The un-submersible US-Iran stalemate

July 04, 2019

by Pepe Escobar

https://thesaker.is/the-un-submersible-us-iran-stalemate/

A thick veil of mystery surrounds the fire that broke out in a state of the art Russian submersible in the Barents Sea, leading to the death of 14 crew members poisoned by toxic fumes.

According to the Russian Defense Ministry, the submersible was conducting bathymetric measurements, as in examining and mapping deep-sea conditions. The crew on board was composed of “unique naval specialists, high-class professionals, who conducted important research of the Earth’s hydrosphere.” Now the – so far unnamed – nuclear-powered vessel is at the Arctic port of Severomorsk, the main base of Russia’s Northern Fleet.

A serious, comprehensive military investigation is in progress. According to the Kremlin, “the Supreme Commander-in-Chief has all the information, but this data cannot be made public, because this refers to the category of absolutely classified data.”

The submersible is a Losharik. Its Russian code is AS-12 (for “Atomnaya Stantsiya” or “Nuclear Station“). NATO calls it Norsub-5. It’s been in service since 2003. Giant Delta III nuclear submarines, also able to launch ICBMs, have been modified to transport the submersible across the seas.

NATO’s spin is that the AS-12/Norsub-5 is a “spy” sub, and a major “threat” to undersea telecommunication cables, mostly installed by the West. The submersible’s operating depth is one thousand meters and it may have operated as deep as 2,500 meters in the Arctic Ocean. It may be comparable to, or be something of an advanced version of, the US deep submergence vessel NR-1 (operating depth 910m) famous for being used to search for and recover critical parts of the space shuttle Challenger, lost in 1986.

It’s quite enlightening to place the Losharik within the scope of the latest Pentagon report about Russian strategic intentions. Amid the proverbial demonization terminology – “Russia’s gray zone tactics,” “Russian aggression.” Russian “deep-seated sense of geopolitical insecurity” – the report claims that “Russia is adopting coercive strategies that involve the orchestrated employment of military and nonmilitary means to deter and compel the US, its allies and partners prior to and after the outbreak of hostilities. These strategies must be proactively confronted, or the threat of significant armed conflict may increase.”

It’s no wonder that, considering the incandescence of US-Russia relations on the geopolitical chessboard, what happened to the Losharik fueled frenetic speculation  including totally unsubstantiated rumors it had been torpedoed by a US submarine in a firefight – on top of it, in Russian territorial waters.

Connections were made between the US Vice-President Mike Pence’s suddenly being ordered to return to the White House while the Europeans were also huddled in Brussels, as President Putin had an emergency meeting with Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu.

In the end, it was nothing but mere speculation.

Submersible incident

The submersible incident – complete with the speculative plot line of a US-Russia firefight in the Arctic – did drown, at least for a while, the prime, current geopolitical incandescence: the US economic war on Iran.

Expanding on serious discussions at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Bishkek – which included Iran’s President Rouhani – and the Putin-Xi meetings in Moscow and St. Petersburg and at the G20 in Osaka, both Russia and China are fully invested in keeping Iran stable and protected from the Trump administration’s strategy of chaos.

Both Moscow and Beijing are fully aware Washington’s divide-and-rule tactics are geared towards stopping the momentum of Eurasia integration – which includes everything from bilateral trade in local currencies and bypassing the US dollar to further interconnection of the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road Initiative, the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU) and the International North-South Transportation Corridor (INSTC).

Beijing plays a shadow game, keeping very quiet on the de facto US economic blockade against one of its key Belt and Road allies. Yet the fact is China continues to buy Iranian crude, and bilateral trade is being settled in yuan and rial.

The Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX), the mechanism set up by the EU-3 (France, UK, and Germany) to bypass the US dollar for trade between Iran and the EU after the US unilaterally abandoned the nuclear deal, or JCPOA, may finally be in place. But there’s no evidence INSTEX will be adopted by myriad European companies, as it essentially covers Iranian purchases of food and medicine.

Plan B would be for the Russian Central Bank to extend access to Iran as one the nations possibly adopting SPFS (System for Transfer of Financial Messages), the Russian mechanism for trade sanctioned by the US that bypasses SWIFT. Moscow has been working on the SPFS since 2014, when the threat to expel Russia from SWIFT became a distinct possibility.

As for Iran being accused – by the US – of “breaching” the JCPOA, that’s absolute nonsense. To start with, Tehran cannot possibly “breach” a multinational deal that was declared null and void by one of the signatories, the US.

In fact, the alleged “breach” is due to the fact the EU-3 were not buying Iran’s low-enriched uranium, as promised, because of the US embargo. Washington has de facto forced the EU-3 not to buy it. Tehran duly notified all JCPOA parties that, as they are not buying it, Iran will have to store more low enriched uranium than the JCPOA allows for. If the EU-3 resumes buying it that automatically means Iran is not “breaching” anything.

Cliffhanger

Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif is correct; INSTEX, already too little too late, is not even enough, as the mechanism does not allow Tehran to continue to export oil, which is the nation’s right. As for the “breach,” Zarif says it’s easily “reversible” – as long as the EU-3 abide by their commitments.

Russian energy minister Alexander Novak concurs: “As regards restrictions on Iranian exports, we support Iran and we believe that the sanctions are unlawful; they have not been approved by the UN.”

Still, Iran continues to export crude, by all means available, especially to Asia, with the National Iranian Oil Co (NIOC) predictably shutting off satellite tracking on its fleet. But, ominously, the deadline set by Tehran for the EU-3 to actively support the sale of Iranian crude expires this coming Sunday. That’s a major cliffhanger. After that, the stalemate won’t be submersible anymore.

U.S. Militarism and the One-Sided Class War

by AJAMU BARAKA

JULY 5, 2019

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/07/05/u-s-militarism-and-the-one-sided-class-war/

Despite capitalism’s internal contradictions, it can sustain itself in various forms – even fascism is a capitalist construct – as long as the bourgeois class is a “class for itself” and the working class is subjectively reduced to non-existence as a political force because of its lack of class consciousness. The various methods with which the rulers are able to leverage ideological consent from the oppressed don’t necessarily require extensive study of Gramsci, although it would help. Rather, it is only necessary to remind ourselves of the very simple but accurate observation provided by Marx that the dominant ideas of any society reflect the ideas of its dominant class.

While the modalities of how an increasingly small ruling element can sustain its rule in the midst of an ongoing capitalist crisis is an interesting and, indeed, critical subject, it is not the subject of this short essay. I will instead just focus on one issue unfolding in the public domain that I believe serves as an example of how this ideological feat is pulled off – the debate, or more actually, non-debate on militarism and the military budget.

Last week, as the public was being prepped for the first Democrat party debates in that ESPN style of reporting that now dominates at CNN and other cable stations which frame such political events as the debates as entertainment spectacles, the Senate passed (with the support of 36 Democrats), the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) by a vote of 86 to 8 that gave the Trump administration $750 billion for the war machine – an increase that makes this military budget the largest in U.S. history. Only five Democrats voted against the bill; six others including Senator Sanders and Warren failed to vote because they were on the campaign trail running for President.

The $750 billion that the Senate approved will only have to be reconciled with the $733 billion military budget that the House had already indicated it will support. The $733 billion figure would also represent the historic increase in military spending and will be the third increase since Trump took office.

The military budget Trump inherited already eclipsed the military spending of China, Russia, France, India, the United Kingdom, and Japan combined. The $619 billion in 2016 under Obama grew to $700 billion in 2018 under Trump, then to an even more bloated $716 billion in 2019 and the $750 billion passed by the Senate on June 26. It would be tempting to suggest that it was only “Russiagate” that explains how someone who the Democrats claim to fundamentally oppose could, nevertheless, win bipartisan support for his request for increases in military spending that he even characterized as “crazy.”

As unstable as Trump is alleged to be, Democrats rejected calls from many quarters to oppose the administration’s inclusion in the NDAA to develop “usable” nuclear weapons as part of the drive to incorporate their tactical use. So-called usable nuclear weapons, lower-yield devices that can theoretically be used like conventional bombs, are now being advanced as a necessary part of the mainline “defense” strategy. Among the many problems with this position, the biggest is that this strategy has nothing to do with defense and everything to do with enhancing the capacity for a “nuclear first strike.” Interestingly, not only was opposition from Democrats MIA but the lopsided vote indicates that they have fully embraced this insane policy that was first proposed under Barack Obama.

Senate Democrats even allowed Trump to get away with misappropriating billions of dollars granted by Congress to the Pentagon and divert the cash to construct the border wall by reimbursing the Pentagon for the use of those funds without any penalties. An offense, by the way, that could arguably be impeachable.

Why the bipartisanship on the military budget? The easy answer is that both parties share the strategic commitment to maintain U.S. global hegemony against all rivals, but especially against China and Russia, represented in the U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) document.

The NSS under Trump does not depart from the goals of previous administrations during the post-Cold War period. However, it does represent a more intense commitment to the use of coercive force to offset the gains being made by their capitalist rivals, mainly China and Russia. Though not directly referenced in the NSS, the Trump forces are now concerned with competition from the European Union, as it is being seen as an instrument and expression of the interests of the German capital and the growing calls in Europe for an independent military force.

But all of this still begs the question: if the Republicans are supposed to be the party of war and the Democrats the sophisticated global cosmopolitans committed to peace, multilateralism and international law, why wouldn’t the Democrat party’s popular base react more vigorously to oppose the obscene squandering of public resources for the military?

There are two elements to this as an explanation. One I alluded to already, the diversionary impact of Russiagate, with the other element being the dramatic shift to the right in the consciousness of the Democrat party base as a result of the ideological influence of the Obama administration and Obama himself.

It continues to be a mistake by the left and progressive forces to underestimate the ideological impact of Obama’s administration.

Unlike during the George W. Bush presidency when progressive and radical forces were in open opposition to the state, Obama lulled progressive forces to sleep and disarmed radicals, especially white radicals, who were reluctant to oppose his reactionary policies.

Obama’s ideological influence wasn’t just that he legitimized neoliberalism and the class and race interests it represented, but that he obscured those interests and the anti-people character of neoliberalism. Obama gave a respectability to policies that in an earlier era would have been seen as odious. From the support for coups in Honduras, Egypt, Ukraine and Brazil to the extra-judicial murder of U.S. citizens, including Abdulrahman al-Awlaki (the 16-year-old son of Anwar al-Awlaki), the U.S. citizen murdered two weeks earlier, Obama was able to avoid the condemnation of his policies.

The dismaying result of Obama being in office is that it completely broke down the natural skepticism that is necessary for a state and society that is ruled by a minority elite. For many of Obama’s supporters, if he declared individuals or entire nation terrorists, they blindly accepted it without demanding any evidence whatsoever.

Nevertheless, the ideological impact of the Obama years would have been mitigated if his policies had been given a full and critical assessment by the media. However, the private corporate media establishment has not only been incorporated as part of the state’s ideological apparatus, it has also been integrated into the partisan struggles among the ruling elite.

This collusion between the transnational rulers and the media continues in favor of the Democrats. Not able to successfully execute a constitutional coup, the capitalist establishment decided to use Russiagate to press for alterations in Trump’s nationalist program and to divert public attention away from the ongoing governmental decisions that were being delivered by the duopoly in their favor.

This is the context that informs what surfaces publicly or is allowed to be debated by mainstream politicians, even the new “radicals” in the Democrat party. For the centrists and the progressives, the issue of military spending and the ongoing wars represent issues that have not yet been designated as “debatable.”

War and militarism are class issues. It is the poor and working classes that have always fought the wars. 60% of the federal discretionary budget that is now devoted to war and militarism means that all of the human rights of the people from housing to health care must be addressed in the 40% of the budget that remains.

This is class war. Not only the stealing of the surpluses from the people’s labor but the misappropriation of state spending for the special corporate interests that control electoral politics and the state.

We can reverse this. But we must present clear demands in order that these issues are addressed in the public square.

We must, for example, demand that all those running for office support efforts to initially cut the military budget by 50 percent and reallocate government spending to fully fund social programs and realize individual and collective human rights in areas of housing, education, healthcare, green jobs and public transportation. That they Oppose the Department of Defense 1033 a program that transfers millions of dollars’ worth of military equipment to local police forces. That they advocate for the closing of the 800-plus U.S. foreign military bases and the ending of U.S. participation in the white supremacist NATO military structure. That they call for and work toward closing the U.S. African Command (AFRICOM) and withdrawal of all U.S. military personnel from Africa.

And finally, with the insanity of the drive toward nuclear war, they must sponsor legislation and/or resolutions at every level of government calling on the U.S. to support the United Nations resolution on the complete global abolishment of nuclear weapons passed by 122 nations in July 2017.

The class war that we are losing in the U.S. has consequences not only for the working class in the U.S. but the oppressed nations and peoples across the planet. This is a responsibility that we can no longer fail to live up to.

Ajamu Baraka is the national organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace and was the 2016 candidate for vice president on the Green Party ticket. He is an editor and contributing columnist for the Black Agenda Report and contributing columnist for Counterpunch magazine. 

It Never Was America to Me

THE NEW YORK TIMES

Thursday, July 4, 2019

On our minds: American democracy, an unfinished project

Where were you before America was a democracy? And where will you be if it stops being one again?

Our childhood history classes may have told us that America has been a democracy for hundreds of years, a shining example of the ideals of liberty and justice for all. But an honest reckoning with history tells a different story.

In his book ‘Paths out of Dixie,’ Robert Mickey makes a persuasive case that the United States was not truly a democracy for most of its history. Until the 1970s, he argues, “southern states are best understood as 11 enclaves of authoritarian rule.”

It is widely known, of course, that black citizens were disenfranchised. Extrajudicial violence, including lynching, was used to keep them subjugated to white rule. That system was obviously not fully democratic — at best, it was what political scientists sometimes call a herrenvolk democracy, in which only the dominant ethnic group gets democratic representation.

But Dr. Mickey lays out evidence that the southern systems were not merely racist  and oppressive, but actually authoritarian — so much so that he does not think they even rise to the limited herrenvolk standard.

The Democratic party — which, at the time, protected southern whites’ racial and economic hegemony — placed so many restrictions on suffrage and politics that it became effectively impossible for any other party to compete in elections.

In effect, that created a cluster of single-party regimes, where white citizens who wished to support a different party were also effectively disenfranchised.

That those single-party regimes lasted so long, within a country that considered itself not only a democracy but a shining example of one is a measure of how difficult it is to ensure that political institutions match political ideals.

It is also a reminder that creating and protecting democracy is a continuous project, not something that can be accomplished by declarations of independence or emancipation.

In the past few weeks, the Supreme Court has ruled that partisan gerrymandering can be constitutional. That decision could further compound the effect of the Senate and the electoral college, which already weights the votes of mostly white rural America far more heavily than those of more diverse urban communities. U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. has no representation in Congress at all.

And in a stark reminder of how few guarantees there are people without a political voice will be granted their rights and the full protection of the law, a report from the Department of Homeland Security’s own internal watchdog has found that federal authorities are imprisoning migrants, many of whom are most likely entitled to asylum, in deplorable and dangerous conditions. At least six children have died in the department’s custody.

So before you go off to barbecue and swim and watch fireworks this Fourth of July, we’ll leave you with a few stanzas of one of our favorite poems, Langston Hughes’s “Let America be America Again”:

O, let America be America again—

The land that never has been yet—

And yet must be—the land where every man is free.

The land that's mine—the poor man's, Indian's, Negro's, ME—

Who made America,

Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,

Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,

Must bring back our mighty dream again.

Sure, call me any ugly name you choose—

The steel of freedom does not stain.

From those who live like leeches on the people's lives,

We must take back our land again,

America!

O, yes,

I say it plain,

America never was America to me,

And yet I swear this oath—

America will be!

It’s Time To Admit That The US Is Signing The Checks For Greater Israel

SAEB EREKAT JULY 01, 2019

THE FORWARD

As part of their alleged plan for the Middle East, the Trump administration held what they called an economic “workshop” in Manama. It was an utter failure.

The plan presented was nothing more than a real-estate brochure, and its revelation in Bahrain a poorly attended affair. What Trump’s team, led by his son-in-law Jared Kushner, referred to as the “opportunity of the century” was nothing more than a plan to normalize the occupation of Palestine.

For peace to prevail and prosperity to thrive, Israel must end its occupation and stop obstructing the national, political and human rights of the people of Palestine, including freedom and sovereign control over our own economy. This very message was repeatedly echoed, even by many of the participants in Manama.

But Manama was not about supporting the economy of a thriving, free and independent Palestinian State. It was about the perpetuation of Israel’s occupation and colonial-settlement enterprise.

For a while, it was possible to see the Trump Administration’s actions as simply biased in favor of Israel. No longer. It is in fact a full-fledged underwriting of the ideological dynamics at play, which negate Palestinian rights, international law, and the United Nations resolutions.

Kushner, along with Ambassador David Friedman — himself a supporter of the settler movement — and Special Envoy Jason Greenblatt has exposed a clear goal of eliminating the Palestinian national project, to the benefit of those who advocate for “Greater Israel.”

No wonder Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promised his voters that he would annex more of the occupied territory of Palestine during the previous election cycle.

Now that this plot, which has been clear to us, Palestinians all along has been so clearly exposed to the rest of the world, the question is: What are you going to do about it? Those who attended Manama has an opportunity and a responsibility to make clear that their presence at the summit did not amount to supporting Kushner’s efforts to propagate Israel’s expansionist enterprise and desired apartheid in a Greater Israel in which Palestinians have no rights.

This is not a mere rhetorical issue. While there are those who hope that a change in the US administration may reverse the Trump administration’s hostile measures, reality suggests that it maybe too late at that point for a negotiated two-state solution.

The support the Trump administration has lent to Israel’s expansionist plans, beginning with its recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital extends beyond verbal commitments to accepting further Israeli annexation of occupied Palestinian land — a war crime under international law. It has overseen the dramatic increase in Israel’s colonial-settlement activities, including home demolitions and ID revocations, which are designed to make an irreversible change in Palestine’s landscape, specifically in Jerusalem.

The Eastern part of Jerusalem, which is the occupied Palestinian capital, has for too long suffered the continuous Israeli efforts to alter its character and identity. These efforts include allowing settlers to take over Christian buildings in Jaffa Gate, building more settlements, advancing other related tourism projects such as the cable car, allowing attacks against Muslim worshippers at Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound, the underground excavations carried out by Israeli settlers in Silwan, and the ongoing criminal raids in al-Isawiyeh.

Our allies must speak up. A new political reality requires world leaders to act firmly, starting with the recognition of the State of Palestine on the 1967 border, with East Jerusalem as its capital. This will at least serve as a diplomatic barrier against US and Israeli attempts to erase the political rights of the Palestinian people.

It’s equally urgent to take action against the Israeli occupation. The international community must ban Israeli settlement products, divest from companies involved in the systematic violation of international law in Palestine, set guidelines to prevent international involvement with the occupation, and prevent Israeli settlements and settlers from benefiting from agreements signed with Israel.

Such steps are no longer a matter of choice: Failure to act at this stage, where the threats of further annexation are looming, only strengthens the Israeli colonial enterprise in occupied Palestine. After 52 years of oppression, colonialism, and exploitation of our lands and resources, we have every right to demand sanctions against the Israeli occupation.

To be clear: The occupation is not going to end out of “goodwill” but only as of the result of a courageous global action that will force Israel to change its calculation — by making its occupation costly and not profitable.

The failure of Manama serves as a reminder for those who, unlike the Trump administration, aims at the realization of a just and lasting peace — to reaffirm the Arab Peace Initiative as the formula for engaging the rest of the region in the context of an agreement that fully ends the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 and achieves a just solution to all final status issues based on international law and UN resolutions.

Manama has highlighted how isolated and detached from reality the Trump Team is. Regardless of their arrogance and ignorance about basic rules of international engagement and their ideological commitment to the Israeli occupation and its colonial enterprise as seen in Silwan, they have failed to change the terms of reference for a peace agreement as defined in international law, UN resolutions and previously signed agreements.

No matter how many unilateral measures have been taken against us, we stand firm on our principle that peace can only be achieved in a context that aims at equality and freedom for all.

We remain open to dialogue and cooperation with all international parties to advance on this internationally agreed vision.

Dr. Saeb Erekat is the Secretary-General of the Palestine Liberation Organization and head of the Negotiations Affairs Department.

Ni jauja ni desastre

Enrique Quintana

 02/07/2019 

https://elfinanciero.com.mx/opinion/enrique-quintana/ni-jauja-ni-desastre

Tanto partidarios como críticos de AMLO, ponen énfasis en ciertos resultados de los primeros siete meses de gestión. Cada uno, atento a lo que les conviene, tanto en los datos duros como en las percepciones.

Va la verdad, pura y llana, independientemente de inclinaciones y simpatías.

1.- El respaldo a AMLO fue, en promedio, durante el mes de junio, de 66 por ciento, de acuerdo con la encuesta de El Financiero. Eso significa casi 13 puntos más que el porcentaje que voto por él hace un año. Pero también es 17 puntos menos que el apoyo que tenía en febrero. Al margen de los mítines y marchas en su contra, el presidente tiene tras de sí a dos terceras partes de la población.

2.- El gran respaldo de AMLO deriva de que tiene el apoyo del 54 por ciento de quienes no votaron hace un año y el 62 por ciento de quienes no tienen ninguna identificación partidista. Destaca que un 45 por ciento de quienes se identifican con el PRI, respaldan a AMLO.

3.- Muchos de los críticos han insistido una y otra vez que el gobierno actual ya no puede argumentar que los problemas que existen derivan de la herencia del pasado. De acuerdo con la encuesta referida, el 76 por ciento de los encuestados piensa que, efectivamente, los problemas existentes son responsabilidad de los gobiernos anteriores.

4.- La gente común, sin embargo, no ve cambios. El 46 por ciento de los encuestados piensa que el país sigue igual. El 27 por ciento piensa que está mejor y el 26 por ciento considera que está peor. Claramente, muchos ven las cosas iguales. Y en el resto de la gente están divididos.

5.- En los temas específicos, en prácticamente todos los temas, hay opiniones desfavorables respecto a la gestión de AMLO. Destacan la opinión negativa respecto al combate a la pobreza y a la corrupción. Dos de las banderas fundamentales de este gobierno.

6.- La economía tiene un rostro de claroscuros. El crecimiento se ha desplomado. En marzo fue negativo y en abril, apenas creció. El ritmo de creación de empleos va para abajo. Pero, en contraste, se ha mantenido la estabilidad con base en una férrea disciplina fiscal y con la autonomía plena del Banco de México.

7.- Como le he comentado en varias ocasiones, no se puede perder de vista el crecimiento de los salarios reales en cerca de 2 por ciento, por primera vez desde el sexenio de Fox para más de 20 millones de los trabajadores formales.

8.- El gobierno de AMLO tomó la decisión de ratificar la integración a la economía norteamericana, y para conseguirlo, no ha dudado en ponerse como blanco de las críticas de las políticas de migración. Ni modo, es el costo de tener el respaldo de EU, como garantía de que haya una economía estable.

9.- AMLO está buscando un proyecto de largo plazo. Fue explícito el presidente señalando que, aunque eventualmente pudiera perder las siguientes elecciones presidenciales, tiene la intención de asegurar que los cambios no puedan echarse para atrás. Le importa más la permanencia de los cambios que los resultados electorales.

10.- Casualmente, el presidente Trump, el día de ayer, señaló que los aranceles a México ya están fuera de consideración por los resultados en materia migratoria. Un espaldarazo en el día de la fiesta de AMLO.

Ni jauja ni desastre, aunque apologistas y críticos pretendan lo contrario.

LÓPEZ OBRADOR A UN AÑO DE SU TRIUNFO, ENTRE LA REALIDAD Y SU REALIDAD

Hace un año Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) triunfó en las elecciones presidenciales, con el 53% del voto popular (30,113,483 votos[1]); la participación fue de 63.4%. Ganó en todos los estados, excepto en Guanajuato (donde triunfó Anaya) y su partido Morena obtuvo la mayoría en las Cámaras de Diputados y Senadores[2].

Los índices de aprobación de la población hacia AMLO se han mantenido elevados durante sus primeros meses al frente del gobierno[3], coincidiendo la mayoría de las encuestas en qué en los últimos meses, ha caído en un 7% su nivel de aprobación.

Con motivo de su triunfo en las elecciones, AMLO dio una entrevista a La Jornada[4] en la que habla de numerosos temas, pero centrándose sobre todo en que su propuesta de transformación (la 4ª) va viento en popa. Que son las élites, la “mafia del poder” la que está inconforme; que el pueblo está feliz con los cambios que ha iniciado su gobierno; que la prensa sigue interpretando la realidad con la visión neoliberal, y por eso no entienden, ni captan la nueva realidad (La Jornada incluida).

Critica a los conservadores porque quieren que su gobierno fracase, pero llama la atención que critica sobre todo a los “conservadores de izquierda” que están sobre ideologizados y que no quieren darse cuenta qué sus propuestas como el Tren Maya, el Proyecto del Istmo, la refinería de Dos Bocas, el aeropuerto de Santa Lucía, etc. van a beneficiar al pueblo.

Señala que no está militarizada la seguridad pública y que si fuera por él desaparecería al Ejército y lo convertiría en Guardia Nacional. Afirma con total convencimiento que los militares y marinos ya no violan derechos humanos, porque él no da órdenes para reprimir, desaparecer y torturar.

Y por supuesto, el tema principal es el combate a la corrupción, que dice ha avanzado mucho (contra el robo de combustible, los abusos dentro de la administración pública, el tráfico de influencias en la compra de medicinas, etc.); insistiendo en que el combate a la corrupción permitirá un mayor desarrollo económico, contraponiéndolo al crecimiento, pues éste último es sólo la creación de riqueza, mientras que el desarrollo implica también su redistribución.

Y para él sí ha crecido el empleo, con la incorporación de 600 mil jóvenes al programa de capacitación con pago; así como en el programa de siembra de árboles (otros 200 mil campesinos), que las cifras oficiales no reflejan, porque son transferencias monetarias directas, sin cotización al seguro social.

Que el programa de austeridad ha tenido sus fallas, pero en general es lo correcto; y que todavía falta cortar más “grasa” al gobierno (un argumento cien por ciento neoliberal, por cierto).

Es claro el voluntarismo de AMLO a todo lo largo de la entrevista. El está convencido que lo que está haciendo está cambiando al país de fondo; que los que están en contra o no lo quieren ver es porque forman parte de los grupos e intereses creados que se beneficiaron y tuvieron secuestrado al gobierno durante 36 años. Incluso los “izquierdistas” (zapatistas incluidos) y organizaciones sociales, indígenas, campesinas, ambientalistas, de derechos humanos, etc. que han criticado o han señalado errores e insuficiencias en sus propuestas de políticas públicas, son descalificados.

Sólo él ve “la realidad”, todo aquél que se opone o critica sus políticas forman parte de la “mafia del poder”, del pasado corrupto, o son grupos que estando en la izquierda, no se dan cuenta de los beneficios que sus propuestas traerán al pueblo.

Es una visión extremadamente maniquea. Yo siempre estoy bien; ustedes, todos lo que se opongan a mí, están mal.

Sólo en el tema de inseguridad concedió que no hay avances y eso porque le dejaron el país muy descompuesto; pero con las políticas que atacan las causas de la violencia y las acciones de la Guardia Nacional, el índice de homicidios tenderá a bajar. Se centra excesivamente en homicidios, y por ejemplo no concede que los secuestros han aumentado. Ni siquiera menciona el aumento de robos a casas-habitación, transporte de carga, transporte público, etc.

Es decir, a 7 meses de iniciado su gobierno, manteniendo altos índices de aprobación entre la población, AMLO sólo ve su realidad. Cualquier otra que reflejen cifras, interpretaciones o visiones distintas a las suyas, son mal intencionadas, sólo quieren mantener privilegios y recursos financieros en beneficio de algunos grupos, y no vale la pena ni escucharlos.

AMLO tiene razón en que el gobierno en el período que él llama neoliberal (la verdad es que la política económica que sigue aplicando sigue siendo neoliberal), fue utilizado por grupos políticos y una cúpula empresarial, para enriquecerse obscenamente, sin importarles el país y la mayoría de la población.

Que se tiene que recuperar al gobierno como motor de un verdadero desarrollo socio económico es indudable; que tiene que dejar de ser un botín para grupos políticos, empresariales y delincuenciales; también es cierto.

Pero que lo que está haciendo y cómo lo está haciendo AMLO sea lo correcto, sea la única forma y no haya otro camino; no es necesariamente cierto.

Si AMLO se aferra en que sólo él conoce al pueblo, sólo él interpreta los deseos del pueblo correctamente; sólo él encarna al pueblo, va a rigidizar sus decisiones; va a estrechar su visión de la realidad (su realidad V.S. la realidad); y a la postre, va a llevar al país a un solo camino, que si fracasa, podría cerrar por décadas la posibilidad de que opciones progresistas y cercanas a las necesidades de las mayorías, puedan acceder al poder; pues el experimento lopezobradorista podría acabar siendo la visión exclusiva de un solo hombre (buena, regular o mala); contra lo que se esperaba que fuera, un movimiento social de izquierda, para el cambio profundo del país.

---

[1] El segundo lugar fue para Ricardo Anaya con 12,610,120 votos, el 22.27%; y en tercero José Antonio Meade con 9,289,853 votos, el 16.4%.

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elecciones_federales_de_M%C3%A9xico_de_2018

[2] 55 senadores de 128 y 191 de 500 diputados.

[3] Encuesta El Universal: marzo 2019, 79.4%; junio de 2019, 72.7%. Consulta Mitofsky: abril de 2019, 67.8%; mayo de 2019, 60.5%.

[4]https://www.jornada.com.mx/2019/07/01/politica/002n1pol