Iconos

Iconos
Zapata

lunes, 30 de septiembre de 2019


Impossible to understand the world without first knowing China
By George N. Tzogopoulos Source: Global Times Published: 2019/9/28 
How can a country become successful in seven decades? A careful analysis of China's modern history provides the answer. The stabilization and reconstruction efforts under Mao Zedong following the Japanese aggression and the civil war laid the foundations of the recovery. The reform and opening-up process - still active today - transformed the country and helped distinguish it from the Soviet Union. 

By opening its doors to foreign investments, relying on an impressive production capacity and boosting its exports, it became an economic colossus. The economic miracle China has created is not only reflected in the increase of its GDP but also in the gradual contribution of this GDP to world growth. In 2014, China became the world's top state in terms of purchasing power parity. 

Even a successful economic recipe would need some adjustments though. In the last five years, Beijing is endeavoring to change its growth model under President Xi Jinping. It aims at paying more attention to the protection of the environment by cutting overcapacity and improving factory performance. It equally seeks to protect itself from external risks by complementing its exposure to foreign trade with domestic consumption. More importantly, it concentrates on research and development in order to advance technology and innovation. 

A visitor to China realizes the change only by taking a high-speed train connecting cities. And an internet user across the globe easily discovers that Chinese companies do play a dominant role in the cybersphere and electronic services such as e-commerce. 

Continuity, patience, hard work and long-term planning are the fundamental features of China's progress. The example of Huawei in leading innovation on 5G network demonstrates Chinese companies no longer lag behind. While for years China needed foreign technology for its development, it is now able to set its own path. 

With reference to foreign affairs, China is implementing the 
Belt and Road Initiative and fosters interconnectivity. Several projects have been implemented and others are under construction. As long as Chinese companies are engaged in infrastructure works, job positions are being created either directly or indirectly and living conditions are being improved. This is how the "win-win" concept has become a sine qua non-parameter to understand international relations. The project is inclusive and more countries can participate.  

Beyond economics and politics, China's ongoing impact on the world is seen by the general interest of world citizens to learn more about the country and also speak Putonghua. This is happening at schools, universities, language centers and also via the dynamic entertainment industry. China leaves its own stamp on globalization that acquires some of its own characteristics. 

It is impossible to understand the world without understanding China. The history is the mirror of the present and beacon of the future. The enrichment of knowledge beyond ideological stereotypes will pave the way for constructive engagement with it at all levels. 

The author is a lecturer at the European Institute in Nice, France.opinion@globaltimes.com.cn

domingo, 29 de septiembre de 2019


THE ANGRY ARAB: Netflix’s Mossad Propaganda
September 24, 2019 
As’ad AbuKhalil says Arabs are pushing back against the distortions and fabrications in  “The Spy,” a new series based on the supposedly true story of Israeli spy Eli Cohen and his exploits in Syria. 
By As`ad AbuKhalil
Special to Consortium News
For too long, Israeli propaganda has gotten away with tall tales about the story of failed spy Eli Cohen. 
Cohen was inserted into Syria in 1961 (under a false name) and was discovered and hanged by Syrian military intelligence in 1965.  In another context, this story would have been deemed a disaster for the intelligence agency which recruited this spy. Instead, Israel has managed to spin and fabricate a large volume of lies about Cohen’s ostensible exploits.
Whenever Israeli intelligence suffers defeats and failures it resorts to its past successes and the relationship between the Mossad and Hollywood and has proven to be invaluable for Israeli propaganda
Netflix seems as closely tied to Mossad as old Hollywood. In addition to a series about Egyptian spy Ashraf Marwan (who Egyptian intelligence still insists was a double agent, although most likely he was not), Netflix has come up with “The Spy,” a series about Elie Cohen starring Sacha Baron Cohen.
Arab Pushback
This is not the first American film depiction of Cohen: the book, “Our Man in Damascus” (which clearly was a Mossad propaganda work) was also made into a movie years ago.  But Arabs are now more alert to Western distortions and fabrications and have been quite quick to respond to the blatant inaccuracies and lies in the new Netflix series.  One Syrian writer counted 10 historical mistakes in the series, while others said that the movie sets had no resemblances to Damascus whatsoever.
As these critics make clear, the entire premise of the Eli Cohen fictitious plot is a figment of the Mossad’s imagination: that Cohen penetrated deep into Syrian society and government and that he was able, during his first phase while posing as a Syrian immigrant in Argentina, to befriend none other than Amin Al-Hafiz (who later served in key positions in Syria). Israeli and Western accounts talk about him befriending “the president of Syria” (in an Israeli TV interview with Cohen’s widow, they even referred to him as Amin Al-Asad, confusing Syrian leaders). 
There is only one problem with that story. As Syrian historian, Sami Moubayed writes in Gulf News, Col. Amin Al-Hafiz denied being stations as a military attaché during the time when Cohen was there. Al-Hafiz arrived in Argentina in 1962, after Cohen’s departure. And he was not in power when Cohen was in Syria (he was, in fact, an interior minister and later served as a member of a ruling council). 
There is not even a shred of evidence that Al-Hafiz ever met Cohen except in his prison cell because he wanted to ask him questions about his failed mission.   And Hafiz denied categorically those claims of acquaintance (they were made into a friendship in the Netflix series) in more than one TV interview.  The Netflix series also draws upon the worst Zionist Orientalist sexist portrayal of Arabs, including typical Israeli sexual humiliation of Arabs. There is a scene where, as soon as Amin Al-Hafiz meets Cohen, Hafiz’s wife (a conservative woman from Aleppo in real life) immediately reaches over and squeezes Cohen’s genitals.
Collapsing Myth 
Once you expose the lies about Al-Hafiz, the entire Cohen myth collapses.
In the 1960s and 1970s the Syrian Ba`th regime did assist the Mossad’s propaganda about Cohen. The Ba'athists of Syria, who had hated Al-Hafiz due to a bitter factional feud, did not want to tell the truth and deny that Hafiz ever met Cohen.  They were not displeased that Israeli propaganda embarrassed Al-Hafiz, who later defected to Iraq and supported Saddam Husayn against the Asad regime.
The Netflix series even introduces the founder of the Ba`th Party, Michel `Aflak, to the story, claiming that he not only knew Cohen but proposed that Cohen hold a party for key leaders on the night of the coup of 1963. `Aflak in the Netflix rendition is a drinking partying man, while in reality, he was an austere ascetic known for spending evenings in his modest home.
Much was made by Israeli propaganda of Cohen’s friendship with a senior Syrian military officer, `Abdul-Karim Zahr Ad-Din. Again, there is absolutely no evidence that Cohen ever met him or even saw him. As a 1965 court ruling published in the Syrian paper Ath-Thawrah showsCohen knew a nephew of his, Ma`dhi Zahr Ad-Din, but the latter was a recruit who was later discharged and held a low clerical post in the Ministry of Municipal and Rural affairs.  What kind of secret information would an acquaintance with this employee produce? 
 It is true that Cohen established a friendship with an employee at the Ministry of Information but the employee was hardly the senior official that Mossad’s accounts made him be. This Ministry of Information employee, George Sayf did introduce him to a few friends but none were in top government posts as the Israeli accounts claimed.
And the notion that top military officers were escorting Cohen to the front and sharing with him classified information is as laughable as current claims by Western correspondents in Beirut that top military fighters of Hizbullah shares top intelligence secrets with Zionist Western correspondents. 
It is true that Cohen once visited the Al-Himmah area, in the southern part of the Golan Heights, but there is no evidence that he obtained any secret information.  And as Syrian journalist Ibrahim Hmaydi pointed out in the international Arabic paper Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat recently, Cohen operated in Syria before the Ba`thist coup of 1966, and the new regime changed all military plans and personnel leading to the 1967 war. 
Newspaper Smuggler 
It was in Israeli interest to claim that Cohen’s espionage was so crucial that it contributed to its decisive victory in 1967.  But the reasons for that outcome are well-known and had nothing to do with secrets. It was because Arab armies were woefully ill-prepared and Israel had a huge advantage of Western military and financial support.  The only evidence of Cohen’s usefulness to Mossad was that he would smuggle Syrian newspapers from Damascus in the shipment of Syrian artifacts.  But the brilliant Mossad could have obtained Syrian newspapers from Lebanon with great ease, and without any need for dangerous missions and the use of mustaches for disguises.
Israeli propaganda also claimed that Amin Hafiz (who he never met) offered him the post of deputy minister of defense. And it’s common for Western accounts of Cohen to mention that he almost assumed this title. But Arab critics are pointing out a problem with that story: The position of deputy minister of defense did not exist in Syria until after the coup of Hafidh Al-Asad in 1970.  The series also puts the chief of Syrian military intelligence, Ahmad Suwaydani, in Argentina at the time of Cohen’s stay when he never served there. It also claims Ahmad Suwaydani was acquainted with Cohen when in reality he was the one who caught him.
Israeli Mossad-Netflix propaganda also carries a purposeful classical Israeli sexual insults to Arabs: the story of Cohen insists that Cohen had 17 or more Damascene female lovers, that he was one of the most eligible bachelors in Syria’s capital city. He was Israeli after all, and Israeli are supposed to be — according to Israeli propaganda — sexually irresistible. But how would Israel know that? Cohen, after all, was its only source in Damascus. Either Cohen invented the idea that he was a sexual magnet for Syrian women (as the Netflix series showed) or that Israeli intelligence made this up after his hanging in order to compensate its ultimate humiliation: having a spy get caught, tried and hanged.
Israeli intelligence has suffered many losses over the years. There was the botched assassination attempt of Khalid Mish`al in Amman in 1997; the assassination of Hamas official, Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh in Dubai in 2010, when Dubai Chief of police released the pictures of all the members of the Mossad hit team and they were circulated worldwide. There are also the failures of Mossad in the face of Hizbullah (and the subsequent discovery of many Israeli spy networks in Lebanon in the last 10 years). All of this has damaged the image of an organization that former CIA Director Admiral Stansfield Turner once said was based more on PR than actual effectiveness.
An intelligence organization that hopes to rescue its reputation through a Netflix series is a desperate organization seeking glory from past — fake — exploits.  Elie Cohen was a failed spy who was not able to secure access to the government or the military of Syria but who sent Syrian newspapers to Israel and ran what appeared to be a brothel in Damascus.
As’ad AbuKhalil is a Lebanese-American professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus. He is the author of the “Historical Dictionary of Lebanon” (1998), “Bin Laden, Islam and America’s New War on Terrorism” (2002), and “The Battle for Saudi Arabia” (2004). He tweets as @asadabukhalil

sábado, 28 de septiembre de 2019

LÓPEZ OBRADOR DEFIENDE LA SOBERANÍA NACIONAL ARRASTRÁNDOSE ANTE TRUMP


La verdad ya no tiene mucho caso seguir hablando de este tema. Que el presidente de México diga que defiende la soberanía nacional “sin balandronadas”, cuando Trump se ufana de que “usa” a México para “defender” su frontera sur, es ya el colmo de la ignorancia, la estupidez o las dos juntas.
Este señor no entiende lo que significa en el ámbito internacional este tipo de expresiones de un presidente de otro país. Es humillar la soberanía. Y este ignorante insiste en que no quiere “confrontaciones”. Nada tiene que ver confrontarse con exigir verdadero respeto al país. Nada tiene que ver cooperar con Estados Unidos en numerosos ámbitos, pero al mismo tiempo poner un firme “hasta aquí” a expresiones injuriosas contra México.
Nadie la ha explicado (menos que nadie Ebrard, que busca el apoyo estadounidense para su candidatura presidencial), que dejar pasar una y otra vez insultos y humillaciones, lo único que provoca es que Estados Unidos exija, demande, ordene a México cada vez más concesiones y más acciones que favorezcan sólo el interés de Estados Unidos y no el de México.
Pero ya para qué seguir; este señor es un ignorante en materia internacional y todo indica que le tiene pavor a Trump, por lo que hay que esperar más servilismo de su parte y por lo tanto, el que nuestro país pierda por completo, ya no digamos el respeto (ese ya lo perdió), sino la más mínima posibilidad de defender la soberanía nacional (o lo que quede de ella) ante Trump. Patético y muy grave.[1]


[1] Por ahí hay una versión de que el servilismo de López Obrador hacia Estados Unidos está influido por sus “asesores evangélicos” de Confraternice y del Partido Encuentro Social, que tienen vínculos muy fuertes con sus pares de Estados Unidos, y que por lo visto manipulan a López Obrador en este tema y en otros más, como en el de los “valores morales”.

viernes, 27 de septiembre de 2019


Mucho dinero ilícito entra al sector financiero, advierte la UIF
Uso de efectivo se duplicó en 6 años
Así se realizan 91 por ciento de los pagos en el país: BdeM
Israel Rodríguez

Periódico La Jornada
Viernes 27 de septiembre de 2019, p. 23
Pese a que las autoridades financieras del país tratan de reducir el uso de efectivo, el monto de billetes y monedas en circulación en la economía aumentó 97.75 por ciento en los pasados seis años, revelan informes de la Unidad de Inteligencia Financiera (UIF). A la par, advirtió que al amparo del comercio informal grandes cantidades de dinero ingresan al sistema financiero formal.
Con base en informes del Banco de México, la UIF señaló que el dinero en efectivo en la economía disponible para la compra de bienes y servicios y para la inversión en otros activos pasó de 836 mil 500 millones de pesos en 2013, primer año de la pasada administración, a 1.6 billones de pesos en 2019, es decir, un incremento de 800 mil 177 millones de pesos.
Según los estudios cuantitativos y cualitativos sobre efectivo, el Banco de México (BdeM) informó que cerca de 91 por ciento de los pagos en el país se hacen con dinero en efectivo y sólo 3 por ciento mediante el Sistema de Pagos Electrónico Interbancario (SPEI).
Informes de la UIF, encabezada por Santiago Nieto Castillo, detallan la trayectoria ascendente del monto del dinero en circulación: aumentó de 836 mil millones de pesos en 2013 a 956 mil 600 millones en 2014; en 2015 fue de un billón un mil 152 mil millones; en 2016, un billón 339 mil millones; en 2017 pasó a un billón 497 mil millones y en 2018 a un billón 654 mil millones de pesos.
De acuerdo con la Evaluación Nacional de Riesgos de la UIF, un documento que se publica anualmente desde 2016, se advierte que debido al comercio informal y la nula regulación fiscal, ingresan grandes volúmenes de efectivo ilícito al sector financiero, lo cual incrementa los riesgos de lavado de dinero.
En 2017 llegó a 57.1 por ciento la población en México que tuvo como sustento alguna actividad relacionada con la economía informal, lo cual equivale a 22.7 por ciento del producto interno bruto (PIB), lo que representa un freno al crecimiento económico e imposibilita el cálculo exacto del dinero que circula en la economía.
Por otra parte, la evolución de la captación y colocación de dólares en efectivo de los sectores financieros que reportan dicha información al Banco de México muestra disminuciones en los montos captados a partir de 2007, situación que se intensificó de 2010 a 2011 por la entrada en vigor de las restricciones en la operación de dólares en efectivo.
La UIF informó que a partir de 2015 la captación ha mostrado tasas anuales de crecimiento positivas. Tan sólo de 2017 a 2018 el crecimiento anual fue de 3.96 por ciento , llegando así a los 7 mil 480 millones de dólares.
En 2018 la colocación llegó a su monto más bajo con mil 840 millones de dólares, lo cual representó disminuciones de 40 por ciento y 7 por ciento en comparación con 2014 y 2017, respectivamente.
La UIF alertó que la principal amenaza de lavado de dinero nacional son las diversas organizaciones delictivas, sus zonas de operación y el tipo de delitos cometidos.
Se identificaron las principales organizaciones delictivas a escala nacional y los grupos fragmentados: Guerreros Unidos, que opera en Guerrero, Morelos y el estado de México; Los Rojos Guerrero, en Morelos y Edomex; el cártel de Santa Rosa de Lima, en Guanajuato; Los Viagras, en Michoacán; Los Ardillos, en Guerrero; Cártel Independiente de Acapulco, en Guerrero; Unión Tepito y Cártel de Tláhuac, los cuales operan en la Ciudad de México.
Entre las principales conductas delictivas de la delincuencia organizada se encuentran: secuestro, extorsión, cobro de piso, robo de hidrocarburos, pesca ilegal de especies protegidas, tráfico de armas, trata de personas, tráfico de migrantes, narcotráfico y narcomenudeo.

martes, 24 de septiembre de 2019


September 23, 2019
Two of US President Donald Trump's least favorite things in the wider world these days are the United Nations, which he sees as an expensive nuisance, and China, which he views as a major rival. But in neglecting one, he might be helping the other.
The Trump administration said it will cut back on US funding for the UN, in part because of Trump-like many conservatives in Washington – see it as an inefficient, and in some ways illegitimate, encroachment on America's ability to do what it wants in the world. In today's speech at the UN General Assembly, he'll likely reiterate these themes.
China sees things differently. The Chinese leadership views the UN as an important vehicle for expanding its global economic and strategic role, particularly in the developing countries that depend most on the UN's services.
That's why Beijing is now the second largest contributor to the UN budget, accounting for 12 percent of the organization's funding, up from just 1 percent 20 years ago. China is also the number two financial supporter of peacekeeping operations, and when it comes to sending actual personnel, Beijing's 2,500 peacekeepers are more than the other four permanent members of the Security Council combined (that's the US, France, the UK, and Russia.) For perspective, in 1990, China offered up just five troops.
China has also succeeded in getting its officials elected or appointed to a number of important UN positions overseeing global economictechnology, and climate issues. It has also been working hard to bolster UN support for its trillion-dollar Belt and Road initiative, which is financing infrastructure that expands China's commercial ties across the developing world.
It's not as though the US, which is still the largest single contributor to UN budgets, isn't aware of this. US officials have been trying to push back against Chinese moves at the UN. But they've confined themselves mainly to opposing specific Chinese appointments (with limited success) or scrubbing Chinese-coined terms from UN documents. In other words, it's a tactical pushback against China's strategic bet on the UN.
Whether the expansion of China's role within the UN is a good thing or a bad thing depends on your point of view. If, like the current US administration, you see China as a "strategic competitor," then ceding so much influence at the UN, whatever the organization's shortcomings, might not be smart. After all, debates about "America First vs Globalism" is not all that interesting to developing countries where China is keeping the peace and building things.
On the other hand, if you think that a country that is poised, as Xi Jinping says, to "take center stage in the world" ought to take a bigger stake and more responsibilities in a cornerstone international institution, then China's larger role at the UN looks like an important step in its maturation as a global power.
What do you think? Is less US and more China at the UN a good thing or a bad one?

lunes, 23 de septiembre de 2019

Israel election results: Why the Arab alliance’s endorsement of Gantz is a big deal


ANSHEL PFEFFER SEPTEMBER 22, 2019

It shows just how badly the voters who sent 13 Joint List representatives to the Knesset want to integrate into Israeli society
Kahol Lavan is essentially a right-wing party led by generals. Benny Gantz, its leader, and candidate for prime minister, launched his political career eight months ago with videos boasting about the hundreds killed by the Israeli military under his command in two Gaza campaigns. The No. 4 on its slate and candidate for defense minister, Gabi Ashkenazi, was Gantz’s predecessor as Israel’s military chief and commanded the equally devastating Operation Cast Lead – the Gaza war in the winter of 2008-09.
Then there’s Kahol Lavan’s No. 3, Moshe Ya’alon, a former Likudnik who once called Peace Now a virus and is adamant that a Palestinian state won’t be established in this century. And just for once it’s worth mentioning the party’s No. 2. He had a very vague military record but after the 2013 election, when there was an opportunity for a centrist government, not under Benjamin Netanyahu, he memorably said on election night that his Yesh Atid party “won’t join a bloc with the left and the Zoabis,” referring dismissively to then-legislator Haneen Zoabi of the Balad party.
Kahol Lavan’s platform is not that different from Likud’s. It has no plan for solving the Israel-Palestine conflict beyond “separating Israelis and Palestinians.” Many of its members are ex-Likudniks and ex-candidates for Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu party. Basically, Kahol Lavan is a slightly more moderate Likud, just without the overt corruption, with some adherence to Israel’s limited democratic ideals and without the fanatic devotion to Netanyahu. Calling it “centrist” is a misnomer.
This long explanation about Kahol Lavan’s true nature is to emphasize just how much of a big deal it is that the Joint List, representing the various political parties of Israel’s Arab citizens have now endorsed Gantz as a potential prime minister in its consultations with President Reuven Rivlin on Sunday evening. It should be taken as a sign of just how badly the voters who sent the 13 Joint List representatives to the Knesset last Tuesday want to integrate into Israeli society.
The last time they endorsed a prime minister was 27 years ago when they endorsed Labor’s, Yitzhak Rabin. Since then we’ve had the Oslo Accords, the collapse of Oslo, a terrible second intifada that included the riots in which police shot and killed 13 Arab Israeli citizens, and long years of bloodshed in the West Bank and Gaza. Not to mention the mainstreaming of anti-Arab racism.
So the endorsement is a big deal. It doesn’t mean that the Joint List will be part of any government Gantz will lead if he ultimately succeeds in forming a coalition. There is no prospect of that. And as Joint List Chairman Ayman Odeh said Sunday afternoon, their main objective here is ending the Netanyahu era. The racism that Netanyahu has legitimized since his poisonous “the Arabs are going to the polls in droves” video on Election Day 2015 is finally being answered. The future is another matter.
But this isn’t just about Netanyahu’s comeuppance. The Joint List MKs needed, of course, to acknowledge that this was why many of their voters came out for the last Tuesday. But the voters were also coming out to say that they want a greater say in Israel’s mainstream political debate. A poll conducted in April found that 87 percent of Arab Israelis want an Arab party to join the government, any government. (The same poll also found that far more of them prefer to identify themselves as Arab Israelis than as Palestinians.)
This is still only a first step and so far in public at least, overtures from Odeh in recent interviews have received a cold shoulder from Kahol Lavan. And neither is the Joint List wholehearted in this. The three Balad members voted against the endorsement and their representatives didn’t join the rest of the list at the President’s Residence.
The Joint List shouldn’t be over-romanticized anyway. It contains communists, Nasserists, Islamists and apologists for Bashar Assad’s mass murders of Syrian civilians. But they are still the legitimate representatives of the overwhelming majority of Israel’s Arab minority and certainly no worse than some of the racist and fundamentalist Jewish politicians we have on offer. So this is a big deal, but just the first step.
This is 2019, not 1992. And Gantz isn’t Rabin, yet. But at the same time, the Rabin endorsed by the Arab parties back then were also the pre-Oslo Rabin – the Rabin who called “to break the hands and legs” of rioters in the first intifada and to tighten the siege on Beirut in 1982. He was also in many ways closer to the right than the left at that point.
But it’s still a big deal because of all that has happened and the new beginnings that could be opening up in the post-Netanyahu era in Israeli politics and society. On Sunday evening, Odeh tweeted a passage from the Book of Psalms: “The stone which the builders rejected is become the chief corner-stone.” It’s a beautifully chosen passage, if slightly optimistic. This isn’t yet a cornerstone, but it may be a foundation.

domingo, 22 de septiembre de 2019

LÓPEZ OBRADOR, ENTRE DERECHA E IZQUIERDA


La reciente polémica por un tweet del (al parecer) ahora ex director del Instituto Nacional de Estudios Históricos de las Revoluciones de México (INEHRM), Pedro Salmerón, quien recordando el intento de secuestro y asesinato del empresario regiomontano Eugenio Garza Sada en 1973, incluyó el adjetivo de “valientes” para los jóvenes que perpetraron ese suceso, ha demostrado en toda su crudeza la enorme división que existe en el país entre los detentadores del poder económico y una clase media ilustrada que desde hace décadas se ha puesto del lado de los oprimidos y explotados.
Para los grandes empresarios de este país, señaladamente los que tienen su sede en Monterrey; la derecha política representada por el Partido Acción Nacional y una clase media que ha jugado tradicionalmente el papel de barrera de protección de estos grupos (y que trabaja para ellos como gerentes, capataces y supervisores en sus empresas) cualquier intento de cambio social, de posible mejora de vida para las clases desfavorecidas, de transformación de las estructuras prevalecientes de explotación económica y de dominio político por parte de esa minoría, equivale a comunismo, socialismo, destrucción de la armonía social, de la paz y de la ley y el orden. En suma, significa una amenaza a sus privilegios, a su modo de vida y a su predominio social y político.
Por ello, cualquier político, académico, funcionario, etc. que pretenda ensalzar, reconocer, justificar o sólo incluso recordar las luchas, pacíficas y/o violentas que los de abajo, pero principalmente un segmento ilustrado de las clases medias, han realizado contra los poderes establecidos, lo consideran una afrenta intolerable, y hay que callarla, estigmatizarla, demonizarla, desaparecerla; de manera inmediata.
A pesar de que el actual gobierno de López Obrador mantiene en su esencia la política económica neoliberal que favorece la concentración del ingreso en las grandes corporaciones nacionales e internacionales; que mantiene los dictados de los organismos financieros internacionales y que no afecta en nada el pago de las obligaciones internacionales del país a los usureros y especuladores que se benefician de ello; a pesar de que no hay ningún programa de nacionalizaciones de empresas o de aumentos de impuestos para las mismas; los poderes económicos establecidos y la derecha política no quieren a López Obrador en el poder, porque no confían en él, no estudió en sus universidades privadas; no asiste, ni asistió a sus fiestas, reuniones y clubes en donde se ponen de acuerdo para hacer negocios (a costillas del erario público y de la población de este país); no habla como ellos, no le gusta amasar fortunas al amparo del poder público; en suma no es parte de los grupos de poder económico y político que han visto y siguen viendo a este país como un botín al cual explotar ad nauseam.
López Obrador ya aceptó que no puede cambiar al sistema de explotación económico vigente, que no cuenta con la fuerza política, ni social para lograrlo. Por lo tanto, se ha puesto una meta más, mucho más modesta. Hacer menos intolerable la existencia a las dos terceras partes de la población de este país que vive en la pobreza, de la cual no saldrá mientras siga vigente la política económica actual y sigan como detentadores del poder económico los mismos grupos y corporaciones que concentran el ingreso y la riqueza del país.
Así también, López Obrador ha decidido (erróneamente), mantener a México como lacayo de Estados Unidos, pensando que con eso el gobierno estadounidense le dejará implementar algunas de sus políticas de redistribución del ingreso y de combate a la corrupción. De lo que no se da cuenta es que las élites estadounidenses son aliadas de sus adversarios en México, y prefieren tenerlos a estos últimos al frente del gobierno mexicano, que a un político que tiene demasiada empatía con las masas, como López Obrador; pero por ahora, mientras haga lo que le dictan desde Washington, no intentarán ningún “cambio de ´régimen” en México.
El verdadero dilema para López Obrador es que una buena parte del voto, del apoyo social y del impulso que le ha dado la población para llegar a la presidencia y mantener tan altos niveles de popularidad, dependen de que les dé algún resultado en materia de mejora de su vida cotidiana, tal como obtener un mejor ingreso, tener acceso a vivienda, salud y educación dignas, y disminuir sensiblemente los niveles de inseguridad y violencia que afectan a la mayoría de los mexicanos, entre otros.
Para ello, el presidente cree, está convencido de que combatiendo la corrupción, implantando una austeridad espartana en el gobierno y cobrando mejor los impuestos, le alcanza para distribuir mejor el ingreso, evitar que las clases bajas se sientan marginadas y olvidadas, y al mismo tiempo mantener un nivel de explotación aceptable para los oligarcas, las grandes corporaciones, los organismos financieros internacionales y la potencia hegemónica.
Es decir, pretende quedar bien con Dios y con el diablo. Eso se está demostrando cada vez más, que es una tarea imposible.
Los detentadores del poder económico no quieren un “razonable” nivel de ganancias; la derecha no quiere un pedacito de poder político; la potencia hegemónica no quiere que más o menos se acomoden a sus designios. Cada uno de ellos busca y va a luchar por lograr el máximo de sus ambiciones: mantener a rajatabla la mayor explotación posible de los recursos naturales, financieros y humanos del país (tal como lo hicieron los gobiernos neoliberales); control del gobierno federal y de la mayoría de los estatales, para asegurar esa explotación; y subordinación completa a las prioridades y directrices de Washington.
López Obrador cree ingenuamente que dando concesiones a derecha e izquierda y manteniéndose como el “fiel de la balanza” logrará su modesto objetivo de evitar una explotación brutal del pueblo y la represión que normalmente le acompaña. Pero sus enemigos no van a parar hasta que tome una determinación definitiva, o se convierte en el representante de los intereses oligárquicos, de derecha y pro estadounidenses, sin pretextos, ni desvíos, o enfrentará no sólo la oposición (esa ya la tiene), sino el intento de derrocamiento (por medio de un “golpe blando”) de esos grupos. 
Para cuando le quede claro que no hay “reconciliación” posible; que sus enemigos no quieren pactar, sino destruirlo; y que su solución “intermedia” es inalcanzable, ya habrá perdido a la mayoría de sus posibles aliados dentro de las clases medias ilustradas (sacrificadas en el altar de la reconciliación) y el apoyo de las masas dependerá de que sigan existiendo recursos para los programas sociales, o de lo contrario escucharán el “canto de las sirenas” de la derecha, como ya sucedió en varios países de Sudamérica.
La lucha por la dirigencia de Morena está reflejando esas contradicciones, pues los candidatos que buscan la “reconciliación”, la “moderación”, el acomodamiento con los intereses del poder económico y de la derecha, esto es Delgado, Polevnski y Rojas, llevan las de ganar; mientras que la única candidata que tímidamente busca mantener la vinculación orgánica de las masas, con el partido y el gobierno, Bertha Luján, lleva las de perder. De como se defina esta lucha interna, se desprenderá el camino que seguirá el gobierno de López Obrador. Hacia su derrota ante sus enemigos; o ante una lucha por mantener la esperanza en millones de personas que tradicionalmente viven explotadas y/o marginadas del desarrollo socio económico y del poder político.

sábado, 21 de septiembre de 2019


With friends like Israel, who needs enemies?
Mohamed Mohamed on September 15, 2019

In April of 2018, the Associated Press reported that the Department of Homeland Security acknowledged that it had detected unauthorized cellular phone surveillance devices operating in Washington, DC.
Commonly known as “StingRays,” the devices are designed to mimic cell phone towers. Essentially, when a StingRay is activated, it forces nearby cellular traffic to go through it rather than through official towers. This allows the operator of the StingRay to know the exact location of a specific cellphone. With more advanced models, the device can force a phone to use older, unencrypted 2G wireless signals allowing a third party to eavesdrop on calls and messages. Some can even attempt to install malicious software on a phone. StingRays are typically the size of a briefcase but can be as small as a cellphone.
Now, according to an exclusive report by Politico, three former senior US officials claim that Israel was most likely responsible for placing the surveillance equipment near the White House and other sensitive locations in Washington. One of the former officials claimed that the StingRays were probably intended to eavesdrop on President Donald Trump and his top associates.
According to the officials, after conducting comprehensive forensic analysis, the FBI and other agencies “felt confident” that Israeli agents had placed the devices.
Unsurprisingly, an Israeli embassy spokesperson denied that Israel was responsible and said, “These allegations are absolute nonsense. Israel doesn’t conduct espionage operations in the United States, period.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also denied the report. He claimed, “There is a longstanding commitment, and a directive from the Israeli government not to engage in any intelligence operations in the US.”
But these statements are extremely unbelievable, if not outright lies. According to a 2014 Newsweek article, Israel engages in “alarming” levels of espionage against the US. A former acongressional staffer who attended a classified briefing in 2013 said that “No another country close to the United States continues to cross the line on espionage like the Israelis do.”
Israel used stolen information to try to undermine the US diplomacy regarding the Iran nuclear deal of 2015. More specifically, Israel passed classified intelligence to members of Congress to try to persuade them to derail the negotiations with Iran.
Israel also has a long history of selling American military technology to China. In fact, in the early 1990s, the CIA director at the time told a Senate Government Affairs Committee that Israel had been selling US secrets to China for around a decade. In 1998, an American scholar wrote that Israel has conducted an “aggressive campaign” of economic espionage in the US since its creation in 1948. He notes that while other countries also engage in such spying, Israel “is the only major recipient of US foreign aid to do so.”
And one cannot forget the case of Jonathan Pollard, an American former intelligence analyst who pleaded guilty to providing thousands of top-secret classified documents to Israel in 1984 and 1985. Despite this major betrayal, a few years later Congress renewed a $3 billion aid package to Israel and the Ronald Reagan administration gave it the official status of a “major non-NATO ally.”
The perception that Israel is a good American ally is laughable, but not only due to its espionage against the US. Israel routinely denies entry to American citizens, it murdered American peace activist Rachel Corrie with a bulldozer, and in 1967 it killed 34 American sailors in an attack on the USS Liberty while it was in international waters. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has even selfishly commented that the September 11 terrorist attacks were good for Israel.
It is absolutely mind-boggling that despite the many cases of espionage and other hostile acts against the US and Americans, Israel is still treated as one of our greatest allies by many people from all points on the political spectrum. Almost 12 hours after the Politico article was published, there was not a single mention of the report on the homepages of the websites of either CNN or Fox News. If the espionage was committed by Russia or Iran, the American media, government officials, and even the public would all be up in arms. President Trump is quick to lash out on Twitter at anyone who even slightly offends him, but when it comes to Israeli transgressions, he is surprisingly silent.
This lack of accountability or awareness regarding Israel is precisely the problem. One of the former officials mentioned in the report said they were “not aware of any accountability at all.” Even after the FBI and other agencies determined that Israel was most likely responsible for the surveillance devices, “the Trump administration took no action to punish or even privately scold the Israeli government.”
Again, this is a bipartisan affair. Despite being disrespected and treated ungratefully by Netanyahu, President Barack Obama’s actions made him “one of the most pro-Israeli American presidents” since Harry Truman, according to Israeli historian Avi Shlaim. In fact, before he left office, Obama committed a record $38 billion to Israel over 10 years. This was the largest military aid package from one country to another in human history.
From poverty to poor infrastructure to people lacking basic health insurance, there are many problems that need to be solved in the US. Americans must ask their government why billions of their taxes are so swiftly handed to the wealthy, apartheid state of Israel, a state that does not hesitate to spy on the hand that feeds it. American politicians from both parties are more willing to shut down the government than to withhold funding from Israel for its blatant violations of international law and for its brazen espionage and disrespect for our country.
It is time for American citizens to realize that the so-called “special relationship” with Israel is in fact not special nor beneficial. On the contrary, it is a liability and it jeopardizes America’s national security, economic interests, and its reputation throughout the world.
Mohamed Mohamed
Mohamed Mohamed is the Executive Director of the Jerusalem Fund for Education and Community Development in Washington DC. He is a graduate of the University of Texas at Dallas, where he majored in Political Science and completed his senior thesis on statelessness and its practical implications on Palestinians living in the refugee camps of Lebanon. He also earned an M.A. in International Relations and an M.S. in International Political Economy from the University of Texas at Dallas. Follow him on Twitter at @mykm47