terça-feira, 31 de maio de 2011

Los militares argentinos robaban a los bebés por el color de piel o de ojos de sus madres


La vicepresidenta de las Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo, Rosa Roisinblit, reveló en Argentina que las embarazadas secuestradas en la ESMA eran obligadas a formar en fila para que las futuras apropiadoras de sus bebés pudieran “elegir el tipo de criatura” que iban a adoptar de manera ilegal una vez que nacieran.
 
“Las esposas de los milicos iban a ver esas formaciones para ver a las madres y poder elegir el tipo de criatura que se iban a llevar, según el color de los ojos o de la piel de las madres”, contó Roisinblit al declarar en una nueva audiencia del juicio oral y público por el Plan Sistemático de Robo de Bebés durante la última dictadura. A los 90 años, con un relato ordenado y vivaz, la vicepresidenta de Abuelas acusó al médico Jorge Luis Magnacco, por haber asistido al parto de su hija detenida-desaparecida Patricia, en noviembre del ‘78, cuando nació su nieto Guillermo, a quien pudo recuperar recién en el año 2000. “Todo lo que cuento acá lo sé porque hay sobrevivientes que lo vieron, como Sara Osatinsky, que estaba en la cabecera del parto, y Ana María Larralde, que le aplicó el goteo para acelerar el trabajo previo”, abundó Roisinblit, quien dijo el sótano de la ESMA era conocida como “la pequeña Sardá”.

Patricia Roisinblit y su marido Rodolfo Pérez Rojo fueron secuestrados el 6 de octubre de 1978 y llevados presuntamente a la Mansión Seré, el centro de detención ilegal que manejaba la Fuerza Aérea en Castelar, pero la mujer fue trasladada a la ESMA pocos días antes del parto, contó su madre ante el Tribunal Oral Federal 6, que preside María del Carmen Roqueta, y que juzga, entre otros, a los dictadores Jorge Rafael Videla y Reynaldo Bignone; al jefe operativo de la ESMA, Jorge “el Tigreö Acosta, y al mencionado Magnacco, quien asistió los partos y firmó los certificados de nacimiento falsos. Tras el parto de Patricia, el pequeño fue entregado al matrimonio integrado por Francisco Gómez, personal civil de la Fuerza Aérea, y su mujer, Teodora Yofre, entonces empleada doméstica de un alto oficial de esa fuerza, hecho por el que fueron juzgados y sentenciados. En casi dos horas de exposición, la vicepresidente las Abuelas contó los orígenes de la querella por la apropiación sistemática de hijos de desaparecidos, los respaldos que recibió la organización de diferentes países, en especial de Canadá y Alemania, y los viajes que realizó denunciando lo ocurrido en la ESMA. “Al Papa Juan Pablo II nosotras le entregamos en mano la tercera carpeta acerca de nuestras denuncias. La primera se la habia entregado el Premio Nobel, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, y él sabía de qué se trataba porque nos dijo ‘oramos por ellos’”.

 
Fonte: Página 12

sábado, 28 de maio de 2011

Gil Scott-Heron (1949 - 2011)



The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

You will not be able to stay home, brother.
You will not be able to plug in, turn on and cop out.
You will not be able to lose yourself on skag and skip,
Skip out for beer during commercials,
Because the revolution will not be televised.

The revolution will not be televised.
The revolution will not be brought to you by Xerox
In 4 parts without commercial interruptions.
The revolution will not show you pictures of Nixon
blowing a bugle and leading a charge by John
Mitchell, General Abrams and Spiro Agnew to eat
hog maws confiscated from a Harlem sanctuary.
The revolution will not be televised.

The revolution will not be brought to you by the
Schaefer Award Theatre and will not star Natalie
Woods and Steve McQueen or Bullwinkle and Julia.
The revolution will not give your mouth sex appeal.
The revolution will not get rid of the nubs.
The revolution will not make you look five pounds
thinner, because the revolution will not be televised, Brother.

There will be no pictures of you and Willie May
pushing that shopping cart down the block on the dead run,
or trying to slide that color television into a stolen ambulance.
NBC will not be able predict the winner at 8:32
or report from 29 istricts.
The revolution will not be televised.

There will be no pictures of pigs shooting down
brothers in the instant replay.
There will be no pictures of pigs shooting down
brothers in the instant replay.

There will be no pictures of Whitney Young being
run out of Harlem on a rail with a brand new process.
There will be no slow motion or still life of Roy
Wilkens strolling through Watts in a Red, Black and
Green liberation jumpsuit that he had been saving
For just the proper occasion.

Green Acres, The Beverly Hillbillies, and Hooterville
Junction will no longer be so damned relevant, and
women will not care if Dick finally gets down with
Jane on Search for Tomorrow because Black people
will be in the street looking for a brighter day.
The revolution will not be televised.

There will be no highlights on the eleven o'clock
news and no pictures of hairy armed women
liberationists and Jackie Onassis blowing her nose.

The theme song will not be written by Jim Webb,
Francis Scott Key, nor sung by Glen Campbell, Tom
Jones, Johnny Cash, Englebert Humperdink, or the Rare Earth.
The revolution will not be televised.

The revolution will not be right back after a message
bbout a white tornado, white lightning, or white people.
You will not have to worry about a dove in your
bedroom, a tiger in your tank, or the giant in your toilet bowl.

The revolution will not go better with Coke.
The revolution will not fight the germs that may cause bad breath.
The revolution will put you in the driver's seat.

The revolution will not be televised, will not be televised,
will not be televised, will not be televised.
The revolution will be no re-run brothers;
The revolution will be live.

Gil Scott-Heron (1 Abril de 1949 - 28 Maio de 2011)

quarta-feira, 25 de maio de 2011

Sobre os acontecimentos em Espanha

As grandes mobilizações de “indignados” assumem como denúncia central a ausência de democracia autêntica. Neste início do século XXI, no contexto de uma gravíssima crise mundial de civilização, o capitalismo, em fase senil, cola o rótulo de democracia representativa a ditaduras da burguesia de fachada democrática.

Os acontecimentos da Espanha, pelo seu significado, estão a polarizar a atenção da Europa e de milhões de pessoas noutros continentes. Em Washington, Berlim, Paris e Londres, o acampamento da Puerta del Sol, inicialmente encarado como iniciativa folclórica de jovens pequeno burgueses frustrados, gera agora preocupação. Quando o chamado Movimento M-15 alastrou a dezenas de cidades do país e nas capitais europeias centenas de pessoas se manifestaram frente às embaixadas espanholas, a indiferença evoluiu para um sentimento de temor.

Porquê?
O protesto espanhol insere-se na crise global de civilização que a humanidade enfrenta, cujas raízes arrancam da crise estrutural de um sistema de opressão: o capitalismo. Seria um erro concluir que os jovens que criaram o Movimento «Democracia Real Ya » são revolucionários e o seu objectivo é a destruição do regime. O M-15 atraiu gente muito diferente. Alguns nem sequer rejeitam a obsoleta e corrupta monarquia bourbonica. Mas rapidamente a contestação popular excedeu as previsões. O Movimento, após a repressão do primeiro dia, foi olhado quase com benevolência pelo PP e pelo PSOE os dois grandes partidos da burguesia. Mas, ao assumir proporções torrenciais, o protesto adquiriu os contornos de uma condenação do regime na qual as massas emergiam como sujeito histórico. Na Puerta del Sol começaram a ouvir-se brados inesperados: «No al FMI »; «No a la farsa electoral»; «PSOE y PP, la misma gente!»; «Noa las guerras de los EEUU!». Soou até a palavra «Revolução!»

Daí o medo.
Os jovens de Madrid sabem o que não querem, mas a grande maioria não tem uma ideia minimamente clara sobre o que fazer e como actuar. As reivindicações aprovadas a 20 de Maio, na Assembleia do acampamento, são moderadas, algumas ingénuas. Espontaneista, o M-15 não acampa no centro de Madrid em função de uma estratégia de Poder. Quando aquilo principiou o que unia a multidão heterogénea de jovens pouco mais era que a recusa da caricatura de democracia. Terá sido uma surpresa para o pequeno núcleo inicial a adesão maciça de adultos, de desempregados, de reformados. Foi ainda numa atmosfera de confusão que surgiram as primeiras lideranças embrionarias, os porta-vozes do acampamento. Jovens entrevistados por media internacionais manifestaram espanto ao tomar conhecimento da repercussão internacional da iniciativa e das concentrações de solidariedade em cidades espanholas e europeias.

DE TUNIS A MADRID
O protesto dos «indignados» de Espanha foi obviamente inspirado pelo modelo da Tunísia e do Egipto. Na época da comunicação instantânea, as redes sociais permitiram que em tempo rapidíssimo os apelos à concentração popular na Puerta del Sol fossem atendidos por milhares de jovens. A praça madrilena foi a Tahrir egípcia. Tal como ocorrera no Norte de África, a exigência de «democracia» funcionou como motor da mobilização popular. Mas enquanto nas rebeliões contra Ben Ali e Hosni Mubarak as massas reivindicavam liberdades, eleições livres, um parlamento tradicional, destruição de aparelhos repressivos, o fim de ditaduras ferozes e a sua substituição por regimes representativos similares aos da União Europeia, em Espanha a «democracia real ya» reclamada pelos «indignados» partia dialecticamente da recusa do figurino pelo qual se batiam os africanos. O que para os árabes era ambição e sonho aparece hoje a muitos dos acampados da Puerta del Sol como caricatura da democracia, rosto de um regime cuja prática nega os valores e princípios que invoca, que concentra a riqueza numa ínfima minoria e promove o desemprego, amplia a desigualdade social. Enquanto a burguesia tunisina e egípcia se solidarizava com os rebeldes que se manifestavam contra Ali e Mubarak e o imperialismo rompia com os seus aliados da véspera, a burguesia espanhola, os partidos tradicionais e os poderosos da União Europeia condenavam os «indignados» peninsulares, identificando neles arruaceiros de um novo tipo. Merece reflexão a dualidade antagónica da posição assumida pelo imperialismo americano. Na Casa Branca, o presidente Obama compreendeu que as reivindicações dos rebeldes da Tunísia e do Egipto não colidiam com a sua estratégia para a Região e, agindo com rapidez e eficácia, estimulou e aplaudiu nesses países a instalação de Governos de transição ditos democráticos, sob a tutela de personalidades militares e civis que, com poucas excepções, tinham servido as ditaduras eliminadas. Na Líbia bombardeia Tripoli ; no Golfo pede à Arábia Saudita que afogue em sangue rebeliões incomodas como a do Bahrein, sede da V Esquadra da US Navy. O imperialismo encara, naturalmente, com desconfiança e apreensão o alastramento do protesto inorgânico dos jovens «indignados». Obama e o Pentágono interrogam-se sobre as consequências imprevisíveis de um movimento que condena com dureza o envolvimento da Espanha nas guerras asiáticas dos EUA.

ADESÕES INTERNACIONAIS
A direita arrasou o PSOE nas eleições municipais de domingo. Os acampados da Puerta del Sol reagiram com indiferença aparente aos resultados. «Eles não nos representam», declararam porta vozes do M-15, sublinhando que na engrenagem do poder, o PSOE e o PP, embora com discursos, histórias , percursos e bases sociais diferentes, praticam no governo politicas neoliberais muito semelhantes, e politicas externas caracterizadas pela submissão às exigências dos EUA e de Bruxelas. Significativamente, o espaço e o tempo que os media espanhóis dedicaram durante a última semana aos «indignados» diminuíram drasticamente desde sábado. O tema quase desapareceu das primeiras páginas dos grandes jornais e do programa dos canais de televisão. A vitória do PP e o avanço das Autonomias monopolizaram a atenção de políticos, analistas e jornalistas do sistema. Oposta é a atitude assumida pela maioria dos intelectuais progressistas. Na Espanha e também na América Latina, personalidades de prestigio, em artigos e entrevistas publicados em revistas Web de informação alternativa como Resumen Latino Americano e Rebelión e outras, expressam a sua solidariedade com os jovens do M-15 e reflectem sobre o significado e as consequências da contestação.

Cito alguns exemplos expressivos.
O filósofo e escritor marxista Santiago Alba Rico, num artigo intitulado «La Qasba en Madrid» sublinhou que a Espanha «não é uma democracia». E acrescenta, realista: «Não haverá uma revolução em Espanha. Mas uma surpresa, um milagre, uma tormenta, uma consciência nas trevas, um gesto de dignidade na apatia, um acto de coragem na anuência, uma afirmação anti-publicitaria de juventude, um grito colectivo de democracia na Europa, não é já um pouco uma revolução?»

Carlos Taibo, professor da Universidade Autónoma de Madrid, esteve na Puerta del Sol levando solidariedade, e dirigindo-se aos acampados disse ao saudá-los: «Os que aqui estamos somos, obviamente, pessoas muito diferentes. Temos na cabeça projectos e ideais diferentes. Mas conseguimos, apesar disso, chegar a acordo quanto a um punhado de ideias básicas». E, parafraseando Santiago Alba Rico, afirmou: «Aquilo a que em Espanha chamam democracia, não o é!».

O escritor italiano Carlo Frabetti escreveu: «Desde o protesto dos Goya de 2003 que não se conseguira um aproveitamento tão eficaz de contestaçao interna do sistema e a sua expressão cultural do espectáculo».

Atilio Borón, um sociólogo marxista argentino de prestígio internacional, dedica aos jovens acampados um artigo entusiástico intitulado «Os indignados e a Comuna de Paris». Lembra que aquilo que a democracia de Moncloa propõe para enfrentar a «crise é o despotismo do mercado, irreconciliável com qualquer projecto democrático». E, cedendo a um impulso romântico, conclui o artigo com estas palavras: «Se persistirem (os indignados) na sua luta poderão derrotar a prepotência do capital e, eventualmente, iniciar uma nova etapa na história não só da Espanha, mas da Europa».

Angeles Maestro, a destacada dirigente de «Corriente Roja», da Espanha, mais realista, salienta que os acampamentos em dezenas de cidades espanholas «têm um conteúdo anticapitalista» e neles ondula «uma multidão de bandeiras republicanas». Enfatiza o descrédito da montagem eleitoral e afirma que «As mobilizações maciças que se iniciaram em numerosas cidades do estado espanhol a 15 de Maio e que tiveram continuidade em acampamentos, assembleias e convocatórias para novas manifestações expressam o alto nível de indignação e raiva de uma juventude que não tem qualquer esperança de chegar a ter os direitos básicos que a Constituição pomposamente proclama: direito ao trabalho, à habitação, à educação e saúde publica de qualidade, a uma pensão digna, etc.».

Quanto ao futuro do Movimento, adverte como revolucionaria experiente: «Nos processos sociais não há atalhos. Se é um facto que a faúlha da espontaneidade está sempre presente e serve para desencadear as mobilizaçoes, somente o avanço da organização é a medida da acumulação de forças, e sem acumulação de forças as lutas leva-as o vento.»

AMANHÃ INCERTO
Esperanza Aguirre, a reeleita alcaide de Madrid, não esconde a sua hostilidade aos acampados. Se dela dependesse, declarou, ordenaria à Policia que expulsasse da Puerta del Sol os acampados. A repressão inicial foi esclarecedora da sua posição. Mas carece de poderes para recorrer à força.

Qual o desfecho do protesto dos «indignados»?

Por ora é imprevisivel.

Vai persistir, transformando-se em desafio ao Poder?

Uma Assembleia, improvisada e tumultuosa como as anteriores, decidiu manter manter o acampamento até ao próximo domingo. Durante a semana os activistas irão aos bairros. Depois se verá. Em Barcelona e noutras cidades, as concentrações de protesto também não se dissolveram, mas os próprios organizadores admitem que o número de participantes diminua nos próximos dias. Repito: os jovens «indignados» sentem dificuldade em definir um rumo para a luta que iniciaram. A maioria talvez não tenha consciência da complexidade do desafio lançado ao Poder. Volto a citar Angeles Maestro: «O processo de confluência múltipla em torno a um programa comum somente poderá abrir caminho se criar raízes nas lutas operárias e populares. Por outras palavras, se a construção do referente politico beber a seiva na luta de classes e demonstrar a sua utilidade para abordar um longo processo de acumulação de forças». A consciência demonstrada pelos «indignados» de Madrid de que a «democracia representativa» é uma ficção no Estado Espanhol deve porém ser saudada como acontecimento importante no âmbito das lutas de massa europeias e não ignorada, subestimada ou mesmo criticada com sobranceria em atitudes irresponsáveis por alguns dirigentes de partidos de esquerda da União Europeia. Não compartilho a euforia prematura de Atilio Boron, mas julgo oportuno reafirmar que a Espanha não é excepção na Europa. Não há democracia autêntica sem participação decisiva do povo. Na União Europeia um sistema mediático perverso e desinformador esconde a realidade. Os regimes existentes nos 27 diferenciam-se muito. Mas existe um denominador comum: a ausência de uma democracia autêntica. Neste início do século XXI, no contexto de uma gravíssima crise mundial de civilização, o capitalismo, em fase senil, cola o rótulo da democracia representativa a ditaduras da burguesia de fachada democrática.

Texto de Miguel Urbano Rodrigues publicado no odiário.info

segunda-feira, 16 de maio de 2011

O Mundo como eles o vêem


Quando ontem soube que Dominique Strauss-Kahn, director-geral do FMI, tinha sido preso em Nova Iorque (a palavra é "detido", mas nem só de rigor jurídico vive a língua, alimenta-a também o desejo) acusado de crimes de violação e sequestro, a minha primeira reacção foi de irracional euforia: afinal havia Justiça - assim, com maiúscula e tudo - no Mundo!

Imaginei Strauss-Kahn acusado de violação dos direitos dos numerosos povos do Mundo que o FMI tem "resgatado", o último dos quais o português, e do sequestro de outras tantas economias nacionais para uso e abuso dos famosos mercados, "petit nom" da banca internacional e dos grandes fundos de especulação financeira.

E veio-me à memória o recente "memorando" da "troika" de FMI & Cª, que PS, PSD e CDS/PP disputam agora a honra de aplicar ao que sobrou das pensões, prestações sociais e salários após os sucessivos PEC aprovados pelos mesmos partidos. Ainda por cima as notícias diziam que Strauss-Kahn é reincidente em crimes semelhantes e não pude evitar lembrar-me dos estragos feitos pelo FMI (só para falar de exemplos recentes) na Grécia e na Irlanda.

Afinal a coisa era literal e Strauss-Kahn terá "apenas" sequestrado e tentado violar uma empregada do hotel onde estava hospedado. Compreende-se como deve ser o Mundo visto de dentro da sua cabeça: se põe e dispõe de povos inteiros porque não há-de dispor como bem entender de uma empregada de hotel?

Crónica de Manuel António Pina para o JN, prémio Camões 2011

domingo, 15 de maio de 2011

Marcha contra a homofobia em Havana

Foto: REUTERS/Enrique De La Osa


Fotografia: EFE/Alejandro Ernesto
 
Fotografia: EFE/Alejandro Ernesto


Marcha contra a homofobia realizada hoje em Havana. Via Cubadebate

sexta-feira, 13 de maio de 2011

EUA Vs Cuba: O Soundbyte

Cuba sofre um bloqueio criminoso por parte dos EUA, que dura à mais de 50 anos e que é periodicamente condenado pela maioria dos países do planeta.

Ao longo de 5 décadas os EUA tentaram invadir Cuba e fracassaram. Submeteram a ilha a um terrível bloqueio económico que degradou as condições de vida de um povo inteiro mas não o conseguiu vergar os cubanos nem obriga-los a abdicar da sua soberania nacional. Este bloqueio também não foi capaz de impedir as numerosas conquistas (*) sociais da Revolução Cubana e levanta uma forte dúvida: até onde seria possível chegar se não houvesse o bloqueio económico ?

 
É na guerra mediática que os EUA têm sido mais eficazes.  Fruto do seu  poder  económico e dos recursos utilizados na manipulação de milhões de pessoas com falsidades constantes sobre Cuba. É uma guerra suja, como é habitual nos norte-americanos. Que têm nos países mais subservientes relativamente às sua politicas, muitos aliados nesta campanha mediática.

Enquanto se ocultam todas as noticias positivas (ou mesmo neutras) sobre a realidade da ilha, a realidade é distorcida de forma grotesca. Códigos deontológicos de jornalismo são ignorados e qualquer incidente, é motivo para os criativos da contra revolução trabalharem. Factos são coloridos, a realidade é moldada de acordo com as conveniências do momento e a sua importância é amplificada várias vezes. Esta amplificação da magnitude não é compatível, proporcionalmente a um pequeno país de apenas 11 milhões de habitantes, mas é proporcional ao ódio que a revolução cubana desperta nos seus inimigos.

É assim que surge o soundbyte que depois a imprensa convencional internacional replica sem acrescentar ou retirar uma vírgula. O soundbyte como toda a boa mensagem publicitária é curto, simples e perdurará nas cabeças daqueles que o ouvem, lêem os títulos de jornais ou o fixam num rodapé de um qualquer telejornal antes da telenovela.

Como sempre as noticias geradas pelos supostos jornalistas independentes ou pela suposta dissidência cubano, que têm em comum o triste facto de serem financiados pelos EUA, são apresentados como verdades inrefutáveis.
Citam-se sempre as mesmas fontes credíveis, que por terem tanta credibilidade, se tornaram ao longo doa anos em fontes credíveis profissionais sobre o que se passa em Cuba e por isso são remuneradas em numerário ou periodicamente com prémios avultados de jornalismo e pelo seu corajoso” combate pelos direitos humanos.

No mesmo dia em que se ficou a conhecer que 61 imigrantes oriundos do norte ade África tinham morrido num barco à deriva no mediterrâneo por falta de auxilio por parte de um porta aviões da NATO que se encontrava na zona “em missão humanitária”, foi divulgado mais um eficaz soundbyte.

A noticia sobre a morte de Juan Wilfredo Soto “Vítima de espancamento policial” é paradigmática. Dispensou-se os esclarecimentos dados pelo médico que o assistiu no hospital de Santa Clara , dos seus familiares (irmã, filho, etc..) e bem como o relatório da autópsia foram considerados desnecessários ao esclarecimento da história. A versão posta a circular pela imprensa internacional oriunda na "credível dissidência" foi suficiente. Ficou o mais um soundbyte para a posteridade…

Apesar de os esforços para esclarecer o incidente terem sido mais uma vez ignorados, transcrevem-se aqui alguns relatos vindos de Cuba sobre o sounbyte da semana que não tiveram qualquer divulgação na imprensa convencional:
 
“Según relata Rosa Soto García, hermana del fallecido, este padecía varias enfermedades, entre ellas gota, hipertensión arterial, migraña y crecimiento del corazón, razón por la cual recibía atención médica desde hacía muchos años, reconociendo que Juan Wilfredo llevaba una vida muy desordenada y no cumplía las indicaciones de los galenos. “Eso de que lo golpearon es una gran mentira. No tenía ninguna marca de golpeadura, todo es un invento de la propaganda contrarrevolucionaria. Estamos muy dolidos con esta campaña que se ha formado, causante de un gran dolor en la familia“, dijo al tiempo que agradeció la atención médica recibida. “Fíjese si estamos indignados, que el día del entierro, al hijo de mi hermano, de solo 14 años, le dio tanto asco la postura de los ‘disidentes’, que les pidió que se fueran del cementerio“, asegura Rosa. Madelín Soto, la sobrina de Wilfredo, y a quien este consideraba como a una hija, también mostró su sorpresa por la maniobra orquestada. “Fui a verlo al hospital y no observé ninguna señal de violencia. Además, si le hubieran dado tan solo un arañazo, de seguro él me lo hubiera dicho porque yo era de su entera confianza”.

De acuerdo con los criterios del médico forense que realizó la autopsia, doctor Ricardo Rodríguez Jorge, con más de 14 años de experiencia en la especialidad, la causa de fallecimiento fue una pancreatitis aguda, con focos hemorrágicos a nivel de cola y cuerpo pancreáticos, y producto de las patologías anteriores se alteraron todos los parámetros por descompensación. Aclaró el especialista que en la necropsia no se apreciaron signos de violencia a nivel externo, interno, ni en los planos anterior o posterior. En cuanto al cráneo y cuello, eran normalesel tórax presentaba pulmones típicos de un fumador, con un corazón aumentado de volumen.” Fonte: Cubadebate.


E é assim, que se faz a guerra mediática contra Cuba, que que ao longo dos anos se vai formatando a opinião pública e se vai permanentemente alimentando a fábula da "terrível ditadura repressiva castrista".

sexta-feira, 6 de maio de 2011

Bobby Sands



Foi há trinta anos que morreu Bobby Sands. O combatente do IRA resistiu durante 66 dias em greve de fome pelos direitos dos presos políticos. Foi o primeiro de dez presos republicanos irlandeses, do IRA e do INLA, a falecer. Tinha 27 anos e acabava de ser eleito para o parlamento britânico. Durante meses, houve uma campanha internacional pela satisfação das reivindicações daqueles presos. Em Portugal, houve uma grande manifestação em Lisboa e os subúrbios, junto às fábricas, encheram-se de pichagens solidárias com Bobby Sands. Para a história fica o crime da primeira-ministra Margaret Thatcher. Graças a ela, morreram dez grevistas de fome. O Provisional IRA transformou-se numa organização com forte implantação popular e o Sinn Féin não mais parou de subir nos sucessivos processos eleitorais. O povo irlandês, através do exemplo dos dez combatentes republicanos, reforçou a luta por uma Irlanda unida e livre do governo britânico.

Fonte: 5dias.net

quinta-feira, 5 de maio de 2011

Hangover


Hangover (Bababa) by Buraka Som Sistema

Who Owns The World ?

The Contours of Global Order
By Noam Chomsky

The democracy uprising in the Arab world has been a spectacular display of courage, dedication, and commitment by popular forces -- coinciding, fortuitously, with a remarkable uprising of tens of thousands in support of working people and democracy in Madison, Wisconsin, and other U.S. cities. If the trajectories of revolt in Cairo and Madison intersected, however, they were headed in opposite directions: in Cairo toward gaining elementary rights denied by the dictatorship, in Madison towards defending rights that had been won in long and hard struggles and are now under severe attack. Each is a microcosm of tendencies in global society, following varied courses. There are sure to be far-reaching consequences of what is taking place both in the decaying industrial heartland of the richest and most powerful country in human history, and in what President Dwight Eisenhower called "the most strategically important area in the world" -- "a stupendous source of strategic power" and "probably the richest economic prize in the world in the field of foreign investment," in the words of the State Department in the 1940s, a prize that the U.S. intended to keep for itself and its allies in the unfolding New World Order of that day. Despite all the changes since, there is every reason to suppose that today's policy-makers basically adhere to the judgment of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s influential advisor A.A. Berle that control of the incomparable energy reserves of the Middle East would yield "substantial control of the world." And correspondingly, that loss of control would threaten the project of global dominance that was clearly articulated during World War II, and that has been sustained in the face of major changes in world order since that day. From the outset of the war in 1939, Washington anticipated that it would end with the U.S. in a position of overwhelming power. High-level State Department officials and foreign policy specialists met through the wartime years to lay out plans for the postwar world. They delineated a "Grand Area" that the U.S. was to dominate, including the Western hemisphere, the Far East, and the former British empire, with its Middle East energy resources. As Russia began to grind down Nazi armies after Stalingrad, Grand Area goals extended to as much of Eurasia as possible, at least its economic core in Western Europe. Within the Grand Area, the U.S. would maintain "unquestioned power," with "military and economic supremacy," while ensuring the "limitation of any exercise of sovereignty" by states that might interfere with its global designs. The careful wartime plans were soon implemented. It was always recognized that Europe might choose to follow an independent course. NATO was partially intended to counter this threat. As soon as the official pretext for NATO dissolved in 1989, NATO was expanded to the East in violation of verbal pledges to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. It has since become a U.S.-run intervention force, with far-ranging scope, spelled out by NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, who informed a NATO conference that "NATO troops have to guard pipelines that transport oil and gas that is directed for the West," and more generally to protect sea routes used by tankers and other "crucial infrastructure" of the energy system. Grand Area doctrines clearly license military intervention at will. That conclusion was articulated clearly by the Clinton administration, which declared that the U.S. has the right to use military force to ensure "uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources," and must maintain huge military forces "forward deployed" in Europe and Asia "in order to shape people's opinions about us" and "to shape events that will affect our livelihood and our security." The same principles governed the invasion of Iraq. As the U.S. failure to impose its will in Iraq was becoming unmistakable, the actual goals of the invasion could no longer be concealed behind pretty rhetoric. In November 2007, the White House issued a Declaration of Principles demanding that U.S. forces must remain indefinitely in Iraq and committing Iraq to privilege American investors. Two months later, President Bush informed Congress that he would reject legislation that might limit the permanent stationing of U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq or "United States control of the oil resources of Iraq" -- demands that the U.S. had to abandon shortly after in the face of Iraqi resistance. In Tunisia and Egypt, the recent popular uprisings have won impressive victories, but as the Carnegie Endowment reported, while names have changed, the regimes remain: "A change in ruling elites and system of governance is still a distant goal." The report discusses internal barriers to democracy, but ignores the external ones, which as always are significant. The U.S. and its Western allies are sure to do whatever they can to prevent authentic democracy in the Arab world. To understand why, it is only necessary to look at the studies of Arab opinion conducted by U.S. polling agencies. Though barely reported, they are certainly known to planners. They reveal that by overwhelming majorities, Arabs regard the U.S. and Israel as the major threats they face: the U.S. is so regarded by 90% of Egyptians, in the region generally by over 75%. Some Arabs regard Iran as a threat: 10%. Opposition to U.S. policy is so strong that a majority believes that security would be improved if Iran had nuclear weapons -- in Egypt, 80%. Other figures are similar. If public opinion were to influence policy, the U.S. not only would not control the region, but would be expelled from it, along with its allies, undermining fundamental principles of global dominance.

The Invisible Hand of Power
Support for democracy is the province of ideologists and propagandists. In the real world, elite dislike of democracy is the norm. The evidence is overwhelming that democracy is supported insofar as it contributes to social and economic objectives, a conclusion reluctantly conceded by the more serious scholarship. Elite contempt for democracy was revealed dramatically in the reaction to the WikiLeaks exposures. Those that received most attention, with euphoric commentary, were cables reporting that Arabs support the U.S. stand on Iran. The reference was to the ruling dictators. The attitudes of the public were unmentioned. The guiding principle was articulated clearly by Carnegie Endowment Middle East specialist Marwan Muasher, formerly a high official of the Jordanian government: "There is nothing wrong, everything is under control." In short, if the dictators support us, what else could matter? The Muasher doctrine is rational and venerable. To mention just one case that is highly relevant today, in internal discussion in 1958, president Eisenhower expressed concern about "the campaign of hatred" against us in the Arab world, not by governments, but by the people. The National Security Council (NSC) explained that there is a perception in the Arab world that the U.S. supports dictatorships and blocks democracy and development so as to ensure control over the resources of the region. Furthermore, the perception is basically accurate, the NSC concluded, and that is what we should be doing, relying on the Muasher doctrine. Pentagon studies conducted after 9/11 confirmed that the same holds today. It is normal for the victors to consign history to the trash can, and for victims to take it seriously. Perhaps a few brief observations on this important matter may be useful. Today is not the first occasion when Egypt and the U.S. are facing similar problems, and moving in opposite directions. That was also true in the early nineteenth century. Economic historians have argued that Egypt was well-placed to undertake rapid economic development at the same time that the U.S. was. Both had rich agriculture, including cotton, the fuel of the early industrial revolution -- though unlike Egypt, the U.S. had to develop cotton production and a work force by conquest, extermination, and slavery, with consequences that are evident right now in the reservations for the survivors and the prisons that have rapidly expanded since the Reagan years to house the superfluous population left by deindustrialization. One fundamental difference was that the U.S. had gained independence and was therefore free to ignore the prescriptions of economic theory, delivered at the time by Adam Smith in terms rather like those preached to developing societies today. Smith urged the liberated colonies to produce primary products for export and to import superior British manufactures, and certainly not to attempt to monopolize crucial goods, particularly cotton. Any other path, Smith warned, "would retard instead of accelerating the further increase in the value of their annual produce, and would obstruct instead of promoting the progress of their country towards real wealth and greatness." Having gained their independence, the colonies were free to ignore his advice and to follow England's course of independent state-guided development, with high tariffs to protect industry from British exports, first textiles, later steel and others, and to adopt numerous other devices to accelerate industrial development. The independent Republic also sought to gain a monopoly of cotton so as to "place all other nations at our feet," particularly the British enemy, as the Jacksonian presidents announced when conquering Texas and half of Mexico. For Egypt, a comparable course was barred by British power. Lord Palmerston declared that "no ideas of fairness [toward Egypt] ought to stand in the way of such great and paramount interests" of Britain as preserving its economic and political hegemony, expressing his "hate" for the "ignorant barbarian" Muhammed Ali who dared to seek an independent course, and deploying Britain's fleet and financial power to terminate Egypt's quest for independence and economic development. After World War II, when the U.S. displaced Britain as global hegemon, Washington adopted the same stand, making it clear that the U.S. would provide no aid to Egypt unless it adhered to the standard rules for the weak -- which the U.S. continued to violate, imposing high tariffs to bar Egyptian cotton and causing a debilitating dollar shortage. The usual interpretation of market principles. It is small wonder that the "campaign of hatred" against the U.S. that concerned Eisenhower was based on the recognition that the U.S. supports dictators and blocks democracy and development, as do its allies. In Adam Smith's defense, it should be added that he recognized what would happen if Britain followed the rules of sound economics, now called "neoliberalism." He warned that if British manufacturers, merchants, and investors turned abroad, they might profit but England would suffer. But he felt that they would be guided by a home bias, so as if by an invisible hand England would be spared the ravages of economic rationality. The passage is hard to miss. It is the one occurrence of the famous phrase "invisible hand" in The Wealth of Nations. The other leading founder of classical economics, David Ricardo, drew similar conclusions, hoping that home bias would lead men of property to "be satisfied with the low rate of profits in their own country, rather than seek a more advantageous employment for their wealth in foreign nations," feelings that, he added, "I should be sorry to see weakened." Their predictions aside, the instincts of the classical economists were sound.

The Iranian and Chinese “Threats”
The democracy uprising in the Arab world is sometimes compared to Eastern Europe in 1989, but on dubious grounds. In 1989, the democracy uprising was tolerated by the Russians, and supported by western power in accord with standard doctrine: it plainly conformed to economic and strategic objectives, and was therefore a noble achievement, greatly honored, unlike the struggles at the same time "to defend the people's fundamental human rights" in Central America, in the words of the assassinated Archbishop of El Salvador, one of the hundreds of thousands of victims of the military forces armed and trained by Washington. There was no Gorbachev in the West throughout these horrendous years, and there is none today. And Western power remains hostile to democracy in the Arab world for good reasons. Grand Area doctrines continue to apply to contemporary crises and confrontations. In Western policy-making circles and political commentary the Iranian threat is considered to pose the greatest danger to world order and hence must be the primary focus of U.S. foreign policy, with Europe trailing along politely. What exactly is the Iranian threat? An authoritative answer is provided by the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence. Reporting on global security last year, they make it clear that the threat is not military. Iran's military spending is "relatively low compared to the rest of the region," they conclude. Its military doctrine is strictly "defensive, designed to slow an invasion and force a diplomatic solution to hostilities." Iran has only "a limited capability to project force beyond its borders." With regard to the nuclear option, "Iran's nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy." All quotes. The brutal clerical regime is doubtless a threat to its own people, though it hardly outranks U.S. allies in that regard. But the threat lies elsewhere, and is ominous indeed. One element is Iran's potential deterrent capacity, an illegitimate exercise of sovereignty that might interfere with U.S. freedom of action in the region. It is glaringly obvious why Iran would seek a deterrent capacity; a look at the military bases and nuclear forces in the region suffices to explain. Seven years ago, Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld wrote that "The world has witnessed how the United States attacked Iraq for, as it turned out, no reason at all. Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy," particularly when they are under constant threat of attack in violation of the UN Charter. Whether they are doing so remains an open question, but perhaps so. But Iran's threat goes beyond deterrence. It is also seeking to expand its influence in neighboring countries, the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence emphasize, and in this way to "destabilize" the region (in the technical terms of foreign policy discourse). The U.S. invasion and military occupation of Iran's neighbors is "stabilization." Iran's efforts to extend its influence to them are "destabilization," hence plainly illegitimate. Such usage is routine. Thus the prominent foreign policy analyst James Chace was properly using the term "stability" in its technical sense when he explained that in order to achieve "stability" in Chile it was necessary to "destabilize" the country (by overthrowing the elected government of Salvador Allende and installing the dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet). Other concerns about Iran are equally interesting to explore, but perhaps this is enough to reveal the guiding principles and their status in imperial culture. As Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s planners emphasized at the dawn of the contemporary world system, the U.S. cannot tolerate "any exercise of sovereignty" that interferes with its global designs. The U.S. and Europe are united in punishing Iran for its threat to stability, but it is useful to recall how isolated they are. The nonaligned countries have vigorously supported Iran's right to enrich uranium. In the region, Arab public opinion even strongly favors Iranian nuclear weapons. The major regional power, Turkey, voted against the latest U.S.-initiated sanctions motion in the Security Council, along with Brazil, the most admired country of the South. Their disobedience led to sharp censure, not for the first time: Turkey had been bitterly condemned in 2003 when the government followed the will of 95% of the population and refused to participate in the invasion of Iraq, thus demonstrating its weak grasp of democracy, western-style. After its Security Council misdeed last year, Turkey was warned by Obama's top diplomat on European affairs, Philip Gordon, that it must "demonstrate its commitment to partnership with the West." A scholar with the Council on Foreign Relations asked, "How do we keep the Turks in their lane?" -- following orders like good democrats. Brazil's Lula was admonished in a New York Times headline that his effort with Turkey to provide a solution to the uranium enrichment issue outside of the framework of U.S. power was a "Spot on Brazilian Leader's Legacy." In brief, do what we say, or else. An interesting sidelight, effectively suppressed, is that the Iran-Turkey-Brazil deal was approved in advance by Obama, presumably on the assumption that it would fail, providing an ideological weapon against Iran. When it succeeded, the approval turned to censure, and Washington rammed through a Security Council resolution so weak that China readily signed -- and is now chastised for living up to the letter of the resolution but not Washington's unilateral directives -- in the current issue ofForeign Affairs, for example. While the U.S. can tolerate Turkish disobedience, though with dismay, China is harder to ignore. The press warns that "China's investors and traders are now filling a vacuum in Iran as businesses from many other nations, especially in Europe, pull out," and in particular, is expanding its dominant role in Iran's energy industries. Washington is reacting with a touch of desperation. The State Department warned China that if it wants to be accepted in the international community -- a technical term referring to the U.S. and whoever happens to agree with it -- then it must not "skirt and evade international responsibilities, [which] are clear": namely, follow U.S. orders. China is unlikely to be impressed. There is also much concern about the growing Chinese military threat. A recent Pentagon study warned that China's military budget is approaching "one-fifth of what the Pentagon spent to operate and carry out the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," a fraction of the U.S. military budget, of course. China's expansion of military forces might "deny the ability of American warships to operate in international waters off its coast," the New York Times added. Off the coast of China, that is; it has yet to be proposed that the U.S. should eliminate military forces that deny the Caribbean to Chinese warships. China's lack of understanding of rules of international civility is illustrated further by its objections to plans for the advanced nuclear-powered aircraft carrier George Washington to join naval exercises a few miles off China's coast, with alleged capacity to strike Beijing. In contrast, the West understands that such U.S. operations are all undertaken to defend stability and its own security. The liberal New Republic expresses its concern that "China sent ten warships through international waters just off the Japanese island of Okinawa." That is indeed a provocation -- unlike the fact, unmentioned, that Washington has converted the island into a major military base in defiance of vehement protests by the people of Okinawa. That is not a provocation, on the standard principle that we own the world. Deep-seated imperial doctrine aside, there is good reason for China's neighbors to be concerned about its growing military and commercial power. And though Arab opinion supports an Iranian nuclear weapons program, we certainly should not do so. The foreign policy literature is full of proposals as to how to counter the threat. One obvious way is rarely discussed: work to establish a nuclear-weapons-free zone (NWFZ) in the region. The issue arose (again) at the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) conference at United Nations headquarters last May. Egypt, as chair of the 118 nations of the Non-Aligned Movement, called for negotiations on a Middle East NWFZ, as had been agreed by the West, including the U.S., at the 1995 review conference on the NPT. International support is so overwhelming that Obama formally agreed. It is a fine idea, Washington informed the conference, but not now. Furthermore, the U.S. made clear that Israel must be exempted: no proposal can call for Israel's nuclear program to be placed under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency or for the release of information about "Israeli nuclear facilities and activities." So much for this method of dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat.

Privatizing the Planet
While Grand Area doctrine still prevails, the capacity to implement it has declined. The peak of U.S. power was after World War II, when it had literally half the world's wealth. But that naturally declined, as other industrial economies recovered from the devastation of the war and decolonization took its agonizing course. By the early 1970s, the U.S. share of global wealth had declined to about 25%, and the industrial world had become tripolar: North America, Europe, and East Asia (then Japan-based). There was also a sharp change in the U.S. economy in the 1970s, towards financialization and export of production. A variety of factors converged to create a vicious cycle of radical concentration of wealth, primarily in the top fraction of 1% of the population -- mostly CEOs, hedge-fund managers, and the like. That leads to the concentration of political power, hence state policies to increase economic concentration: fiscal policies, rules of corporate governance, deregulation, and much more. Meanwhile the costs of electoral campaigns skyrocketed, driving the parties into the pockets of concentrated capital, increasingly financial: the Republicans reflexively, the Democrats -- by now what used to be moderate Republicans -- not far behind. Elections have become a charade, run by the public relations industry. After his 2008 victory, Obama won an award from the industry for the best marketing campaign of the year. Executives were euphoric. In the business press they explained that they had been marketing candidates like other commodities since Ronald Reagan, but 2008 was their greatest achievement and would change the style in corporate boardrooms. The 2012 election is expected to cost $2 billion, mostly in corporate funding. Small wonder that Obama is selecting business leaders for top positions. The public is angry and frustrated, but as long as the Muasher principle prevails, that doesn't matter. While wealth and power have narrowly concentrated, for most of the population real incomes have stagnated and people have been getting by with increased work hours, debt, and asset inflation, regularly destroyed by the financial crises that began as the regulatory apparatus was dismantled starting in the 1980s. None of this is problematic for the very wealthy, who benefit from a government insurance policy called "too big to fail." The banks and investment firms can make risky transactions, with rich rewards, and when the system inevitably crashes, they can run to the nanny state for a taxpayer bailout, clutching their copies of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. That has been the regular process since the Reagan years, each crisis more extreme than the last -- for the public population, that is. Right now, real unemployment is at Depression levels for much of the population, while Goldman Sachs, one of the main architects of the current crisis, is richer than ever. It has just quietly announced $17.5 billion in compensation for last year, with CEO Lloyd Blankfein receiving a $12.6 million bonus while his base salary more than triples. It wouldn't do to focus attention on such facts as these. Accordingly, propaganda must seek to blame others, in the past few months, public sector workers, their fat salaries, exorbitant pensions, and so on: all fantasy, on the model of Reaganite imagery of black mothers being driven in their limousines to pick up welfare checks -- and other models that need not be mentioned. We all must tighten our belts; almost all, that is. Teachers are a particularly good target, as part of the deliberate effort to destroy the public education system from kindergarten through the universities by privatization -- again, good for the wealthy, but a disaster for the population, as well as the long-term health of the economy, but that is one of the externalities that is put to the side insofar as market principles prevail. Another fine target, always, is immigrants. That has been true throughout U.S. history, even more so at times of economic crisis, exacerbated now by a sense that our country is being taken away from us: the white population will soon become a minority. One can understand the anger of aggrieved individuals, but the cruelty of the policy is shocking. Who are the immigrants targeted? In Eastern Massachusetts, where I live, many are Mayans fleeing genocide in the Guatemalan highlands carried out by Reagan's favorite killers. Others are Mexican victims of Clinton's NAFTA, one of those rare government agreements that managed to harm working people in all three of the participating countries. As NAFTA was rammed through Congress over popular objection in 1994, Clinton also initiated the militarization of the U.S.-Mexican border, previously fairly open. It was understood that Mexican campesinos cannot compete with highly subsidized U.S. agribusiness, and that Mexican businesses would not survive competition with U.S. multinationals, which must be granted "national treatment" under the mislabeled free trade agreements, a privilege granted only to corporate persons, not those of flesh and blood. Not surprisingly, these measures led to a flood of desperate refugees, and to rising anti-immigrant hysteria by the victims of state-corporate policies at home. Much the same appears to be happening in Europe, where racism is probably more rampant than in the U.S. One can only watch with wonder as Italy complains about the flow of refugees from Libya, the scene of the first post-World War I genocide, in the now-liberated East, at the hands of Italy's Fascist government. Or when France, still today the main protector of the brutal dictatorships in its former colonies, manages to overlook its hideous atrocities in Africa, while French President Nicolas Sarkozy warns grimly of the "flood of immigrants" and Marine Le Pen objects that he is doing nothing to prevent it. I need not mention Belgium, which may win the prize for what Adam Smith called "the savage injustice of the Europeans." The rise of neo-fascist parties in much of Europe would be a frightening phenomenon even if we were not to recall what happened on the continent in the recent past. Just imagine the reaction if Jews were being expelled from France to misery and oppression, and then witness the non-reaction when that is happening to Roma, also victims of the Holocaust and Europe's most brutalized population. In Hungary, the neo-fascist party Jobbik gained 17% of the vote in national elections, perhaps unsurprising when three-quarters of the population feels that they are worse off than under Communist rule. We might be relieved that in Austria the ultra-right Jörg Haider won only 10% of the vote in 2008 -- were it not for the fact that the new Freedom Party, outflanking him from the far right, won more than 17%. It is chilling to recall that, in 1928, the Nazis won less than 3% of the vote in Germany. In England the British National Party and the English Defence League, on the ultra-racist right, are major forces. (What is happening in Holland you know all too well.) In Germany, Thilo Sarrazin's lament that immigrants are destroying the country was a runaway best-seller, while Chancellor Angela Merkel, though condemning the book, declared that multiculturalism had "utterly failed": the Turks imported to do the dirty work in Germany are failing to become blond and blue-eyed, true Aryans. Those with a sense of irony may recall that Benjamin Franklin, one of the leading figures of the Enlightenment, warned that the newly liberated colonies should be wary of allowing Germans to immigrate, because they were too swarthy; Swedes as well. Into the twentieth century, ludicrous myths of Anglo-Saxon purity were common in the U.S., including among presidents and other leading figures. Racism in the literary culture has been a rank obscenity; far worse in practice, needless to say. It is much easier to eradicate polio than this horrifying plague, which regularly becomes more virulent in times of economic distress. I do not want to end without mentioning another externality that is dismissed in market systems: the fate of the species. Systemic risk in the financial system can be remedied by the taxpayer, but no one will come to the rescue if the environment is destroyed. That it must be destroyed is close to an institutional imperative. Business leaders who are conducting propaganda campaigns to convince the population that anthropogenic global warming is a liberal hoax understand full well how grave is the threat, but they must maximize short-term profit and market share. If they don't, someone else will. This vicious cycle could well turn out to be lethal. To see how grave the danger is, simply have a look at the new Congress in the U.S., propelled into power by business funding and propaganda. Almost all are climate deniers. They have already begun to cut funding for measures that might mitigate environmental catastrophe. Worse, some are true believers; for example, the new head of a subcommittee on the environment who explained that global warming cannot be a problem because God promised Noah that there will not be another flood. If such things were happening in some small and remote country, we might laugh. Not when they are happening in the richest and most powerful country in the world. And before we laugh, we might also bear in mind that the current economic crisis is traceable in no small measure to the fanatic faith in such dogmas as the efficient market hypothesis, and in general to what Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, 15 years ago, called the "religion" that markets know best -- which prevented the central bank and the economics profession from taking notice of an $8 trillion housing bubble that had no basis at all in economic fundamentals, and that devastated the economy when it burst. All of this, and much more, can proceed as long as the Muashar doctrine prevails. As long as the general population is passive, apathetic, diverted to consumerism or hatred of the vulnerable, then the powerful can do as they please, and those who survive will be left to contemplate the outcome.

Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor emeritus in the MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. He is the author of numerous best-selling political works. His latest books are a new edition of Power and Terror, The Essential Chomsky (edited by Anthony Arnove), a collection of his writings on politics and on language from the 1950s to the present, Gaza in Crisis, with Ilan Pappé, and Hopes and Prospects, also available as an audiobook. This piece is adapted from a talk given in Amsterdam in March.