LÓPEZ OBRADOR EL CANDIDATO DEL SISTEMA

¿Cómo pasó a ser Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) en unos meses el candidato del sistema? ¿No era el “peligro para México”; el nuevo Chávez y Maduro que convertirá a México en la Venezuela actual? ¿Dónde quedó el “populista” trasnochado que llevará a México a los tiempos de Echeverría y López Portillo?

Pues sucedieron dos eventos fundamentales que cambiaron la ecuación. Primero, la propia subclase política corrupta (PRI, PAN, PRD, PVEM y PANAL) se dividió en dos grupos para enfrentar a López Obrador. Ya había sucedido en las dos elecciones presidenciales anteriores (en 2006 con Calderón y Madrazo; en 2012 con Peña y Vázquez Mota); pero en ambas, el presidente en turno “operó” para que en los hechos (pues no hay segunda vuelta electoral), quedara al final de la contienda sólo una candidatura para enfrentar a AMLO.

Así, Fox y el equipo de Calderón (encabezado por Espino y Martínez Cázares, ahora aliados de AMLO), lograron un acuerdo con la maestra Elba Esther Gordillo (otra aliada actual de AMLO) para que convenciera a 5 ó 6 gobernadores priístas para que traicionaran a Madrazo, y los votos del PRI se fueran con Calderón. Aún así, apenas con un escandaloso fraude electoral, se pudo “derrotar” a AMLO con el 0.56% de ventaja en la votación (“haiga sido como haiga sido”, Calderón dixit).

En el 2012, ante la incapacidad de Calderón para dejar como su sucesor a su favorito Ernesto Cordero[1] (como en su momento Fox no pudo dejar de sucesor a Creel), la candidatura de Josefina Vázquez Mota nunca despegó, por lo que para Calderón fue relativamente fácil negociar la derrota de ésta en favor de Peña, a cambio de una hipotética futura candidatura presidencial de su esposa Margarita Zavala, que sería apoyada por Peña en el 2018.

Y aquí entra el primer factor decisivo que ha permitido a AMLO convertirse en el candidato del sistema. Peña Nieto hubiera tenido que operar en favor de una candidatura, ya fuera de su partido o en su defecto del PAN (supuestamente Margarita), para así hacer nuevamente un frente PRIAN, que esta vez se vería fortalecido por el PRD, puesto que AMLO lo había abandonado para formar su propio partido, Morena.

Pero todo se descompuso cuando dentro del PAN, la cantada candidatura de Margarita fue hecha pedazos por un trepador, implacable y ambicioso joven de nombre Ricardo Anaya, que primero se hizo de la presidencia del partido; después conformó una inverosímil alianza con PRD y Movimiento Ciudadano y finalmente echó a patadas del partido a Calderón y a su esposa (el impresentable Fox hacía tiempo que ya era un peón del PRI),

Todo ello desbarató los planes de Peña y de Calderón, pero aún así el impopular presidente mexicano intentó llegar a acuerdos con Anaya, cuando fue presidente del PAN, pero ambos se jugaron las traiciones propias del sistema político mexicano (elecciones en Coahuila y Estado de México; nombramientos del próximo Fiscal General; del Fiscal Anticorrupción; de próximos ministros de la Suprema Corte); y la relación se pudrió.

Ante la evidencia irrefutable de que al menos desde el principio de la campaña habría dos candidatos del sistema (Anaya y Meade), Peña esperó su oportunidad para darle un golpe de knock out a Anaya (como en su momento se lo dieron a su tío Arturo Montiel en la lucha por la candidatura presidencial del PRI en el 2005), exponiendo sus corruptelas para hacerse de propiedades en el estado de Querétaro por un valor de casi 400 millones de pesos, utilizando a su familia política como prestanombres.

Con ello Peña calculó que dejaría fuera de la contienda al joven irreverente, y así su candidato se convertiría en el del sistema, aglutinando los votos del PRIAN, y sumando sin dificultad los del corrupto PRD.

Pero Anaya se mantuvo en la contienda a pesar del golpe, y eso evitó la formación del frente “anti López Obrador” por meses, con lo que AMLO, manteniendo su discurso tradicional y al mismo tiempo aliándose con una parte de la oligarquía y de la subclase política corrupta (lo que no había hecho antes), logró mantener a su núcleo duro de apoyo y ampliarlo a otros segmentos sociales, con lo que su ventaja en las encuestas siguió creciendo.

Fue entonces que entraron en juego los oligarcas del país, los del Consejo Mexicano de Negocios, para intentar crear esa candidatura única prosistema, que enfrentara a AMLO, y para ello presionaron para que el tercer lugar de las encuestas, esto es Meade, declinara en favor de Anaya.

Pero esta vez el presidente no quiso operar en favor de una candidatura, en especial si el candidato tenía que ser Anaya, debido a que ya no confiaba en él y en todo caso prefería que Meade quedara como la opción del sistema.

Los oligarcas no pudieron convencer a Peña de abandonar a su candidato y de ponerse de acuerdo con Anaya (pesaron mucho las amenazas de Anaya de que metería a la cárcel a Peña por corrupción).

Ante ello, los oligarcas no tuvieron otro remedio que entenderse con el puntero en las encuestas, esto es López Obrador (el abrazo de “Acatempan” de AMLO con su némesis, Claudio X. González así lo atestigua).

Así que, el primer factor que ha jugado para que AMLO sea considerado ahora también el candidato de la oligarquía, es que Peña no pudo ni supo conformar un frente “anti López Obrador” como lo hicieron sus antecesores; y ninguno de los dos candidatos pro sistema se resignó a retirarse (ni Anaya, ni Meade) y eso mantuvo la división del bloque “anti AMLO”.

El otro factor decisivo para que AMLO sea ya el candidato del sistema, es que él decidió retraer sus ambiciosos planes de modificar la política económica, derrotar a la subclase política corrupta y recuperar la perdida soberanía nacional ante Estados Unidos.

A sus 64 años de edad y después de estar peleando contra el sistema 35 años, ya se cansó y prefirió moderarse. Y al moderarse, desechó cambiar la política neoliberal y sólo le limará algunas de sus aristas más agudas. Se dio cuenta que es imposible eliminar del sistema a los políticos corruptos y ahora prefirió entrar en pactos con ellos, para qué a cambio de no perseguirlos, no obstaculicen algunas de las políticas redistributivas que está prometiendo.

Y ante el poder de los oligarcas y las trasnacionales, que pueden generar boicots y crisis económicas como las que han propiciado en Venezuela; así como golpes de Estado “blandos” para deshacerse de los políticos que los incomodan, como en Brasil con Dilma Rousseff; mejor decidió ponerse de acuerdo con ellos, a cambio de que le permitan redireccionar algo del presupuesto hacia sus bases electorales, en los estados más pobres del país.

Con Estados Unidos, ante la agresividad de Trump, es factible que AMLO se tope con pared y no logre ningún acuerdo para recuperar parte de la soberanía perdida; pero eso ya lo irá experimentando una vez que tome posesión de la presidencia.

Así, AMLO es el candidato del sistema, porque no les quedó de otra a oligarcas, tecnócratas (que ya están viendo la forma de rodearlo en las áreas financieras y económicas del gobierno), subclase política corrupta y presidente saliente (Peña); y también porque no le quedó de otra a AMLO, si quería llegar a la presidencia.

El problema con un arreglo forzado como este, es qué a la primera oportunidad, cuando alguna de las dos partes se sienta lo suficientemente fuerte como para romperlo, lo hará (así lo hicieron los oligarcas brasileños con Rousseff, y no pararon hasta echarla de la presidencia y encarcelar a su mentor, el ex presidente Lula Da Silva). Y en ese momento, todo el “amor y paz” que se respira entre ambos “socios” se irá a la basura.

Por ahora, Peña intenta salvar lo que pueda del PRI y de los grupos corruptos que lo conforman, y para ello ha reiniciado los ataques a Anaya, con los videos sobre los tratos sucios que los empresarios Barreiro han hecho y siguen haciendo para financiar a Anaya (tanto personalmente, como en su campaña), con lo que espera lograr que Meade quede en segundo lugar y con ello negociar en una mejor posición, un nuevo “pacto de impunidad” con el siguiente presidente, en este caso AMLO.

---

[1] Y recordemos que antes (desde el interior del mismo sistema político) ya le habían asesinado a su delfìn original, Juan Camilo Mouriño, muerto en un extraño accidente de aviación.

Fallout from Colombia’s New Association with NATO

by W. T. WHITNEY

JUNE 6, 2018

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/06/06/fallout-from-colombias-new-association-with-nato/

It was no surprise. Already Colombia had sent personnel to military training schools in Germany and Rome and troops to the Horn of Africa to fight Somali pirates, all under the auspices of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.  Already, in 2013, Colombia and NATO had agreed to cooperate in intelligence-sharing, military-training exercises, and so-called humanitarian interventions. And in May 2017 Colombia and NATO agreed that the former would become a NATO “global partner.”

On May 25, 2018 Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos made an announcement to that effect. He mentioned too that Colombia was joining the Organization for Cooperation and Economic Development (OCDE), “an international club of creditors of deeply indebted poor countries,” according to one observer. Within a few days Santos was conferring in Brussels with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.

Colombia thus becomes NATO’s first global partner in Latin America. The others are Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, New Zealand, Japan, Mongolia, and South Korea. But planning for Colombia’s association with NATO apparently preceded that for the seven other nations. As a global partner, Colombia isn’t bound by Article 5 of NATO’s founding treaty of 1949 which declares that an attack on one member state is an attack on all of them, something applying to the 29 fully-fledged members.

The job description of a global partner, according to the NATO website, is to “develop cooperation with NATO in areas of mutual interest, including emerging security challenges, and some [partners] contribute actively to NATO operations either militarily or in some other way.” Thus an “intimate bond between the country and the structure of NATO” involves “close collaboration in most military areas.”

Colombia boasts two qualifications for associating with NATO. One, It’s a regional military power. Representative numbers tell that story: Colombia’s military force includes 550,550 troops (369,100 active duty), 273 helicopters, 1345 armed fighting vehicles, and $8.976 billion in budgeted military spending for 2017. Only Brazil at $25.75 billion exceeds Colombia in this regard in Latin America. The Colombian government spends 13.1 percent of its total outlay on military spending, which accounts for 3.4 percent of Colombia’s GDP, the highest such rate in South America, says a source citing a percentage of 3.1.

Secondly, Colombia’s relations with a powerful sponsor are tight. The bond between the United States and Colombia has persisted since 1948 when Bogotá hosted the conference at which the Organization of American States took shape, since 1951 when the “Colombian Battalion” joined U.S. troops in the Korean war (alone among Latin American soldiers), since 1962 when U.S. military advisors in effect turned Colombia’s counter-insurgency effort over to paramilitaries thereby sowing seeds of murder and chaos, since the 1980s when common purpose in dealing with illicit drugs first emerged, since 2000 when billions of dollars in military aid started to flow under Plan Colombia, since 2009 when arrangements for seven U.S. bases in Colombia were finalized.

Colombia enters a NATO where its U.S. patron has exerted leadership at the highest level. Partnership between the United States and Colombia, resting on shared commercial and economic interests of the dominant social classes of both countries, now plays out within a militarized, multi-national entity that protects such interests.

A dreadful duo thus has the back of Colombia’s oligarchy. The prospect is good that new grief will be falling upon the underclass not only in Colombia, but also in the region and farther afield.

Criticism centers on facades obscuring possible NATO and U.S. militarized interventions in Colombia and Latin America generally. These include operations of humanitarian assistance, fighting illicit drugs, and countering alleged terrorism. Intelligence-sharing and military-equipment standardization are likely.

There is speculation that a NATO – U.S. alliance may lead to new impediments to struggles in Colombia for justice and peace. It will “fence in possibilities for social transformation,” says one analyst. With NATO on the scene, the government’s zeal for implementing the recent peace agreement with the FARC, enfeebled already, may weaken even more. And Colombia’s army and paramilitary forces may soonbe acting “like a praetorian, imperial guard in the region controlling all the narco-trafficking in the region.”

There is worry too that with NATO’s intrusion in Latin American affairs, recent advances toward regional unity may be doomed. The presence of NATO, real or imagined, may cancel out or damage regional alliances that deal with social programs, or promote mutually beneficial trade arrangements, or foster military and diplomatic cooperation.  The prototype of the latter has been the Latin America and Caribbean Economic Community(CELAC) with its mission of ameliorating conflict among member states.  In retrospect, CELAC’s declaration of January, 2014 in favor of a “Zone of Peace” looks now like wishful thinking.

President Santos has come under serious criticism, for example, that “he brings to a peaceful and denuclearized region like Latin America and the Caribbean a weapon [capable] of mass destruction of peoples and states like NATO.” And according to Venezuela’s foreign ministry, Colombian authorities now“lend themselves to introduce, in Latin America and the Caribbean, a foreign military alliance with nuclear capacity, which in every way constitutes a serious threat for peace and regional stability.” That has meaning, says another observer, especially “along the borders of progressive states like Venezuela and Ecuador.”

Lastly, claims are heard that Colombia’s now close association with NATO represents a fundamental shift in U.S. strategies for global control. Formerly, and especially during the Cold War, NATO leaders targeted Soviet Russia ostensibly because of its communist government. For reasons that are less clear, but having to do generally with control, NATO undertook to encircle post-Soviet Russia. While engaged in the Middle East and Afghanistan, NATO had its eyes on Russia too.

Now, however, NATO has a Western Hemisphere ally with a coastline and ports on the southern reaches of the Pacific Ocean. U.S. machinations may have accounted for Colombia joining NATO, and, if so, with good reason.  Atleast one analyst there thinks that “China seriously threatens the political economic, military, and cultural hegemony of the United States.”In fact, he says, the Pacific Ocean is “today the most important battlefield of the Second Cold War.” And “for imperialist plunderers of the 21st Century, Colombia has become the point of their sword.”

W.T. Whitney Jr. is a retired pediatrician and political journalist living in Maine.

Indo-Pacific strategy a trap by Washington

Source: Global Times Published: 2018/5/31

---

The US military renamed its Pacific Command to Indo-Pacific Command on Wednesday, a plan that was disclosed earlier. The announcement garnered attention for Washington's Asia strategy. The analysis focused on the symbolic and real significance of the name change. Many media outlets also viewed the decision as Washington roping in India to exert more pressure on China.

That is one important strategic consideration for the US. But we think Washington eyes long-term goals for its Indo-Pacific strategy: first, to instigate China and India into long-term infighting; second, to cope with the inevitable rise of India and strengthen Washington's control of the Indian Ocean.

China's rise is not an isolated case. Rather it is a precursor to the rise of the Asian continent. The emergence of China and India represents the trend of developing countries stepping into the forefront of the world and striving for fairer global economic and political rules.

Westerners hold a complicated feeling viewing the development of China and India. Western opinion currently favors India, a result of a temporary geopolitical calculation. With India's continuous economic success, antipathy toward New Delhi will emerge in the West sooner or later. India is enjoying smooth diplomacy at the moment, but it won't last very long. In probably 20 years, its relations with the West will become highly complicated.

For Washington, driving a wedge between China and India is its best Asia policy. Its main allies in Asia also actively pursue it, which was almost realized during the Doklam crisis in the summer of 2017. As long as China and India maintain normal relations, security competition in the Indian Ocean won't occur between these two countries. The US will do its utmost to be the dominant player, barring any country from sharing power.

The Indian media is now full of vigilance toward China building ports in Sri Lanka and Pakistan. But China has no military base in the Indian Ocean. The Indian Ocean signifies a transportation route to China, but for the US it is a major battlefield for consolidating its global hegemony. In the long run, the primary contradictions in the area will occur between the US and India. US' Diego Garcia military base in the Indian Ocean will increasingly become a bone of contention, irritating India as the US enhances its status.

Two possible scenarios can unfold in Asia. China and India might be dragged by the US into an exhausting dispute with the rise of the two both delayed, or China and India can resolve or shelve disputes to promote their own development with Asia as a whole embarking on modernization.

The Indo-Pacific strategy is a trap set by Washington to bury the rise of China and India. But judging by New Delhi's response to this strategy so far, India has its own considerations. There is little possibility that India will fall into the trap. 

Will Putin’s Policy of Concession Succeed?

May 29, 2018, | 

 https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/05/29/will-putins-policy-concession-succeed/

Will Putin’s Policy of Concession Succeed?

Paul Craig Roberts

Russian president Vladimir Putin’s speech at the St. Petersburg International Economic Conference last weekend shows the Russian government’s ensnarement by neoliberal economic policy. Putin defended globalism and free trade, and he warned that crisis will result from the breakup of the global system.

In fact, the crisis is the result of globalism and neoliberal economics. For Russia, neoliberal economics means both economic and political crisis.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/05/25/americas-fifth-column-will-destroy-russia/

Neoliberal economics produces a domestic economic crisis because it diverts employment in high-productivity, high-value-added activities, such as manufacturing and tradeable professional skills such as software engineering, from developed economies, such as the US, UK, and Europe, to economies where wages are much lower. Neoliberal economics is also the basis for financialization, which diverts the economic surplus from real investment into debt service. Together these devastating impacts of neoliberal economics kill economic growth. Just look at the no-growth experience of the Western world in the 21st century, where growth has been limited to the prices of financial assets while well-paid employment disappears.

The problem is not only that neoliberal economics is a device for financialization and the ruination of populations for the benefit of oligarchs and global corporations. The larger problem is that The Russian government’s belief in neoliberal economics makes Russia impotent to withstand pressure from Washington. Russia cannot stand up to Washington or even to Israel, because the government believes that Russia’s economic success depends upon being integrated into the Western economic system. To keep the door open, Russia continually accepts provocations which encourage more provocations.

There are situations in which this is statesmanlike and commendable, but not this situation because the crisis goes beyond economics. Putin’s prudent diplomacy is perceived in Washington as weakness. The neoconservatives who control the US government are committed to US hegemony. They are already over-filled with hubris. Each time they witness Putin back away, they become more confident that they can with more pressure force Russia into submission.

For example, the neoconservatives read Putin’s standdown in the face of Trump’s missile attack on Syria, an attack based on an obvious fake news event, as a lack of nerve. Putin’s acceptance of Washington’s attack was very damaging to Russia’s credibility with Washington’s neoconservatives. What they saw was Putin accepting an attack on an ally to whose defense Russia had committed armed forces. What is the point of clearing Syria of American supported jihadists and then allowing Washington and Israel to attack Syria?

I have explained Putin’s standdown as his gamble that Washington’s aggression could break apart Washington’s European empire as long as Russia does not exercise force in a way that would scare the Europeans. In other words, Putin is behaving carefully, not rashly. This is admirable, especially as Putin has superweapons against which the West has no defense.

My concern is what happens if Putin’s bet doesn’t pay off, and the effect of Putin’s restraint is to convince the neoconservatives that Russia can be bullied into submission. I do not think Russia can be bullied into submission, but the neoconservatives will have Russia in a corner where Russia has to fight or surrender. Russia will fight, and it will be the end of us all.

In other words, if Putin’s admirable strategy fails, the neoconservatives, who are already more full of hubris that was Hitler when he sent the Wehrmacht marching off into Russia, will push Russia to the point of the war.

Therefore, I have suggested a different strategy: that Putin put his foot down. For example, he could stop accommodating the US and Israeli attacks on Syria. These attacks are illegal under international law. They are the actions of war criminals under the Nuremberg Standard established by the US itself. Putin could supply Syria with the S-300 missile defense system, but at the request of Washington and Israel Putin has not fulfilled the contract, another example to the neoconservatives of Putin’s lack of nerve, a misreading that encourages Washington in its provocations.

A foot-down strategy carries the risk of scaring the Europeans about Russian aggressiveness, which is the way the presstitute Western media would report it. However, this strategy does not carry the risk of convincing hubristic neoconservatives that Putin is a pussy. The effect on Washington could be positive and push Washington back to the time when the US was respectful of the Soviet Union. The effect on Europe could be to make Europe aware that the conflict that Washington is initiating is what threatens Europe, not a threat from Russia.

The evidence is clear that the neoconservatives are discounting Russia as nothing more than a short-term obstacle to US world hegemony. Let’s attempt to weigh some of the evidence in behalf of Putin’s diplomatic strategy. French President Macron, Washington’s puppet, who has French troops in the US-occupied part of Syria, is toasted by RT for going to the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum with the mission of “keeping Russia in the European family.”

https://www.rt.com/news/427820-putin-macron-russia-europe/

Is Macron, who has French troops in Washington-occupied Syria, breaking with Washington, or is Macron playing Putin along by encouraging Putin in his belief that Europe will break from Washington and welcome Russia into the “common European home,” thus encouraging more concessions from Putin.

Is the Russian government being deluded into making more concessions and accepting more requests that serve the agenda of Washington and Israel instead of Russia and her allies? Washington’s latest request is that Putin encourages Iran to withdraw its military contingents from Syria. Putin did as requested, but Iran refused on the grounds that, unlike the US, France, and Washington’s mercenary jihadists, Iran is in Syria at Syria’s requests. The result is that Washington and Israel, both of which continue to attack Syria, have succeeded in creating tensions between Russia and Iran. http://tass.com/pressreview/1005664

To avoid a rift with a necessary ally, Putin might instead have told Washington that Russia and Iran would withdraw after Washington removes the forces it has placed in Syria. Washington was quick to take advantage of the rift and has informed Putin that Washington does not approve of Russia fulfilling the contract to deliver jet fighters and the S-300 air defense system to Iran. If Putin accommodates this Washington request as well, it will make it much easier for the US and Israel to attack Iran.

Washington has won again. The dispute between Russia and Iran leaves Iran more vulnerable to a US military attack, an attack that a number of commentators see in the works. If Iran is destabilized, the easier to destabilize Russia.

What did Putin get out of again acquiescing to Washington? More threats to Syria from Washington and Israel. On May 28 Washington informed the Syrian government that if it attempts to clear Daraa of foreign invaders who are occupying, with Washington’s support, Syrian territory, Syria will receive a “firm response” from 

Washington.

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201805261064839163-syria-leaflets-reaction-daraa-ceasefire/

Israel informed Syria that Syria is not permitted to use its air defenses to protect its territory against Israeli aircraft operating within Syrian territory.

https://sptnkne.ws/hAhP

In other words, Washington and Israel have rewarded Putin’s concession by forbidding Syria to defend itself.

The neoconservative Washington regime is confident that it has Putin locked into the backdown mode and will even be able to negotiate Russia’s withdrawal from Syria. If that occurs, Washington will restart the war to overthrow the Syrian government.

With Russia on the run, Putin can expect a Washington-ordered Ukrainian attack on the breakaway Russian republics that Russia has left hanging and also Washington-organized ISIS attacks on Russia through the former Soviet central Asian republics.https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/05/24/putins-peace-efforts-coming-naught/

The Ukrainian attack could occur during the World Cup when the Russian government will be focused on the prestige of hosting the World Cup and not on its foreign policy.

When Russia is incorporated into the Western economy, it will be as a vassal state.

But for now, Russia is celebrating, pointing to the large attendance at the St Petersburg Forum, including that of the French president, as evidence that Russia is not isolated and is hoping for another prestige gain from the World Cup.

Perhaps someone in the Russian government will remember that it was its focus on the Sochi Olympics that delivered Ukraine into Washington’s hands.

America’s Incredible Shrinking Influence

by Ron Paul Posted on May 29, 2018

https://original.antiwar.com/paul/2018/05/28/americas-incredible-shrinking-influence/

Just two weeks after President Trump pulled the US from the Iran nuclear agreement, his Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, issued 12 demands to Iran that could never be satisfied. Pompeo knew his demands would be impossible to meet. They were designed that way. Just like Austria-Hungary’s ultimatum to Serbia in July 1914, that led to the beginning of World War I. And just like the impossible demands made of Milosevic in 1999 and of Saddam Hussein in 1991 and 2003, and so many other times when Washington wanted war. These impossible demands are tools of war rather than steps toward peace.

Secretary Pompeo raged at Iran. The mainstream news media raged at Iran. Trump raged in Iran. But then a strange thing happened: nothing. The Iranians announced that they remained committed to diplomacy and would continue to uphold their end of the nuclear agreement if the Europeans and other partners were willing to do the same. Iranian and European officials then sought out contacts in defiance of Washington in hopes of preserving mutually-beneficial emerging commercial relations.

Washington responded to the European snub by threatening secondary sanctions on European companies that continued doing business with an Iran that had repeatedly been found in compliance with its end of the bargain. Any independent European relationship with Iran would be punished, Washington threatened. But then, again, very little happened.

Rather than jump on Washington’s bandwagon, German Chancellor Angela Merkel made two trips to Russia in May seeking closer ties and a way forward on Iran.

Russia and China were named as our prime enemies in the latest National Security Strategy for the United States, but both countries stand to benefit from the unilateral US withdrawal from the Iran deal. When the French oil company Total got spooked by Washington threats and pulled out of Iran, a Chinese firm eagerly took its place.

It seems the world has grown tired of neocon threats from Washington. Ironically the “communist” Chinese seem to understand better than the US that in capitalism you do not threaten your customers. While the US is threatening and sanctioning and forbidding economic relations, its adversaries overseas are busy reaping the benefits of America’s real isolationism.

If President Trump’s canceled meeting with North Korea’s Kim Jong-Un remains canceled, North and South Korea have shown that they will continue with their peacemaking efforts. As if Washington was no longer relevant.

I’ve often spoken of the unintended consequences of our aggressive foreign policy. For example, President Bush’s invasion of Iraq only helped Iran – our “enemy” – become more dominant in the Middle East. But it seems new consequences are emerging, and for the neocons they must be very unintended: for all of its bellicosity, threats, demands, sanctions, and even bombs, the rest of the world is increasingly simply ignoring the demands of Washington and getting on with its own business.

While I am slightly surprised at this development, as a libertarian and a non-interventionist I welcome the growing irrelevance of Washington’s interventionists. We have a far better philosophy and we must work hard to promote it so that it can finally be tried after neocon failure becomes obvious to everyone. This is our big opportunity!

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

¿RECONFIGURACIÓN DEL SISTEMA POLÍTICO MEXICANO O PURO GATOPARDISMO?

Se acercan cada vez más las elecciones del próximo 1º de Julio, y los analistas y comentócratas señalan que se viene una reconfiguración importante en el sistema político mexicano[1].

El crecimiento del Movimiento de Regeneración Nacional (MORENA), creado por Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) hace apenas 4 años, ha sido impresionante, especialmente en los pasados dos años, lo que se explica por varias razones: los niveles de inseguridad y violencia que ha enfrentado la población mexicana en los últimos 12 años ha llegado a niveles intolerables; la corrupción de gobernantes del PRI, PAN, PRD y PVEM, partidos que han sido los que han gobernado las últimas tres décadas, ha llegado a niveles de tal cinismo, que ni siquiera la muy tolerante sociedad mexicana en este delicado tema, ha podido soportar el descaro de estos políticos y funcionarios públicos corruptos; la impunidad con la que políticos, criminales y empresarios coludidos con ambos, se mueven arrogantemente en todos los medios sociales, a pesar de los múltiples y reiterados crímenes que cometen, ya hartaron a la mayoría de la sociedad; el estancamiento del crecimiento económico por tres décadas, aunado a una política deliberada de contención salarial, para los de abajo, pero de acumulación brutal de ingresos para una minoría de arriba, ya exasperó a una buena parte de la sociedad; y, un sistema económico consumista, que promueve el individualismo, la satisfacción de los deseos y los placeres de manera inmediata, la vanidad, el lujo, etc., no se corresponde con una mayoría social que apenas tiene para vivir y una clase media que va perdiendo aceleradamente su nivel de vida (“gasolinazos”, estancamiento salarial, impuestos para los de abajo, devoluciones y “diferimientos” fiscales para los de arriba, etc.).

Este enorme enojo e insatisfacción social tiene que dirigirse hacia algún lado, y si bien los últimos años ha habido protestas y movilizaciones sociales, estas han resultado infructuosas para liberar la presión existente.

De ahí que sólo quedan dos caminos, la rebelión armada o intentar una vez más (fracasos en 1988, 1994, 2000, 2006 y 2012) un cambio pacífico, reformista, a través del sistema político-electoral.

La mayor parte de la población ya vive una “guerra” cotidiana contra narcotraficantes, secuestradores, chantajistas, extorsionadores, ladrones, políticos corruptos, policías coludidas con el crimen organizado, etc. De ahí que lo que menos quiere ahora es aventurarse a una lucha armada, que muy probablemente no terminaría en un triunfo ni rápido, ni indoloro; y que como sucedió en Colombia o Centroamérica, sólo provocaría destrucción, el advenimiento de regímenes dictatoriales y una permanente desestabilización, que podría extenderse por décadas.

Por ello, la única opción que le ha quedado a la mayoría de la sociedad para intentar cambiar su realidad, es el imperfecto y muy criticado sistema político-electoral.

El problema es que dicho sistema ha sido conformado por el mismo grupo de partidos y políticos que se han beneficiado a través de la corrupción, la colusión con el crimen organizado y la subordinación a los grandes empresarios y a la potencia hegemónica (Estados Unidos).

Además, ya gobernaron a nivel federal (PRI y PAN; PVEM aliado con ambos) desde la alternancia del año 2000, y en el caso del PRD, a nivel local en distintas entidades (principalmente la Ciudad de México), con los resultados mencionados.

Por lo tanto, podríamos decir que casi la mitad de los potenciales electores se ha quedado con una sola opción de cambio real, y que se identifica con el único político del sistema que lo ha criticado, que lo ha combatido (desde dentro) y que tercamente ha intentado reformar un sistema político-económico que se pudre cada vez más, sin que ninguno de sus beneficiarios haga algo por evitarlo.

Ese político, durante los últimos 18 años, ha sido AMLO, por lo que los altos niveles de aceptación con los que cuenta a estas alturas de la contienda electoral (entre 41.5 y 46.7% de las preferencias electorales; contra 26.7 y 31.4% de Ricardo Anaya; y, 18.4 y 22% de José Antonio Meade)[2] reflejan, más que un abrumador convencimiento acerca de sus propuestas por parte de diferentes segmentos sociales, o una firme confianza en él; es la absoluta falta de representantes políticos surgidos de la ciudadanía y ajenos a un sistema político-económico estructurado para privilegiar a unos pocos y explotar y/o ignorar a los más.

Se espera que después del 1º de Julio el actual partido en el poder, el PRI, quede en un lejano tercer lugar con entre 15 y 20% de las preferencias electorales; que el PRD, no consiga más de 5 ó 7% de la votación y aún no se sabe qué sucederá con el tradicional representante de la derecha, el PAN, que podría obtener entre 23 y en el mejor de los casos 27% de los votos.

Por su parte Morena, que aún no es un partido estructurado y que se basa en gran medida en el liderazgo de AMLO, podría llegar a tener entre 35 y 40% de los votos, lo que lo convertiría en la primera minoría entre los distintos partidos, aunque algunos encuestadores estiman que podría lograr la mayoría al menos en una de las dos Cámaras (Mitofsky).

En principio, un resultado que hundiera de tal forma al PRI, apenas mantuviera en sus rangos históricos al PAN; que casi condenara a la extinción al PRD, y que colocara a una nueva formación política como Morena como el partido dominante, sería sin duda una reconfiguración mayor en el sistema político mexicano.

El problema con ello no es que los votos que antes dominaban los partidos tradicionales migren hacia la que en este momento representa la única opción de cambio real para la mayoría de la población, es decir Morena.

Si no que la mayoría de los políticos de esos partidos, están migrando también hacia Morena y esta agrupación, con tal de vaciar a sus contendientes de apoyo, los está aceptando, con lo que el pretendido “cambio” no parece estarse verificando; ya que no está formándose un sistema político con gente nueva, joven y/o adulta que se esté incorporando de la sociedad civil, con objeto de cambiar los objetivos y las prácticas corruptas, incompetentes y patrimonialistas de la clase política tradicional.

Lo que realmente está sucediendo es que los mismos políticos logreros, oportunistas y corruptos del sistema vigente, ante el repudio social hacia ellos, están cambiando de “camiseta” solamente; pasándose a Morena, con todo y sus grupos clientelares, prácticas corporativas e intereses creados; y están siendo recibidos “con los brazos abiertos” por el pequeñísimo grupo que maneja al partido de AMLO, pues de lo que se trata en este momento es de ganar la elección; y por lo tanto, el interés es “sumar” apoyos.

¿Pero qué pasará una vez terminada la elección? ¿Estos grupos corruptos, clientelares, corporativistas, no exigirán su “pago”, su retribución por el apoyo dado? Si efectivamente se les compensa con cargos públicos y posiciones políticas, entonces el “gatopardismo” se habrá hecho presente y el tan deseado cambio se habrá ido a la basura.

¿Y si AMLO decide no retribuirles su apoyo? Bueno pues entonces estos grupos se lo van a cobrar con sabotajes, boicots, oposición permanente a su proyecto, colusión con los grandes empresarios y la potencia hegemónica para obstaculizar e intentar hacer fracasar al gobierno de AMLO, tal como lo hicieron los grupos políticos corruptos y los oligarcas contrarios a los gobiernos de Rousseff en Brasil, Cristina Fernández en Argentina, Nicolás Maduro en Venezuela y Rafael Correa en Ecuador.

Así que hay que preguntarnos si estamos frente a una reconfiguración real del sistema político, o tan solo es el ya conocido “gatopardismo” de la política mexicana. “que todo cambie, para que todo siga igual”.

---

[1] http://www.milenio.com/opinion/hector-aguilar-camin/dia-con-dia/morena-que-es-morena

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/columna/ricardo-raphael/nacion/el-fin-del-pri

[2] https://oraculus.mx/

Rob Malley and Chris Hayes can’t talk about Adelson’s influence in scrapping Iran deal

US Politics

Philip Weiss on May 22, 2018

http://mondoweiss.net/2018/05/adelsons-influence-scrapping/

Two leading figures on the American left, Rob Malley and Chris Hayes, cannot honestly discuss the role of Israel in foreign policy-making, specifically Sheldon Adelson’s influence over Donald Trump’s historic and tragic decision to scrap the Iran deal, a landmark of international diplomacy.

Malley, a former Obama security aide, gave a one-hour interview on Trump’s destructionof the Iran deal and cited three reasons for Trump’s decision: He wants to demolish Obama’s legacy (“That’s an obsession”), Trump wants to fulfill promises he made to his “base,” the “electorate;” and he has advisers who counsel “regime change” in Iran.

No one would question that Trump wants to destroy Obama’s achievements. But the base? When Trump campaigned in March in rural Pennsylvania for a Republican congressional candidate (who lost), he didn’t once mention Iran or the Jerusalem embassy. Trump’s base doesn’t care about those things. And to the extent they do, they don’t want Middle East wars. Rob Malley writes for the New York Review of Books, and ought to be more responsible.

Malley failed to mention the elephant in the room: Sheldon Adelson, Trump’s largest donor. As Eli Clifton has reported, Trump scrapped the deal because of three billionaire donors, Adelson, Bernard Marcus and Paul Singer, whose “investment [is] total alignment by the U.S. behind Israel.” The three men are all rightwing Jewish Zionists (though Adelson and Singer are liberal on social issues), and their influence is significant: Trump trashed his original foreign policy braintrust of Tillerson/McMaster that supported the Iran deal, and replaced it with two hacks Pompeo/Bolton, whom Adelson surely adores.

Adelson has incredible access. Peter Stone of McClatchy reported that the day after the Iran decision,

Adelson quietly slipped into the White House for a private meeting with Trump and three top administration officials: Vice President Mike Pence, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and an Adelson favorite, National Security Adviser John Bolton

Lately Adelson gave $30 million to the Republican Congressional Leadership Fund to try and thwart a Democratic takeover of the House in the midterms. That’s hugely meaningful to our transactional president. His neck could be on the line in these elections.

The McClatchy story on Adelson’s influence states that both the Jerusalem and Iran decisions stemmed from Adelson’s power. “The White House actions partially are testament to Adelson’s clout and that of like-minded pro-Israel conservatives, many observers believe.”

McClatchy named a source who ought to know. Mel Sembler, a former fundraising chair of the Republican National Committee, “thinks Adelson’s influence was palpable. ‘I’d say he was an important factor in all these decisions,’ said Sembler.”

At The Nation, Amy Wilentz is also honest about Adelson’s role:

To my mind, he is single-handedly responsible for this grotesque change in US policy. He’s a giant contributor to the super PACs that funded Trump’s election. He supports conservative super PACs, both for the House and the Senate to the tune of $20 and $25 million for each. You could even say that there was a quid pro quo for this embassy: I give you $25 million, you move the embassy.

Again, this is influence that Rob Malley (for whom we have considerable respect) cannot report. Why not? Because to do so smacks of assertions of outsize Jewish influence that were a hallmark of murderous, anti-Semitic campaigns in Europe. I understand the apprehension; but journalists have to go where the facts are, and follow the money.

Chris Hayes, the progressive host at MSNBC, is almost as bad as Malley. On May 10, he did a segment on the fact that the Republican Party was getting that $30 million from Adelson and ascribed it to Adelson’s being a “satisfied customer” on his foreign policy priorities: scuttling the Iran deal and moving the embassy.

But Hayes made it a point not to dwell on Adelson’s agenda in any depth. The segment was devoted to smoke-screen speculation that Adelson’s game was trying to get estate-tax changes from Republicans that would personally profit him $670 million. That’s absurd. Adelson once urged Obama to nuke Iran and has said that he wished he had served in the Israeli army not the American one. Hayes’s panel said it was all about voter suppression, or the “endless corruption” of Republican-backed campaign financing provisions. Jason Kander, a former secretary of state in Missouri, said the Democratic side “thinks… we should change these [campaign finance] rules.”

Kander is an opponent of the Iran deal himself, and all but congratulated Trump on breaking the deal. That’s what Hayes is up against, the Democratic Party leadership also loves Israel and has never stood up firmly for the Iran deal.

Hayes covered his behind toward the end of the segment, the only time Israel was mentioned.

There’s also a foreign policy component here. The rich donors might have different foreign policy priorities. Sheldon Adelson has very intense foreign policy priorities as relate to Israel. You can imagine people having intense foreign policy priorities as to Brexit or NATO or Ukraine… You get a US foreign policy where you have to wonder what is guiding it.

That’s far too little too late, and deceptive. Could Hayes’s mystification have anything to do with the fact that Comcast executive David Cohen held fundraisers for the Israeli Defense Forces and pro-Israel American Jewish groups? I think so.

The New Yorker Radio Hour also mystified Trump’s motivation, implying in that segment last weekend that Trump was trying to satisfy his electorate.

But Adelson can take credit for turning Trump away from his initial isolationist statements during the campaign. Back in January 2016, Trump said that the Iran deal was bad for American business, and that was the problem.

That was before Sheldon Adelson signed on to the Trump campaign, when he was still giving money to Ted Cruz.

But as usual, the Democrats and progressive media are more worried about the Koch brothers.