Iconos

Iconos
Zapata

martes, 31 de julio de 2018

New Jewish-state law makes Israel an ‘apartheid’ regime, says country’s leading newspaper
Philip Weiss on July 30, 2018

Haaretz is Israel’s leading newspaper, published by the Schocken family and maintaining a global reputation. Today it has an editorial titled “The apartheid prime minister” that states bluntly that thanks to the new “nation state of the Jewish people” law that Netanyahu spearheaded, Israel under Netanyahu is an apartheid regime.
The vote on the law has updated the political fault line in Israel: the discrimination camp vs. the equality camp; the supporters of apartheid against the supporters of democracy. It is true that Israel’s Arab citizens have been discriminated against since the state’s establishment by the governments on both the left and right. But liberal basic laws and High Court of Justice rulings during the past generation advanced the drive toward equality and integrating the minority, which Netanyahu is now seeking to destroy.
The opposition, now headed by Tzipi Livni, must unite, as it did in the vote on the nation-state law, and present the public with a strong, simple message: equality. There is no more appropriate foundation for Israel’s future as a prosperous democratic society. Netanyahu must not be allowed to rip the Declaration of Independence to shreds and turn Israel into a whitewashed version of the occupation regime in the territories.
This is important because while many American voices have said Israel is built on an apartheid system, an understanding spurred on by the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights and the Institute for Middle East Understanding, the mainstream media here have denied this fact. Haaretz deserves international support for its position, but sadly it won’t get it from the lapdog US press. Let alone from liberal Zionist organizations that are struggling to keep Israel from becoming politicized in the U.S.
Wolf Blitzer and Terry Gross pummeled Jimmy Carter for using the A-word 12 years ago in his book, and the MSM’s denial of reality continues today despite the passage of this basic law declaring that in the “Land of Israel” — historic Palestine — Jews have the “exclusive” right of “national self-determination,” that the state will foster “Jewish settlement” of the land, that Arabic has a lesser status, etc.
The law is turning into a wrecking ball, generating anguish for Alan Dershowitz and the Anti-Defamation League and J Street. All have said the law was a mistake, and Dershowitz says it will make it harder for him to defend Israel.
The rightwing Zionist Carolyn Glick echoes Dersh in the Jerusalem Post, saying Israel was already the Jewish state, and so the law is empowering anti-Zionists.
Israel’s Jewish identity is under assault from post-Zionists and anti-Zionists in Israel and abroad. The problem is that far from protecting Israel’s Jewish character, the Nation-State Law serves as a red flag for Israel’s detractors, inviting them to attack it.
Glick reports that there is wide hemorrhaging in the American institutional establishment over the law. The Jewish Federations, the leading Jewish institutions in U.S. cities, “hate it,” she says.
The Jewish Federations of North America lobbied strongly against the bill. In an email to members, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the JFNA Richard Sandler said the Jewish Federations, “were disappointed with the law that ultimately passed.”
The Federation’s Israel office sent out a detailed explanation of the law to members. While the language was careful, it strongly intimated that the law is racist for making Israel’s Jewish character explicit.
The Philadelphia Federation’s letter to its members alleged that the law’s provisions “are a dangerous check on Israel’s democratic principles.”
Like the self-proclaimed Zionist Union’s condemnation of the law as racist, the American-Jewish response marks a stark departure from past responses of the Jewish Federations and other Jewish groups to Israeli laws and policies. For Israel’s first 60 years, the Federations, like the other major Jewish groups weren’t quick to air their disagreements with Israel’s elected officials. Their gut response was to support Israel and let others attack it.
Now the longstanding instinct has been turned on its head. Underlying the Federation’s reactions to the law is a profound discomfort with the fact that Israel is the Jewish state and intends to remain the Jewish state. This pronounced discomfort speaks to a profound shift in Federation values from Zionism to post-Zionism.
PS Here is Gideon Levy of Haaretz on apartheid in Israel.
The nation-state law marked out the path Israel is treading, defining in words, in law, what was known already: Israel is an apartheid state, from now on not just in the occupied territories, but in the entire country between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
And here’s why Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street is sure not to echo Haaretz:
“It is absolutely not in the state of Israel’s interest for Israel itself to become a partisan political football,” Ben-Ami said.

Thanks to Ofer Neiman.

lunes, 30 de julio de 2018

Secretary Mattis, here’s a roadmap to peace in the Middle East
BY SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY.), OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 07/27/18
If you had five minutes to speak before the secretary of Defense, what would you say?
At this point, I’m sure, if Gen. James Mattis is reading this, he is probably muttering to himself: “Here we go again.”
You see, every time I run into the secretary of Defense, I try my best to make the point that we’ve been at war too long in too many places.
Gen. Mattis, as well as the head of NATOthe head of the UN, and virtually every voice of reason in the foreign policy world acknowledges that there is no military solution to the unending Afghan War.
For that matter, most agree that there is no military solution to the Syrian civil war or the Yemeni civil war. And yet . . . the same voices that admit there is no military solution to keep sending more troops.
The Vietnam War strategy of taking one more village to get a better diplomatic deal still rules among many decision-makers.
I, for one, will keep pushing for a declaration of victory and a grand celebration as our troops come home.
For diplomacy to ever work in the Middle East, though, we need to discover what ideas prevent us from finding peace.
First —Islam must police Islam and eliminate terrorists. Only Islam can ultimately eradicate radicals who promote violence against civilians.
Every time a terrorist is killed by an American, 10 more terrorists are inspired. Islam must police Islam. Only when the people who live in the Middle East rise up and say “no more” will the violence be controlled.
Second —there is no military solution to the wars in Syria and Afghanistan. Nor is there a military solution to our conflict with Iran.
Peace in the Middle East will have to involve diplomacy.
Peace in Syria will have to involve talks at the very least between Russia and the U.S. This is why the multitude in Congress who criticized President Trump’s meeting with President Putin is an obstacle to peace in Syria. In all likelihood, peace is also dependent on considering the desires and concerns of the Turks, the Israelis, Bashar al-Assad, the Kurds and the Iraqis. Also, any Peace Plan will have to acknowledge the status quo on the ground.
A diplomatic peace with Iran is also possible but will have to acknowledge that the Iran Nuclear Agreement, while not perfect, was indeed a step forward - that it will be infinitely harder to negotiate a bilateral agreement with Iran on nuclear AND ballistic missiles.
To find a diplomatic peace with Iran, negotiators will have to acknowledge upfront that Iran will never negotiate away her ballistic missiles unless the agreement is multilateral and includes equal concessions from Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Sheikdoms, and Israel. Asking Iran to unilaterally disarm is a non-starter.
Any diplomatic peace in Afghanistan is possible but must acknowledge the status quo on the ground, the historic Afghan aversion to centralized power in Kabul, and the futility of continuing to spend $50 billion a year in Afghanistan, and it will only occur when the U.S. directly negotiates with the Taliban.
So there, in five minutes I believe I’ve called for ending three wars and given the roadmap to peace in the Middle East.
We all know peace in the Middle East is likely not that easy, but I think many of us also know that continuing to try the same policies year after year and expecting a different outcome is foolish.
My hope is that this administration, that has shown signs of a willingness to challenge conventional thinking, will have the courage to accept a peace that could happen when the United States relinquishes the idea that we must be the world’s policeman.

Paul is the junior senator from Kentucky.

domingo, 29 de julio de 2018

¿Dónde quedó el oro del Banco de México?

Hoy le actualizo una información exclusiva de este espacio, referente a la ubicación de las reservas de oro del Banco de México. Con base en la Ley de Transparencia (No. de respuesta: 6110000014118), le consultamos al banco central –como en años anteriores– dónde se encuentran las más de 120 toneladas de oro que le pertenecen, y que constituyen una pequeña parte de las reservas internacionales del país. 
Esto lo hicimos con la intención de ver si hay alguna novedad, pues la última vez, al menos, descubrimos que Banxico sí asignó la mayor parte de sus barras, porque antes, ni siquiera eso tenía.
Pues bien, al momento le informo que en lo que respecta a su localización, las cosas siguen sin cambios. 
Al corte de marzo pasado, de las 3.86 millones de onzas de oro propiedad de Banxico, el 99.37% se encuentra resguardado en bóvedas del Banco de Inglaterra, en Londres; el resto, el 0.63%, 24,502.82 onzas para ser precisos, están en México, y sólo 15 onzas están en la Reserva Federal de Nueva York. 
De las que se encuentran en territorio nacional, 12,520.02 oz. están en forma de moneda y 11,982.80 oz. en lingotes.
Banxico nos ha confirmado que sigue teniendo los mismos 7,265 lingotes asignados –de 400 onzas troy aproximadamente cada uno–, lo que significa que tiene propiedad específica sobre 3/4 partes de sus más de 120 toneladas de oro, mientras el resto –una  cuarta parte– continúa sin que el Banco de Inglaterra le asigne barras únicas. 
De acuerdo con el instituto central, "el pago correspondiente al 2017 por servicios de custodia en el extranjero fue de £115,322.64 libras esterlinas".
¿Por qué es importante saber toda esta información? 
Porque las reservas de oro son un escudo financiero contra una posible crisis monetaria, y cuando se tienen de manera física, en propia mano o bóveda, no tiene riesgo de contraparte, o sea, no hay peligro de que nos incumplan con la entrega del mismo. 
Pero en cambio sí existe ese riesgo mientras el resguardo se mantenga casi por completo en el extranjero, como en el caso de Banxico. 
De lo que se trata es de aumentar la confianza en la fortaleza de la economía y moneda nacionales, por lo que lo recomendable sería, primero que nada, que Banxico solicitara la asignación de la cuarta parte del oro que le falta, y luego, en esa misma forma física, comprar mucho más oro, aprovechando que su precio está 32% por debajo de su máximo histórico alcanzado en 2011. 
Y es que al día de hoy, los lingotes de Banxico equivalen a menos del 3% del total de nuestras reservas internacionales, de más de 173,000 millones de dólares. 
Una protección ideal sería de al menos el 10% de ese total en oro, y que mínimo, la mitad de los lingotes se repatriara a las bóvedas de Banxico. En números redondos, eso implicaría comprar unas 9.4 millones de onzas más, y traer al país unas 6.6 millones de oz.
Esperemos que el actual gobernador del banco central, Alejandro Díaz de León, sea más abierto y tome una decisión que nunca quiso tomar su antecesor, Agustín Carstens.
México se sumaría así a Alemania, Turquía, Hungría, Países Bajos, entre otros, que han llevado todo o parte de su oro a territorio propio, pues ahí es donde debe estar.

sábado, 28 de julio de 2018

Donald Trump could be ready to order a strike against Iran, Australian Government figures say
Exclusive by political editor Andrew Probyn and defense reporter Andrew Greene
Senior figures in the Turnbull Government have told the ABC they believe the United States is prepared to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, perhaps as early as next month, and that Australia is poised to help identify possible targets.
It comes amid intense saber-rattling by US President Donald Trump and his Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani.
The ABC has been told Australian defense facilities would likely play a role in identifying targets in Iran, as would British intelligence agencies.
But a senior security source emphasized there was a big difference between providing accurate intelligence and analysis on Iran's facilities and being part of a "kinetic" mission.
"Developing a picture is very different to actually participating in a strike," the source said.
"Providing intelligence and understanding as to what is happening on the ground so that the Government and allied governments are fully informed to make decisions is different to active targeting."
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said this morning he had no reason to believe the US was preparing for a military confrontation.
"President Trump has made his views very clear to the whole world, but this story … has not benefited from any consultation with me, the Foreign Minister, the Defence Minister or the Chief of the Defence Force," he said.
The top-secret Pine Gap joint defense facility in the Northern Territory is considered crucial among the so-called "Five Eyes" intelligence partners — the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand — for its role in directing American spy satellites.
Analysts from the little-known spy agency Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation would also be expected to play a part.
Canada would be unlikely to play a role in any military action in Iran, nor would the smallest Five Eyes security partner New Zealand, sources said.
Iran is a signatory to international agreements such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty and is not known to currently possess any weapons of mass destruction, but Mr. Rouhani has recently boasted his nation's nuclear industry is advancing at a fast pace.
Last month Iran's nuclear chief opened a new nuclear enrichment facility that he said would comply with the nuclear deal Tehran signed with world powers in 2015.

Any US-led strike on Iranian targets would be fraught for a region bristling with tensions. Israel would have reason to be anxious about retaliation, given Iran rejects Israel's right to exist.

That said, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in April invoked the so-called "Begin Doctrine" that calls on the Jewish state to ensure nations hostile to Israel be prevented from developing a nuclear weapons capability.
"Israel will not allow regimes that seek our annihilation to acquire nuclear weapons," Mr. Netanyahu said.
An Australian Government source said when it came to Iran, Australia relied on intelligence sourced from its Five Eyes partners, not Israel.
Government split on whether Trump's tweets are real threats
While some in the Turnbull Government firmly believe Mr. Trump is prepared to use military force against Iran, others maintain it might be more bluster, given the consequence of conflict with Tehran might include unpredictable, dangerous responses in the Middle East.
Earlier this week, Mr. Trump fired off an all-caps tweet directed at the Iranian President, seemingly warning of war.

He was responding to Mr. Rouhani, who was quoted telling Iranian diplomats: "America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace and war with Iran is the mother of all wars.
"Do not play with the lion's tail or else you will regret it," he said.
Mr. Trump has since adjusted his rhetoric, suggesting Washington is ready to go back to the negotiating table with Tehran for a new nuclear deal.
"I withdrew the United States from the horrible one-sided Iran nuclear deal, and Iran is not the same country anymore," he told a convention in Kansas City.
"We're ready to make a deal."
Grappling with whether Mr. Trump's Twitter missives should be believed has become a global quest — and not just his tweets about Iran or North Korea.
In response to the US President's all-caps tweet on Monday, a high-ranking Iranian army official told the ISNA news agency, a Tehran Government mouthpiece, that Mr. Trump's threats were merely "psychological warfare".
General Gholam Hossein Gheibparvar, the chief of the paramilitary Revolutionary Guard's volunteer Basij force, said Mr. Trump "won't dare" take military action against Iran.
It was an assessment echoed by Iranian MP Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, who told Associated Press he doubted the escalating rhetoric would lead to a military confrontation.
Australia is urging Iran to be a force for peace: Bishop
Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has emphasized diplomatic efforts to bring Iran to heel.
"Australia is urging Iran to be a force for peace and stability in the region," she told ABC's AM program on Thursday.
"The relationship between the United States and Iran is a matter for them.
"What we are looking to do is to ensure that all parties embrace peaceful and stable principles to ensure that our region is safe."D
Defense Industry Minister Christopher Pyne, when asked whether Mr. Trump's threats against Iran should be believed, said: "Certainly President Trump has indicated that he's a person who's prepared to act in a way that previous presidents haven't.
US Secretary of Defence James Mattis reinforced America's hard line on Iran while speaking alongside Ms. Bishop, Defence Minister Marise Payne and US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo at the AUSMIN meeting in San Francisco mid-week.
Mr. Mattis said Iran had been a destabilizing influence throughout the region.
"The only reason that the murderer Assad is still in power [in Syria] — the primary reason — is because Iran has stuck by him, reinforced him, funded him," he said.
"We see the same kind of malfeasance down in Yemen, where they're fomenting more violence down there. We've seen their disruptive capabilities demonstrated from Bahrain to the kingdom.
"It cannot continue to show irresponsibility as some revolutionary organization that is intent on exporting terrorism, exporting disruption across the region. So I think the President was making very clear that they're on the wrong track."
The ABC understands AUSMIN discussed Iran, largely in the context of increasing sanctions on Tehran.
"We're concerned about its ballistic missile program and we talked about ways of constructively engaging with Iran to prevent the development of that program," Ms. Bishop told AM.
"But more specifically, we talked about urging Iran to not support proxy groups, whether it's in Syria, Yemen or elsewhere."
Mr. Trump withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal in May and now seeks complete, verifiable and total denuclearisation, rather than the roll-back and temporary freeze of Iran's nuclear program.

The US plans on reinstating sanctions lifted by the Iran deal by November 4. This includes trade and investment by US firms with Iran and sanctions on Iranian oil exports.

viernes, 27 de julio de 2018

Iran Hawks Think It’s 1989, Not 2003
A key to understanding the current moment.
July 24, 2018 

As President Donald Trump launched his latest broadside against the Islamic Republic of Iran on Sunday night, three theories surfaced. First, the president wished to shift the public conversation away from his fraught summit in Helsinki and the broader Russia narrative. Second, Trump was making President Rouhani the latest target of his good cop, bad cop routine: attacking an autocrat to get superior, future negotiating leverage. And third, there is a significant donor and Congressional pressure on the Republican president to keep the heat up on Tehran. With a few clicks on his cell phone, Trump got three birds for one stone. For now.
Some restrainers and skeptics of U.S. foreign policy and the administration reacted to the latest development—a level of prominence for Iran in the news cycle not seen since May when Trump nullified the JCPOA—as a sign of war.
Matt Duss, Bernie Sanders’ foreign policy point man, notes the crucial difference between Washington attitudes toward Tehran and Pyongyang: “Predictions that Trump will eventually end up talking to Iran as he has with N Korea miss the fact that there's an entire industry in DC, backed by major GOP donors and regional clients, invested in conflict with Iran. Nothing similar with NK.” Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune predicts “an October surprise.”And Jacob Heilbrunn, editor of the National Interest suggests Trump is going fully neoconservative.
But such concerns might mistake, or misunderstand, the mindset of those most earnestly clamoring for regime change in Tehran if one is to take what they say at face value.
And for restrainers and skeptics of their approach, the reality could seem more demented than a simple plot for U.S. military action against the Islamic Republic.
In my interviews and interactions with the Iran hawks—the various think tanks, nonprofits, and White House staffers committed to eventual regime change—a common thread is the belief that Tehran will fall on its own. No active plans for war, as yet, are being hatched. A former senior U.S. military official friendly with the Israeli military leadership says no war is in the offing. Veteran defense analyst Mark Perry says Secretary of Defense James Mattis, himself historically an Iran hawk, would make stopping a U.S. invasion of Iran his last stand. Instead, for many of individuals committed to Iranian regime change, raised on Reagan, the reference point right now is 1989 and the fall of the Soviet Union, not 2003 and the fiasco in Iraq.
“The goal is very well defined,” Ali Safavi of the National Council for the Resistance of Iran (NCRI) told me at his offices in Washington in June. “What is that we’re looking for, what is that we’re looking to establish. And it has been very clear since day one, since ‘81, when the parliament in exile was formed.” In Iran, “the people feel the real problem, which is the regime itself,” said Safavi. The council is associated, some would say synonymous, with the Islamic Marxist People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), a far more controversial outfit. On the wall in the offices in Washington, pictured are some of the groups’ past U.S. patrons, namely major figures in Trumpworld: National Security Advisor John Bolton, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, and Trump lawyer Rudolph Giuliani. The outfits have been buoyed by Trump’s approach.
NCRI representatives told me that, for them, the problems with U.S. rapprochement began under George W. Bush, not Barack Obama. For Safavi, Washington’s failure on Iran began even in the first Bush term, with the invasion of Iraq. NCRI says Tehran, unofficially, wanted the U.S. to defrock Saddam, their bitter rival. They point out that Ahmed Chalabi, the charlatan would-be “George Washington of Iraq” kept his offices in Tehran before the war. That they are associating with Bolton, who still defends 2003, as well as Gingrich and Giuliani, two prominent Bush supporters, was not explained.
But NCRI says it does not need nor want military support: instead, with Washington backing, the grassroots protests in Iran, ongoing at present in a way not seen since 2009, the regime will fall naturally. For those concerned about the collapse or failure of another government in the Middle East—Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria, and Afghanistan do not provide heartening examples in the last two decades—NCRI draws a distinction between Arab and Persian culture. The group points out that the two major transitions in government in Iran—1953 and 1979—were disruptive, but relatively speaking, not terribly violent. Americans need not worry.
“Don’t fear regime change in Iran,” Reuel Marc Gerecht of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations wrote in the Wall Street Journal last month. “The U.S. can draw on Persian history and on experience with the Soviet Union,” Gerecht and Takeyh say. “The Islamic Republic . . . is probably internally weaker than the Soviet Union was in the 1970s.” Gerecht’s FDD has functioned as the de facto Trump think tank on Iran for much of the administration, as I’ve previously argued.
The coalition seeking immediate change in Iran shrinks from the label “neoconservative.” “Critics use it as a pejorative. . . . Hawkish is OK,” FDD’s Joe Dougherty told me last year. And indeed, it may be misleading. Bolton is not a neocon: though he still defends flattening Saddam’s regime, he has long said, even while Bush was still in office, that U.S. support for democratization efforts there were misguided. Bolton would have just as easily taken a U.S.-friendly strongman. And this coalition also features figures like Steve Bannon, who has sometimes been called “Trump’s dove.” “Expansionist Persia,” along with Turkey, “the most dangerous country in the world” and China are the big fish to fry, forming an iron triangle in Eurasia that the United States should be concerned about.
But the big question remains: what if relatively peaceful regime change fails? What if the protests go on for years, to no avail? Or worse, what if, in order to survive, the regime turns its formidable Revolutionary Guards and Quds Force, as well as the countless militias across the Middle East whose loyalties it commands, on the Iranian people? Walter Russell Mead, who has been cited as Bannon’s favorite columnist, envisions the scenario if Iran responds to its increasing isolation and economic feebleness by restarting its nuclear programs and accepting the mantle of a pariah state. “If they respond by restarting their nuclear program, Israeli-American strikes could both stop the process and inflict a humiliating blow to the regime’s prestige,” with its people and otherwise, Mead says.
 For this reason, a former senior White House official tells me, despite assurances of possible peaceful transition, war with Iran is “very” possible.
 Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest. Follow him on Twitter: @CurtMills.


miércoles, 25 de julio de 2018

Israeli minister sees Gaza-style measures for U.S.-Mexico border
Reuters Staff


JERUSALEM (Reuters) - The United States could apply some of the security measures used for Israel’s border with the Gaza Strip to its own frontier with Mexico, an Israeli cabinet minister said on Tuesday.
Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan last month hosted his U.S. counterpart, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, among aides to President Donald Trump who have been tasked with making good on his vow to clamp down on illegal immigration.
To that end, Trump says the United States needs a wall along its 3,200-km (2,000 miles) long border with Mexico. But he has been stymied by domestic dissent and uncertainty about funding.
During her visit to Israel, Nielsen inspected the hi-tech fences it has used to seal off the 230-km (143-mile) Egyptian frontier as well as its 60-km (37-mile) boundary with Gaza, a Palestinian enclave controlled by Hamas Islamists.
“She told me there is certainly a lot to learn here, and I reckon that some of this will certainly be implemented in what the United States is setting up on its border with Mexico,” Erdan told Israel’s Ynet TV in an interview near Gaza’s border.
Among Israeli technologies that he said Nielsen had looked at was an underground wall designed to block Hamas attack tunnels and early-warning systems for foiling incursions.
The U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem had no immediate comment.
After her Israeli border tour on June 12, Nielsen said in a Jerusalem speech: “Border security is national security. Our Israeli partners know that better than anyone and I was fortunate today to see the incredible work they’re doing to keep their territory and citizens safe.”
The Gaza-Israel border has seen weekly, sometimes violent Palestinian protests since March 30. The Israeli military has killed more than 140 Palestinians during the protests, saying the lethal force was needed to prevent armed infiltrations. The death toll has drawn foreign censure though not from Washington, which has echoed Israel in saying Hamas was to blame.

Writing by Dan Williams; Editing by Mark Heinrich

martes, 24 de julio de 2018

La carta de AMLO a Trump
Luis Hernández Navarro

A lo largo de la campaña presidencial, diversos enemigos de Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) lo acusaron de ser el Donald Trump mexicano. No era un halago, sino una forma de golpearlo políticamente. Inopinadamente, semanas después, a través de una misiva, el futuro mandatario mexicano admitió que existen importantes semejanzas entre ambos.
En el último párrafo de la carta que envió al presidente de Estados Unidos, AMLO encuentra paralelismos con él y le dice: “Me anima el hecho de que ambos sabemos cumplir lo que decimos y hemos enfrentado la adversidad con éxito. Conseguimos poner a nuestros votantes y ciudadanos al centro para desplazar al establishment o régimen predominante”.
La afirmación sorprende. Trump ha ofendido a México y a los mexicanos. Ha agredido y perseguido a los connacionales que viven en Estados Unidos. Impuso, en plena renegociación del Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte, aranceles a exportaciones mexicanas. En lugar de un cambio de paradigma en las relaciones exteriores, el que el próximo presidente mexicano se homologue con el estadunidense es un desacierto.
¿Cuál es la necesidad de encontrar si­mi­litudes con él? ¿En qué principio de política exterior se sustenta una maniobra como ésa? ¿Qué gana la diplomacia mexicana equiparando a su virtual presidente electo con uno de los políticos más detestados en el mundo? No se trata de que el tabasqueño ataque al neoyorquino o de que le diga cosas que pongan en peligro el futuro de la relación entre ambos países. Nada de eso. Pero sí de mantener una sana distancia. Si en lugar de su firma esas palabras llevaran la de cualquier otro político mexicano se habría producido un verdadero escándalo.
La carta de AMLO a Donald Trump es mucho más que mero saludo al vecino del norte, la manifestación del deseo de sostener relaciones binacionales cordiales o una agenda de los asuntos a tratar en común. Es, también, un inusual informe unilateral de las medidas que su gobierno tomará para frenar la migración hacia Estados Unidos. Habrá muchos cambios, señor presidente Trump, escribe el tabasqueño. ¿Desde cuándo hay que enterar al mandatario estadunidense de lo que será nuestra política interna?
El objetivo explícito de las medidas comunicadas a Trump es que los mexicanos no tengan que migrar por pobreza o violencia, esforzándose en lograr que encuentren trabajo y bienestar en sus lugares de origen. Se busca levantar una serie de cortinas que frenen el desplazamiento de la fuerza de trabajo hacia Estados Unidos.
Entre las acciones que se echarían a caminar se encuentra la siembra de un millón de hectáreas de árboles frutales y maderables en el sureste del país, para crear 400 mil empleos. También, el impulso a un corredor económico en el Istmo de Tehuantepec, para unir el Pacífico con el Atlántico (una especie de Canal de Panamá seco), con una línea de ferrocarril de 300 kilómetros para el transporte de contenedores y el establecimiento de una zona franca.
Adicionalmente, se recorrerán las aduanas mexicanas hacia el sur, 20 o 30 kilómetros, y se disminuirán a la mitad los impuestos cobrados en la zona fronteriza. Asimismo, se establecerá una franja libre en los 3 mil 185 kilómetros de frontera. “Esta será –dice la carta– la última cortina para retener trabajadores dentro de nuestro territorio”.
Aunque cada iniciativa merece un comentario particular, hay una que sobresale: el corredor transístmico. El desarrollo de la región sur-sureste para frenar la migración anunciado por López Obrador no es novedad. Uno tras otro, los últimos presidentes han dado el banderazo de salida a proyectos similares. Vicente Fox auspició (provocando una incesante oleada de resistencia indígena y campesina) el Plan Puebla-Panamá. Enrique Peña Nieto creó en 2016 las zonas económicas especiales (ZEE), como territorios de excepción con incentivos fiscales, beneficios aduaneros y un marco regulatorio ágil. Alfonso Romo acaba de declarar que buscarán extenderlas a todo Chiapas, Oaxaca y Guerrero. Todos estos planes han fracasado. Las entidades donde se promovieron no crecieron económicamente y la población no vive mejor.
En una historia sin fin, al menos desde 1997, los gobiernos en turno han anunciado el inicio del proyecto de transporte intermodal, para conectar Salina Cruz, Oaxaca, con Coatzacoalcos, Veracruz, y establecer un cluster regional de sectores industriales con alto potencial económico. Invariablemente se han topado con un problema irresoluble: el rechazo de las comunidades a su construcción.
La misiva de AMLO explica que, en el corredor transístmico, pobladores y propietarios de tierras serán tomados en cuenta y que estos últimos serán invitados a participar como accionistas de la empresa que se constituya con este propósito. Más allá de las promesas, nada indica que en esta ocasión la ancestral respuesta de campesinos e indígenas vaya a ser distinta a la del pasado.

Twitter: @lhan55