PEÑA Y EL PRI UTILIZAN TODO PARA PERMANECER EN EL PODER

Peña Nieto y el Grupo Atlacomulco tienen claro que de no triunfar su títere candidato Meade en las elecciones presidenciales del próximo 1º de Julio, pueden quedar a merced de sus enemigos. Y no porque Anaya o López Obrador pretendan cambiar el esquema de explotación imperante, pues como se ha visto en la precampaña, sólo pretenden “humanizarlo” un poco; sino precisamente porque la oposición no está en contra del “sistema” y representa una nueva opción dentro del mismo, haciéndole sólo algunos ajustes para que siga cumpliendo su función expoliadora; por lo que ahora Peña, el PRI y sus socios, pueden resultar prescindibles.

Cuando Cárdenas en 1988 y López Obrador en 2006 y 2012 confrontaron al sistema neoliberal desde la izquierda, la propuesta era clara; había que cambiar la política económica y detener las trasformaciones estructurales que llevaban al país a sucumbir ante las élites globalizantes y tecnocráticas, y a dejar a la subclase política corrupta como “capataz” de dicho esquema. Por lo que la derecha conservadora (PAN), la tecnocrática-autoritaria (PRI), los oligarcas y la potencia hegemónica se unieron en esas tres oportunidades para derrotar, con sendos fraudes electorales, a la opción de cambio proveniente de la izquierda.

Pero ahora ya no hay izquierda, sólo tres formaciones que se presentan como los custodios del sistema neoliberal, pero con la diferencia de que dos de ellas pueden convencer a las élites económicas internacionales y a una parte de las nacionales, de que el sistema no tiene porque derivar hacia una dictadura para sostenerse (Ley de Seguridad Interior, fortalecimiento de las Fuerzas Armadas); sino que puede transitar por una renovada “democratización”; para evitar, tanto el endurecimiento gubernamental (para continuar la explotación, reprimiendo la creciente inconformidad social); como el caos derivado del enfrentamiento continuo entre representantes del statu quo y sectores sociales excluidos y marginados.

Anaya y su coalición prometen un gobierno de “coalición” en donde el titular del Poder Ejecutivo Federal esté acotado, no sólo por los otros poderes, sino por un pacto de gobernabilidad que obligue al presidente a negociar permanentemente los cambios y adecuaciones que el sistema neoliberal requiera; dándole así a la tecnocracia, a los oligarcas y a los grupos políticos regionales, el espacio necesario para defender sus intereses.

En cambio, López Obrador lo que propone es un Ejecutivo fuerte, que sirva de árbitro entre los intereses populares, generalmente excluidos, y los de la oligarquía, la tecnocracia y los grupos políticos regionales; constituyéndose en una especie de “fiel de la balanza”, muy al estilo de los presidentes priístas de los años 40 y 50 del siglo pasado; y en especial tomando como modelo a Adolfo Ruiz Cortines, a quien López Obrador ha admirado desde hace tiempo (aunque él insiste en que sus modelos a seguir son Juárez, Madero y Cárdenas).

De ahí que el PRI actual se encuentra perdido entre ambas propuestas, ya que desearía regresar a ese tipo de presidencialismo “bonapartista” del siglo pasado, principalmente el que ejerció Carlos Salinas en su sexenio. Un gobierno tecnócrata, con su vertiente social (Pronasol); vinculado a la potencia hegemónica (Tratado de Libre Comercio), y con una oposición controlada.

Peña fracasó rotundamente en reeditar esa versión del presidencialismo priísta, en vista de la profundización de los peores vicios de dicho esquema como la corrupción, la asociación permanente con el crimen organizado; el aumento exponencial de la violencia e inseguridad; la permanencia del “pacto de impunidad”; la creciente desigualdad y la exclusión de más de la mitad de la población, del endeble crecimiento económico que ha logrado el país durante tres décadas y media.

De ahí que Peña y su grupo estén utilizando todo el poder que aún concentran en el Ejecutivo, Legislativo, Judicial y gobiernos estatales y municipales para destruir a un ex aliado que decidió lanzarse por la “libre” para llegar a la presidencia y convencer a oligarcas, tecnócratas y a la potencia hegemónica de que él sí puede salvar al sistema, sin tener que llevarlo al autoritarismo o incluso a la dictadura abierta. Y ése ex aliado es Anaya.

El sistema siempre ha tenido como “palanca” para hacer a un lado a miembros indeseados del mismo, expedientes que los ligan a la corrupción o al crimen organizado, dado que ha sido práctica común apoyarse en una o en ambas vertientes para enriquecerse y subir en la competida escalera que lleva al poder.

Anaya no es diferente a miles y miles de políticos de todos los partidos que han formado parte del sistema; pues la corrupción es el sistema.

Así que ahora Peña y el PRI pueden exhibirlo primero y acusarlo directamente después, por la forma en que se ha enriquecido (junto con su familia política) durante la última década, aprovechando los cargos públicos que ha ocupado.

La intención del PRI es clara, eliminar a una de las dos opciones alternas dentro del sistema, para así dejar sólo al tecnócrata Meade contra López Obrador, quien a pesar de su brutal corrimiento a la derecha y las seguridades que ha dado a los oligarcas de que no cambiará la política económica, sigue generando dudas entre las élites económicas y tecnocráticas, y en la potencia hegemónica.

De igual forma, la vertiente tecnocrática representada por Videgaray, intentó amarrar a la potencia hegemónica en un compromiso de apoyo al gobierno de Peña y a Meade, con la fracasada reunión con Trump. Pero resulta que el arrogante y pendenciero presidente estadounidense le puso un precio muy alto a Peña para apoyarlo a él y a su candidato en las elecciones presidenciales; que a su vez apoyara el muro y se quedara callado cuando Trump afirmara que México lo pagaría. Para Peña eso sería el suicidio político y la estocada final a su candidato presidencial, por lo que esa parte de la estrategia, por lo pronto, se les vino abajo.

La otra parte de la estrategia para mantener el poder a toda costa, ya está a todo vapor, y es el uso de los recursos públicos en favor del PRI y de su candidato presidencial; no sólo a través de la inauguración de obras y de la repartición de recursos a los gobiernos estatales priístas; sino también mediante la no tan velada compra del voto, pues en el Estado de México el gobernador Del Mazo ya lanzó las “tarjetas rosas”, mediante las cuales se les da un pago mensual a las mujeres de escasos recursos en la entidad, con lo que se les condicionará el mantenimiento de ese estipendio, a que apoyen a los candidatos priístas.

Peña, el PRI, el Grupo Atlacomulco, los grupos regionales que ahora han sido sumados de manera formal a la campaña (Osorio, Beltrones, Paredes, Moreira, etc.), están utilizando todos los recursos del Estado para mantener el poder, sin importarles el descaro con que lo hacen, pues saben que enfrente tienen a dos coaliciones de intereses que ya no representan un peligro para el sistema en sí, sino que son un peligro exclusivamente para los actuales detentadores del poder político, que bien pueden ser sustituidos, sin que el sistema neoliberal en su conjunto sufra cambios de fondo.

El problema que este uso faccioso del poder por parte de Peña y el PRI entraña, es que se llegue a tal nivel de ataques entre las coaliciones, que el frágil sistema político-jurídico-electoral del país no soporte la tensión, y se acabe por recurrir a las fuerzas armadas, con todos los riesgos que ello implica.

Presidente o gerente

Pedro Miguel

La Jornada 26 de Febrero de 2018

Uno de los valores aspiracionales favoritos de las clases altas y medias altas es enviar a los hijos a estudiar posgrados en el extranjero, especialmente a Estados Unidos, Francia y España. No importa qué ni en qué universidad; en esos sectores suele darse por hecho que cursar una carrera en esos países garantiza, en automático, una formación profesional superior a la que ofrecen instituciones públicas mexicanas como la UNAM y el Poli, que ostentan un nivel académico equiparable al de las mejores universidades gringas y europeas. Ricardo Anaya tiene tan acendrada esa clase de pensamientos que mandó a sus hijos a Estados Unidos, no a un posgrado ni a una licenciatura, sino a que cursaran prescolar. Esa sola decisión, cuya veracidad es indiscutible y aceptada por él mismo, basta para entender la percepción de México que caracteriza al aspirante presidencial panrredista y lo colonizada que tiene la cabeza. A la espera de que las investigaciones digan si son ciertos o falsos los señalamientos en su contra por triangulación de fondos o un mero invento perverso del priísmo –el panismo no se ha quedado atrás cuando ha gobernado–, los electores conscientes y racionales tienen en ese dato un buen elemento de juicio para saber si en julio próximo eligen a un estadista o a un nuevo gerente sometido desde los reflejos mentales a los intereses corporativos extranjeros.

Ahora que están tan de moda las habladurías sobre la supuesta interferencia rusa en el proceso electoral mexicano, no está de más recordar que la única interferencia probada, constante, sistemática y desastrosa en nuestra política interna es la de Estados Unidos: las conjuras contra el gobierno de Madero en la embajada de ese país; la célebre receta de Robert Lansing de dominar a México abriéndoles a jóvenes mexicanos ambiciosos las puertas de nuestras universidades y educarlos en el modo de vida estadunidense, en nuestros valores y el respeto a nuestro liderazgo; la cooptación de presidentes por parte de la CIA; las constantes presiones para obligar al país a cambiar su política exterior; la documentada intervención del embajador Tony Garza para imponer a Calderón en Los Pinos en 2006 y el sistemático espionaje a Peña Nieto, presumiblemente desde que fue jefe de Administración en el gobierno de Arturo Montiel, y que le ha permitido a la inteligencia de Washington hacerse con un voluminoso expediente del mexiquense; la reforma energética intentada en el sexenio anterior, lograda en la administración presente y diseñada por el equipo de Hillary Clinton. Si hay motivo de preocupación ante la intervención extranjera en la vida institucional del país, sería bueno que esos políticos y columnistas del régimen empezaran a fijarse en lo evidente y dejaran la alharaca de los rusos para cuando exista una sola prueba de eso.

José Antonio Meade, por su parte, es un gran ejemplo de esos servidores disciplinados, fieles y confiables de la OCDE, el Banco Mundial, el Fondo Monetario Internacional y el Departamento de Estado del país vecino, a los que ha servido con lealtad intachable y precisión milimétrica a su paso por las secretarías de Energía, Hacienda, Relaciones Exteriores, Desarrollo Social y nuevamente Hacienda; y es también, claro, uno de esos jóvenes ambiciosos a los que Estados Unidos abrió las puertas de sus universidades.

En Meade y en Anaya el poder político y empresarial estadunidense tiene espléndidos prospectos para asegurar la continuidad del modelo de integración subordinada que ha sido aplicado en México desde 1988, que ha colocado al país en una situación de desastre y que, a partir de la llegada de Donald Trump a la Casa Blanca, ha prescindido de los buenos modales para convertirse en una brutal exigencia de rendición total y supeditación absoluta a los designios de Washington. Sirvan como ejemplos las gritonizas telefónicas que el magnate le ha puesto a Peña Nieto –la más reciente, hace una semana–, las constantes humillaciones y el chantaje constante de romper el TLCAN, algo que asusta sobremanera a los gobernantes oligárquicos porque, carentes de respaldo social y de programa alternativo, es el único clavo al que pueden aferrarse.

El programa de la dependencia tiene dos módulos: las órdenes que provienen de aquel lado y el equipo humano que las cumple en éste. Si se suprime uno de esos factores, el mecanismo de la subordinación se colapsa y obliga a los dos países a formular bases nuevas y más justas para la relación bilateral. Tal vez la sociedad mexicana no logre quitarle lo depredador y metiche a Washington, pero sí puede poner fin, con su voto en julio, a la era trágica y oprobiosa de los gerentes al servicio de poderes extranjeros. Y no precisamente el ruso.

navegaciones@yahoo.com

http://navegaciones.blogpsot.com

Twiter: @Navegaciones

US frightened by its own mirror image

By Guo Xiaobing Source:Global Times Published: 2018/2/25 19:53:40

In his report titled "Coping with Surprise in Great Power Conflicts" for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Mark F. Cancian, a senior adviser at CSIS, tries to bridge Graham Allison's thoughts on the Thucydides Trap and Ghost Fleet's vivid description of future war. 

The report gives vent to imaginary thinking about strategic, technological, doctrinal and political/diplomatic surprises in potential US conflicts with China, Russia, DPRK and Iran. Some scenarios are very dramatic. For example, China strikes the US homeland with cruise missiles to force Washington to withdraw its air defense and missile defense units back to the continental US from the West Pacific; China trying to assassinate top US leaders prior to an invasion of Taiwan. The report calls for the US military to get ready for contingencies by developing weapons and conducting more war games. 

Unlike novelists, a think tank must be very cautious about what it writes. Andrew Marshall, former director of Pentagon's Net Assessment office, warned against mirror imaging assumptions of other nations. I admire Cancian's wild imagination about the uncertain future and rich knowledge of war history, but it is a pity that some of his arguments ignore the difference between strategic thinking of the US and China, and fall into a so-called mirror imaging trap.

First, it is a typical US practice rather than a Chinese one to launch preemptive strikes. The report states that China has built up long-range precision weaponry to gain "distinct first mover advantages." China is likely to use it for surprise attacks because "the strikes against an unprepared opponent will have greater effect than against a prepared opponent." 

The US has had preemption as a policy option for decades. The 2017 National Security Strategy requires development of missile defense capability to destroy enemy ICBM's before launch. Washington has tried to obfuscate its preemptive efforts by using such ambiguous terms as "left of launch" and "preventive war." 

By contrast, China sticks to the principle of "attacking only after being attacked." Former Chinese leader Mao Zedong said "when two boxers fight, the clever boxer usually gives a little ground at first, while the foolish one rushes in furiously and uses up all his resources at the very start, and in the end he is often beaten by the man who has given ground." PLA holds that the principle helps it gain moral high ground and mobilize the people to fight the aggressor. 

In the foreseeable future, Beijing is unlikely to launch American-style surprise strikes against the US. 

Second, it is typical US practice to derail the leadership of a hostile government. During the 2003 Iraq War, the US military tried to kill Saddam Hussein at the beginning of the war. It is understandable that Cancian, a former officer who had worked for the US marines for over three decades, presumes that China will assassinate the US leadership prior to a war. But China does not believe in decapitating another country's leadership. Since its establishment in the 1920s, the Communist Party of China has opposed assassination of leaders of hostile governments. 

Third, the US, rather than China, tends to use nuclear force to offset adversaries' nuclear and conventional military advantages. The report quotes Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments' nuclear scenario, saying that China with stronger nationalism will multiply its nuclear power. 

The US tends to regard nuclear power as a pillar of its hegemony. It has the world's largest nuclear arsenal. The Trump administration has tried to emphasize the role of nuclear weapons in its national security strategy and expand its use to deter space and cyber threats. In the Chinese perspective, it is unwise to accumulate a lot of nuclear weapons. The only purpose of China's nuclear arsenal is to deter nuclear attacks. 

Mirror imaging makes some important conclusions of the report irrelevant to the real world. If the US military follows the report, it will be frightened to death by its own shadow and fail to prepare for the real threat.

The author is Deputy Director/ Research Professor, Institute of Arms Control and Security Studies, China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn

Robert Reich: American Society Is Fundamentally Broken

We've lost all sense of the common good. Here's how we get it back.

By Robert Reich / RobertReich.org

February 23, 2018, 5:27 AM GMT alternet.org

In 1963 over 70 percent of Americans trusted government to do the right thing all or most of the time; nowadays only 16 percent do. 

There has been a similar decline in trust for corporations. In the late 1970s, 32 percent trusted big business, by 2016, only 18 percent did. 

Trust in banks has dropped from 60 percent to 27 percent. Trust in newspapers, from 51 percent to 20 percent. Public trust has also plummeted for nonprofits, universities, charities, and religious institutions.

Why this distrust? As economic inequality has widened, the moneyed interests have spent more and more of their ever-expanding wealth to alter the rules of the game to their own advantage. 

Too many leaders in business and politics have been willing to do anything to make more money or to gain more power – regardless of the consequences for our society. 

We see this everywhere – in the new tax giveaway to big corporations, in gun manufacturer’s use of the NRA to block gun controls, in the Koch Brother’s push to roll back environmental regulations, in Donald Trump’s profiting off his presidency. 

No wonder much of the public no longer believes that America’s major institutions are working for the many. Increasingly, they have become vessels for the few.

The question is whether we can restore the common good. Can the system be made to work for the good of all? 

Some of you may feel such a quest to be hopeless. The era we are living in offers too many illustrations of greed, narcissism, and hatefulness. But I don’t believe it hopeless.

Almost every day I witness or hear of the compassion of ordinary Americans – like the thousands who helped people displaced by the wildfires in California and floods in Louisiana; like the two men in Seattle who gave their lives trying to protect a young Muslim woman from a hate-filled assault; like the coach who lost his life in Parkland, Florida, trying to shield students from a gunman; like the teenagers who are demanding that Florida legislators take action on guns.  

The challenge is to turn all this into a new public spiritedness extending to the highest reaches in the land – a public morality that strengthens our democracy, makes our economy work for everyone, and revives trust in the major institutions of America. 

We have never been a perfect union; our finest moments have been when we sought to become more perfect than we had been. We can help restore the common good by striving for it and showing others it’s worth the effort. 

I started my career a half-century ago in the Senate office of Robert F. Kennedy,  when the common good was well understood, and I’ve watched it unravel over the last half-century. 

Resurrecting it may take another half century, or more. But as the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr once said, “Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope.“

Let’s Acknowledge US Interference in Foreign Elections

by Brian Saady Posted onFebruary 23, 2018

https://original.antiwar.com/Brian_Saady/2018/02/22/lets-acknowledge-us-interference-foreign-elections/

Last week, the Mueller investigative team indicted 13 Russian nationals for charges related to interference in the 2016 election. One of the individuals is a Russian billionaire, Yevgeny Prigozhin, who is allegedly the financier of the "troll farm." This company that is solely dedicated to sowing political discord via fake news and false online identities is known as Internet Research Agency.

Meduza, a Latvia-based news organization that is critical of the Russian government, reported last October that Internet Research Agency has roughly 250 employees, with 90 focused on U.S. politics. In fact, the company hired 100 American activists, who were unaware of the origin of the funding, to lead rallies throughout the US

Americans certainly have a right to be upset about the organized dissemination of disinformation from a foreign nation. However, we also need to acknowledge the actions of our own government to fully understand this subject.

The Guardian reported in 2011 about the Pentagon’s psychological warfare program involving "sock puppets." In other words, our military also hires private contractors to use fake Internet identities to spin online debate toward pro-American talking-points on non-English language or U.S.-based websites.

This is all part of a much larger battle of information warfare conducted by both countries. For instance, the US government spent $748 million last year on foreign broadcasting with programs, such as Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Conversely, Russia spent slightly less than $400 million last year to fund Russia Today and Sputnik News.

As for the much more nefarious issue of election meddling, the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations released a report last month concluding that Russia interfered in the elections of at least 19 nations over the last two decades.

On the other hand, US officials are active in the same capacity. Last week during an interview on Fox News, former CIA Director, James Woolsey, acknowledged the historical fact that the US has interfered in other countries’ elections.

Albeit, Woolsey countered that US interference was for the benefit of those countries to prevent communists from taking over. However, the non-answer by Woolsey when he was questioned if the US still interferes in elections is priceless.

The US has been involved with fixing elections and overthrowing democratically elected leaders long before the CIA came into existence. The Platt Amendment offers arguably the most symbolic example of this global hegemony.

The Platt Amendment of 1901 served as a treaty of sorts between the US and Cuba after the Spanish-American War. But, for all intents and purposes, it legitimized US dominance over the country’s governance. In fact, there was a provision granting the US permission "to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence."

It didn’t take long for those words to come to fruition. Five years later, then Secretary of War, William H. Taft, was instituted as the Provisional Governor of Cuba during the Second Occupation of Cuba. However, former US Marine General Smedley Butler (author of War is a Racket) probably summed up best whose interests we were protecting. "I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in," he said.

Nearly a century after the Monroe Doctrine was declared, Taft openly held the same ideals. In 1912, President Taft declared, "The whole hemisphere will be ours in fact as, by virtue of our superiority of race, it already is ours morally."

Obviously, the US empire machine went into overdrive with the advancement of communism. To be specific, the antiwar author and historian, William Blum, once listed 55 instances after WWII in which the US government assisted an overthrow or attempted overthrow of a foreign country.

The blueprint for these coups came about with the 1953 coup that removed the democratically-elected leader of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh. Unlike the generalization offered by former CIA Director Woolsey, this coup didn’t protect the Iranians from communism. However, that pretense helped launch the coup as Mossadegh wanted to nationalize the country’s oil supply that had been monopolized by the Anglo-Iranian Company, present-day British Petroleum (BP). This coup brought about the brutal regime of the Shah over the next 26 years.

Another coup took place one year later, 1954. The democratically-elected President of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz, was removed and another military dictatorship was installed. Once again, the motivations for the coup were clearly influenced by protecting US corporate interests, in particular, United Fruit Company.

The role of information warfare and propaganda reigned supreme in this coup. As noted in the book American Spy by E. Howard Hunt, former CIA officer and Watergate burglar, the CIA successfully pressured The New York Times to remove a reporter from his Guatemalan assignment because he was viewed as sympathetic to Arbenz.

However, it was the disinformation provided by "La Voz de la Liberacion," a CIA radio station, which helped secure the coup. The recordings of this anti-government propaganda were presented as opinions from disgruntled Guatemalans, but, in reality, they were actually recorded by CIA agents in Miami.

Anyhow, in the current era, the US has certainly remained active in undermining the democratic process of other countries. One of the vehicles for anti-democratic actions has a rather Orwellian name, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

NED is a private, nonprofit organization that receives extensive funding from the US government and, in turn, the organization provides funding to various activist NGOs worldwide. However, the late Robert Parry discovered that NED was the brainchild of former CIA Director, William Casey.

In fact, the President of NED, Carl Gershman, has often coordinated with top US officials to decide which NGOs should receive funding. Not surprisingly, the grant list of NED is filled with many of the same organizations that the CIA had funded in secrecy.

"A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA," said Allen Weinstein, a co-founder of NED. Now, with NED in place, this private organization essentially functions as a cutout that negates criticisms of covert activity by the CIA. Hence, William Blum has analogized NED as a money laundering hub for the CIA.

The problem is that many of the organizations funded by NED are seemingly acting on behalf of US interests, rather than a non-partisan quest for promoting democracy. For instance, the George H.W. Bush administration openly called for interfering in the Nicaraguan Presidential election of 1990.

Congress ultimately blocked this proposal by the Bush White House to provide Daniel Ortega’s opponent, Violeta Chamorro, with $3 million of campaign financing through NED. However, NED used the same money to fund Chamorro indirectly through organizations linked with her campaign.

That’s one of several elections in which NED has sided with a particular candidate. In even worse scenarios, NED has funded groups that participated in military coups. In particular, this organization indirectly helped finance the Venezuelan and Ukrainian coups of 2002 and 2014, respectively. Consequently, for that reason, among others, NED was banned in Russia as an "undesirable" international NGO.

All in all, most Americans are unaware of these aggressions by the US government against foreign nations. Hence, there will be no introspective period by the American Congress. In turn, you can rest assured that our leaders will only consider ways to best protect the electorate from the psychological warfare of foreign governments, even though the techniques were crafted by our government.  

To sum up, until our government ceases this aggression toward other nations, we don’t deserve to speak from the moral high ground on this issue.

Brian Saady is a freelance writer and author of four books. That includes his three-book series, Rackets, which is primarily about the legalization of drugs and gambling, and the decriminalization of prostitution. The series also details many issues, such as corruption and foreign policy. Visit his website. You can follow him on Twitter @briansaady.

Coneval: alta inflación creó más pobres; da señal preventiva

Entre el cuarto trimestre de 2016 y el de 2017, un millón 821 mil 14 personas se sumaron a la población que no puede comprar la canasta básica con su salario

14/02/2018 06:30  PAULO CANTILLO

http://www.excelsior.com.mx/nacional/2018/02/14/1220217

CIUDAD DE MÉXICO.

La alta inflación de 2017, de 6.77%, revirtió los avances de combate a la pobreza que se observaron durante 2016.

El Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social (Coneval) reveló que en el cuarto trimestre del año pasado, 41% de la población (50 millones 880 mil personas) no pudo adquirir la canasta alimentaria con su ingreso laboral, lo que se conoce como pobreza salarial.

Esto implicó un aumento de un punto porcentual, que son un millón 821 mil 14 personas, respecto al cierre de 2016.

La explicación de este aumento radica en un incremento del valor de la canasta alimentaria de 9.0% anual en zonas urbanas y 8.7% en zonas rurales”, indicó.

El Coneval destacó que la pobreza salarial no es la medición oficial de la pobreza al no incluir todas las dimensiones y conceptos que señala la Ley General de Desarrollo Social, aunque “sirve como señal preventiva de corto plazo sobre el ingreso laboral y su relación con la canasta alimentaria”.

INGRESO LABORAL

El Coneval también reportó que el ingreso laboral por persona se ubicó en dos mil 230 pesos mensuales en el cuarto trimestre de 2017, lo que significó una reducción de 2.5% respecto al cierre de 2016, cuando se descuenta por la inflación general.

Pero cuando se descuenta por el precio de la canasta alimentaria, la reducción fue de 4.6% en el mismo periodo.

El aumento registrado de precios el año pasado revirtió los aumentos del ingreso real durante 2016, que habían sido resultado de una baja inflación”.

Así, el ingreso laboral se posicionó en términos reales en un nivel similar al observado al cierre de 2014.

Coneval explica que el ingreso laboral por persona se define como la suma de todos los ingresos derivados del trabajo de los miembros de un hogar, dividido entre el total de miembros ese hogar.

War Preparations on Venezuela as Election Nears

by KEVIN ZEESE - MARGARET FLOWERS

FEBRUARY 21, 2018

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/02/21/war-preparations-on-venezuela-as-election-nears/

Since we published “Regime Change Fails: Is a Military Coup or Invasion Next,” we received more information showing steps toward preparing for a potential military attack on Venezuela. Stopping this war needs to become a top priority for the peace movement.

Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) published a newsletter that reported “troubling news of an impending military assault on the sovereign nation of Venezuela by states and forces allied with the United States.” Ajamu Baraka, the director, said the US is concerned that President Maduro will win the April 22 election, which would mean six more years in office. BAP urges people to include “No War On Venezuela” in actions being planned from February 16-23 for the 115th anniversary of the United States occupying Guantanamo.

Is the Path to War Through Border Disputes?

One way to start a war would be a cross-border dispute between Venezuela and Colombia, Brazil or Guyana. On February 12, the Maritime Herald reported that Admiral Kurt Tidd, head of the US Southern Command, arrived in Colombia just two days after the US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson met with President Juan Manuel Santos as part of Tillerson’s unprecedented regime change tour. Tidd met with Colombian Defense Minister Luis Carlos Villegas and other senior officials to coordinate efforts around “regional stability” with a focus on Venezuela.

The Maritime Herald also reports US troops coming to Colombian military bases, paramilitaries coming to Colombian towns along the Venezuelan border, plans for “a joint naval force between the United States, Colombia and Mexico,” and arrival of a contingent of 415 members of the United States Air Force to Panama to create support and logistics points for the operation against Venezuela. Also important are two fast-acting US military bases installed in the communities of Vichada and Leticia, Colombia, bordering Venezuela.

Both Colombia and Brazil have deployed more troops to their borders with Venezuela. Colombian President Santos ordered “the deployment of 3000 additional security personnel to the Venezuelan border. This figure included 2,120 more soldiers.” The decision came the day before officials from the US Southern Command met in Colombia to “discuss security cooperation.” Brazil also announced plans to “double its border patrols on the Venezuelan frontier.” The excuse for these increased deployments was due to Venezuelan migrants crossing the border into Colombia and Brazil.

To calm these concerns, President Maduro called for a meeting between Venezuelan authorities and Colombia over security concerns along their border. The Colombian government estimates that 450,000 Venezuelan migrants have entered the country in the last 18 months.  Maduro said that official numbers did not equate to a “massive exodus” and reminded Colombia that during the Colombian civil war with the FARC, 5.6 million Colombians crossed the border to make Venezuela their home.

The corporate intelligence firm, Stratfor, which works closely with the US government, recently published a report that could be laying the groundwork for a border dispute. Stratfor wrote that Brazilian intelligence officials are goinging to meet with Guyana’s officials to warn them that Venezuela is planning to attack Guyana. There is a long-term dispute over land between Venezuela and Guyana that is being litigated before the International Court of Justice. The report includes a questionable claim that there is an “ongoing dialogue with the Trump administration over the terms of President Nicolas Maduro and his party’s departure from power.” The reality is that President Maduro is preparing for the April election.

In response to these actions, President Maduro announced the Venezuelan armed forces will carry out military exercises on February 24 and 25 in “defense” of the nation to fine-tune the movement of “tanks, missiles, and helicopters as part of the nation’s defense strategy.”

Upcoming Elections in Venezuela

The opposition in Venezuela has been seeking presidential elections since 2016 when they presented a petition for the recall of President Maduro. They claimed to collect enough signatures, but there were allegations of voter fraud, including thousands of dead people’s names listed on the petitions.

Violent protests followed the rejection of the petition and Henrique Capriles set a deadline for an election in November 2016, threatening larger protests. On November 1, opposition leader Henry Ramos, the head of the national assembly, announced the cancellation of the protests.  The opposition still pressed for an election. The government announced a special election to be held in February or March of 2018.

Now,  Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza announced, “We have a date for the presidential election, which is the date proposed by the opposition, April 22. Furthermore, we have the electoral guarantees proposed by the opposition, so we are going to the elections and the Venezuelan people will decide their future with democracy and votes.” Officials of the Dominican Republic observers guaranteeing the legitimacy of the elections. Venezuela will invite the United Nations and others to also serve as observers. Despite this, the United States and members of the right-wing Lima Group of US allies, say they will not recognize the elections.

Does the Trump Administration Want War to “Unify the Country”

President Trump’s divisive presidency has left him unpopular in the polls. Hours before his State of the Union speech, Trump told television news anchors, “I would love to be able to bring back our country into a great form of unity. Without a major event where people pull together, that’s hard to do. But I would like to do it without that major event because usually that major event is not a good thing.”

We hope President Trump is not looking at the increase in public support that President George W. Bush received after he attacked Iraq as a model for his administration. Instead, he should remember President Lyndon Johnson being driven from office after his landslide election because of the Vietnam war.

The Trump administration has failed in its attempts to instigate war with North Korea and Iran. The terrible diplomatic performance of Vice President Pence at the Olympic games, where the two Koreas began to make progress toward peace and unification, puts the US in a weaker position to threaten North Korea. President Kim invited President Moon to North Korea to continue peace talks. Now there is rising hope for an agreement between the two Koreas.

Similarly, the protests in Iran, which the US may have encouraged, fizzled. When the US brought the protests to the UN Security Council and used them to call for action against Iran, the US was isolated. Countries asked whether the UN should have taken action against the US after the protests in Ferguson over the police killing of Michael Brown. The protests also exposed massive US spending to create opposition to the government in Iran, as well as coordination with Israel.

Stopping the US Attack on Venezuela

In our last article, we indicated the reasons for the threat of a military coup and military attack were because Venezuela has the world’s largest proven oil reserves and because Venezuela has set an example of breaking from US dominance of the region and challenging capitalism.

In addition, economic sanctions have pushed Venezuela to have closer relations with Russia and China to circumvent US sanctions.  The US does not want these global rivals in what it has considered its backyard since the Monroe Doctrine.

Finally, the US is concerned with Venezuela’s new cryptocurrency, which will launch within days and be backed by 5.3 billion barrels of oil worth $267 billion. The cryptocurrency is a bid to offset Venezuela’s deep financial crisis. This threatens US economic domination.

We must expose the reasons for increasing US aggression towards Venezuela and work to counter misinformation in the media that is attempting to build support for a military conflict with Venezuela. Here are actions you can take:

1. Use this tool to contact your Members of Congress. Urge them to use diplomacy with Venezuela and to stop the sanctions, which are a deadly form of economic warfare. CLICK HERE TO TAKE ACTION.

2. Share this newsletter widely in your community and through social media.

3. Join the actions on February 23 with messages of “US out of Guantanamo” and “No war with Venezuela.”

Let’s stop this next war before it begins!

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance. This article first appeared as the weekly newsletter of the organization.@MFlowers8.