what can be achieved by committed
activism.
The aftermath has been even more remarkable. Inspired
in part by developments in Venezuela, Bolivia has
forged an impressive path to true democratization in
the hemisphere, with large-scale popular initiatives
and meaningful participation of the organized majority
of the population in establishing a government and
shaping its programs on issues of great importance and
popular concern, an ideal that is rarely approached
elsewhere, surely not in the Colossus of the North,
despite much inflated rhetoric by doctrinal managers.
Much the same had been true 15 years earlier in Haiti,
the only country in the hemisphere that surpasses
Bolivia in poverty - and like Bolivia, was the source
of much of the wealth of Europe, later the United
States. In 1990, Haiti's first free election took
place. It was taken for granted in the West that the US
candidate, a former World Bank official who monopolized
resources, would easily win. No one was paying
attention to the extensive grass-roots organizing in
the slums and hills, which swept into power the
populist priest Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Washington
turned at once to undermining the feared and hated
democratic government. It took only a few months for a
US-backed military coup to reverse this stunning
victory for democracy, and to place in power a regime
that terrorized the population with the direct support
of the US government, first under president Bush I,
then Clinton. Washington finally permitted the elected
president to return, but only on the condition that he
adhere to harsh neoliberal rules that were guaranteed
to crush what remained of the economy, as they did. And
in 2004, the traditional torturers of Haiti, France and
the US, joined to remove the elected president from
office once again, launching a new regime of terror,
though the people remain unvanquished, and the popular
struggle continues despite extreme adversity.
All of this is familiar in Latin America, not least in
Bolivia, the scene of today's most intense and
dangerous confrontation between popular democracy and
traditional US-backed elites. Archaeologists are now
discovering that before the European conquest, Bolivia
had a wealthy, sophisticated and complex society - to
quote their words, "one of the largest, strangest, and
most ecologically rich artificial environments on the
face of the planet, with causeways and canals, spacious
and formal towns and considerable wealth," creating a
landscape that was "one of humankind's greatest works
of art, a masterpiece." And of course Bolivia's vast
mineral wealth enriched Spain and indirectly northern
Europe, contributing massively to its economic and
cultural development, including the industrial and
scientific revolutions. Then followed a bitter history
of imperial savagery with the crucial connivance of
rapacious domestic elites, factors that are very much
alive today.
Sixty years ago, US planners regarded Bolivia and
Guatemala as the greatest threats to its domination of
the hemisphere. In both cases, Washington succeeded in
overthrowing the popular governments, but in different
ways. In Guatemala, Washington resorted to the standard
technique of violence, installing one of the world's
most brutal and vicious regimes, which extended its
criminality to virtual genocide in the highlands during
Reagan's murderous terrorist wars of the 1980s - and we
might bear in mind that these horrendous atrocities
were carried out under the guise of a "war on terror,"
a war that was re-declared by George Bush in September
2001, not declared, a revealing distinction when we
recall the implementation of Reagan's "war on terror"
and its grim human consequences.
In Guatemala, the Eisenhower administration overcame
the threat of democracy and independent development by
violence. In Bolivia, it achieved much the same
results by exploiting Bolivia's economic dependence on
the US, particularly for processing Bolivia's tin
exports. Latin America scholar Stephen Zunes points out
that "At a critical point in the nation's effort to
become more self-sufficient [in the early 1950s], the
U.S. government forced Bolivia to use its scarce
capital not for its own development, but to compensate
the former mine owners and repay its foreign debts."
The economic policies forced on Bolivia in those years
were a precursor of the structural adjustment programs
imposed on the continent thirty years later, under the
terms of the neoliberal "Washington consensus," which
has generally had disastrous effects wherever its
strictures have been observed. By now, the victims of
neoliberal market fundamentalism are coming to include
the rich countries, where the curse of financial
liberalization is bringing about the worst financial
crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s and
leading to massive state intervention in a desperate
effort to rescue collapsing financial institutions.
More: http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/18958
Unity
By Noam Chomsky
ZMagazine
Septmber 30, 2008
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/18958
CARACAS
During the past decade, Latin America has become the
most exciting region of the world. The dynamic has very
largely flowed from right where you are meeting, in
Caracas, with the election of a leftist president
dedicated to using Venezuela's rich resources for the
benefit of the population rather than for wealth and
privilege at home and abroad, and to promote the
regional integration that is so desperately needed as a
prerequisite for independence, for democracy, and for
meaningful development. The initiatives taken in
Venezuela have had a significant impact throughout the
subcontinent, what has now come to be called "the pink
tide." The impact is revealed within the individual
countries, most recently Paraguay, and in the regional
institutions that are in the process of formation.
Among these are the Banco del Sur, an initiative that
was endorsed here in Caracas a year ago by Nobel
laureate in economics Joseph Stiglitz; and the ALBA,
the Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America and the
Caribbean, which might prove to be a true dawn if its
initial promise can be realized.
The ALBA is often described as an alternative to the
US-sponsored "Free Trade Area of the Americas," though
the terms are misleading. It should be understood to be
an independent development, not an alternative. And,
furthermore, the so-called "free trade agreements" have
only a limited relation to free trade, or even to trade
in any serious sense of that term; and they are
certainly not agreements, at least if people are part
of their countries. A more accurate term would be
"investor-rights arrangements," designed by
multinational corporations and banks and the powerful
states that cater to their interests, established
mostly in secret, without public participation or
awareness. That is why the US executive regularly calls
for "fast-track authority" for these agreements -
essentially, Kremlin-style authority.
Another regional organization that is beginning to take
shape is UNASUR, the Union of South American Nations.
This continental bloc, modeled on the European Union,
aims to establish a South American parliament in
Cochabamba, a fitting site for the UNASUR parliament.
Cochabamba was not well known internationally before
the water wars of 2000. But in that year events in
Cochabamba became an inspiration for people throughout
the world who are concerned with freedom and justice,
as a result of the courageous and successful struggle
against privatization of water, which awakened
international solidarity and was a fine and encouraging
demonstration of what can be achieved by committed
activism.
The aftermath has been even more remarkable. Inspired
in part by developments in Venezuela, Bolivia has
forged an impressive path to true democratization in
the hemisphere, with large-scale popular initiatives
and meaningful participation of the organized majority
of the population in establishing a government and
shaping its programs on issues of great importance and
popular concern, an ideal that is rarely approached
elsewhere, surely not in the Colossus of the North,
despite much inflated rhetoric by doctrinal managers.
Much the same had been true 15 years earlier in Haiti,
the only country in the hemisphere that surpasses
Bolivia in poverty - and like Bolivia, was the source
of much of the wealth of Europe, later the United
States. In 1990, Haiti's first free election took
place. It was taken for granted in the West that the US
candidate, a former World Bank official who monopolized
resources, would easily win. No one was paying
attention to the extensive grass-roots organizing in
the slums and hills, which swept into power the
populist priest Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Washington
turned at once to undermining the feared and hated
democratic government. It took only a few months for a
US-backed military coup to reverse this stunning
victory for democracy, and to place in power a regime
that terrorized the population with the direct support
of the US government, first under president Bush I,
then Clinton. Washington finally permitted the elected
president to return, but only on the condition that he
adhere to harsh neoliberal rules that were guaranteed
to crush what remained of the economy, as they did. And
in 2004, the traditional torturers of Haiti, France and
the US, joined to remove the elected president from
office once again, launching a new regime of terror,
though the people remain unvanquished, and the popular
struggle continues despite extreme adversity.
All of this is familiar in Latin America, not least in
Bolivia, the scene of today's most intense and
dangerous confrontation between popular democracy and
traditional US-backed elites. Archaeologists are now
discovering that before the European conquest, Bolivia
had a wealthy, sophisticated and complex society - to
quote their words, "one of the largest, strangest, and
most ecologically rich artificial environments on the
face of the planet, with causeways and canals, spacious
and formal towns and considerable wealth," creating a
landscape that was "one of humankind's greatest works
of art, a masterpiece." And of course Bolivia's vast
mineral wealth enriched Spain and indirectly northern
Europe, contributing massively to its economic and
cultural development, including the industrial and
scientific revolutions. Then followed a bitter history
of imperial savagery with the crucial connivance of
rapacious domestic elites, factors that are very much
alive today.
Sixty years ago, US planners regarded Bolivia and
Guatemala as the greatest threats to its domination of
the hemisphere. In both cases, Washington succeeded in
overthrowing the popular governments, but in different
ways. In Guatemala, Washington resorted to the standard
technique of violence, installing one of the world's
most brutal and vicious regimes, which extended its
criminality to virtual genocide in the highlands during
Reagan's murderous terrorist wars of the 1980s - and we
might bear in mind that these horrendous atrocities
were carried out under the guise of a "war on terror,"
a war that was re-declared by George Bush in September
2001, not declared, a revealing distinction when we
recall the implementation of Reagan's "war on terror"
and its grim human consequences.
In Guatemala, the Eisenhower administration overcame
the threat of democracy and independent development by
violence. In Bolivia, it achieved much the same
results by exploiting Bolivia's economic dependence on
the US, particularly for processing Bolivia's tin
exports. Latin America scholar Stephen Zunes points out
that "At a critical point in the nation's effort to
become more self-sufficient [in the early 1950s], the
U.S. government forced Bolivia to use its scarce
capital not for its own development, but to compensate
the former mine owners and repay its foreign debts."
The economic policies forced on Bolivia in those years
were a precursor of the structural adjustment programs
imposed on the continent thirty years later, under the
terms of the neoliberal "Washington consensus," which
has generally had disastrous effects wherever its
strictures have been observed. By now, the victims of
neoliberal market fundamentalism are coming to include
the rich countries, where the curse of financial
liberalization is bringing about the worst financial
crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s and
leading to massive state intervention in a desperate
effort to rescue collapsing financial institutions.
More: http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/18958
Thursday, May 15, 2008
New Economic Order: Brazil-India-South Africa
India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA) Strengthens its Commitment to Democracy
BuaNews (Tshwane) May 12, 2008
http://allafrica.com/stories/200805120400.html
Pretoria
The "strategic alliance" that is the India-Brazil-South
Africa trilateral axis is now more than simply a
dialogue but a "privileged relationship" favouring a
world where democracy will prevail not only in its
political manifestation but also on social and cultural
levels, writes Shaun Benton.
This is according to the Foreign Minister of Brazil,
Celso Amorim, who joined South African Foreign Minister
Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma and Indian Foreign Minister
Pranab Mukherjee at the fifth IBSA Ministerial
Commission meeting at Somerset West in Cape Town on
Sunday.
The IBSA alliance, said Mr Amorim, is "in favour of our
peoples, of humanity, a world where democracy will
prevail - not just a political democracy but a social,
cultural democracy".
Mr Mukherjee told the audience from the three countries
gathered at the Lord Charles Hotel that it was "truly a
special relationship" that now has the ability to
impact on the world at large, should it be adequately
substantiated.
For Ms Dlamini-Zuma, the IBSA formation, started in
2003, has now gained "unprecedented momentum" as a
cross-continental, trilateral forum that is now
"beginning to be noticed" by the rest of the world.
In terms of trade - widely seen as probably the most
important of the levers that turn the trilateral axis -
the combined value at the end of last year had reached
over $10 billion, said Mr Mukherjee.
This means that the three countries could feasibly see
their target of $15 billion in turnover from combined
trade by 2010 being exceeded, the Indian Foreign
Minister said, adding that the success of IBSA requires
the resolution of "connectivity problems".
The meeting of the three countries at ministerial level
comes less than one year since a meeting in New Delhi,
India, and precedes the third IBSA presidential summit
scheduled for the Indian capital in October.
The second summit of IBSA - which has 10 working groups
that bring together senior officials from the three
countries, providing focal points of convergence - was
hosted by South Africa last year.
Currently, the navies of the three countries are
engaged in joint exercises - the first time the three
nations are cementing the geopolitical alliance with
military cooperation - off the coast of Cape Town, as
part of the IBSAMAR "maritime camaraderie".
Such exercises raise the visibility of the IBSA
alliance and as such are "very important", said Mr
Amorim, allowing, as they do, the world to see "how we
are working together" and providing an evolving
geopolitical "identity".
Such an identity means that the three rapidly
developing countries are no longer subject, in their
relations with one another, to the "intermediation of
richer, more powerful nations", he said, but rather,
the three can now immediately engage in the "great
economic space of the South".
The catalyst of tighter cooperation would be economic
growth jointly encouraged and shared between the three
nations - all leaders in their respective continents -
said Ms Dlamini-Zuma.
While the three countries have three distinct levels of
interaction, from joint positions on global issues such
as United Nations reform to government-to-government
cooperation, the "people-to-people" cooperation between
the three countries needs to be widened and deepened,
she said.
This ground level, people-to-people interaction would
require "less bureaucracy" and more action on tangible
issues of cooperation, the South African foreign
minister said.
Meanwhile, in a communique released to the press, the
three foreign ministers reiterated that the structures
of global governance needed to become "more democratic,
representative and legitimate by increasing the
participation of the South in their decision-making".
Such a reordering of the international system would be
meaningful only if accompanied by a "comprehensive"
reform of the United Nations and its Security Council,
both in the permanent and non-permanent categories of
membership.
Underlining the seriousness with which such reform is
viewed, intergovernmental negotiations on the issue of
reform of the 15-member - including five, permanent,
veto-wielding countries - Security Council must
commence "forthwith", they said.
Similarly, a call for reform of the international
financial institutions - most notably the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank - was reiterated, with
India, Brazil and South Africa lamenting the "slow rate
of progress" of such change, which would bring the
voices of developing countries to the governance and
administration of these crucial financial levers.
At the same time, the achievement of the Millennium
Development Goals - aimed primarily at dramatically
reducing global levels of poverty and hunger and 2015,
requires "equity and transparency" in international
economic relations for developing countries.
To this end, the fifth IBSA ministerial meeting
welcomed a commitment made by India, at the Africa-
India Forum Summit held last month, to extend a duty-
free tariff preference scheme to all Least Developed
Countries, on the back of a similar commitment recently
made by Brazil.
The three ministers also called on the world's most
developed countries - the industrialised North - to
provide a "substantial and effective" reduction in
Overall Trade Distorting Support, such as farm
subsidies.
It is these government subsidies to farmers in the rich
North that the Brazilian Foreign Minister - referring
to recent remarks by Brazilian President Luiz Inácio
Lula da Silva - on Sunday likened to a drug that turned
the farmers of rich nations into "addicts" while the
real "victims" of this addiction are the developing
countries, whose economies are in many cases still
highly dependent on agriculture.
Trade between Brazil, India and South Africa also came
into sharper focus, with the governments welcoming
moves by their trade ministers towards harmonising
progress made in preferential trade agreements between
the South African Customs Union (SACU) and Mercosur,
the Latin American trading bloc.
Similar progress in the India-Mercosur trade axis could
then culminate in an India-Mercosur-SACU trilateral
trade arrangement, which is likely to be ultimately
crucial to the real fruition of the IBSA axis, with
such an outcome being urged by the three ministers.
Intellectual property rights was also covered, with
"balance" sought in order for these rights to become
properly consolidated by the three nations.
Joint positions were also taken further biodiversity,
climate change - with technology transfer to developing
nations seen as a central to providing capacity for
mitigation and adaptation - as well as sustainable
development and not least, human settlements.
As of this year, the meeting noted, half the world's
population is living in cities, with urban slum
dwellers now numbering over one billion people.
By 2020, most of the largest cities in the world would
be located in the South, raising "serious concerns over
the urbanisation of poverty".
Gender equality was also put on the table, as well as
issues surrounding energy - in an environment of
soaring oil prices - and the question of disarmament
and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The foreign ministers of the three democracies also
hailed the importance of the advancement of the global
human rights agenda, noting at this point progress
being made at building the United Nations' elevated
Human Rights Council (which replaces the UN's Human
Rights Commission).
Ms Dlamini-Zuma, Mr Mukherjee and Mr Amorim also
reiterated their commitment to the "complete
elimination" of nuclear weapons, and expressed concern
at the lack of attention being paid towards
disarmament, which are "mutually reinforcing processes
requiring continuous irreversible progress".
According to the IBSA communique, the removal of all
nuclear weapons from the world would be best served by
embarking on this process systematically, and ensuring
that it is done in "a comprehensive, universal, non-
discriminatory and verifiable manner".
Copyright (c) 2008 BuaNews. All rights reserved.
Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com).
_________________
BuaNews (Tshwane) May 12, 2008
http://allafrica.com/stories/200805120400.html
Pretoria
The "strategic alliance" that is the India-Brazil-South
Africa trilateral axis is now more than simply a
dialogue but a "privileged relationship" favouring a
world where democracy will prevail not only in its
political manifestation but also on social and cultural
levels, writes Shaun Benton.
This is according to the Foreign Minister of Brazil,
Celso Amorim, who joined South African Foreign Minister
Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma and Indian Foreign Minister
Pranab Mukherjee at the fifth IBSA Ministerial
Commission meeting at Somerset West in Cape Town on
Sunday.
The IBSA alliance, said Mr Amorim, is "in favour of our
peoples, of humanity, a world where democracy will
prevail - not just a political democracy but a social,
cultural democracy".
Mr Mukherjee told the audience from the three countries
gathered at the Lord Charles Hotel that it was "truly a
special relationship" that now has the ability to
impact on the world at large, should it be adequately
substantiated.
For Ms Dlamini-Zuma, the IBSA formation, started in
2003, has now gained "unprecedented momentum" as a
cross-continental, trilateral forum that is now
"beginning to be noticed" by the rest of the world.
In terms of trade - widely seen as probably the most
important of the levers that turn the trilateral axis -
the combined value at the end of last year had reached
over $10 billion, said Mr Mukherjee.
This means that the three countries could feasibly see
their target of $15 billion in turnover from combined
trade by 2010 being exceeded, the Indian Foreign
Minister said, adding that the success of IBSA requires
the resolution of "connectivity problems".
The meeting of the three countries at ministerial level
comes less than one year since a meeting in New Delhi,
India, and precedes the third IBSA presidential summit
scheduled for the Indian capital in October.
The second summit of IBSA - which has 10 working groups
that bring together senior officials from the three
countries, providing focal points of convergence - was
hosted by South Africa last year.
Currently, the navies of the three countries are
engaged in joint exercises - the first time the three
nations are cementing the geopolitical alliance with
military cooperation - off the coast of Cape Town, as
part of the IBSAMAR "maritime camaraderie".
Such exercises raise the visibility of the IBSA
alliance and as such are "very important", said Mr
Amorim, allowing, as they do, the world to see "how we
are working together" and providing an evolving
geopolitical "identity".
Such an identity means that the three rapidly
developing countries are no longer subject, in their
relations with one another, to the "intermediation of
richer, more powerful nations", he said, but rather,
the three can now immediately engage in the "great
economic space of the South".
The catalyst of tighter cooperation would be economic
growth jointly encouraged and shared between the three
nations - all leaders in their respective continents -
said Ms Dlamini-Zuma.
While the three countries have three distinct levels of
interaction, from joint positions on global issues such
as United Nations reform to government-to-government
cooperation, the "people-to-people" cooperation between
the three countries needs to be widened and deepened,
she said.
This ground level, people-to-people interaction would
require "less bureaucracy" and more action on tangible
issues of cooperation, the South African foreign
minister said.
Meanwhile, in a communique released to the press, the
three foreign ministers reiterated that the structures
of global governance needed to become "more democratic,
representative and legitimate by increasing the
participation of the South in their decision-making".
Such a reordering of the international system would be
meaningful only if accompanied by a "comprehensive"
reform of the United Nations and its Security Council,
both in the permanent and non-permanent categories of
membership.
Underlining the seriousness with which such reform is
viewed, intergovernmental negotiations on the issue of
reform of the 15-member - including five, permanent,
veto-wielding countries - Security Council must
commence "forthwith", they said.
Similarly, a call for reform of the international
financial institutions - most notably the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank - was reiterated, with
India, Brazil and South Africa lamenting the "slow rate
of progress" of such change, which would bring the
voices of developing countries to the governance and
administration of these crucial financial levers.
At the same time, the achievement of the Millennium
Development Goals - aimed primarily at dramatically
reducing global levels of poverty and hunger and 2015,
requires "equity and transparency" in international
economic relations for developing countries.
To this end, the fifth IBSA ministerial meeting
welcomed a commitment made by India, at the Africa-
India Forum Summit held last month, to extend a duty-
free tariff preference scheme to all Least Developed
Countries, on the back of a similar commitment recently
made by Brazil.
The three ministers also called on the world's most
developed countries - the industrialised North - to
provide a "substantial and effective" reduction in
Overall Trade Distorting Support, such as farm
subsidies.
It is these government subsidies to farmers in the rich
North that the Brazilian Foreign Minister - referring
to recent remarks by Brazilian President Luiz Inácio
Lula da Silva - on Sunday likened to a drug that turned
the farmers of rich nations into "addicts" while the
real "victims" of this addiction are the developing
countries, whose economies are in many cases still
highly dependent on agriculture.
Trade between Brazil, India and South Africa also came
into sharper focus, with the governments welcoming
moves by their trade ministers towards harmonising
progress made in preferential trade agreements between
the South African Customs Union (SACU) and Mercosur,
the Latin American trading bloc.
Similar progress in the India-Mercosur trade axis could
then culminate in an India-Mercosur-SACU trilateral
trade arrangement, which is likely to be ultimately
crucial to the real fruition of the IBSA axis, with
such an outcome being urged by the three ministers.
Intellectual property rights was also covered, with
"balance" sought in order for these rights to become
properly consolidated by the three nations.
Joint positions were also taken further biodiversity,
climate change - with technology transfer to developing
nations seen as a central to providing capacity for
mitigation and adaptation - as well as sustainable
development and not least, human settlements.
As of this year, the meeting noted, half the world's
population is living in cities, with urban slum
dwellers now numbering over one billion people.
By 2020, most of the largest cities in the world would
be located in the South, raising "serious concerns over
the urbanisation of poverty".
Gender equality was also put on the table, as well as
issues surrounding energy - in an environment of
soaring oil prices - and the question of disarmament
and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The foreign ministers of the three democracies also
hailed the importance of the advancement of the global
human rights agenda, noting at this point progress
being made at building the United Nations' elevated
Human Rights Council (which replaces the UN's Human
Rights Commission).
Ms Dlamini-Zuma, Mr Mukherjee and Mr Amorim also
reiterated their commitment to the "complete
elimination" of nuclear weapons, and expressed concern
at the lack of attention being paid towards
disarmament, which are "mutually reinforcing processes
requiring continuous irreversible progress".
According to the IBSA communique, the removal of all
nuclear weapons from the world would be best served by
embarking on this process systematically, and ensuring
that it is done in "a comprehensive, universal, non-
discriminatory and verifiable manner".
Copyright (c) 2008 BuaNews. All rights reserved.
Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com).
_________________
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Hugo Chavez and Galbraith
Chávez: 'Galbraithiano'
by GREG GRANDIN
The Nation
October 15, 2007
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071015/grandin
Last year, the New York Times reported that Hugo
Chávez, in his speech before the United Nations--the
one in which he called George W. Bush the Devil and
urged Americans to read Noam Chomsky--expressed regret
that he hadn't had a chance to meet the linguist before
he died. A call to Mr. Chomsky's house, the Times
writer quipped, found him very much alive. The Times,
though, had to issue a quick correction when, upon
review of the original Spanish, it became clear that
Chávez was referring not to Chomsky but rather to John
Kenneth Galbraith, who had indeed passed away a few
months before.
There is something more than a little ironic about this
incident, where the press, in a rush to ridicule the
controversial Hugo Chávez, lost John Kenneth Galbraith
in translation, for it is exactly the Harvard
economist's brand of New Deal social democracy, itself
long expunged from public discussion, that would allow
for a more honest consideration not just of Chavismo
but the broader Latin American left of which it is a
vital part.
Chávez has described himself as a "Galbraithiano" and
says he started reading the economist, whose books have
been available in Spanish in Latin America since the
1950s, as a teenager. Long before he began referring to
Chomsky and other currently better-known political
thinkers, he cited Galbraith to explain his economic
policies; at the beginning of his presidency, in 1999,
for example, he urged a gathering of Venezuelan
industrialists to support his mild reform program,
quoting Galbraith to warn that if they didn't, the
"toxins" generated by "extreme economic liberalism"
could "turn against the system and destroy it."
Galbraith is celebrated not just by Chávez but by a
wide range of reformers, including Ecuador's new
president, Rafael Correa, himself an economist. This
popularity reflects a growing enthusiasm for the state
regulation of the economy that Galbraith prescribed. As
Latin America struggles to remedy the damage caused by
two decades of failed free-market orthodoxy--which has
produced dismal growth rates and widespread social
turmoil and misery--politicians are rehabilitating key
macroeconomic principles unthinkable a decade ago.
Argentina, for example, has generated the region's most
impressive growth by lowering interest rates,
maintaining a competitive currency exchange rate,
enacting price controls to stem inflation and driving a
hard bargain with international creditors, thus wiping
out two-thirds of the country's external debt and
freeing up state revenue for social spending and
investment.
Galbraith has attracted admirers in Latin America not
just for his macroeconomics but for his critique of
corporate monopolies. His belief that corporations are
political instruments with the incentive and ability to
corrupt democracy resonates today in a region where
much of the economy is controlled by foreign firms and
where corporate TV (which Galbraith believed had little
to do with free speech and everything to do with
manufacturing consumer demand) has become a bulwark of
elite privilege. Galbraith's solution was to use the
state to set up a system of what he called
"countervailing power," enacting aggressive union
protection, unemployment insurance, subsidies, welfare
and minimum wage guarantees to counter monopolies and
force a more just distribution of national wealth.
In Latin America, a similar version of democratic
developmentalism held sway in the early 1940s.
Reformers from across the political spectrum believed
the region's oligarchy to be an obstacle to
modernization and thought the best way to weaken its
deadening grip was to empower those in its thrall. But
the cold war cut short this democratic experiment, as
Washington threw its support behind reactionary allies
in order to insure continental stability.
Developmentalism continued into the 1970s but under the
auspices of either authoritarian or military regimes,
which responded to demands for a more equitable share
of power and wealth with increasing repression,
culminating in the wave of terror that swept the
region, from Chile to Guatemala, in the 1970s and '80s.
This violence, which in many countries decimated the
left, made possible the radical free-market economics
that reigned throughout Latin America during the last
two decades of the twentieth century.
The re-emergence of the Latin American left signals a
revival of democratic developmentalism, but with a key
difference. While in the 1940s reformers sought to
extend political power through unions and peasant
associations vertically linked to parties or leaders,
today they rely on a diverse, horizontal array of "new
social movements" to counter their countries' extreme
concentration of wealth and political power--Brazil's
Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra, for
example, or Bolivia's Movimiento al Socialismo, less a
political party than a coalition of social movements,
or Ecuador's powerful indigenous groups.
But it is Venezuela that has the most advanced
partnership between a state reclaiming the right to
regulate the economy and a diverse array of
antineoliberal social movements. What sets Chavismo
apart from past populist experiments in Latin America
is its heterogeneity. It is impossible to spend any
time in urban barrios, among co-op members, community
media and other cultural activists, or in the
countryside with peasant organizers and not be
impressed with their diversity of interests, civic
investment and commitment to building a more humane
society.
The countervailing power of left civil society
organizations--many existed before Chávez's ascendance;
some were founded afterward--has turned Venezuela into
a vibrant democracy and is key to understanding not
just the government's survival in the face of a series
of formidable antidemocratic assaults but its evolving
program, as many of its initiatives come not top-down
but from the grassroots. Last December a respected
Chilean polling firm found that in Latin America only
Uruguayans held a more favorable view of their
democracy than Venezuelans.
The question Venezuela faces is how to institutionalize
this relationship between a fortified executive and an
empowered citizenry while protecting individual rights
and limiting corruption. Debates are under way over a
series of constitutional reforms, to be voted on in a
national referendum in December, that attempt to do
just that. While the international media have focused
on a proposal to remove presidential term limits, other
initiatives would greatly strengthen community
councils, created two years ago as the building blocks
of Venezuela's "participatory democracy," in charge of
a range of local issues, from education and healthcare
to sanitation and road repair. While critics see the
councils as another mechanism for Chávez to strengthen
his power, the Washington Post writes that in "the
neighborhoods, it's hard to find anything but bubbling
enthusiasm."
Could Chavismo devolve into old-style authoritarianism?
Of course. But the record so far indicates otherwise.
For all his rhetorical excess, Chávez has presided over
an unprecedented peaceful social revolution, doubling
his electoral support in the process. Save for Chile's
Popular Unity government--which never received nearly
as much approval at the polls as Chávez's Bolivarian
experiment has--it is hard to think of another instance
where such a profound reordering of political and
economic relations has been ratified so many times at
the ballot box. This is a remarkable accomplishment,
for revolutions, by their nature, tend to generate
crises that drain away much of their initial support,
producing cycles of violence and repression.
This achievement is rarely reported on in the US media.
Chávez often repeats an observation by one of his
favorite economists to bring home the point. "Never
before," the Venezuelan president quotes Galbraith as
saying, "has the distance between reality and
'conventional wisdom' been as great as it is today."
______________
by GREG GRANDIN
The Nation
October 15, 2007
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071015/grandin
Last year, the New York Times reported that Hugo
Chávez, in his speech before the United Nations--the
one in which he called George W. Bush the Devil and
urged Americans to read Noam Chomsky--expressed regret
that he hadn't had a chance to meet the linguist before
he died. A call to Mr. Chomsky's house, the Times
writer quipped, found him very much alive. The Times,
though, had to issue a quick correction when, upon
review of the original Spanish, it became clear that
Chávez was referring not to Chomsky but rather to John
Kenneth Galbraith, who had indeed passed away a few
months before.
There is something more than a little ironic about this
incident, where the press, in a rush to ridicule the
controversial Hugo Chávez, lost John Kenneth Galbraith
in translation, for it is exactly the Harvard
economist's brand of New Deal social democracy, itself
long expunged from public discussion, that would allow
for a more honest consideration not just of Chavismo
but the broader Latin American left of which it is a
vital part.
Chávez has described himself as a "Galbraithiano" and
says he started reading the economist, whose books have
been available in Spanish in Latin America since the
1950s, as a teenager. Long before he began referring to
Chomsky and other currently better-known political
thinkers, he cited Galbraith to explain his economic
policies; at the beginning of his presidency, in 1999,
for example, he urged a gathering of Venezuelan
industrialists to support his mild reform program,
quoting Galbraith to warn that if they didn't, the
"toxins" generated by "extreme economic liberalism"
could "turn against the system and destroy it."
Galbraith is celebrated not just by Chávez but by a
wide range of reformers, including Ecuador's new
president, Rafael Correa, himself an economist. This
popularity reflects a growing enthusiasm for the state
regulation of the economy that Galbraith prescribed. As
Latin America struggles to remedy the damage caused by
two decades of failed free-market orthodoxy--which has
produced dismal growth rates and widespread social
turmoil and misery--politicians are rehabilitating key
macroeconomic principles unthinkable a decade ago.
Argentina, for example, has generated the region's most
impressive growth by lowering interest rates,
maintaining a competitive currency exchange rate,
enacting price controls to stem inflation and driving a
hard bargain with international creditors, thus wiping
out two-thirds of the country's external debt and
freeing up state revenue for social spending and
investment.
Galbraith has attracted admirers in Latin America not
just for his macroeconomics but for his critique of
corporate monopolies. His belief that corporations are
political instruments with the incentive and ability to
corrupt democracy resonates today in a region where
much of the economy is controlled by foreign firms and
where corporate TV (which Galbraith believed had little
to do with free speech and everything to do with
manufacturing consumer demand) has become a bulwark of
elite privilege. Galbraith's solution was to use the
state to set up a system of what he called
"countervailing power," enacting aggressive union
protection, unemployment insurance, subsidies, welfare
and minimum wage guarantees to counter monopolies and
force a more just distribution of national wealth.
In Latin America, a similar version of democratic
developmentalism held sway in the early 1940s.
Reformers from across the political spectrum believed
the region's oligarchy to be an obstacle to
modernization and thought the best way to weaken its
deadening grip was to empower those in its thrall. But
the cold war cut short this democratic experiment, as
Washington threw its support behind reactionary allies
in order to insure continental stability.
Developmentalism continued into the 1970s but under the
auspices of either authoritarian or military regimes,
which responded to demands for a more equitable share
of power and wealth with increasing repression,
culminating in the wave of terror that swept the
region, from Chile to Guatemala, in the 1970s and '80s.
This violence, which in many countries decimated the
left, made possible the radical free-market economics
that reigned throughout Latin America during the last
two decades of the twentieth century.
The re-emergence of the Latin American left signals a
revival of democratic developmentalism, but with a key
difference. While in the 1940s reformers sought to
extend political power through unions and peasant
associations vertically linked to parties or leaders,
today they rely on a diverse, horizontal array of "new
social movements" to counter their countries' extreme
concentration of wealth and political power--Brazil's
Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra, for
example, or Bolivia's Movimiento al Socialismo, less a
political party than a coalition of social movements,
or Ecuador's powerful indigenous groups.
But it is Venezuela that has the most advanced
partnership between a state reclaiming the right to
regulate the economy and a diverse array of
antineoliberal social movements. What sets Chavismo
apart from past populist experiments in Latin America
is its heterogeneity. It is impossible to spend any
time in urban barrios, among co-op members, community
media and other cultural activists, or in the
countryside with peasant organizers and not be
impressed with their diversity of interests, civic
investment and commitment to building a more humane
society.
The countervailing power of left civil society
organizations--many existed before Chávez's ascendance;
some were founded afterward--has turned Venezuela into
a vibrant democracy and is key to understanding not
just the government's survival in the face of a series
of formidable antidemocratic assaults but its evolving
program, as many of its initiatives come not top-down
but from the grassroots. Last December a respected
Chilean polling firm found that in Latin America only
Uruguayans held a more favorable view of their
democracy than Venezuelans.
The question Venezuela faces is how to institutionalize
this relationship between a fortified executive and an
empowered citizenry while protecting individual rights
and limiting corruption. Debates are under way over a
series of constitutional reforms, to be voted on in a
national referendum in December, that attempt to do
just that. While the international media have focused
on a proposal to remove presidential term limits, other
initiatives would greatly strengthen community
councils, created two years ago as the building blocks
of Venezuela's "participatory democracy," in charge of
a range of local issues, from education and healthcare
to sanitation and road repair. While critics see the
councils as another mechanism for Chávez to strengthen
his power, the Washington Post writes that in "the
neighborhoods, it's hard to find anything but bubbling
enthusiasm."
Could Chavismo devolve into old-style authoritarianism?
Of course. But the record so far indicates otherwise.
For all his rhetorical excess, Chávez has presided over
an unprecedented peaceful social revolution, doubling
his electoral support in the process. Save for Chile's
Popular Unity government--which never received nearly
as much approval at the polls as Chávez's Bolivarian
experiment has--it is hard to think of another instance
where such a profound reordering of political and
economic relations has been ratified so many times at
the ballot box. This is a remarkable accomplishment,
for revolutions, by their nature, tend to generate
crises that drain away much of their initial support,
producing cycles of violence and repression.
This achievement is rarely reported on in the US media.
Chávez often repeats an observation by one of his
favorite economists to bring home the point. "Never
before," the Venezuelan president quotes Galbraith as
saying, "has the distance between reality and
'conventional wisdom' been as great as it is today."
______________
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Economia de la migracion
Economía de la migración
La migración es un asunto cada vez más relevante para comprender cómo es que funciona esta economía. Tiene efectos crecientes y directos en dos campos cruciales: el mercado laboral y el flujo de dólares. Esos efectos no son los únicos, pero están estrechamente ligados con la definición de las políticas fiscal y monetaria que han sido capaces, en los años recientes, de crear un entorno de estabilidad financiera, aunque no de crecimiento y mayor bienestar.
La gente emigra a Estados Unidos por falta de oportunidades de trabajo en México. Pero no se trata de la falta de cualquier tipo de trabajo, sino de aquellos que ofrezcan buenas condiciones de salario, prestaciones y seguridad en el empleo. Esa seguridad tiene que ver no sólo con el hecho de que su puesto sea duradero, sino que genere, también, con el tiempo, una posibilidad de retiro viable y con dinero que alcance.
Por eso es que no es igual aproximarse a la forma en que opera el mercado de trabajo en términos del empleo, entendido de modo integral, que en los de la ocupación, como lo hace el gobierno desde hace unos años. Esta modalidad de medir la ocupación como una representación de la situación del mercado de trabajo equivale a una aceptación tácita de las condiciones de precariedad que privan en el empleo.
En el centro de la economía está el trabajo y en México no se generan suficientes empleos y, menos aún, de calidad. La migración es un elemento clave para que los desequilibrios que existen en ese mercado no se muestren en toda su dimensión.
Y, además, los migrantes aportan alrededor de 25 mil millones de dólares cada año (es la segunda fuente de divisas luego del petróleo), con los que se previene la degradación mayor de los niveles de vida de una parte relevante de la población. Pero también se contribuye, así, con la acumulación de las reservas internacionales del banco central que sirven para mantener la relativa estabilidad del peso frente al dólar, es decir, ayudan a prevenir una devaluación.
Las condiciones favorables para el trabajo no se están generando hoy, y no se ha conseguido hacerlo desde hace mucho tiempo en México, casi ya durante un cuarto de siglo. La economía no crece de manera suficiente para emplear a todos los que llegan al mercado de trabajo (en torno a un millón 250 mil personas por año) y a los que deben agregarse aquellos que pierden su empleo y buscan uno nuevo. Ese es un factor que provoca que alrededor de 600 mil personas cada año vayan a buscar trabajo en Estados Unidos.
Unicamente con esos pocos datos se aprecia la relevancia del debate legislativo sobre la reforma migratoria en el Congreso de aquel país. Las reglas que se fijen para acoger a los trabajadores migratorios de manera temporal y las que se apliquen para legalizar a los que ya están allá afectarán la existencia de muchos mexicanos y la de sus familias, así como su seguridad y hasta su integridad física.
La ley sobre migración está aún en una etapa de discusión y va a tener muchos ajustes. La comunidad mexicana, allá y acá, debe estar muy atenta a la evolución de los debates, a las propuestas que se presenten y a la versión final de la legislación. Hay muchas posiciones e intereses encontrados dentro de los grupos políticos y diferencias entre la misma comunidad de migrantes mexicanos y sus federaciones en distintas partes de Estados Unidos.
Se trata de ver cuántos trabajadores serán admitidos, en qué condiciones y qué tipo de acciones tomarán las autoridades policiacas de la frontera para contenerlos.
Ante esas cuestiones cuya relevancia no puede exagerarse, llama la atención, aunque no sorprende, la pasividad del gobierno mexicano que, si bien es cierto está fuera del debate político en el Congreso estadunidense, podría hacer una diplomacia más activa, comprometida e inteligente a favor de los migrantes que el país expulsa todo el tiempo y de los cuales depende cada vez más.
Pero la cancillería carece de liderazgo, no se aprecia qué hace o cuando menos que quiere o intenta hacer. La reciente visita de la canciller Espinosa a la secretaria de Estado Rice pasó inadvertida, aunque ocurrió en medio del debate de la ley de migración y mostró la pasividad que priva al respecto en este gobierno. No hay una política estatal con respecto a la migración masiva y ésta es una grave carencia política y pone en evidencia una faceta más de un grave problema social.
La migración de mexicanos a Estados Unidos es un asunto de interés nacional y no hay estrategia alguna para enfrentarla. Pero el hecho es que esto representa cada vez más el fracaso de las medidas de gestión económica que se siguen aplicando en el país y la falta capacidad política para definir acciones que prevengan que la gente tenga que irse e, igualmente, que protejan a los migrantes. La comunidad mexicana en Estados Unidos representa cada vez más una fuerza económica y política que no puede ignorarse.
La migración es un asunto cada vez más relevante para comprender cómo es que funciona esta economía. Tiene efectos crecientes y directos en dos campos cruciales: el mercado laboral y el flujo de dólares. Esos efectos no son los únicos, pero están estrechamente ligados con la definición de las políticas fiscal y monetaria que han sido capaces, en los años recientes, de crear un entorno de estabilidad financiera, aunque no de crecimiento y mayor bienestar.
La gente emigra a Estados Unidos por falta de oportunidades de trabajo en México. Pero no se trata de la falta de cualquier tipo de trabajo, sino de aquellos que ofrezcan buenas condiciones de salario, prestaciones y seguridad en el empleo. Esa seguridad tiene que ver no sólo con el hecho de que su puesto sea duradero, sino que genere, también, con el tiempo, una posibilidad de retiro viable y con dinero que alcance.
Por eso es que no es igual aproximarse a la forma en que opera el mercado de trabajo en términos del empleo, entendido de modo integral, que en los de la ocupación, como lo hace el gobierno desde hace unos años. Esta modalidad de medir la ocupación como una representación de la situación del mercado de trabajo equivale a una aceptación tácita de las condiciones de precariedad que privan en el empleo.
En el centro de la economía está el trabajo y en México no se generan suficientes empleos y, menos aún, de calidad. La migración es un elemento clave para que los desequilibrios que existen en ese mercado no se muestren en toda su dimensión.
Y, además, los migrantes aportan alrededor de 25 mil millones de dólares cada año (es la segunda fuente de divisas luego del petróleo), con los que se previene la degradación mayor de los niveles de vida de una parte relevante de la población. Pero también se contribuye, así, con la acumulación de las reservas internacionales del banco central que sirven para mantener la relativa estabilidad del peso frente al dólar, es decir, ayudan a prevenir una devaluación.
Las condiciones favorables para el trabajo no se están generando hoy, y no se ha conseguido hacerlo desde hace mucho tiempo en México, casi ya durante un cuarto de siglo. La economía no crece de manera suficiente para emplear a todos los que llegan al mercado de trabajo (en torno a un millón 250 mil personas por año) y a los que deben agregarse aquellos que pierden su empleo y buscan uno nuevo. Ese es un factor que provoca que alrededor de 600 mil personas cada año vayan a buscar trabajo en Estados Unidos.
Unicamente con esos pocos datos se aprecia la relevancia del debate legislativo sobre la reforma migratoria en el Congreso de aquel país. Las reglas que se fijen para acoger a los trabajadores migratorios de manera temporal y las que se apliquen para legalizar a los que ya están allá afectarán la existencia de muchos mexicanos y la de sus familias, así como su seguridad y hasta su integridad física.
La ley sobre migración está aún en una etapa de discusión y va a tener muchos ajustes. La comunidad mexicana, allá y acá, debe estar muy atenta a la evolución de los debates, a las propuestas que se presenten y a la versión final de la legislación. Hay muchas posiciones e intereses encontrados dentro de los grupos políticos y diferencias entre la misma comunidad de migrantes mexicanos y sus federaciones en distintas partes de Estados Unidos.
Se trata de ver cuántos trabajadores serán admitidos, en qué condiciones y qué tipo de acciones tomarán las autoridades policiacas de la frontera para contenerlos.
Ante esas cuestiones cuya relevancia no puede exagerarse, llama la atención, aunque no sorprende, la pasividad del gobierno mexicano que, si bien es cierto está fuera del debate político en el Congreso estadunidense, podría hacer una diplomacia más activa, comprometida e inteligente a favor de los migrantes que el país expulsa todo el tiempo y de los cuales depende cada vez más.
Pero la cancillería carece de liderazgo, no se aprecia qué hace o cuando menos que quiere o intenta hacer. La reciente visita de la canciller Espinosa a la secretaria de Estado Rice pasó inadvertida, aunque ocurrió en medio del debate de la ley de migración y mostró la pasividad que priva al respecto en este gobierno. No hay una política estatal con respecto a la migración masiva y ésta es una grave carencia política y pone en evidencia una faceta más de un grave problema social.
La migración de mexicanos a Estados Unidos es un asunto de interés nacional y no hay estrategia alguna para enfrentarla. Pero el hecho es que esto representa cada vez más el fracaso de las medidas de gestión económica que se siguen aplicando en el país y la falta capacidad política para definir acciones que prevengan que la gente tenga que irse e, igualmente, que protejan a los migrantes. La comunidad mexicana en Estados Unidos representa cada vez más una fuerza económica y política que no puede ignorarse.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
The Iraq War and U.S. economic imperialism
The Iraq War and America's Economic Imperialism
by Manning Marable; MR Zine; January 13, 2007
Several weeks ago, with much media fanfare, the James Baker-Lee Hamilton Committee submitted to President George W. Bush its long-awaited, bipartisan report on the U.S. war in Iraq. On balance, the report provided Bush with a face-saving strategy for pulling out all U.S. combat forces by the beginning of 2008. The Baker-Hamilton report favors an increase of U.S. advisers being embedded inside Iraqi troops and direct negotiations with regional powers Iran and Syria.
Bush, however, almost immediately distanced himself from key proposals in the Baker-Hamilton report. He now seems prepared to flagrantly flaunt his contempt for the majority of American voters, who purged both the Senate and House of their Republican majorities last November. Why does Bush defy public opinion by pursuing this unpopular war?
The answer lies not in America's need to "combat Islamic terrorism" but in the economic necessity for the United States to control international markets and valuable natural resources, such as petroleum. Bush's economic strategy is that of "neoliberalism" -- which advocates the dismantling of the welfare state, the abolition of redistributive social programs for the poor, and the elimination of governmental regulations on corporations.
In a recent issue of the New York Times (December 5, 2006), Professor Thomas B. Edsall of Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism astutely characterized this reactionary process of neoliberal politics within the United States in these terms: "For a quarter-century, the Republican temper -- its reckless drive to jettison the social safety net; its support of violence in law enforcement and national defense; its advocacy of regressive taxation, environmental hazard and probusiness deregulation; its 'remoralizing' of the pursuit of wealth -- has been judged by many voters as essential to America's position in the world, producing more benefit than cost."
One of the consequences of this reactionary political and economic agenda, according to Edsall, was "the Reagan administration's arms race" during the 1980s, which "arguably drove the Soviet Union into bankruptcy." A second consequence, Edsall argues, was America's disastrous military invasion of Iraq. "While inflicting destruction on the Iraqis," Edsall observes, "Bush multiplied America's enemies and endangered this nation's military, economic health and international stature. Courting risk without managing it, Bush repeatedly and remorselessly failed to accurately evaluate the consequences of his actions."
What is significant about Edsall's analysis is that he does not explain away the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq and current military occupation as a political "mistake" or an "error of judgment." Rather, he locates the rationale for the so-called "war on terrorism" within the context of U.S. domestic, neoliberal politics. "The embroilment in Iraq is not an aberration," Edsall observed. "It stems from core [Republican] party principles, equally evident on the domestic front."
The larger question of political economy, left unexplored by Edsall and most analysts, is the connection between American militarism abroad, neoliberalism, and trends in the global economy. As economists Paul Sweezy, Harry Magdoff, and others noted decades ago, the general economic tendency of mature capitalism is toward stagnation. For decades in the United States and Western Europe, there has been a steady decline in investment in the productive economy, leading to a decline in industrial capacity and lower future growth.
Since the 1970s, U.S. corporations and financial institutions have relied primarily on debt to expand domestic economic growth. By 1985, total U.S. debt -- which is comprised of the debt owed by all households, governments (federal, state, and local), and all financial and non-financial businesses -- reached twice the size of the annual U.S. gross domestic product. By 2005, the total U.S. debt amounted to nearly "three and a half times the nation's GDP, and not far from the $44 trillion GDP for the entire world," according to Fred Magdoff.
As a result, mature U.S. corporations have been forced to export products and investment abroad, to take advantage of lower wages, weak or nonexistent environmental and safety standards, and so forth, to obtain higher profit margins. Today about 18 percent of total U.S. corporate profits come from direct overseas investment. Partially to protect these growing investments, the United States has pursued an aggressive, interventionist foreign policy across the globe. As of 2006, the U.S. maintained military bases in fifty-nine nations. The potential for deploying military forces in any part of the world is essential for both political and economic hegemony.
Thus the current Iraq War is not essentially a military blunder caused by a search for "weapons of mass destruction," but an imperialist effort to secure control of the world's second largest proven oil reserves; Bush also invaded Iraq because it was the first military step of the Bush administration's neoconservatives (such as Paul Wolfwitz, now head of the World Bank) to "remake the Middle East" by destroying the governments of Iraq, Iran, and Syria.
Manning Marable is Professor Public Affairs, History, and African-American Studies at Columbia University, New York City. His column "Along the Color Line" appears in over 400 publications internationally and is available at www.manningmarable.net. This article was published in the Jackson Progressive, and it is republished here with kind permission of the author, who retains all rights.
Manning has long been a supporter of our work.
by Manning Marable; MR Zine; January 13, 2007
Several weeks ago, with much media fanfare, the James Baker-Lee Hamilton Committee submitted to President George W. Bush its long-awaited, bipartisan report on the U.S. war in Iraq. On balance, the report provided Bush with a face-saving strategy for pulling out all U.S. combat forces by the beginning of 2008. The Baker-Hamilton report favors an increase of U.S. advisers being embedded inside Iraqi troops and direct negotiations with regional powers Iran and Syria.
Bush, however, almost immediately distanced himself from key proposals in the Baker-Hamilton report. He now seems prepared to flagrantly flaunt his contempt for the majority of American voters, who purged both the Senate and House of their Republican majorities last November. Why does Bush defy public opinion by pursuing this unpopular war?
The answer lies not in America's need to "combat Islamic terrorism" but in the economic necessity for the United States to control international markets and valuable natural resources, such as petroleum. Bush's economic strategy is that of "neoliberalism" -- which advocates the dismantling of the welfare state, the abolition of redistributive social programs for the poor, and the elimination of governmental regulations on corporations.
In a recent issue of the New York Times (December 5, 2006), Professor Thomas B. Edsall of Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism astutely characterized this reactionary process of neoliberal politics within the United States in these terms: "For a quarter-century, the Republican temper -- its reckless drive to jettison the social safety net; its support of violence in law enforcement and national defense; its advocacy of regressive taxation, environmental hazard and probusiness deregulation; its 'remoralizing' of the pursuit of wealth -- has been judged by many voters as essential to America's position in the world, producing more benefit than cost."
One of the consequences of this reactionary political and economic agenda, according to Edsall, was "the Reagan administration's arms race" during the 1980s, which "arguably drove the Soviet Union into bankruptcy." A second consequence, Edsall argues, was America's disastrous military invasion of Iraq. "While inflicting destruction on the Iraqis," Edsall observes, "Bush multiplied America's enemies and endangered this nation's military, economic health and international stature. Courting risk without managing it, Bush repeatedly and remorselessly failed to accurately evaluate the consequences of his actions."
What is significant about Edsall's analysis is that he does not explain away the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq and current military occupation as a political "mistake" or an "error of judgment." Rather, he locates the rationale for the so-called "war on terrorism" within the context of U.S. domestic, neoliberal politics. "The embroilment in Iraq is not an aberration," Edsall observed. "It stems from core [Republican] party principles, equally evident on the domestic front."
The larger question of political economy, left unexplored by Edsall and most analysts, is the connection between American militarism abroad, neoliberalism, and trends in the global economy. As economists Paul Sweezy, Harry Magdoff, and others noted decades ago, the general economic tendency of mature capitalism is toward stagnation. For decades in the United States and Western Europe, there has been a steady decline in investment in the productive economy, leading to a decline in industrial capacity and lower future growth.
Since the 1970s, U.S. corporations and financial institutions have relied primarily on debt to expand domestic economic growth. By 1985, total U.S. debt -- which is comprised of the debt owed by all households, governments (federal, state, and local), and all financial and non-financial businesses -- reached twice the size of the annual U.S. gross domestic product. By 2005, the total U.S. debt amounted to nearly "three and a half times the nation's GDP, and not far from the $44 trillion GDP for the entire world," according to Fred Magdoff.
As a result, mature U.S. corporations have been forced to export products and investment abroad, to take advantage of lower wages, weak or nonexistent environmental and safety standards, and so forth, to obtain higher profit margins. Today about 18 percent of total U.S. corporate profits come from direct overseas investment. Partially to protect these growing investments, the United States has pursued an aggressive, interventionist foreign policy across the globe. As of 2006, the U.S. maintained military bases in fifty-nine nations. The potential for deploying military forces in any part of the world is essential for both political and economic hegemony.
Thus the current Iraq War is not essentially a military blunder caused by a search for "weapons of mass destruction," but an imperialist effort to secure control of the world's second largest proven oil reserves; Bush also invaded Iraq because it was the first military step of the Bush administration's neoconservatives (such as Paul Wolfwitz, now head of the World Bank) to "remake the Middle East" by destroying the governments of Iraq, Iran, and Syria.
Manning Marable is Professor Public Affairs, History, and African-American Studies at Columbia University, New York City. His column "Along the Color Line" appears in over 400 publications internationally and is available at www.manningmarable.net. This article was published in the Jackson Progressive, and it is republished here with kind permission of the author, who retains all rights.
Manning has long been a supporter of our work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)