China, India, Russia come together for regional peace

Updated: 2016-04-27 07:57

By Wang Hui (China Daily)

Usa.chinadaily.com.cn

Last week, intensive talks between Chinese and Indian officials in Beijing, along with a meeting of foreign ministers of China, India and Russia in Moscow, sent a strong message to the international community that the three countries are intensifying their cooperation and coordination at the regional and international levels.

During his five-day visit to China starting on April 16, Indian Defense Minister Manohar Parrikar met with top Chinese political and military leaders, including Premier Li Keqiang, Vice-Chairman of the Central Military Commission Fan Changlong and Chinese Defense Minister Chang Wanquan. On April 20, State Councilor Yang Jiechi met with India's National Security Adviser Ajit Doval in Beijing for the 19th round of talks on the boundary issue. And two days before that, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, his Russian and Indian counterparts Sergey Lavrov and Sushma Swaraj attended the 14th Russia-India-China Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Moscow.

Judging by the Indian officials' visit to China and the joint communiqué issued by the trilateral foreign ministers' meeting, one could say China, Russia and India are showing greater political will to accommodate one another's interest and work together to tackle global issues of common concern.

In Beijing, Chinese and Indian diplomats had in-depth discussions on the boundary issue, which is perhaps the most sensitive part of the Beijing-New Delhi relationship. Since the two neighbors have not yet agreed on the demarcation of their 3,488-kilometer border, tensions have risen from time to time straining bilateral relations.

But the decline in border incidents in recent months created a cordial atmosphere for last week's talks, suggesting the two sides are moving toward resolving the knotty issues. The two countries are at a crucial stage of negotiating a framework for a "fair and reasonable" political solution to the border dispute. But to actually reach a solution, both sides need to be more flexible and pragmatic.

In an encouraging sign, China said at last week's talks that it, too, wants to set up a hot-line between the Chinese and Indian militaries. This is another gesture that the two sides intend to deepen mutual strategic trust.

Another encouraging sign came from the trilateral meeting in Moscow, where China, Russia and India agreed on a wide range of regional and international issues. The three countries called for further reforms in the International Monetary Fund and other global financial institutions to give emerging economies a greater say in global financial matters, which at present are dominated by the United States.

Moreover, China, Russia and India for the first time, unanimously called for fully respecting the UN Convention on the Law of Sea and the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea. They also urged all disputing parties to use negotiations to resolve their differences, which is exactly what China has been insisting on to resolve the South China Sea issue.

The surprising element of the Moscow declaration was India, because it was seen as a rival to China and believed to be backing the US to internationalize the South China Sea issue.

For long, the US has been trying to woo India into its fold to counterbalance China's rise. To this end, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter visited India earlier this month, saying US-Indian relationship is one that will define the 21st century.

But last week's developments show China, India and Russia can work more closely on regional and international issues and respect each other's concerns. As an extra-regional power, the US has its own agenda and strategy in the Asia-Pacific. In fact, when the US began implementing its "pivot to Asia" strategy some years ago, both China and India were believed to be its main targets.

The US strategic rebalancing has raised tensions in the region, intensified the disputes in the South China Sea and disturbed regional peace and stability, which will benefit neither China, nor Russia nor India. Therefore, New Delhi should take a stance on sensitive regional issues using a sober mind.

The author is deputy editor-in-chief of China Daily Asia Pacific. jasmine@chinadailyhk.com

Did the Arabs Betray Palestine?

by Ramzy Baroud, April 28, 2016

Antiwar.com

At the age of 21, I crossed Gaza into Egypt to pursue a degree in political science. The timing could have not been worse. The Iraq invasion of Kuwait in 1990 had resulted in a US-led international coalition and a major war, which eventually paved the road for the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. I became aware that Palestinians were suddenly “hated” in Egypt because of Yasser Arafat’s stance in support of Iraq at the time. I just did not know the extent of that alleged “hate.”

It was in a cheap hotel in Cairo, where I slowly ran out of the few Egyptian pounds at my disposal, that I met Hajah Zainab, a kindly, old custodian who treated me like a son. She looked unwell, wobbled as she walked, and leaned against walls to catch her breath before carrying on with her endless chores. The once carefully-designed tattoos on her face, became a jumble of wrinkled ink that defaced her skin. Still, the gentleness in her eyes prevailed, and whenever she saw me she hugged me and cried.

Hajah Zainab wept for two reasons: taking pity on me as I was fighting a deportation order in Cairo – for no other reason than the fact that I was a Palestinian at a time that Arafat endorsed Saddam Hussein while Hosni Mubarak chose to ally with the US. I grew desperate and dreaded the possibility of facing the Israeli intelligence, Shin Bet, who were likely to summon me to their offices once I crossed the border back to Gaza. The other reason is that Hajah Zainab’s only son, Ahmad, had died fighting the Israelis in Sinai.

Zainab’s generation perceived Egypt’s wars with Israel, that of 1948, 1956 and 1967 as wars in which Palestine was a central cause. No amount of self-serving politics and media conditioning could have changed that. But the war of 1967 was that of unmitigated defeat. With direct, massive support from the US and other western powers, Arab armies were soundly beaten, routed at three different fronts. Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank were lost, along with the Golan Heights, the Jordan Valley and Sinai, as well.

It was then that some Arab countries’ relations with Palestine began changing. Israel’s victory and the US-West’s unremitting support convinced some Arab governments to downgrade their expectations, and expected the Palestinians to do so, as well. Egypt, once the torchbearer of Arab nationalism, succumbed to a collective sense of humiliation and, later, redefined its priorities to free its own land from Israeli Occupation. Without the pivotal Egyptian leadership, Arab countries were divided into camps, each government with its own agenda. As Palestine, all of it, was then under Israeli control, Arabs slowly walked away from a cause they once perceived to be the central cause of the Arab nation.

The 1967 war also brought an end to the dilemma of independent Palestinian action, which was almost entirely hijacked by various Arab countries. Moreover, the war shifted the focus to the West Bank and Gaza, and allowed the Palestinian faction, Fatah, to fortify its position in light of Arab defeat and subsequent division.

That division was highlighted most starkly in the August 1967 Khartoum summit, where Arab leaders clashed over priorities and definitions. Should Israel’s territorial gains redefine the status quo? Should Arabs focus on returning to a pre-1967 situation or that of pre-1948, when historic Palestine was first occupied and Palestinians ethnically cleansed?

The United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 242, on November 22 1967, reflecting the US Johnson Administration’s wish to capitalize on the new status quo: Israeli withdrawal “from occupied territories” in exchange for normalization with Israel. The new language of the immediate post-1967 period alarmed Palestinians who realized that any future political settlement was likely to ignore the situation that existed prior to the war.

Eventually, Egypt fought and celebrated its victory of the 1973 war, which allowed it to consolidate its control over most of its lost territories. A few years later, the Camp David accords in 1979 divided the ranks of the Arabs even more and ended Egypt’s official solidarity with the Palestinians, while granting the most populous Arab state a conditioned control over its own land in Sinai. The negative repercussions of that agreement cannot be overstated. However, the Egyptian people, despite the passing of time, have never truly normalized with Israel.

In Egypt, a chasm still exists between the government, whose behavior is based on political urgency and self-preservation, and a people who, despite a decided anti-Palestinian campaign in various media, are as ever determined to reject normalization with Israel until Palestine is free. Unlike the well-financed media circus that has demonized Gaza in recent years, the likes of Hajah Zainab have very few platforms where they can openly express their solidarity with the Palestinians. In my case, I was lucky enough to run into the aging custodian who cried for Palestine and her only son all those years ago.

Nevertheless, that very character, Zainab, was reincarnated in my path of travel, time and again. I met her in Iraq in 1999. She was an old vegetable vendor living in Sadr City. I met her in Jordan in 2003. She was a cabby, with a Palestinian flag hanging from his cracked rearview mirror. She was also a retired Saudi journalist I met in Jeddah in 2010, and a Moroccan student I met at a speaking tour in Paris in 2013. She was in her early twenties. After my talk, she sobbed as she told me that Palestine for her people is like a festering wound. “I pray for a free Palestine every day,” she told me, “as my late parents did with every prayer.”

Hajah Zainab is also Algeria, all of Algeria. When the Palestinian national football team met their Algerian counterparts last February, a strange, unprecedented phenomenon transpired that left many puzzled. The Algerian fans, some of the most ardent lovers of football anywhere, cheered for the Palestinians, nonstop. And when the Palestinian team scored a goal, it was if the bleachers were lit on fire. The crowded stadium exploded with a trancing chant for Palestine and Palestine alone.

So, did the Arabs betray Palestine? The question is heard often, and it is often followed with the affirmative, “yes, they did.” The Egyptian media scapegoating of Palestinians in Gaza, the targeting and starving of Palestinians in Yarmouk, Syria, the past civil war in Lebanon, the mistreatment of Palestinians in Kuwait in 1991 and, later, in Iraq in 2003 are often cited as examples. Now some insist that the so-called “Arab Spring” was the last nail in the coffin of Arab solidarity with Palestine.

I beg to differ. The outcome of the ill-fated “Arab Spring” was a massive letdown, if not betrayal, not just of Palestinians but of most Arabs. The Arab world has turned into a massive ground for dirty politics between old and new rivals. While Palestinians were victimized, Syrians, Egyptians, Libyans, Yemenis and others are being victimized, as well.

There has to be a clear political demarcation of the word “Arabs.” Arabs can be unelected governments as much as they can be a kindly old woman earning two dollars a day in some dirty Cairo hotel. Arabs are emboldened elites who care only about their own privilege and wealth while neither Palestine nor their own nations matter, but also multitudes of peoples, diverse, unique, empowered, oppressed, who happen at this point in history to be consumed with their own survival and fight for freedom.

The latter “Arabs” never betrayed Palestine; they willingly fought and died for it when they had the chance.

Most likely, Hajah Zainab is long dead now. But millions more like her still exist and they, too, long for a free Palestine, as they continue to seek their own freedom and salvation.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is a media consultant, an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father was A Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story (Pluto Press).

Trump, el bipolar: discurso sobre política exterior

Fue una verdadera montaña rusa escuchar al bipolar Donald Trump en su discurso ante los miembros de la revista National Interest, en el hotel Mayflower de Washington D.C.
Por un lado Trump criticó hasta el cansancio la política desorientada y desastrosa de Obama-Clinton hacia el Medio Oriente, que ha llevado caos, destrucción y el crecimiento del radicalismo islámico. Pero ni por asomo criticó directamente a la administración Bush y a los neoconservadores por haber sido los principales impulsores e instrumentadores de esa política.
Según Trump, las intervenciones militares en el Medio Oriente tuvieron la ingenua intención de expandir la democracia y convertir a los países de la región en algo similar a los países del Occidente capitalista, lo cual ha resultado en un fracaso completo.
No sé si Trump dice esto porque lo cree, o porque sus asesores pro israelíes se lo han dicho, pero el verdadero objetivo de todas las intervenciones de Estados Unidos en la región en los últimos 25 años han sido para destruir a los enemigos de Israel, enfrentar a las dos ramas del Islam entre sí (chiítas y sunnitas), y de esa manera asegurar la hegemonía israelí en la región. Se ha logrado balcanizarla, para así evitar que surja un competidor de Israel (ya sea Irán, Turquía, Egipto o Arabia; una vez destruidos Irak, Libia y Siria). Trump nuevamente rinde pleitesía a Israel, señalando que es la única "democracia" en la región y que Estados Unidos lo seguirá apoyando.
Si efectivamente Trump va a seguir apoyando a Israel, tendrá que seguir cumpliendo con el camino que los neoconservadores y el lobby pro Israel le han trazado a Estados Unidos, esto es, nuevas guerras e intervenciones para mantener la destrucción de todo el mundo árabe-musulmán y especialmente el persa y chiíta en esa zona, con objeto de que Israel pueda seguir desbaratando a placer a la nación palestina, acumulando más y más territorio; y discriminando y aislando a la minoría árabe palestina que tiene aún la nacionalidad israelí.
En cambio, Trump afirma que si bien pretende destruir al Estado Islámico y que para ello va a exigir a sus aliados en la región que apoyen en el esfuerzo (¿también a Israel, o a ellos no los va a molestar?), su objetivo es "estabilizar" la zona, "pacificarla", ya sin intentar "democratizarla" o apoyar cambios de régimen que no resultan exitosos.
Trump pretende seguir apoyando a Tel Aviv, pero al mismo tiempo evitar más intervencionismo militar contra los que Israel considera sus enemigos; eso le va a acarrear la ira de Netanyahu que va a exigir, junto con los neoconservadores, el lobby pro Israel (ante el que Trump fue a ponerse de rodillas en la reunión de AIPAC), el complejo militar industrial y los demócratas "intervencionistas humanitarios", que Estados Unidos siga con el guión preestablecido de atacar a los que Israel considera sus enemigos. "Bipolaridad" pura.
Otro ejemplo de la "bipolaridad" de Trump, es que no se cansa de afirmar que va a aumentar el poder militar de Estados Unidos (como si ahora no fuera ya por mucho el mayor del mundo), pero al mismo tiempo señala que Estados Unidos será el principal promotor de la paz mundial y que sólo utilizará el poder militar cuando sea en beneficio de los intereses de Estados Unidos (¿què opinarán Netanyahu y los neoconservadores de eso?) y cuando se tenga un plan inequívoco de que se conseguirá una victoria.
Nuevamente se percibe la tensión de por un lado rendir pleitesía al complejo militar industrial, señalando que seguirá el gasto en armas en forma creciente, pero al mismo tiempo afirma que tratará de no usar ese poder militar y de llegar a acuerdos para evitar conflictos con China y Rusia.
Resulta que el complejo militar industrial vive de los conflictos permanentes, y esperar que se crean que el gasto militar va a seguir aumentando, sin guerras e intervenciones militares de por medio, es pecar de ingenuo.
Así también, Trump señala que la peor amenaza al mundo son las armas nucleares y las carreras armamentistas, pero lo primero que hará como presidente es renovar el arsenal nuclear de Estados Unidos y aumentar exponencialmente el tamaño y el armamento de las fuerzas armadas de su país. La bipolaridad a su máxima expresión.
Trump afirma que quiere llegar a acuerdos con sus aliados y espera fortalecer las alianzas que tiene Estados Unidos, pero al mismo tiempo les advierte que si no asumen el costo que les corresponde en esas alianzas, las romperá.
Se lanza contra la "globalización" y afirma que no aceptará más acuerdos internacionales, especialmente en materia comercial, ni de defensa, en los que Estados Unidos subordine su interés nacional (por definición todo acuerdo internacional obliga a una cesión mayor o menor de soberanía, por lo que Trump está diciendo que su gobierno ya no firmará ningún acuerdo internacional más), y subraya que sólo entrará a acuerdos en los que Estados Unidos gane en grande. ¿Qué país querrá hacer cualquier acuerdo con Estados Unidos si lo que va a esperar es que tenga que ceder todo a cambio de nada?
Según Trump la política exterior de Estados Unidos en los años de Obama (y no lo dijo explícitamente, pero implícitamente también en los de Bush) no ha tenido coherencia, lógica, ni ha defendido el interés de Estados Unidos.
Lógica y coherencia sí ha tenido, defender y ampliar la hegemonía de Israel en el Medio Oriente; lo que no ha hecho es defender el interés de Estados Unidos, porqué no estuvo diseñada para eso. Y si Trump la quiere cambiar, por más que diga que adora a Israel y lo defenderá y apoyará (y continúa con su retórica anti iraní), ello lo llevará a confrontarse con Netanyahu, el lobby pro Israel, los neoconservadores, los muchos legisladores de ambos partidos que están comprados por los multimillonarios pro sionistas de Estados Unidos, y con el complejo militar industrial.
También Trump ya le declaró la guerra a todas las empresas que sigan saliendo de Estados Unidos para relocalizarse en otros países, afirmando que ello tendrá "consecuencias" para dichas empresas (se lanzó con todo contra el NAFTA, lo que implica que de llegar a la presidencia daría por terminado dicho tratado), lo que constituye una declaración de guerra contra las grandes corporaciones estadounidenses e indirectamente contra Wall Street, que han impulsado desde hace 35 años (por lo menos) la globalización económica, la apertura del comercio internacional y la inversión extranjera y la conformación de grandes regiones económicas sin fronteras (Unión Europea, el proyecto del Consejo de Relaciones Exteriores de crear la región "Norteamérica").
Así, Trump se va a enfrentar contra los promotores de la globalización, y quienes son sus principales beneficiarios, esto es el 1% de los multimillonarios que poseen las grandes fortunas del mundo y que son los máximos accionistas de las mayores corporaciones mundiales. ¿Cree Trump que podrá lanzar un reto así a los hombres y mujeres más poderosos del mundo, sin que estos respondan? Cuidado porque esto puede llevar a situaciones límite, como intentos de magnicidio (ya otro miembro prominente de la clase alta de Estados Unidos, que pretendió poner en entredicho los objetivos e intereses de los sectores dominantes de ese país, fue "retirado" por la vía del asesinato, John F. Kennedy; y después su hermano Robert, que trató de retar nuevamente al sistema, también fue asesinado).
En fin, una serie de contradicciones, que reflejan una política exterior bipolar, con tantas confusiones como las que Trump tan alegremente critica acerca de la política exterior que ha desarrollado Obama.
Además, Trump se va a enfrentar a enormes intereses dentro de Estados Unidos, que difícilmente se van a quedar con los brazos cruzados dejándolo hacer lo que ha dicho.
Respecto a Rusia y China, parece que pretende entenderse mejor con Putin, a quien sin decirlo, se advierte que admira (lo que también le va a acarrear la ira de los neoconservadores y del complejo militar industrial), y tendrá problemas con China, ya que le va a declarar la guerra comercial y pretende "presionarla" para que Beijing controle a Corea del Norte, algo que seguramente los chinos no van a permitir que suceda, sólo porque Trump lo dice.

Why Is America So Bad at Promoting Democracy in Other Countries?

There’s no quick, cheap, or military-based way to bring peace to places like Afghanistan, Yemen, and Iraq. It’s time we changed our approach, and we can start at home.

BY STEPHEN M. WALT

APRIL 25, 2016

Foreignpolicy.com

If you’re a dedicated Wilsonian, the past quarter-century must have been pretty discouraging. Convinced liberal democracy was the only viable political formula for a globalizing world, the last three U.S. administrations embraced Wilsonian ideals and made democracy promotion a key element of U.S. foreign policy. For Bill Clinton, it was the “National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement.” For George W. Bush, it was the “Freedom Agenda” set forth in his second inaugural address and echoed by top officials like Condoleezza Rice. Barack Obama has been a less fervent Wilsonian than his predecessors, but he appointed plenty of ardent liberal internationalists to his administration, declaring, “There is no right more fundamental than the ability to choose your leaders.” And he has openly backed democratic transitions in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and several other countries.

Unfortunately, a soon-to-be-published collection edited by Larry Diamond and Mark Plattner suggests that these (and other) efforts at democracy promotion have not fared well. Success stories like the recent end to military rule in Myanmar are balanced by the more numerous and visible failures in Libya, Yemen, and Iraq, the obvious backsliding in Turkey, Hungary, Russia, Poland, and elsewhere, and the democratic dysfunctions in the European Union and in the United States itself. As Diamond points out in his own contribution to the book, nearly a quarter of the world’s democracies have eroded or relapsed in the past 30 years.

You might think a realist like me wouldn’t give a damn about a state’s regime-type or domestic institutions and care even less about the goal of promoting democracy. But you’d be wrong. Realists recognize that regime-type and internal arrangements matter (indeed, Kenneth Waltz wrote a whole book comparing different democratic orders); they just believe relative power and the need for security are usually more important and that systemic pressures often lead dissimilar regimes to act in strikingly similar ways.

Even so, there are good reasons for realists (and others) to favor democracy while remaining mindful of the dangers associated with democratic transitions. Stable democracies have better long-term economic growthrecords (on average) and do much better in terms ofprotecting basic human rights. While not immune to various follies, democracies are less likely to kill vast numbers of their own citizens throughfamines or ill-planned acts of social engineering, mostly because corrective information is more readily accessible and officials can be held accountable. Democracies are as likely to start and fight wars as any other type of state, but there’s some (highly contested) evidence that they tend not to fight each other. On balance, therefore, I think it would be better for most human beings if the number of democracies in the world increased.

The question is, however: How should we try to bring that goal about?

At the risk of stating the obvious, we do know what doesn’t work, and we have a pretty good idea why. What doesn’t work is military intervention (aka “foreign-imposed regime change”). The idea that the United States could march in, depose the despot-in-chief and his henchmen, write a new constitution, hold a few elections, and produce a stable democracy — presto! — was always delusional, but an awful lot of smart people bought this idea despite the abundant evidence against it.

Using military force to spread democracy fails for several obvious reasons. First, successful liberal orders depend on a lot more than a written constitution or elections: They usually require an effective legal system, a broad commitment to pluralism, a decent level of income and education, and widespread confidence that political groups which lose out in a particular election have a decent chance of doing better in the future and thus an incentive to keep working within the system. Because a lot of social elements need to line up properly for this arrangement to work and endure, creating reasonably effective democracies took centuries in the West, and it was often a highly contentious — even violent — process. To believe the U.S. military could export democracy quickly and cheaply required a degree of hubris that is still breathtaking to recall.

Second, using force to spread democracy almost always triggers violent resistance. Nationalism and other forms of local identity remain powerful features of today’s world, and most people dislike following orders from well-armed foreign occupiers. Moreover, groups that have lost power, wealth, or status in the course of a democratic transition (such as Sunnis in post-Saddam Iraq) will inevitably be tempted to take up arms in opposition, and neighboring states whose interests are adversely affected by a transition may try to stop or reverse it. Such developments are the last thing a struggling democracy needs, of course, because violence tends to empower leaders who are good at it, instead of those who are skilled at building effective institutions, striking deals across factional lines, promoting tolerance, and building more robust and productive economies.

To make matters worse, foreign occupiers rarely know enough to pick the right local people to put in charge, and even generous and well-intentioned efforts to aid the new government tend to fuel corruption and distort local politics in unpredictable ways. Creating democracy in a foreign country is a vast social engineering project, and expecting outside powers to do it effectively is like asking someone to build a nuclear power plant, without any blueprints, on an active earthquake zone. In either case, expect a rapid meltdown.

The bottom line is that there is no quick, cheap, or reliable way for outsiders to engineer a democratic transition and especially when the country in question has little or no prior experience with it and contains deep social divisions.

So if promoting democracy is desirable, but force is not the right tool, what is? Let me suggest two broad approaches.

The first is diplomacy. When there is a genuine, significant, and committed indigenous movement in favor of democracy — as was the case in Eastern Europe during the “velvet revolutions” or in Myanmar today — powerful outsiders can use subtler forms of influence to encourage gradual transitions. The United States has done this successfully on a number of occasions (e.g., South Korea, the Philippines, etc.) by being both persistent and patient and using nonmilitary tools such as economic sanctions. In these cases, the pro-democracy movement had been building for many years and enjoyed broad social support by the time it gained power. Relying on diplomacy may not be as exciting as the “shock and awe” of a military invasion, but it’s a lot less expensive and a lot more likely to succeed.

The second thing we could do is set a better example. America’s democratic ideals are more likely to be emulated by others if the United States is widely regarded as a just, prosperous, vibrant, and tolerant society, instead of one where inequality is rampant, leading politicians are loudmouthed xenophobes, the prison population is the world’s largest, and airports and other public infrastructure are visibly decaying, yet no one seems able to do much about it. When millions of qualified citizens are excluded from voting, or when a handful of billionaires and other moneyed interests exert adisproportionate and toxic effect on U.S. politics, it is hardly surprising that other societies find America’s professed ideals less appealing than they once were. Add in Guantánamo, targeted killings, Abu Ghraib, overzealous NSA surveillance, and the reluctance to hold powerful people accountable for their misdeeds, and you end up with a pretty tarnished brand.

In short, the United States will do a better job of promoting democracy in other countries if it first does a better job of living up to its ideals here at home. The necessary reforms are not going to be easy — and I have no magic formula for achieving them — but reforming the United States should be just a tad easier than trying to create a robust democracy in Afghanistan, Yemen, or any of the other places where we’ve been flailing for a decade or more.

Building a better America would also permit more Americans to lead prosperous, proud, secure, and bountiful lives. Maybe I’m dreaming, but might doing more to improve the lives of Americans here at home also be the best way to enhance democracy’s prospects abroad?

NUEVO EMBAJADOR DE MÉXICO EN ESTADOS UNIDOS

¿INGENUO o BRUTALMENTE SINCERO?

Hoy aparece en el periódico El Universal una entrevista con el nuevo embajador de México en los Estados Unidos[1], Carlos Manuel Sada Solana, en la cual manifiesta que la estrategia que seguirá ante las invectivas de Donald Trump y los ataques contra México y los mexicanos en las campañas electorales de ese país será ”proteger y empoderar a la comunidad mexicana” (¿qué acaso no lo han hecho las autoridades mexicanas en todos estos años?); especialmente a los mexicanos indocumentados que suman 6 millones; y promover entre los mexicanos que ya son residentes legales (otros 6 millones), el que adquieran la nacionalidad estadounidense (alrededor de 3.5 millones ya están en posibilidad de solicitarla), con objeto de que cuenten con más derechos y protección ante posibles deportaciones.

Llama la atención que apenas vayan a iniciar esta labor, cuando desde hace años la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores y en general el gobierno mexicano, debieron impulsar un programa bien financiado y organizado para que la mayoría de los mexicanos con residencia legal pudieran adquirir la nacionalidad estadounidense, y así mejorar su status legal, además de que podrían votar, y con ello sumar un importante número de electores a las causas pro mexicanas en ese país.

Después, Sada Solana señala que hasta el 64% de los estadounidenses (según encuestas que él ha visto), están a favor de una regularización de los indocumentados, en vista de que son útiles para la sociedad de Estados Unidos.

Sada asume así que estos mexicanos y muchos miles más que podrían emigrar a Estados Unidos tienen como objetivo vivir y establecerse definitivamente ahí, y sin empacho alguno afirma que contribuyen a la economía y sociedad de ese país de manera positiva. ¿Y qué no sería mejor señor embajador que esos millones de mexicanos tuvieran oportunidades de estudio y trabajo en México, en donde podrían aportar con su esfuerzo y creatividad a nuestra sociedad, en vez de tener que irse, la mayoría de las veces forzados por falta de empleo o empleos mal pagados, inseguridad y violencia crecientes; autoridades corruptas y abusivas y un sentido general de fracaso en México?

No, por supuesto que el señor embajador no hace esas reflexiones, y por el contrario se siente muy orgulloso de que los mexicanos aporten tanto a los Estados Unidos.

El colmo es que Sada afirma que con campañas de comunicación, de relaciones públicas y acercándose a actores importantes del Poder Ejecutivo, el Congreso, la iniciativa privada y gobiernos locales, se les puede hacer ver las contribuciones positivas de México y los mexicanos a Estados Unidos (como los 600 mil millones de dólares de comercio anual entre ambos países o que 6 millones de empleos en Estados Unidos están vinculados a las exportaciones a México).

¿Es ingenuo o la “inteligentísima” secretaria Ruiz Massieu le sugirió tan sofisticada estrategia?

Díganme qué cuernos le importa lo que les informe el embajador Sada (o los cónsules, o despachos de relaciones públicas que van a cobrar cientos de miles de dólares por enviar unos cuantos correos electrónicos) a los senadores y representantes de estados como Arizona o Texas, en donde la narrativa de la migración ilegal, el narcotráfico y hasta las enfermedades que vienen del sur, les dan miles de votos a dichos políticos; o a senadores y representantes de Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, etc., en donde cientos o miles de empresas han cerrado, para relocalizarse en México y otros países con escasas o nulas regulaciones laborales y ambientales, y con salarios de hambre; retórica que les permite culpar a México de políticas que los propios gobiernos de Estados Unidos han promovido (el libre comercio, la apertura económica, la globalización financiera), y así cosechar miles de votos.

Por favor, los millones de dólares que el gobierno mexicano se va a gastar en su campaña de comunicación y relaciones públicas, sólo va a servir para engordar las carteras de algunos despachos y ex políticos bien conectados que se van a forrar de billetes, pero no va a cambiar una coma del discurso anti inmigrante, anti mexicano y xenófobo que permea continuamente (y que crece cada vez más) los procesos electorales locales y federales en Estados Unidos.

De plano Sada manifiesta que el objetivo del neoliberal gobierno mexicano es convencer a los estadounidenses (gobierno y sociedad) que el presente y el futuro es una “integración económica”, que somos “los mejores aliados de Estados Unidos” y que se debe tender hacia una comunidad “binacional” (¿le dio un ataque de sinceridad?).

Es decir, aquí tienen a su mano de obra barata (casi regalada); aquí tienen los recursos naturales de México para que sus trasnacionales los exploten a placer; aquí tienen a un gobierno sumiso que hará lo que Estados Unidos quiera en el ámbito internacional; aquí tienen a una población dispuesta a servir en el ejército intervencionista estadounidense, a limpiar sus baños; a construir sus casas y edificios; a levantar sus cosechas, a venderles las drogas a sus millones de adictos, etc. Y sólo pedimos a cambio que dejen entrar a todos nuestros pobres a su país, porque en México no podemos darles trabajo, ni seguridad, ni oportunidades de una vida digna.

Esa entrevista con el nuevo embajador de México en Estados Unidos es la mejor prueba de que la subclase corrupta y mafiosa mexicana y sus socios oligarcas ven como destino para nuestro país ser un siervo de Estados Unidos, sin ningún tipo de proyecto propio, nacional, soberano, en el cual se pueda plantear una cooperación sin servilismo, ni subordinación a Washington. Para estos cipayos, el único futuro de México es ser el tapete (y hasta el inodoro) de la superpotencia. Y por eso están sufriendo ante los ataques de Trump, pues está amenazando con destruir su tan anhelado deseo de convertirse en los Herodes del nuevo Imperio Romano.

---

[1] http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/articulo/nacion/politica/2016/04/25/sada-no-sera-mexico-punching-bag-de-eu

De la técnica a la política

John M. Ackerman

La Jornada 25 de Abril de 2016

La decisión de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH) de dar por concluido el mandato del Grupo Interdisciplinario de Expertos Independientes (GIEI) abre una oportunidad de oro para retomar el camino de la movilización social y la organización política.

El Acuerdo Técnico entre la CIDH y el gobierno mexicano, que creó el GIEI, se firmó el 12 de noviembre de 2014, en medio de una de las más importantes irrupciones sociales en la historia reciente. La fuerza de millones de mexicanos en la calle protestando a escalas nacional e internacional en favor de los estudiantes de Ayotzinapa y contra el mal gobierno obligó a las autoridades a abrir las puertas a una vigilancia externa.

Sin embargo, desde el principio el gobierno hizo todo lo posible por recortar y minimizar el trabajo de los expertos. El Acuerdo Técnico no fue firmado por el Presidente de la República, o siquiera por algún integrante de su gabinete, sino por funcionarios menores: una subprocuradora de la PGR, un subsecretario de Gobernación y el representante de México ante la OEA. Asimismo, Enrique Peña Nieto confió en que los pagos que daría su gobierno para cubrir los gastos del grupo de expertos, con una primera entrega de un millón de dólares en enero de 2015 y otra por la misma cantidad en octubre del mismo año, asegurarían que los investigadores tuvieran un comportamiento estrictamenteinstitucional.

Esta estrategia de contenciónsuave se combinó desde el primer momento con el recrudecimiento de las tácticas más represivas del régimen. Dos días antes de la firma del convenio con la CIDH, el lunes 10 de noviembre de 2014, el secretario de la Defensa, Salvador Cienfuegos, hizo pronunciamientos públicos inéditos que deslizaban la posibilidad de un autogolpe en respuesta a las descalificaciones sociales cada vez más fuertes en contra tanto del Presidente como del Ejército Mexicano.

Cienfuegos señaló que debido a losjuicios injustos y erróneos de parte de la sociedad, “el desarrollo y el progreso de la nación están en juego.Por nuestra parte, vociferó el secretario, las fuerzas de tierra, mar y aire respaldamos firmemente al señor Presidente de la República y su proyecto de gobierno para llevar al país a mejores posibilidades de desarrollo. ¡México, nuestra gran nación, se lo merece!

Una semana después seríamos testigos de uno de los actos de represión política más burdos y traicioneros en la historia reciente del país. El 20 de noviembre de 2014, en el 104 aniversario del inicio de la Revolución Mexicana, cientos de miles de ciudadanos pacíficos convergieron en el Zócalo capitalino acompañando a los padres de familia de Ayotzinapa. Cientos de miles más protestaron simultáneamente a lo largo y ancho del territorio nacional y en más de una veintena de ciudades a escala internacional. Esa noche los manifestantes prendieron fuego a una enorme efigie de Peña Nieto en la Plaza de la Constitución mientras cantaban al unísono ¡Fuera Peña Nieto! La imagen dio la vuelta al mundo e incluso llegó a ocupar la primera plana del más importante periódico francés, Le Monde.

En respuesta al éxito de la marcha, los granaderos de Miguel Ángel Mancera utilizaron el pretexto de ataques aislados protagonizados por jóvenes encapuchados, seguramente infiltrados por el mismo Cienfuegos, para avanzar violentamente y de manera indiscriminada contra la multitud. Se generó caos y pánico masivo en la plancha del Zócalo, comparable al escenario que tuvo lugar el 2 de octubre de 1968 (véase:http://ow.ly/4n20lQ). Hubo cientos de golpeados y reprimidos, entre los que se incluían mujeres, niños y personas de la tercera edad (véase:http://ow.ly/4n20nd), y se detuvo arbitrariamente a 11 estudiantes totalmente inocentes, quienes fueron enviados de inmediato a cárceles de alta seguridad, acusados de los delitos de motín, terrorismo y crimen organizado.

La calculada combinación de estrategias de contención institucional y de represión política surtió efecto a corto plazo. Si bien se han mantenido firmes en su valiente lucha tanto los padres de Ayotzinapa como los maestros en rebeldía que se oponen a la reforma educativa, 2015 fue un año relativamente tranquilo para el régimen con respecto a grandes movilizaciones sociales.

Hoy, sin embargo, se presenta una excelente oportunidad de volver a articular luchas, así como sacar nuestra indignación a las calles y las urnas. Los expertos del GIEI no se dejaron comprar por las dádivas gubernamentales. El informe que presentaron ayer desnuda con gran profesionalismo e independencia las mentiras de la autoridad y transparenta la traición de Peña Nieto a la verdad, la justicia y al pueblo de México. El GIEI hizo todo lo posible dentro del marco de un acuerdo internacional estrictamente técnico.

Pero los mexicanos no estamos atados por ningún acuerdo técnico de cooperación. Podemos y debemos poner la mirada más alta. La única forma de llegar al fondo de lo que realmente ocurrió el 26 de septiembre de 2014, así como de las desapariciones y asesinatos políticos que ocurren cotidianamente en nuestro país, es por medio de la acción social y política coordinada.

Ya basta de esperar ingenuamente a que los criminales se investiguen a sí mismos. Para sacar a los delincuentes de las calles, primero hay que sacarlos del gobierno.

www.johnackerman.blogspot.com

Twitter: @JohnMAckerman

Military Spending is the Capitalist World’s Fuel

by PETE DOLACK

counterpunch.org

APRIL 22, 2016

It is common for activists to decry the enormous sums of money spent on the military. Any number of social programs, or schools, or other public benefits could instead be funded.

Not least is this the case with the United States, which by far spends the most of any country on its military. The official Pentagon budget for 2015 was $596 billion, but actual spending is far higher. (Figures for 2015 will be used because that is the latest year for which data is available to make international comparisons.) If we add military spending parked in other portions of the U.S. federal government budget, we’re up to $786 billion, according to a study by the War Resisters League. Veterans benefits add another $157 billion. WRL also assigns 80 percent of the interest on the budget deficit, and that puts the grand total well above $1 trillion.

The War Resisters League notes that other organizations estimate that 50 to 60 percent of the interest would be more accurate. Let’s split the difference — if we assign 65 percent of the interest payments to past military spending (midway between the high and low estimates), then the true amount of U.S. military spending was $1.25 trillion. Yes, that is a gigantic sum of money. So gigantic that it was more than the military spending of every other country on Earth combined.

China is second in military spending, but far behind at US$215 billion in 2015, according to an estimate by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Saudi Arabia ($87.2 billion), Russia ($66.4 billion) and Britain ($55.5 billion) round out the top five. And lest we chalk up the bloated Pentagon budget to the size of the U.S. economy, the official $596 billion budget constituted3.5 percent of its gross domestic product, the fourth-highest ratio in the world, while China spent 2.1 percent of its GDP on its military. But if we use the actual total of U.S. military spending, then U.S. spending as a share of GDP leaps to second place, trailing only Saudi Arabia.

The U.S. maintains military bases in 80 countries, and has military personnel in about 160 foreign countries and territories. Another way of looking at this question is the number of foreign military bases: The U.S. has around 800 while the rest of the world combined has perhaps 30, according to an analysis published in The Nation. Almost half of those 30 belong to Britain or France.

Asking others to pay more is endorsing imperialism

Is there some sort of altruism in the U.S. setting itself up as the gendarme of the world? Well, that’s a rhetorical question, obviously, but such self-deception is widespread, and not just among the foreign-policy establishment.

One line of critique sometimes heard, especially during this year’s presidential campaign, is that the U.S. should demand its allies “pay their fair share.” It’s not only from Right-wing quarters that phrase is heard, but even from Left populist Bernie Sanders, who insisted during this month’s Brooklyn debate with Hillary Clinton that other members of NATO ought to pay more so the Pentagon budget can be cut. Senator Sanders said this in the context of pointing out the superior social benefits across Europe as compared to the U.S., but what it really implies is that militarism is justified.

Setting aside that Senator Sanders’ record on imperialism is not nearly as distant from Secretary Clinton’s as his supporters believe, it is a reflection of how deeply imperialism is in the bones of United Statesians when even the candidate positioning himself as a Left insurgent doesn’t seriously question the scale of military operations or their purpose.

So why is U.S. military spending so high? It’s because the repeated use of force is what is necessary to maintain the capitalist system. As top dog in the world capitalist system, it’s up to the U.S. to do what is necessary to keep itself, and its multi-national corporations, in the driver’s seat. That has been a successful project. U.S.-based multi-nationals hold the world’s highest share in 18 of 25 broad industrial sectors, according to an analysis in New Left Review, and often by commanding margins — U.S. multi-nationals hold at least a 40 percent global share in 10 of those sectors.

A partial list of U.S. interventions from 1890, as compiled by Zoltán Grossman, a professor at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington state, lists more than 130 foreign military interventions (not including the use of troops to put down strikes within the U.S.). Consistently, these were used to impose U.S. dictates on smaller countries.

At the beginning of the 20th century, U.S. President William Howard Taft declared that his foreign policy was “to include active intervention to secure our merchandise and our capitalists opportunity for profitable investment” abroad. Taft overthrew the government of Nicaragua to punish it for taking a loan from a British bank rather than a U.S. bank, and then put Nicaragua’s customs collections under U.S. control and handed two U.S. banks control of Nicaragua’s national bank and railroad. Little has changed since, including the overthrows of the governments of Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Brazil (1964) and Chile (1973), and more recently the invasion of Iraq and the attempted overthrow of the Venezuelan government.

Muscle men for big business

We need only recall the statement of Marine Corps general Smedley Butler, who summarized his highly decorated career in 1935, in this manner:

“I spent thirty three years and four months [in] the Marine Corps. … [D]uring that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism.”

The bipartisan refusal to acknowledge this is exemplified in U.S.narratives concerning the Vietnam War. The “debate” that is conducted in the corporate media is only between two “acceptable” viewpoints — an honorable effort that tragically failed or a well-intentioned but flawed effort that should not have been undertaken if the U.S. was not going to be “serious” about fighting. Never mind that tonnage of bombs dropped on Vietnam were greater than what was dropped by all combatants in World War II combined, 3 million Vietnamese were killed, cities were reduced to rubble and millions of acres of farmland was destroyed. By what sane measure could this be said to be fighting “without really trying,” as Right-wing mythology still asserts?

No modern corporate enterprise would be complete without subcontracting, and the Pentagon has not stinted here. That is not a reference to the massive, and often guaranteed, profits that military contractors enjoy as more supply operations are handed over to connected companies, but rather to the teaching of torture techniques to other militaries so that some of the dirty work of maintaining capitalism can be undertaken locally.

The U.S. Army’s infamous School of the Americas, lately masquerading under the deceptively bland-sounding name Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, has long been afinishing school for the personnel enforcing the rule of military and civilian dictatorships throughout Latin America. Major Joe Blair, who was the director of instruction at the School of the Americas from 1986 to 1989, had this to say about the curriculum:

“The doctrine that was taught was that if you want information you use physical abuse, false imprisonment, threats to family members, and killing. If you can’t get the information you want, if you can’t get that person to shut up or stop what they’re doing, you assassinate them—and you assassinate them with one of your death squads.”

The change of the name more than a decade ago was cosmetic, Major Blair said while testifying at a 2002 trial of School of the Americas protestors:

“There are no substantive changes besides the name. They teach the identical courses that I taught, and changed the course names and use the same manuals.”

The entire history of capitalism is built on violence, and violence has been used to both impose and maintain the system from its earliest days. Slavery, colonialism, dispossession of the commons, draconian laws forcing peasants into factories and control of the state to suppress all opposition to economic coercion built capitalism. The forms of domination change over the years, and are often financial rather than openly militaristic today (although the armed fist lurks in the background); regardless, exploitation is the lifeblood of wealth. Demanding that the cost of this should be spread around is a demand to continue exploitation, domination and imperialism, and nothing more.

Pete Dolack writes the Systemic Disorder blog and has been an activist with several groups. His book, It’s Not Over: Learning From the Socialist Experiment, is available from Zero Books.