ERRÓNEA ESTRATEGIA DE MÉXICO FRENTE A ESTADOS UNIDOS

Como lo hemos venido analizando en este blog desde hace 3 años, el candidato primero y presidente después, Donald Trump, busca amedrentar a aliados y adversarios por igual, usando toda la gama de instrumentos que tiene la superpotencia, con objeto de ablandar a los gobiernos con los que negocia, aplicándoles sanciones por supuestos “agravios” o “perjuicios” que sus países han ocasionado a los Estados Unidos (desde la óptica estadounidense), para después ofrecer quitar esos castigos, a cambio de concesiones mayores, completamente favorables para Washington.

Hemos señalado hasta el cansancio en este blog que caer en ese juego, es quedar permanentemente atrapado en el chantaje; pues una vez que funciona, el chantajista lo utilizará todo el tiempo.

Rusia, China, Irán, Venezuela, Cuba, Turquía, entre otros, no han caído en esa estrategia de “bullying” que aplica Trump, por lo que èste se ha visto obligado a ir escalando la confrontación con dichos países hasta el borde mismo de la guerra (en el caso de Irán y Venezuela), sin que hasta ahora sus tácticas intimidatorias le hayan dado el resultado esperado, de doblar a estos gobiernos.

Lo mismo ha hecho con México desde el gobierno de Peña, y ahora lo reitera con el de López Obrador (AMLO) al amenazarlo con aplicar aranceles de 5% a todos los productos que nuestro país exporta a Estados Unidos, a partir del próximo 10 de junio, si no detiene el flujo migratorio (de todos los países), que entra a México y se dirige a Estados Unidos. Además, aumentará los aranceles en la medida en que México no responda a estas presiones.

Al mismo tiempo que anuncia esta medida, el vicepresidente Pence revela que sí ha habido negociaciones con México para que el gobierno de López Obrador acepte que nuestro país sea “tercer país seguro”; esto es, que los miles y miles de solicitantes de asilo en Estados Unidos, lo hagan ahora en México, lo que significa que se quedarían en nuestro país, y ya no harían esa solicitud en la Unión Americana.

Pence informó que ya casi era un hecho que México aceptaría ser “tercer país seguro”, algo que el canciller Ebrard ha negado continuamente.

Y en una tercera pista, Trump manda al Congreso el T-MEC para ser ratificado; el mismo día que López Obrador solicita al Senado un periodo extraordinario de sesiones para que sea ratificado a su vez en nuestro país.

Así, Trump utiliza el garrote (las tarifas para obligar a México a aceptar ser tercer país seguro y hacer mucho más para detener la migración con destino a Estados Unidos); y la zanahoria, enviando el tratado de libre comercio a ratificación al Congreso.

¿Qué espera Trump? Que AMLO y Ebrard, que han intentado atraer a Trump a la visión “desarrollista” del fenómeno migratorio, mediante inversión en Centroamérica y el Sureste mexicano, se desistan por el momento de esta estrategia y asuman plenamente las exigencias y prioridades de Washington que son: cerrar por completo la posibilidad de asilo en Estados Unidos, obligando a México a convertirse en el destino final de miles y miles de solicitantes; que México reciba a los deportados de todo el mundo que le envíe Estados Unidos; y que México detenga por la fuerza en su frontera sur, a los migrantes con destino a Estados Unidos.

A cambio, Trump no aplicará los aranceles (que no existían y que en el caso del acero y el aluminio ya se habían quitado) a todos los productos mexicanos y seguirá con el proceso de ratificación del T-MEC.

López Obrador, seguramente convencido por Ebrard, intentó llevar una relación de subordinación y casi vasallaje con Trump en materia de comercio, seguridad y migración (no así en el tema venezolano), esperando atemperar los impulsos agresivos de Trump,  con objeto de orientarlo hacia una visión menos “securitizada” de la migración.

Fue a todas luces una muy mala lectura, pues Trump ya tenía dos años aplicando su estrategia de presiones y “bullying” a México y a muchos otros países, sin haberla cambiado (con Corea del Sur logró todo lo que se propuso en el tratado comercial, gracias al contencioso que se tiene con Corea del Norte).

De ahí que el gobierno mexicano no debió acomodarse tan fácil y tan pronto a las exigencias de Trump, pues éste lo interpretó como debilidad y miedo a los Estados Unidos.

Además, López Obrador, abiertamente dijo varias veces que México no se acercaría a China para no incomodar a Estados Unidos. Todas estas señales convencieron a Trump de que con más presión, el gobierno de AMLO aceptará todo lo que se le exija.

Pero AMLO, convencido por Ebrard (que se está convirtiendo rápidamente en el Ezequiel Padilla de nuestro tiempo), decidió no incomodar a Trump, a pesar de las invectivas y las medidas antimexicanas que ha tomado, esperando que la cooperación, la diplomacia, la paciencia, lo harían reflexionar y cambiar.

Nada de esto ha sucedido, y lo que sí ha pasado es que esa pasividad, “prudencia” y ecuanimidad de AMLO ha sido leída como franca debilidad (y hasta miedo) en Washington, y están actuando en consecuencia.

Por ello la estrategia de AMLO y Ebrard ha dejado más vulnerable y más dependiente a México con respecto a los Estados Unidos.

Lo que se debería hacer ahora (que no se hará seguramente), es subirle la apuesta al gobierno de Estados Unidos, con estas medidas:

1.   Aplicar en el mismo monto de aranceles a todos los productos que se importan de Estados Unidos, a partir del 10 de junio.

2.   Terminar la Iniciativa Mérida a partir del 10 de junio y establecer que de continuar deteriorándose la relación bilateral, a partir del 1 de julio todo el personal de inteligencia y de seguridad de Estados Unidos que se encuentre en territorio nacional deberá salir del país.

3.   A partir del 10 de junio, suspender de manera indefinida toda la relación entre las fuerzas armadas mexicanas y estadounidenses.

4.   No aceptar que México sea tercer país seguro.

5.   Llamar a una reunión de alto nivel de ambos gobiernos el 9 de junio en la ciudad de México, para plantear la manera humanitaria en que se puede detener la migración hacia Estados Unidos, sin chantajes ni amenazas de por medio.

6.   En caso de que Estados Unidos no acepte la negociación y aplique los aranceles el 10 de junio, aplicar las medidas establecidas en los numerales 1 al 4; mandar llamar a consultas a la embajadora de México en Estados Unidos y detener la ratificación del T-MEC hasta que se resuelva a satisfacción de México, la crisis en la relación bilateral.

Estas medidas escalarían la crisis, obligando a Estados Unidos a definir realmente lo que quiere: subyugar a México como si fuera un esclavo; o plantear una colaboración respetuosa entre ambos países.

Pero es seguro que el débil y asustadizo gobierno mexicano irá corriendo con la cola entre las patas a pedirle a Trump que no aplique los aranceles y a recibir instrucciones (ahí está la urgencia por ir aWashington de Ebrard) de lo que debe hacer en materia de migración, seguridad, comercio, etc. De ser así, sería el más grande ridículo de la diplomacia mexicana desde que Trump fue invitado por Peña a México, para pitorrearse de los mexicanos en su propio país.

---

Rare-earth card may be used

By Li Xuanmin and Yang Kunyi in Ganzhou and Shen Weiduo in Beijing Source: Global Times Published: 2019/5/29

Rare earth suppliers accelerate R&D efforts

Industry  players in a key rare-earth base responded positively overnight to rarely seen an official indication that the strategic asset could be weaponized for the escalating trade war with the US. 

Understanding the logic of such a move by the central government, some managers of the affected firms and enterprises said they are already focused on moving up the value chain and shifting their focus to the domestic market.    

Asked whether rare earths will be used as a countermeasure against the US, a spokesperson for China's top economic planner, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), was quoted as saying on Tuesday night, "What I can tell you is that if anyone wants to use products made of China's rare-earth exports to contain China's development, the people across China will not be happy with that." The anonymous NDRC official's statement was deemed by some analysts as a clear-cut warning that Beijing may deploy rare earths as a weapon in the trade war.

The People's Daily, the top newspaper in the country, published an editorial on Wednesday, emphasizing that the US shouldn't "underestimate China's ability to fight the trade war." 

"We are firmly aligned with the government's stance on rare earths. They are a strategic asset which China should leverage in retaliation to US containment of Huawei and China's technology drive," a manager of a large rare earth metal producer in Ganzhou, East China's Jiangxi Province, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told the Global Times on Wednesday. 

"It's time to play the card through which China will have a say on how the trade war can be solved," the manager said.

China is the world's largest producer and exporter of rare earths. China's mines account for about 70 percent of global output. The US from 2014 to 2017 sourced 80 percent of its rare-earth imports from China, according to US government statistics.

In 2018, China exported 5,303,400 tons of rare earths at an export value of 3.39 billion yuan ($490.62 million), an increase of 3.6 percent over the same period in 2017, according to Chinese customs data released online.

Ganzhou accounts for one-third of the national total. Traveling across the prefecture-level city in southern Jiangxi, one of the first sights to greet visitors is the dozens of rare-earth suppliers and processors lining the streets. Even the airport name - Ganzhou Gold Airport - references a precious mineral.  

The manager noted that it will take years for the US to build a complete rare-earth supply chain equivalent to Ganzhou - from upstream industries like mining and extraction to downstream such as producing ferro-aluminum and permanent magnets. China has overwhelming technology and cost advantages in almost all those sectors, he asserted. 

Scaling down exports to the US was not a big deal to the industry, according to the manager, as dwindling supply could jack up already-low global market prices. Chinese rare earth-makers used to pocket "pennies" from such a global trade, he explained. 

"As prices rise, Chinese producers will eventually, benefit," he said.

Trade efforts 

Rare-earths suppliers have been accelerating their research and development of high-end applications and high value-added rare earth products such as permanent magnetic materials as part of efforts to be less dependent on foreign markets amid an escalating trade war.

On March 20, Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Ganzhou-based JL MAG Rare-Earth Company, a high-tech firm specializing in research and development of rare-earth permanent magnetic materials, the Xinhua News Agency reported.

The visit also cast the media spotlight on how Chinese manufacturers are responding to the trade war, inspired to climb up the value chain ladder and focus on profits from high-end products generated by the domestic market.

Yu Xi, general manager of the Ganzhou Fortune Electronic, a company that specializes in manufacturing permanent magnets about 2 kilometers from ML MAG Rare-Earth, told the Global Times Wednesday that his company was trying to increase its bargaining power by increasing research and development and exploring high-end supplies to domestic consumers.

"The downstream of the industrial chain, like the application of neodymium magnetic materials in terminal products like phones and electrical motors are the most profitable," said Yu, noting that more companies in Ganzhou are shifting from selling resources to adding value by producing more technology-intensive products.

"Every year we spend about 4 percent of our revenue on research and development," Yu said. "We are also seeking cooperation with universities and institutions to work on developing new technologies in rare-earth production."

The company has been awarded 24 Neodymium magnet product patents.

"The demand in the domestic market for permanent magnets is also high and still growing," Yu said. "For example, we are supplying Huawei and we are also testing our materials on magnetic levitation trains."

Governments have also provided tax refunds and preferential land leasing terms to high-tech rare-earth firms, the manager said.

But there are rooms for further improvement. The NDRC official said that although the rare-earth industry in Ganzhou is relatively big, the development is also facing many challenges. For example, the R&D investment is insufficient and the application of the high-end industry needs to be further improved.

A representative from a large rare-earth company in North China told the Global Times on Wednesday that in terms of the application end, especially the high-end application in such sectors as the aerospace and military, China still lag behind some developed countries.

The representative asked to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the matter.

For instance, the permanent magnet motor, a smaller motor with better functional performance compared with the regular excitation motor, still lacks presence in China due to insufficient fundamental research in the structure of the rare earths, the executive said.

Realismo político y judicialización de la política

José Steinsleger

https://www.jornada.com.mx/2019/05/29/opinion/020a1pol

La embestida del Poder Judicial contra Cristina Fernández de Kirchner empezó a inicios de 2015, pocos meses antes del triunfo de Mauricio Macri. Ofensiva que desde entonces es minuciosamente monitoreada por las embajadas de Washington y Tel Aviv en Buenos Aires.

En Sinceramente (Planeta, 2019), Cristina explica los fantásticos entretelones de un poder del Estado cuya misión, teóricamente, consiste en oficiar de guardián de las garantías constitucionales que corresponden a todos los ciudadanos por igual:

“A la distancia –escribe– entendí que la difusión de datos falsos en los medios hegemónicos oficialistas y la judicialización de ciertas decisiones de gobierno […], se transformaron en un método de persecución que iba más allá de los estrados judiciales”.

Cristina hace hincapié en la campaña de ataque y demonización a escala regional contra las figuras que habían liderado los procesos nacionales, populares y democráticos en América del Sur durante la última década, y que con sus políticas habían cambiado favorablemente las condiciones de vida de millones de hombres y mujeres (p. 51).

Tales fueron los casos de Lula da Silva, Dilma Rousseff, Rafael Correa y de ella misma, así como los de Jorge Glass y Amado Boudou, ex vicepresidentes de Ecuador y Argentina, y decenas de funcionarios de gobiernos progresistas encarcelados luego de juicios plagados de irregularidades.

Cristina se refiere a la persecución permanente de ex gobernantes, políticos y luchadores sociales, en el marco de una nueva táctica de guerra no convencional que se conoce con el nombre de lawfare (o guerra jurídica). Táctica que en la dimensión mediática, un editorialista del diario Clarín definió como periodismo de guerra.

El diputado del Parlasur Óscar Laborde sostiene que el concepto de lawfarefue empleado por primera vez en Unrestricted Warfare (1999), libro de estrategia militar escrito por dos coroneles chinos, y que en 2001 empezó a ser manejado en ámbitos diferentes al militar tras la publicación de un ar­tículo escrito por el general de la Fuerza Aérea Charles Dunlap, de la Duke Law School.

Laborde explica que Washington ha sido uno de los principales proveedores de asesoría para la reforma de los aparatos jurídicos en América Latina, y el Departamento de Justicia ha estrechado los vínculos con los poderes judiciales de la región en la lucha ­anticorrupción.

Una de las acciones más importantes –dice– fue el llamado proyecto Puentes, que consistió en cursos de asesoramiento a varios integrantes del Poder Judicial de Brasil, y otros países de la región. El alumno estrella fue el juez Sergio Moro, quien impulsó la causa Lava jato, y condenó a Lula a doce años de prisión.

En sintonía con Laborde, el experto Guido Croxatto observa que los tribunales de América del Sur vienen cruzando hace tiempo lo que el filósofo alemán Jurgen Habermas llama una barrera de fuego: la legalidad jurídica, la distorsión de la legalidad estricta o debido proceso.

Dice: “El neoconstitucionalismo (no positivista) tan de moda, que legitima el activismo judicial conservador (del juez Moro, o el juez que persigue a Cristina, Claudio Bonadio), bebe en las fuentes del realismo jurídico norteamericano. En el ‘no garantismo’ […] La novedad es que en América Latina el derecho positivo ha dejado de existir como lo conocíamos […] La creciente judicialización de la política es un corolario necesario del realismo jurídico […] El realismo va de la mano del análisis económico del derecho, otro enfoque de moda en las aulas de abogacía”.

Añade: “Este es el enfoque legal que proviene de la Escuela de Leyes de Chicago, donde también se gestó gran parte del modelo neoliberal aplicado en la región, con fuerza en Chile y Argentina en los 90, cuando se expanden las universidades privadas que lo replican. El ‘realismo’ y ‘law and economics’ van de la mano” (La judicialización de la política, Página 12, 14/7/18).

En suma, una matriz mundial de corrupción y delincuencia que a escala nacional, Cristina identifica en “…los rostros de los que se quieren presentar como cruzados contra la corrupción, son los mismos que formaron parte de la ‘Patria contratista’, y su apellido estuvo indisolublemente ligado a escándalos y negociados con el Estado: los Macri”.

The Bolsonaro Phenomenon May be Brief

by MANUEL E. YEPE

MAY 28, 2019

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/05/28/the-bolsonaro-phenomenon-may-be-brief/

“Right now, there’s a good chance that the presidency of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, be very brief. The word impeachment is already part of the current language in the media and social networks in the South American giant.”

At least that’s what Andrés Ferrari Haines, a professor at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Brazil, wrote in an article published, on May 21, by the Argentinean newspaper “Página 12”.

Eduardo Bolsonaro, the president’s son warned in Buenos Aires that an electoral victory of Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner’s would represent the risk of turning Argentina into another Venezuela.

Curiously, says the newspaper, his father is achieving in Brazil what mercenary Juan Guaidó could not achieve in Venezuela: to have protests everywhere promoting the rule of law and opposition to the President.

A historic march took place on Wednesday, May 15, in which nearly two million people took to the streets in 200 Brazilian cities to protest against the budget cuts in education. It was a turning point in the rejection of President Jair Bolsonaro, his children and several personalities close to him.

Those who, during his electoral campaign thought that his violent and bellicose style was part of an electoral strategy to attack his opponents are realizing that this is a trait of his personality.

It seems that his capacity for dialogue is zero, and he can only express himself aggressively –even if this might not be his intention.

One could think that Bolsonaro, together with his sons, tried to strengthen his image in a direct relationship with his electoral base, discrediting sectors that were part of the coalition government, such as the military, which occupy several positions in allied political parties.

Even more serious, in the field of the economy has been the appointment of his “super minister” Paulo Guedes, an extreme neoliberal choice, submissive to U.S. capital, especially to those that seek the extreme exploitation of natural resources and the control of state financial institutions and companies such as Petrobras.

In his strategy, Guedes placed all his chips in favor of the approval of a brutal reform aimed at preventing an “inevitable” economic catastrophe. Here he is meeting great resistance in and out of parliament.

It is a strategy of submission to private activity that launched Minister of Education Weintraub who, summoned by Congress, in the midst of a student protest, made it clear that the objective was not to cut the educational budget, but to extinguish the public education system.

In line with his President, the minister ignored the students and affirmed that “the graduates of the Brazilian public universities don’t know anything.”

The reality, however, has demonstrated the opposite: public schools are at the top of the list in the national ranking –with only two or three private ones– in the front rank. Even more so:  the public ones are among the first in comparisons with those in emerging countries, and some have reputable placements at the international level. Thus, it is clear that there is no basis whatsoever for the government project aimed at dismantling public education to the benefit of private education that the minister so much praises.

For his part, Foreign Minister Ernesto Araújo aligned Brazil’s foreign policy to the United States in a moralistic crusade that identifies “globalization” with a process driven by “cultural Marxism” and climate risks with a “communist conspiracy”, even at the expense of  losing important foreign markets.

Meanwhile, the economy comes to a standstill, the stock market falls and the dollar soars.

In addition, it has become known that consulting firm A.T. Kearney removed Brazil –for the first time—from the top 25 destinations for the United States investors.  During the government of Dilma Rousseff, Brazil was in third place.

Bolsonaro was losing so much support in the last week that even his “guru,” astrologer Olavo de Carvalho, predicted that he will abandon politics in Brazil.

The Brasil LIbre  [Free Brazil] Movement, a great player in the fall of Rousseff and in the anti-PT wave, also announced it's breaking up Bolsonaro.

The students are calling for a mobilization on May 30 and, in addition, they have joined the General Strike, on June 14, against Bolsonaro’s reforms.

The main print media, O Globo de Rio and Folha do Estado de Sao Paulo, in their editorials are very critical of the political maneuvers of the President and his attacks on democracy.

Investigations of corruption and illicit association against one of his sons, Flavio, are growing every day, and affect nearly one hundred people who were hired or moved fortunes in connection with his office, including the President’s wife herself.

Manuel E. Yepe is a lawyer, economist and journalist. He is a professor at the Higher Institute of International Relations in Havana.

It’s The Occupation, Stupid. No Amount Of Cash Can Buy Palestinian Freedom

by Muhammad Shehada May 21, 2019

https://forward.com/opinion/424661/its-the-occupation-stupid-no-amount-of-cash-can-buy-palestinian-freedom/?utm_source=PostUp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Opinion&utm_maildate=05/21/2019

On Sunday, the White House announced it would be co-hosting a conference with Bahrain focused on Palestinian economic prosperity to kick start the always-delayed Trump peace deal. “Finance ministers, but not foreign ministers will be invited along with delegations of business leaders,” CNN reported.
It appears that they also decided that the Palestinians will not be invited to weigh in on how their future will be decided.
The US peace team — made up of the spoiled real estate scion and President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, and Trump’s bankruptcy lawyer and settlement funder turned US Ambassador David Friedman — expects to unilaterally and singlehandedly solve the conflict with cash, to improve “infrastructure, industry, empowering and investing in people,” in addition to “governance reforms,” while “studiously avoiding the many political issues that have made peace so elusive for so long,” all of which incidentally happens to be the minimal Palestinian demands for statehood, freedom, and justice: “whether the Palestinians will get their own state, the status of Jerusalem measures Israel takes in the name of security, and what should happen with Palestinians and their descendants who fled or were expelled from Israel around the time of the state’s creation in 1948.”
In other words, the plan hopes to cure the disease by treating its symptoms with painkillers. For the truth is, the economic problems in Palestinian society stem directly from the Israeli occupation and blockade, and throwing money at the economic problem, while the cause of that problem remains intact, is not only foolish but dangerous.
It’s entirely futile to contrive humanitarian or economic solutions for a political problem, whereas a political settlement will end the need for humanitarian remedies and unleash the full potential of the resourceful, talented and thoughtful Palestinian and Israeli people.
The workshop, and the deal it prefaces take for granted that Palestinians are poor people in need for handouts, instead of the truth: that we are a people impoverished by endless occupation and blockade. It assumes that we are miserable instead of immiserated, that we are incapable of developing and sustaining ourselves — when the truth is that we are being blocked from any path towards sustainable development, certain in our well-substantiated belief that whatever we build is going to be destroyed in the next Israeli escalation in just a matter of time.
The Israeli blockade and occupation essentially hit the Palestinian territories in four main aspects: It deprives us of natural resources, most of which fall prey to settlers’ plunder or destruction. It also isolates the occupied and besieged territories from integration into global markets and the international system. By perpetuating instability, insecurity, and uncertainty, it drives capital out of the territories, deincentivizing investment and obliterating creativity, hopes and dreams. Finally, it diminishes the flow of tourism, or in Gaza’s case, prevents it altogether.
You cannot build a textile factory in Gaza and expect it to succeed when the Israeli blockade essentially prevents raw materials from entering Gaza under the pretext of “dual-use items,” when it bans most Gazan exports, bans foreigners from entering Gaza to buy its products, and during frequently armed escalations, reduces factories to rubble.
That’s why, regardless of how the Trump administration packages its plan, the final outcome will be doomed to utter failure.
And because Palestinians are not stupid or crazy, virtually all Palestinian political factions rejected the Bahrain “workshop” to which they had not been invited. Additionally, Palestinian businessmen, like Bashar al-Masri who has worked closely with Israel and the US, declined the invitation to Bahrain workshop.
But the wishful thinking of the Trump administration isn’t only counterproductive; it is inherently destabilizing, with dangerous consequences. We know this because we have an example of it: Gaza.
Qatar, at Israel’s request, has been using economic and humanitarian aid over the last year to tame Hamas, paying Hamas to essentially police the siege and silence the rest of the population.
With no means of using it to establish an independent economy or aim for sustainable development, the Qatari cash, regardless of the amount, evaporates in no time. It flies out of Gaza’s borders. Anyone who gets their hands on it uses it to prop up small business debts to Israeli companies, to buy basic Israeli and Egyptian consumer goods, or simply to escape. What’s left every time Qatar’s cash runs out is a population screaming for another pacifying dose of aid; in other words, it’s a lethal addiction.
With this system in place, every few weeks, tens of civilians lose their lives on both sides of the fence to perpetuate the paradigm of the economic bribe, instead of addressing the underlying causes of this nightmare.
In other words, trading economic aid and investment for human rights isn’t just wrong morally and doomed politically. It actually harms Palestinians — and Israelis, too. And the Trump peace team are set to replicate this same model, despite the fact that it is failing spectacularly, with lives lost every month.
No economy can grow under blockade and occupation.
The only way forward is to address the source of our misery. It’s not a lack of funding. It’s a lack of freedom.
Muhammad Shehada is a writer and columnist from Gaza. His work has appeared in Haaretz, The Forward, and Vice.

MÉXICO SEGUIRÁ SIENDO UN VASALLO DE ESTADOS UNIDOS…POR SIEMPRE

Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) ha reiterado hasta el cansancio que no se quiere pelear con Trump, que quiere llevar una relación de respeto y cooperación. Y por ello todos los ataques e invectivas de Trump contra México, los mexicanos y el propio gobierno de AMLO, los deja pasar.

Es comprensible, durante los 35 años de gobiernos neoliberales las élites económica y política engancharon al país a la agenda y las prioridades de Estados Unidos, con objeto de convertirse en “socios, amigos y aliados” de los triunfadores de la Guerra Fría y, por lo tanto, de la superpotencia global sin competidores a la vista.

El Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (TLCAN), la Iniciativa Mérida en materia de seguridad; la estrecha colaboración (más bien subordinación) de las fuerzas armadas mexicanas al Comando Norte del Ejército estadounidense; más las reformas estructurales dictadas por los organismos financieros internacionales, especialmente la energética, dirigidas a mantener la ortodoxia económica neoliberal y la inserción subordinada de México en la zona de influencia estadounidense, se consideraban datos duros que no serían nada fácil de cambiar.

Pero la llegada de Trump a la presidencia de Estados Unidos, cuestionando el proyecto impulsado por las élites globalizantes de Estados Unidos, cuyo objetivo era conformar una región unificada de Norteamérica y criticando la relación con México en todos los ámbitos, puso en jaque todo el esfuerzo que los dirigentes de ambos países habían invertido para lograr esa meta.

La llegada de López Obrador a la presidencia de México puso a su vez en jaque las reformas estructurales establecidas durante el gobierno de Peña Nieto, y que supuestamente “amarraban” la inclusión definitiva de México en el esquema de dominación económica estadounidense como proveedor de materias primas baratas, mano de obra regalada para las trasnacionales estadounidenses y eslabón indispensable en las cadenas de producción globalizadas de esas mismas empresas.

Así, con la llegada al poder de ambos presidentes parecía que México podría comenzar a lograr un mayor margen de maniobra respecto a Estados Unidos si en ese país la dirigencia política ya no estaba tan interesada en mantener una relación estrecha con su vecino del sur; y, por el contrario, el objetivo era separar más a ambos países, en vista de los supuestos perjuicios que dicha cercanía provocaban a los Estados Unidos.

Pero las grandes corporaciones estadounidenses, el complejo militar industrial, el aparato de seguridad e inteligencia y el poderoso sector financiero, aliados con los oligarcas mexicanos, lanzaron toda una operación de salvamento del proyecto ”Norteamérica”, y consiguieron que Trump no se retirara del TLCAN (NAFTA por sus siglas en inglés) y por el contrario, se lograra una negociación para un nuevo tratado (UMSCA o T-MEC); que López Obrador lo aceptara y mantuviera todo el entramado institucional en materia de seguridad e inteligencia (incluida la Iniciativa Mérida); y que la ortodoxia económica neoliberal se mantuviera prácticamente intacta en México.

Sin embargo, los proyectos domésticos de Trump y López Obrador sí han exigido cambios en la relación.

Por ejemplo, para que Trump aceptara seguir en un esquema de libre comercio con México, fue necesario incluir una serie de medidas que favorecen a la industria estadounidense, con objeto de evitar que los bajos costos salariales y las muy laxas reglamentaciones medio ambientales y laborales de México, siguieran drenando de empleos a la economía estadounidense.

De igual forma Trump ha logrado que México se haga cargo de todos los migrantes que intentan llegar a Estados Unidos, de los que este país deporta y de aquellos que esperan las resoluciones judiciales respecto a sus solicitudes de asilo, asumiendo el costo económico, social y político, sin ningún tipo de ayuda por parte de Estados Unidos; y por el contrario, teniendo que aguantar constantes ataques y críticas de Trump por la supuesta “inacción” de México para cortar el flujo de migrantes desde su frontera sur.

Por lo que respecta a AMLO, a cambio de mantener la subordinación mexicana a Estados Unidos en comercio, seguridad y migración, ha reclamado un poco de libertad en política exterior, al no seguir las órdenes de Washington a sus vasallos latinoamericanos en el caso venezolano, pues México ha seguido reconociendo al gobierno de Maduro y ha insistido en que haya negociación y diálogo internos en Venezuela, sin interferencias extranjeras y menos aún intervenciones militares. Posición ésta que ha exasperado al gobierno estadounidense.

Así también, AMLO está modificando en alguna medida la reforma energética, tratando de salvar a la petrolera estatal (PEMEX), que deliberadamente fue saqueada y endeudada por los gobiernos neoliberales, con objeto de dejarle todo el campo a las trasnacionales. Pero AMLO la quiere salvar financieramente, hacerla viable económicamente de nuevo e incluso construir una nueva refinería (algo que no se ha hecho en más de 40 años), a pesar de la férrea oposición de los organismos financieros internacionales, el sector financiero estadounidense y por supuesto de las trasnacionales de la energía qué junto con sus socios mexicanos, han logrado ganancias estratosféricas con la importación de gasolinas y productos refinados.

¿Por qué afirmamos que México seguirá por siempre como vasallo de Estados Unidos?

Porque, a menos de que los demócratas en el Congreso estén dispuestos a propinarle una severa derrota a Trump antes de las elecciones presidenciales del 2020, lo más probable es que se ratificará el T-MEC en Estados Unidos, y por lo tanto en México y Canadá, con lo que nuestro país quedará definitivamente amarrado a la economía norteamericana, sin posibilidades de establecer relaciones estrechas con otras iniciativas económicas como la Belt and Road Initiative impulsada por China.

Y es que en el T-MEC hay cláusulas específicas para castigar al país que intente acercarse económicamente a China. Y si a eso se suma la guerra comercial y tecnológica que ha lanzado Trump contra el gigante asiático, se entiende que el débil y dependiente México no quiera meterse entre las “patas de los caballos” (incluso AMLO lo ha dicho claramente, que no intenta meterse en la competencia entre las superpotencias), lo que significa que nuestro país se quedara como una pieza más de la maquinaria económica estadounidense.

Así también, AMLO le está pidiendo a Trump y al gobierno canadiense que le inviertan dinero (hasta 10 mil millones de dólares al año) en su proyecto de desarrollo para Centroamérica y el sureste mexicanos (ahí va un nuevo plan para esta región como el Puebla-Panamá de Fox, el Plan del Sureste de Miguel De la Madrid y el Coplamar de López Portillo), lo que seguramente no sucederá, pero mientras AMLO se da cuenta que esos recursos no llegarán, tendrá que seguir con sombrero en mano solicitándolos a las potencias (también piensa pedirle a la Unión Europea), y eso lo hará todavía más vulnerable ante las exigencias de Washington.

Y si bien AMLO está insistiendo en que la Iniciativa Mérida tiene que cambiar, para que se invierta no tanto en seguridad, sino en desarrollo socio económico; la realidad es que su propuesta de crear la Guardia Nacional, lo va a obligar a mantener un esquema de colaboración muy estrecho con Estados Unidos en ese ámbito (inteligencia, capacitación, compra de equipo y armamento), por lo que si bien es posible que “desaparezca” la Iniciativa Mérida (heredada del gobierno de Calderón), seguramente se negociará otro acuerdo, con otro nombre rimbombante, que finalmente acabe siendo algo similar, pues el aparato de seguridad e inteligencia de Estados Unidos no va a aceptar que se degrade este aspecto de la relación.

Y en migración, a AMLO no le queda más remedio que apechugar y seguir recibiendo y mal atendiendo a los miles de migrantes y buscadores de refugio de todo el mundo que quieren llegar a Estados Unidos (más los deportados de allá), y que no les queda otro remedio que quedarse en el México infestado de narcotraficantes, criminales y corruptos que les harán su estancia en el país un infierno muy parecido del que intentan huir de sus países de origen.

If the U.S. Goes to War With Iran, Netanyahu Will Be the Prime Suspect

CHEMI SHALEV MAY 19, 2019

HAARETZ.COM 

https://outline.com/HbW5j2

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the only world leader to openly express support for the escalating U.S. campaign against Iran, but his statement is an exception to the general Israeli rule. In the two weeks that have passed since the U.S. announced it was reinforcing its military presence in the Persian Gulf, official Israel has mostly taken on a vow of silence. “Luckily, we are not involved,” naively optimistic defense officials briefed reporters.

The attempt to distance itself from an American military operation in the Middle East, as if Israel was merely a fan sitting in the bleachers cheering its favorite team inevitably sparks analogies to Yitzhak Shamir’s policy of restraint in the 1991 Gulf War and Ariel Sharon’s similar attitude during the 2003 war in Iraq. Shamir’s task was rendered far more difficult because Israel was directly attacked by Saddam Hussein’s Scud missiles, but was infinitely easier as well, because no one in his right mind could blame Israel for Saddam’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

And while Israel did not come under direct attack in the 2003 Iraq War, it was nonetheless compelled to defend itself against claims, which proliferated as the war progressed, that it had pushed President George W. Bush to decide on the attack in the first place. In the lead up to that ill-fated war, Netanyahu was once again one of a handful of prominent Israelis who preferred to break the silence. In public testimony before the Government Reform Committee of the House of Representatives in 2002, Netanyahu assured American lawmakers that Saddam either had nuclear weapons or was on the verge of acquiring them, with the help of hidden centrifuges “no bigger than washing machines.” Deposing Saddam, Netanyahu promised, would do wonders for the Middle East as a whole.

Even though he was a private citizen then, Netanyahu’s testimony provided critics with supposedly incontrovertible proof of Israel’s involvement in pushing Bush to war. Netanyahu’s testimony has resurfaced in recent days to ostensibly show Netanyahu’s tendency to inflate, exaggerate, make mountains out of molehills and to view U.S. military might as the ultimate response to threats on Israel, whether they emanate from Baghdad or Tehran.

But even without his damning testimony from the past, and even if Netanyahu doesn’t say another word if war breaks out between the U.S. and Iran, he will be named as the prime suspect as far as its opponents are concerned. Netanyahu, with the assistance of like-minded allies in the U.S. and the Middle East, persuaded Donald Trump to abandon Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. Netanyahu convinced Trump that a combination of crippling economic sanctions and a credible military threat will force Tehran to beg for a new and improved nuclear deal, which will include its malevolent regional activities which were not addressed in “Obama’s deal”. And given that countries such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are far more belligerent towards Iran in private than they are in public, Netanyahu became a one-man cheerleading squad for Trump’s latest moves.

But while the campaign to blame Israel for the Iraq War was limited to a relatively small clique of its most vociferous critics – the most prominent of which were Professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer in their book about the Israel lobby – conflagration with Iran would dramatically expand the circle of Israel-accusers. When Walt and Mearsheimer published their book a dozen years ago, Israel still enjoyed wide partisan support in Congress. Its the situation today is substantially worse: After burning his bridges with American liberals, including most Jews, and after he openly challenged – and, in their eyes, humiliated – Obama over the 2015 nuclear deal, many Democrats are far more likely to point fingers at Netanyahu the moment the first American soldier is killed.

Former vice presidential candidate and Virginia Senator Tim Kaine provided a harbinger this week of things to come. Kaine claims that it was Trump’s May 2018 decision to abandon the nuclear deal – which, he says, allowed sufficient supervision and guarantees to counter Iran’s nuclear ambitions – that is the root cause of the tense standoff in the Gulf, rather than Tehran’s sinister designs. And even though Kaine did not mention Netanyahu by name, the identity of the foreign leader who convinced Trump to abandon diplomacy and risk confrontation is obvious and widely known to all.

Netanyahu can console himself at least with the fact that contrary to 1991 and 2003, this time Israel does not run the risk of upsetting the international coalition supporting U.S. moves, for the simple reason that such a coalition does not exist. Trump’s decision to ditch the nuclear deal, buttressed by his overall disdain for America’s historic alliance with Europe, fractured the anti-Iranian coalition and turned the U.S. rather than Iran into the main villain. As Adam Taylor wrote in the Washington Post this week, “the United States meant to isolate Iran. It looks increasingly isolated.”

Netanyahu, one must note, is hardly looking forward to an imminent outbreak of hostilities, even if its participants are the B-52’s and Lincoln aircraft carrier that Trump seemingly dispatched to the Gulf. The immense loss of life, damage to Israel’s economy and potential war with Lebanon that would ensue from an Iranian diktat to Hezbollah to unleash hundreds if not thousands of precision-guided rockets on Israeli population centers in retaliation for a U.S. attack is enough to curb any Israeli enthusiasm for an American clash with Iran – though Netanyahu might nonetheless believe it’s a price worth paying.

Netanyahu believes that the Iranian leadership, like much of the Arab, understands only force. He is convinced that intense economic pressure coupled with the nightmarish specter of American bombers laying waste to their country will compel Tehran to come back to the negotiating table on all fours in order to carve out the fabled “better agreement” that both Trump and Netanyahu claim, with no evidence, is eminently achievable.

In his talks with Trump, Netanyahu has relied on the president’s own business acumen, as expressed, inter alia, in his autobiographical book “The Art of the Deal”. According to Trump’s supposedly winning formula – belied by reports of his lackluster business performance – when trying to secure concessions from a rival one must use all the leverage at one’s disposal, reinforced by copious amounts of hyperbole, bluster and essentially empty threats, which has been his attitude toward the Iranian leaders.

But Iran isn’t one of Trump’s real estate competitors, who, by his account, invariably surrendered to his overwhelming tactics. Self-interest and cost-effectiveness is not the only considerations for the ayatollah regime, and often not even the central factor influencing its decisions. Iran leads the Shi'ites. It carries the flag of an all-encompassing Muslim revolution. It harbors in its genes the legacy of long lost Persian empires, once the sole superpower of the ancient world. Iran does not view itself as a weak and vulnerable state that has no choice but to capitulate to the U.S. ultimatums, but as an equal rival determined to foil Trump or, at worst, survive him.

Tehran has had a long and often bitter history with U.S. presidents, including Dwight Eisenhower, who oversaw the 1953 coup against popular Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh; John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford, who all buttressed the repressive regime of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi; Jimmy Carter and the 1979 hostage crisis; Ronald Reagan and the decision to arm Iraq to the teeth so it would bleed Iran to submission; Bill Clinton’s total embargo in 1995; and the inclusion of Iran in Bush’s post-9/11 “axis of evil”. Trump, of course, is nothing like his predecessors, but the differences, in this case, may work in Iran’s favor.

Trump is the first U.S. President to confront Iran without international backing. His disdain for European countries and unilateral decision to ditch the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action drove a wedge between Washington and European governments, allowing Tehran to play one against the other and, in many cases, to turn Trump from the accuser to accused. Moreover, the Iranians have ample grounds to suspect that Trump is mostly bark rather than bite: He is wary of spiking oil prices and a global economic convulsion that could mar his stellar economic achievements in the U.S. More importantly, an embroilment in Iran would break one of Trump’s main campaign promises, to refrain from military interventions in the Middle East and to “bring the boys back home”.

As one commentator noted in the wake of Trump’s bombastic but barren talks with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, Trump has turned Teddy Roosevelt’s famous maxim on is head: Instead of talking softly but carrying a big stick, Trump talks loudly but carries nothing more than a twig.

Small wonder that in the past 48 hours, White House officials have started to brief U.S. reporters that Trump is less than happy with the bellicose approach of his National Security Adviser John Bolton, known as one of Israel’s closest confidantes in Washington. The catalyst for Trump’s reservations was the leaked story of a Pentagon paper prepared for Bolton that envisaged sending 120,000 U.S. troops to fight against the Iranians. Trump boasted that if it came to open conflict, the size of the U.S. forces would be much larger but distanced himself from what critics describe as the warmongering winds emanating from Bolton’s office. Experienced Washington observers claim that, based on previous patterns, Trump will soon start criticizing Bolton in public and, after a short hiatus, boot him out of the White House as well.

Against this backdrop, Swiss President Ueli Maurer was unexpectedly summoned to Washington on Thursday in order to try and mediate between the feuding sides and get them off the high horses they’ve mounted. Maurer’s involvement may have been expected to send alarm bells ringing throughout Jerusalem, but the president of the Swiss Confederation, whose term is limited to a year, seems to be a man after the Netanyahu’s own heart. Maurer is the nationalist, anti-immigration leader of the right-wing People's Party, whose attitude to Israel and Jews seems to mirror that of Netanyahu’s bosom buddy, Viktor Orban of Hungary: As defense minister, Maurer was savaged by critics for expanding military collaboration between Israel and Switzerland. In his previous tenure as president in 2013, however, Maurer enraged Jews throughout the world by trying to whitewash the Swiss rejection of Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis during the Holocaust.

Maurer, however, is not getting involved in order to promote war but rather to reach a compromise, which, by its very nature, will inevitably disappoint Iran’s enemies, led by Netanyahu himself. If such a compromise is achieved, Netanyahu may have to face the possibility that his all-in bet on Trump has failed to produce the dividends he sought and that the anti-Iran strategy built on his beautiful friendship with the U.S. president could be on the verge of collapse.

The remaining options are both unpalatable for Netanyahu. The first is that Iran will resist recently fortified economic sanctions and continue to incrementally abandon its commitments under the 2015 nuclear accord, without risking any retaliation from the countries that still adhere to it. The second is a military flare-up between Iran and the U.S., which may or may not cripple Tehran’s nuclear infrastructure but is certain to inflict human suffering, financial upheaval, escalating internal strife in Washington and the certainty that Netanyahu will be held responsible for them all. Worse, Trump may eventually reach the same conclusion.