Iconos

Iconos
Zapata

miércoles, 31 de julio de 2019


Iran, Russia Plan Joint Military Drills In Strait Of Hormuz
By Irina Slav - Jul 30, 2019
Iran and Russia are planning a joint military drill in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, the Commander of the Iranian Navy, Rear Admiral Hossein Khanzadi, told state news agency IRNA.
According to Khanzadi, the Iranian armed forces had signed a contract for the drills with the Russian Ministry of Defense, but did not say when the drills will be carried out.
In any case, the news clearly points towards a continued warming of bilateral relations amid increasing U.S. pressure on both countries, particularly Iran.
"A joint Russian-Iranian exercise is expected to be held shortly in the Indian Ocean. The exercise may also be held in the northern part of the Indian Ocean, including in the Strait of Hormuz," Khanzadi said as quoted by Russia’s TASS agency, adding that the drills were a turning point in Iranian-Russian military cooperation.
Meanwhile, The Express reports Britain’s new PM Boris Johnson was being pressured to invite Russia and China to join the European fleet that he is seeking to form to protect vessels in the Persian Gulf. If done, this would be a controversial move in the UK, whose own relations with Russia are the opposite of friendly and those with China are not exactly what one would call warm.
Yesterday, Reuters reported Iran had warned against European countries—France, Italy, and Denmark quick to join the UK initiative—sending warships to the Persian Gulf.
"They (UK and US) want to bring the European war fleet in the Persian Gulf, we think that such actions are provocative in the current situation," a government spokesman told media. "It has a hostile message. It will stir up tensions."
The fact that the news about the joint Iranian-Russian drills in the Gulf came on the heels of that statement speaks for itself: if Europe plans to present a united front against Iran, Iran has helped in facing it.
By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

lunes, 29 de julio de 2019

Bernie Sanders says he would ‘absolutely’ mull cutting aid to pressure Israel
Vermont senator and leading 2020 Democrat says he is not anti-Israel but insists US’s Mideast policy cannot just be ‘pro-Israel pro-Israel pro-Israel’
By ERIC CORTELLESSA 28 July 2019, 
WASHINGTON — Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a leading 2020 Democratic candidate for president, would “absolutely” consider dangling cuts to American foreign aid to Israel in order to pressure Jerusalem.
The US provides Israel with some $3.8 billion in military assistance, and asked if he would “ever consider using that as leverage to get the Israeli government to act differently,” the Brooklyn native answered, “Absolutely.”
Sanders, who is currently running in second place in most Democratic primary polls, made the comments Friday to former Barack Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau on the popular Pod Save America podcast.
The candidate, who is Jewish and has spent time on a kibbutz in Israel, is considered to be more critical of Jerusalem than others running for the Democratic nomination.
He sought to contextualize his answer by saying that he would not make decisions that render Israel is militarily vulnerable.
“I have family in Israel. I am Jewish. I am not anti-Israel,” he said. “Okay, I believe that the people of Israel have absolutely the right to live in peace, independence, and security. End of discussion — that is what I fervently believe.”
But, he added: “I think what has happened is in recent years under Netanyahu, you have an extreme right-wing government with many racist tendencies.”
Sanders has previously referred to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a racist, and he sharply condemned the prime minister’s maneuver earlier this year that allowed for an anti-Arab racist party to enter the Knesset.
He has also been a strong critic of Israel’s settlement activity and West Bank presence. In June, he posed with IfNowNow activists holding a sign that read, “Jews Against Occupation.”
On the podcast, Sanders said that the US policy toward Israel could not be one-dimensional, but instead more holistically focused on what best serves the interest of the United States and the region, including the Palestinians.
“This is not easy stuff — to try to finally bring peace to the Middle East and to treat the Palestinian people with a kind of respect and dignity they deserve,” he said. “Our policy cannot just be pro-Israel pro-Israel pro-Israel. It has got to be pro-region working with all of the people, all of the countries in that area.”
On the podcast, Sanders said that the US policy toward Israel could not be one-dimensional, but instead more holistically focused on what best serves the interest of the United States and the region, including the Palestinians.
“This is not easy stuff — to try to finally bring peace to the Middle East and to treat the Palestinian people with a kind of respect and dignity they deserve,” he said. “Our policy cannot just be pro-Israel pro-Israel pro-Israel. It has got to be pro-region working with all of the people, all of the countries in that area.”
The aid package is seen in Israel as key to helping it maintain its qualitative military edge over potential threats in the region.
In April 2016, Sanders was one of 17 senators who did not sign a letter to Obama urging him to increase aid to Israel.
Sanders is not the first prominent Democrat to float the idea of cutting aid to Israel if it maintains policies that the US opposes on moral and political grounds.
In April, freshman congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was asked on Yahoo’s Skullduggery podcast if the US should consider recalibrating its Israel policy.
“I think so,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “I think these are part of conversations we are having in our caucus, but I think what we are really seeing is an ascent of authoritarianism across the world. I think that Netanyahu is a Trump-like figure.”
Cutting military or economic aid to Israel was, she said, “certainly on the table.”
The liberal Zionist group J Street credited her at the time with expressing a “nuanced” opinion on American policy toward Israel.

“Nuanced position from @AOC in wake of Netanyahu annexation pledge: open up discussion of US-Israel relations,” the organization’s president Jeremy Ben-Ami tweeted. “J Street view: the US can assure Israeli security w/o funding activities that run counter to US values, interests such as annexation, demolitions.”

sábado, 27 de julio de 2019


¿Y ahora, Brasil?
Boaventura de Sousa Santos*
Las palabras que más serepiten hoy son estupefacción y perplejidad. El gobierno brasileño ha caído en el abismo del absurdo, en la banalización total del insulto y la agresión, en el atropello primario de las reglas mínimas de convivencia democrática (por no hablar de las leyes y la Constitución), en la destilación de odio y negatividad como única arma política. Todos los días somos bombardeados con noticias y comentarios que parecen provenir de una cloaca ideológica que ha acumulado rancidez y descomposición durante años o siglos, y ahora rezuma el hedor más nauseabundo y pestilente como si fuese el aroma de la novedad y la inocencia. Esto causa estupefacción en quienes se niegan a ver normalidad en la normalización del absurdo. La perplejidad se deriva de otra verificación, no menos sorprendente: la aparente apatía de la sociedad civil, de los partidos democráticos, de los movimientos sociales y, en definitiva, de todos los que se sienten agredidos por semejante desatino. Da la impresión de que la insistencia y el abuso de la insolencia tienen el efecto de un gas paralizante. Es como si nuestra casa estuviese siendo asaltada y nos escondiésemos en un rincón con el temor de que el ladrón, si nos viese, se sintiera provocado y además de nuestras posesiones nos quitara también la vida.
Puesto que un país es más que un conjunto de ciudadanos estupefactos y perplejos, y como en política la fatalidad no existe, hay que pasar de la estupefacción y la perplejidad a la indignación activa y la respuesta organizada y consistente en nombre de una alternativa realista. Para ello hay que responder dos preguntas principales. La primera, ¿cómo fue posible todo esto? La segunda, ¿con qué fuerzas políticas y de qué modo se puede organizar una respuesta democrática que ponga fin a este vértigo y retome el camino democratizador del pasado reciente sin cometer los errores en los que incurrió?
¿Cómo sucedió?
La reflexión al respecto debe tener siempre en cuenta los factores internos y geoestratégicos. Las razones que llevaron a la dictadura entre 1964 y 1985 no fueron superadas con el regreso a la democracia. El pacto con los dictadores no permitió juzgar el terrorismo de Estado que practicaban, exigió la continuidad (y hasta la profundización) del modelo capitalista neoliberal, y no resolvió la cuestión de la concentración de la tierra, sino al contrario, la agravó, permitiendo a las élites patrimonialistas servirse de la democracia como antes se habían servido de la dictadura. La Constitución de 1988 contiene una profunda vocación democratizadora que las élites nunca han tomado en serio.
La continuidad también se produjo en el campo de las alineaciones geoestratégicas. Es conocida la intervención estadunidense en el golpe de Estado de 1964 y esa tutela imperial no terminó con la transición democrática. Solo cambió de discurso y táctica. Organizaciones internacionales de la llamada sociedad civil, formación de jóvenes líderes, promoción de un sistema judicial conservador e iglesias evangélicas fueron los vehículos privilegiados para frenar la politización de las desigualdades sociales causadas por el neoliberalismo. En este ámbito, el largo papado de Juan Pablo II (1978-2005) desempeñó un papel decisivo. Liquidó el potencial emancipador de la teología de la liberación y permitió que en las periferias pobres el vacío lo ocupara la teología de la prosperidad, hoy dominante. La receta neoliberal se aplicó en el subcontinente con especial dureza en los años 1990. Suscitó movimientos de resistencia que en la década de 2000 permitieron la llegada al poder de gobiernos de partidos de izquierda, en el caso de Brasil siempre en coalición con partidos de derecha. Este hecho coincidió (no por casualidad) con el descuido momentáneo del Imperio, embarrado en el pantano de Irak desde 2003.
Las lecciones que se pueden extraer de este periodo son las siguientes. La izquierda se embriagó con el poder del gobierno y lo confundió con el poder social y económico que nunca tuvo. El Foro Social Mundial (FSM), del que fui uno de los impulsores desde sus inicios, creó la ilusión de una fuerte movilización política de base. Tenían razón quienes advirtieron desde el principio que el predominio de las ONG en el FSM contribuía a la despolitización de los movimientos. La izquierda partidaria abandonó las periferias y se refugió en la comodidad de los palacios de gobierno. Mientras tanto, en el Brasil profundo el trabajo ideológico conservador seguía su camino, listo para ser aprovechado por la extrema derecha. Bolsonaro no es un creador, es una creación. La parálisis de la sociedad política progresista y organizada viene de lejos. Si ahora es visible es porque sólo ahora se sufren sus peores consecuencias. Se concedieron las mejores condiciones operativas y remuneratorias al sistema judicial y al sistema de investigación criminal, pero se creía que eran órganos políticamente neutrales del Estado. De la operación militar-mediática de 1964 a la operación judicial-mediática de 2014 hay una gran distancia y diferencia. Pero tienen dos puntos en común. Primero, la demonización de la política es el arma política privilegiada de la extrema derecha para asaltar el poder. Segundo, las fuerzas políticas de derecha se sirven de la democracia cuando esta les sirve. Pero cuando la opción es entre democracia o exclusión, o entre libertad política o libertad económica, optan siempre por la exclusión y por la libertad económica.
La respuesta democrática
No se pueden improvisar soluciones de corto plazo para problemas estructurales. La historia de Brasil es una historia de exclusión social causada por una articulación tóxica entre capitalismo, colonialismo y patriarcado o, con más precisión, heteropatriarcado. Las conquistas de inclusión fueron conseguidas con muchas luchas sociales, casi nunca llegaron a consolidarse y han estado sujetas a retrocesos violentos, como sucede hoy. La victoria de la extrema derecha no fue una simple derrota electoral de las izquierdas. Fue la culminación de un proceso golpista con fachada institucional en el que, en el plano electoral, las izquierdas hasta probaron una resiliencia notable en las condiciones de una democracia al borde del abismo en que lucharon. Lo que hubo fue una vasta destrucción de la institucionalidad democrática y un retorno del capitalismo salvaje y del colonialismo por vía de la siempre vieja y siempre renovada recolonización imperial y evangelización conservadora. La sensación de tener que comenzar todo de nuevo es frustrante, pero no puede ser paralizadora. Por otro lado, es necesario actuar de inmediato para salvar lo que queda de la democracia brasileña. Lo más grave que está ocurriendo no es solo el hecho de que el monopolio de la violencia legítima por parte del Estado está siendo usado antidemocráticamente (y, por tanto, de manera ilegítima), como bien revela la operación Lava Jato. Es también el hecho de que el Estado está perdiendo visiblemente ese monopolio con el incremento de actores armados no estatales, tanto en la ciudad como en el campo.
El corto y el mediano plazo no tienen que chocar necesariamente si se tuviera una visión estratégica del momento y de las fuerzas con las que se puede contar. Es urgente revolucionar la democracia y democratizar la revolución, pues de otro modo el capitalismo y el colonialismo harán una farsa cruel de lo que todavía resta de democracia. Para este propósito, las diferentes fuerzas de izquierda deben abandonar sectarismos y unirse en la defensa de la democracia. Por otro lado, tienen que evitar a toda costa articulaciones con la derecha, aunque eso cueste la conquista del poder. En las condiciones actuales, conquistar el poder para gobernar con la derecha es un suicidio político.
A corto plazo, veo tres iniciativas realistas. La primera es que los movimientos sociales tienen que reinventar el Foro Social Mundial, esta vez sin tutelas de ONG y con la atención centrada en las exclusiones más radicales vigentes en el país. En ese sentido, el movimiento indígena, el movimiento negro y el movimiento de mujeres y LGTBI son, en toda su pluralidad interna, los sujetos más creíbles para tomar la iniciativa.
Segunda: el sistema judicial fue llevado a un desgaste extraordinario por la manipulación grosera a la que ha sido sometido por Moro y CIA al servicio del imperialismo. Pero es un sistema internamente diversificado, y persisten en él grupos significativos de magistrados que entienden que su misión institucional y democrática consiste en respetar el debido proceso y hablar exclusivamente mediante sus fallos. La violación grosera de esta misión denunciada por la Vaza Jatoestá obligando a las organizaciones profesionales a desmarcarse de los aprendices de brujo. La reciente declaración pública de la Asociación de Jueces para la Democracia en sentido de que el expresidente Lula da Silva es un preso político, constituye una señal auspiciosa del camino iniciado para recuperar la credibilidad del sistema judicial.
La tercera iniciativa debe producirse en el sistema político-partidario. Las elecciones municipales de 2020 son la oportunidad para comenzar a frenar a la extrema derecha y dar ejemplos concretos de cómo las fuerzas de izquierda pueden unirse para defender la democracia. Tres ciudades importantes pueden ser la plataforma para la resistencia: Río de Janeiro, Sao Paulo y Porto Alegre. En Río de Janeiro, Marcelo Freixo del PSOL es el candidato indiscutible para articular las fuerzas de izquierda. En las otras dos ciudades, son indispensables dos cuadros importantes del PT: Fernando Haddad en Sao Paulo y Tarso Genro en Porto Alegre. Se trata de dos políticos que salieron fortalecidos de la crisis, el primero por el modo extraordinario como enfrentó a Bolsonaro y en las condiciones en que lo hizo, y el segundo por haber sido uno de los mejores ministros de la historia de la democracia brasileña y por la integridad que mostró durante todas las crisis por las que pasó el PT mientras fue titular del Gobierno. Los demócratas brasileños deben transmitir a estos políticos el sentimiento de que su momento llegó nuevamente, ahora para comenzar todo de nuevo y desde el nivel local.
*Traducción de Antoni Aguiló y José Luis Exeni Rodríguez

viernes, 26 de julio de 2019


Sixteen U.S. Marines arrested on suspicion of human trafficking
JULY 25, 2019



LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Sixteen U.S. Marines were arrested on Thursday at their base in Southern California on suspicion of drug-related offenses and the smuggling of undocumented migrants along the U.S.-Mexico border, U.S. military officials said.
The arrests at Camp Pendleton stemmed from a separate investigation of two other Marines arrested earlier this month on human trafficking charges filed by federal prosecutors in San Diego, a base spokesman said.
Those two Marines, Lance Corporals Byron Darnell Law II, and David Javier Salazar-Quintero was also stationed at Camp Pendleton, about 55 miles (88 km) north of San Diego, according to the spokesman, Marine First Lieutenant Cameron Edinburgh.
“Information gained from the previous investigation gave way to this string of arrests,” Edinburgh told Reuters.
The Marine Corps said that in addition to the Marines arrested on Thursday, eight others were detained for questioning on unrelated alleged drug offenses.
The 16 taken into custody were all part of the 1st Marine Division at Camp Pendleton, one of the largest Marine Corps bases in the United States.
None one of those arrested or detained on Thursday was serving in support of the military’s mission along the border with Mexico, the Marine Corps said.
Unlike Salazar and Law, the Marines faced prosecution under the military justice system but no formal charges have been brought against them as yet, Edinburgh said.
The precise nature of the alleged wrongdoing was not disclosed, but Edinburgh said the troops were suspected of involvement in the smuggling of undocumented immigrants into the United States from Mexico and various unspecified drug-related offenses.
The two Marines arrested July 3 on charges of transporting aliens for financial gain was arrested by U.S. Border Patrol agents several miles north of the border along a highway in San Diego County.
According to court documents filed in that case, Salazar and Law picked up to three undocumented Mexican immigrants by a car near the border, guided to a pre-arranged location via cellphone instructions. The three migrants were found riding in the back seat of the Marines’ car, and they told investigators they had agreed to pay $8,000 to be smuggled into the United States.
Thursday’s arrests came a day after the military said a Navy SEAL team was sent back from Iraq because of discipline issues. An official said it was because, in part, they had been drinking alcohol, something that is prohibited.
Reporting by Steve Gorman in Los Angeles; additional reporting by Idrees Ali in Washington; editing by Cynthia Osterman

jueves, 25 de julio de 2019


The demolitions in Wadi al-Humos: The excuse – security, The strategy – a Jewish demographic majority
22 July 2019
This morning, Monday, July 22, 2019, the Israeli authorities began demolishing buildings in the neighborhood of Wadi al-Humos, the eastern extension of Zur Baher in East Jerusalem. The move came after the Israeli Supreme Court rejected the residents’ appeal and ruled there was no legal barrier to the demolitions. Israel intends to demolish a total of 13 buildings, including at least 14 apartments, the vast majority of which are in various stages of construction. Until this morning, the buildings were home to two families including 17 people, of which 11 are minors. Some of them were built in Area A, with building permits issued by the Palestinian Authority, which holds planning powers in those areas. Wadi al-Humos is outside of Jerusalem’s municipal boundary and constitutes the mainland reserve for the development of Zur Baher. The Zur Baher committee estimates that 6,000 people currently live in that neighborhood – a quarter of the total population of Zur Baher.
In 2003 the Zur Baher committee petitioned the Supreme Court against the route of the separation fence, which was set unilaterally by Israel to serve its interests. The route was supposed to run near Jerusalem's municipal boundary and thereby disconnect all of the homes of the Wadi al-Humos neighborhood from Zur Baher. Following the petition, the State agreed to reroute the fence a few hundred meters eastward into West Bank territory. In 2004 and 2005 a “light” version of the separation fence was erected:. Instead of a concrete wall, as in most of the route of the fence in East Jerusalem, Israel built a two-lane patrol road with wide shoulders and another fence. The fence surrounds the neighborhood of Wadi al-Humos, which may not have been cut off from Zur Baher, but which was cut off from the rest of the West Bank by the fence, even though the land on which it was built was never annexed to Jerusalem's municipal territory.
The Wadi al-Humos neighborhood is not considered part of Jerusalem, and therefore the Jerusalem Municipality does not provide the neighborhood with services, except for garbage collection. The Palestinian Authority does not have access to the neighborhood and therefore cannot provide it with any services, except for the planning and providing construction permits. The neighborhood's residents built its infrastructures themselves, including roads and water pipes from Zur Baher and Beit Sahur. On the southeastern edges of the enclave, which were defined by the Oslo Accords as areas A and B, the Palestinian Authority has planning and building jurisdiction. But most of it is defined as Area C, where the Civil Administration is responsible for the planning, and where, just like in the rest of the West Bank, it refrains from drawing up outline plans that would allow the residents to build legally. This Israeli policy, which completely limits Palestinian construction in East Jerusalem, causes a severe housing shortage for the city's Palestinian residents, who are forced to build without permits.
In December 2011, about six years after the separation fence was erected in the area, the Israeli Military issued an order forbidding construction in a strip measuring 100-300 meters on either side of the fence. The Military argued such an order was necessary in order to create an “open barrier area” it needed for its operations because of the Wadi al-Humos area is a “weak point of illegal entry” from the West Bank into Jerusalem. According to the Military's figures, at the time the order was issued, 134 buildings already stood on the land designated as a no-building zone. Since then dozens of additional buildings were built and by mid-2019 there were already 231 buildings in the zone, including high-risers built only dozens of meters from the fence, and distributed between areas designated as A, B and C.
In November 2015 the Military announced it intended to demolish 15 buildings in Wadi al-Humos. About one year later, in December 2016, the Military demolished three other buildings in the neighborhood. In 2017 the owners and tenants of the 15 buildings under the threat of demolition petitioned the Supreme Court through the Society of St. Yves – Catholic Center for Human Rights. The petition argued, among other things, that most of the buildings had been built after receiving building permits from the Palestinian Authority, and that the owners and tenants were not even aware of the order prohibiting construction.
During the hearings on the petition, the Military agreed to cancel the demolition orders against two of the buildings. As for the 13 other buildings, the Military announced that for four of them the demolition would be partial. On June 11, 2019, the Supreme Court accepted the State’s position and ruled that there was no legal barrier to demolishing the buildings.
The Supreme Court ruling, written by Justice Meni Mazuz fully accepted the State's framing of the issue as one of purely security matter. It thereby completely ignored Israel's policy of limiting Palestinian construction in East Jerusalem, and the planning chaos in the Wadi al-Humos enclave that allowed the massive construction in the area – of which the Israeli authorities were fully aware. Like in many past cases, the judges did not discuss in their ruling the Israeli policy almost completely preventing Palestinian construction in East Jerusalem, with the purpose of forcing a Jewish demographic majority in the city – a policy that forces the residents to build without permits. The severe building shortage in East Jerusalem, including in Zur Baher, was at the basis of the village's demand to reroute the separation fence eastwards. Instead, the judges ruled that the home demolitions were necessary for security considerations because construction near the fence “can provide hiding for terrorists or illegal aliens” and enable “arms smuggling."
The judgment also clarifies the extent to which the “transfer of powers” to the Palestinian Authority in areas A and B as part of the interim agreements has no practical meaning – except for the need to promote Israeli propaganda. When it serves its own convenience, Israel relies on that “transfer of powers” to cultivate the illusion that most of the residents of the West Bank do not really live under occupation and that actually, the occupation is almost over. Whereas when it is not convenient for Israel, like in this case, it sets aside the appearance of “self-government,” raises “security arguments,” and realizes its full control of the entire territory and all of its residents.
The judges rejected, almost flippantly, the argument by the petitioners that they did not know of the existence of the order forbidding them to build, and that they built after they relied on permits they received from the Palestinian Authority and ruled that the residents “took the law into their own hands." According to the court, the residents should have known about the order. The judges relied on this point on the provisions of the order requiring that its contents be brought “as much as possible” to the knowledge of the residents, among other ways by hanging it, along with low-resolution, difficult-to-understand maps, in the District Coordination Office, as well as on the State representatives' arguments before them. In doing so, the judges completely ignored the relevant facts: that the Military took no action to bring the order to the knowledge of the residents before November 2015, that the order was issued years after the construction of the fence and the construction of the buildings, and even then – nothing was done for the first years to enforce it, and no real effort was made to ensure that the residents knew about the existence of the order – not even as obvious and simple an action such as pasting it to the residents' walls.
This Supreme Court ruling may have far-reaching implications. In various places in East Jerusalem (such as Dahiat al-Barid, Kafr Aqab, and the Shuafat Refugee Camp) and other parts of the West Bank (such as a-Ram, Qalqiliyah, Tulkarm, and Qalandia al-Balad), numerous residential homes were built near the separation fence. Furthermore, as a result of the Israeli planning policy that prevents Palestinians from receiving building permits, many other buildings were built without permits, there being no other choice. The latest ruling gives Israel legal authorization to demolish all of these houses while hiding behind “security arguments” in order to carry out its illegal policy.

miércoles, 24 de julio de 2019


House Overwhelmingly Passes Anti-BDS Bill
Jason Ditz Posted on July 23, 2019        
In a 398-17 vote, the House of Representatives on Tuesday passed H. Res 246, a bill which expresses opposition to the BDS movement targeting Israel. The language of the bill presents BDS as contrary to the US policy, and claims that BDS is harmful to the two-state solution that the US supports. 

BDS, which stands for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions, is a campaign founded to try to pressure Israel over the occupation of Palestine, The intention was to apply economic pressure on Israel for certain activities with respect to the occupation.

While boycotting countries over behavior isn’t that unusual, the US government’s pro-Israel bias meant that in 1977, the US started passing laws trying to prevent American citizens and companies from specifically participating in BDS against Israel, forming the Office of Antiboycott Compliance. 

In the past couple of years, Israel has sought to attack BDS on a global scale by present it as de facto anti-Semitism. As usual, US officials were eager to get on the record with being very anti-BDS, even if these bills don’t formally outlaw participating in the BDS on an individual level. 

This comes as Israel is increasingly a political issue in the US as well, with President Trump trying to present the Democrats as anti-Semites for not being as pro-Netanyahu as he personally is. While Democrats overwhelmingly backed the anti-BDS bill today, 
there remains a political split on the issue. 

That’s because Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) is offering a competing resolution which expresses support for 
Americans’ right to boycott other nations, including Israel. Democratic leadership was quick to condemn Omar’s proposal as “dead on arrival.”

Historically, of course, boycotting other nations has been considered an aspect of Americans’ right to free speech. Omar’s resolution, however,
 isn’t expected to even get a serious discussion in committee, let alone a proper vote on the floor of the House.

martes, 23 de julio de 2019

¿PARA QUÉ QUIERE ESTAR MEXICO EN EL CONSEJO DE SEGURIDAD DE LA ONU?


México se ha postulado para formar parte del Consejo de Seguridad de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU), como uno de los miembros no permanentes (hay 10, más los 5 permanentes). Ocupará una de las dos plazas que le corresponden a América Latina y el Caribe[1], en caso de ser escogido.
De ser electo, México formaría parte del Consejo de Seguridad por quinta ocasión en la historia del organismo,[2]para el bienio 2020-2021.
Según el presidente López Obrador (AMLO), México ya ha recibido el apoyo de 33 países de la región latinoamericana, por lo que se espera que no tenga problemas en ser elegido para el Consejo de Seguridad. Y añadió que nuestro país se guiará por los principios establecidos en la Constitución, en su artículo 89, fracc X.
Pero eso está por verse. La política exterior de este gobierno ha sido como la del dios romano Jano, que mira hacia ambos lados de su perfil.
Por un lado, inició con una correcta interpretación del conflicto que vive Venezuela oponiéndose, hasta la fecha, a cualquier intervención extranjera en los asuntos de ese país; y menos aún, a una intervención militar, como lo ha planteado en diversas ocasiones el gobierno de Estados Unidos.
Nuestro país ha propuesto que se realice una mediación entre el gobierno y la oposición venezolana, algo que ya ha dado sus frutos, a través del gobierno de Noruega, que ha podido sentar en la mesa de negociaciones a ambas partes, a pesar del disgusto y la oposición de Estados Unidos y de sus vasallos latinoamericanos (que son muchos).
Pero, por otro lado, este gobierno ha demostrado en la relación bilateral con Estados Unidos, una sumisión no vista antes, ni siquiera en los gobiernos neoliberales.
Con una velocidad inusitada, aceptó prácticamente sin revisarlo, el acuerdo comercial con Estados Unidos y Canadá, negociado por la pasada administración; y que en general mantiene las ventajas para las grandes empresas trasnacionales, sin un beneficio tangible para la mayoría de la población mexicana. Simplemente, el gobierno de López Obrador aceptó lo que le pusieron en frente y lo avaló.
En materia de migración, ha quedado claro que el enfoque inicial del gobierno mexicano, de permitir sin restricciones la entrada de migrantes al país, para seguir su camino hacia Estados Unidos, enfureció a Washington, que dio un manotazo en la mesa con la amenaza de imponer aranceles a todas las importaciones procedentes de México, si no se rectificaba esa política.
El gobierno de AMLO, ni siquiera intentó replicar o negociar con el de Estados Unidos. Acató las órdenes de Washington y cambió diametralmente su política migratoria hacia una de detención y deportación de los migrantes; y más aún, aceptando en nuestro territorio a todos los deportados o solicitantes de asilo provenientes de Estados Unidos, sin recibir nada a cambio.
En materia de seguridad, el gobierno mexicano no ha cambiado una coma a la Iniciativa Mérida, por lo que Estados Unidos sigue dictando las políticas en ese tema también.
¿Así, es factible esperar que este gobierno contradiga al de Estados Unidos en el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU, o más bien se está postulando al mismo para ser una comparsa más de Washington?
Habrá que ver qué posición asumirá nuestro gobierno ante las constantes agresiones de Estados Unidos a Irán, Venezuela, Rusia, China, Siria, etc. Países a los que considera enemigos y/o rivales, y a los que sanciona económicamente y/o amenaza militarmente de manera continua.
O cómo votará cuando se condene a Israel por sus continuos abusos en materia de derechos humanos contra el pueblo palestino y la ocupación de sus tierras, tomando en cuenta que el lobby pro-Israel en México ya logró en el gobierno pasado, que nuestro país cambiara un voto de condena a Israel en la UNESCO, por uno de abstención.
¿Será que los muchos judíos que colaboran con AMLO y que lo asesoran externamente, lograrán cambiar de manera definitiva la posición mexicana de apoyo a la causa palestina, la cual tiene la razón histórica y jurídica?[3]
Ya veremos cómo se pronuncia México en temas delicados de la agenda internacional, especialmente en los que interesan a Estados Unidos, a la Unión Europea y a Israel, cuando se tenga que tomar una posición clara al respecto.
Por cierto, el actual representante permanente de México en la ONU, el Dr. Juan Ramón de la Fuente, que fue rector de la UNAM y el secretario de Salud durante parte del gobierno neoliberal de Ernesto Zedillo, dirigió en nuestro país el capítulo del Aspen Institute, una organización no gubernamental, financiada por industriales de Chicago, Illinois.


[1] Otros 5 son de Africa y Asia, 2 de Europa Occidental y uno de Europa Oriental.
[2] Los miembros no permanentes participan por periodos de 2 años. Pero la primera vez que participó México fue en 1946, cuando se acababa de fundar la organización; después fue en los bienios 1980-81; 2002-2003 y 2009-2010.
[3] La jefa de gobierno de la CDMX Claudia Sheinbaum; el consultor jurídico del presidente, Julio Scherer; sus asesores externos Pedro Miguel y John Ackermann (este último esposo de la secretaria de la Función Pública, Irma Eréndira Sandoval); la presidente del partido en el poder Morena, Yeidckol Polevsnky; los contratistas José María Rioboó (principal impulsor del aeropuerto de Santa Lucía) y esposo de la recién nombrada ministra de la Suprema Corte de Justicia, Yasmín Esquivel; Abraham y Elías Cababié; David Serur (constructor de los segundos pisos en la CDMX), etc.

lunes, 22 de julio de 2019


On Iran, Why Not Rand?
The Kentucky senator may be meeting with the Iranians on Trump's behalf, and the neocons must be seething.
The relationship between the United States and Iran has never been an especially good one. The best that can be said about the last 40 years is that the two countries have avoided a conventional war. Sure, there have been flare-ups and cases of asymmetric conflict—think of the “tanker war” in the late 1980s and Tehran’s sponsorship of Shia militias in Iraq. But Washington and Tehran have always found a way to lower the temperature before tensions get out of control.
If ever there was a time when the thermostat could be turned down, it is today. The U.S. and Iran have been trapped in a rapid series of escalations that nearly resulted in American airstrikes on Iranian soil last month. Civilian tankers have been sabotaged in the Persian Gulf, mortars have been launched in the direction of bases where U.S. troops are stationed, an American drone has been shot down, Tehran’s oil sales have declined by roughly 86 percent since April 2018, and the senior U.S. officials have settled on a strategy that largely consists of making the lives of the Iranian people as miserable as possible until Tehran signs a better nuclear deal. Just this week, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei blasted America and the West as arrogant, using his own Twitter feed to send Washington a message of defiance and resistance.
If there is any direct communication between American and Iranian officials, it is hidden from public view. All of this has made Senator Rand Paul’s initiative to open dialogue with Tehran urgent, necessary, and prudent.
According to a July 17 story in Politico, Paul recently pitched himself to President Trump as a possible presidential emissary to the Iranians—someone who could sit down with Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif and begin a conversation on the issues that have nearly resulted in military conflict. Trump apparently accepted Paul’s pitch while the two were on the golf course last weekend. His decision, while not yet confirmed by the White House, suggests that Trump is slowly beginning to recognize the deficiencies of the maximum pressure policy that National Security Adviser John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and outside counsels like the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Mark Dubowitz has peddled for years. Far from forcing Tehran’s surrender, economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation have yielded more Iranian aggression. Iran is now a wounded animal backed into a corner, ready to fight rather than submit. The chances of a clash have increased substantially.
In a town filled with tough talkers who see foreign policy as an extension of domestic politics, Rand Paul is one of those strange creatures who is willing to throw himself in front of a bus for the sake of preventing a war. His foes (of which there are many, from Bill Kristol and Lindsey Graham to Marco Rubio and Liz Cheney) use the lazy isolationist epitaph to paint him as a gadfly on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But at his core, Paul is neither a gadfly nor an isolationist. The junior senator from Kentucky is a non-interventionist who has the audacity to search for diplomatic solutions before doing what most of his colleagues on Capitol Hill would have long preferred—involuntarily reaching for more punitive options.
This isn’t the first time Paul has tried to create space for dialogue with a U.S. adversary. Last year, when so much as talking to a Russian was universally frowned upon by the political class, Paul flew to Moscow and delivered a letter on behalf of President Trump to Russian parliamentarians. A month later, he introduced an amendment that would have lifted travel restrictions on Russian lawmakers if Moscow did the same for their American counterparts. The amendment was a small and reasonable gesture that removed largely symbolic sanctions in order to encourage Americans and Russians to familiarize themselves with each other. It was lambasted in committee and killed.
Paul’s latest initiative with Iran could run into the same brick wall. The fact that the arrangement was leaked to the media is an indication that somebody in the Trump administration is totally opposed to the idea and wants to bury any potential conversations with the Iranians before they begin. One can almost picture John Bolton, holed up in the White House basement, hearing the news and frantically ordering his minions on the National Security Council to expose it in the press.
There are also practical questions that need to be answered. With Zarif only in New York for another few days, does Paul has the time for a one-on-one meeting? Would the Iranians be interested in meeting with the senator, even if he does have the president’s ear? Or is Khamenei, still seething over the administration’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal and watching his government’s oil exports disappear, dead set on banning any contact with the Americans for as long as Trump remains in the Oval Office?
Organizing a backchannel with the Iranians could be difficult, in large measure because it will be fought tooth-and-nail by the usual suspects. But Rand Paul’s potential role as an envoy should be pursued. After all, it isn’t like the hawks have such a great track record.
Daniel R. DePetris is a foreign policy analyst, a columnist at Reuters, and a frequent contributor to The American Conservative.