Iconos

Iconos
Volcán Popocatépetl

martes, 29 de enero de 2019

Trump’s Venezuela Fiasco
by Ron Paul Posted on January 29, 2019
Last week President Trump announced that the United States would no longer recognize Nicholas Maduro as president of Venezuela and would recognize the head of its national assembly, Jose Guaido, as president instead. The US thus openly backs regime change. But what has long been a dream of the neocons may well turn out to be a nightmare for President Trump.
Why did Trump declare that the Venezuelan president was no longer the president? According to the State Department, the Administration was acting to help enforce the Venezuelan constitution. If only they were so eager to enforce our own Constitution!
It’s ironic that a president who has spent the first two years in office fighting charges that a foreign country meddled in the US elections would turn around and not only meddle in foreign elections but actually demand the right to name a foreign country’s president! How would we react if the Chinese and Russians decided that President Trump was not upholding the US Constitution and recognized Speaker Nancy Pelosi as US president instead?
Even those who would like to see a change of government in Venezuela should reject any notion that the change must be “helped” by the United States. According to press reports, Vice President Mike Pence was so involved in internal Venezuelan affairs that he actually urged Guaido to name himself president and promised US support. This is not only foolish, but it is very dangerous. A Venezuelan civil war would result in mass death and even more economic misery!
Regime change has long been US policy for Venezuela. The US has been conducting economic warfare practically since Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chavez, was first elected in 1998. The goal of US sanctions and other economic measures against Venezuela (and other countries in Washington’s crosshairs) is to make life so miserable for average citizens that they rise up and overthrow their leaders. But of course, once they do so they must replace those leaders with someone approved by Washington. Remember after the “Arab Spring” in Egypt when the people did rise up and overthrow their leader, but they then elected the “wrong” candidate. The army moved in and deposed the elected president and replaced him with a Washington-approved politician. Then-Secretary of State John Kerry called it “restoring democracy.”
It is tragically comical that President Trump has named convicted criminal Elliot Abrams as his point person to “restore democracy” in Venezuela. Abrams played a key role in the Iran-Contra affair and went on to be one of the chief architects of the disastrous US invasion of Iraq in 2003. His role in helping promote the horrible violence in Latin America in the 1980s should disqualify him from ever holding public office again.
Instead of this ham-fisted coup d’etat, a better policy for Venezuela these past 20 years would have been engagement and trade. If we truly believe in the superiority of a free market system we must also believe that we can only lead by example, not by forcing our system on others.
Just four months ago President Trump said at the UN: “I honor the right of every nation in this room to pursue its own customs, beliefs, and traditions. The United States will not tell you how to live or work or worship. We only ask that you honor our sovereignty in return.” Sadly it seems that these were merely empty words. We know from Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. that this will not end well for President Trump. Or for the United States. We must leave Venezuela alone!

lunes, 28 de enero de 2019

Is Monroe Doctrine back to trouble Latin America?
By Wu Zhihua Source: Global Times Published: 2019/1/27 


On January 23, the leader of opposition in Venezuela, Juan Guaidó, proclaimed himself interim president, quickly receiving support from the US. A peeved Venezuelan government cut diplomatic and political ties with the US and ordered American diplomats to leave the country within 72 hours. However, the US State Department claimed that it is defying the order from the Maduro administration and their diplomatic personnel will stay in Venezuela. 

Washington-Caracas ties have been souring for a long time. Since Hugo Chavez became president in 1999, Venezuela has been an eyesore for the US. In 2002, Venezuelan opposition staged an attempt to overthrow Chavez. However, to Washington's surprise, Chavez made a comeback with popular support in two days and the puppet government collapsed. Even then, the US did not stop targeting Caracas, constantly smearing the latter and imposing economic sanctions. Last February, then US secretary of State Rex Tillerson suggested that Venezuela may face a military coup, which would overthrow President Nicolas Maduro. 

Venezuela re-elected the president last year. Before the election, the government and the opposition had several rounds of talks. But they did not reach an agreement on issues like the election date and inviting international observers to oversee the vote. Maduro was re-elected a president with 67.8 percent of the vote. The US, EU and some Latin American countries alleged that the election was not fair and refused to recognize Maduro. Later, high-ranking US officials visited Latin American nations several times, lobbying to unite with Washington and isolate the Maduro administration. On September 25, 2018, US President Donald Trump even said at the UN general assembly that "It's a regime that, frankly, could be toppled very quickly by the military if the military decides to do that." 

Under the leadership of Chavez and Maduro, Venezuela has been upholding the sovereignty, countering US hegemony and exhorting Latin American countries to jointly follow the path of independence. The US cannot bear it. Washington will not allow any Latin American country that defies its hegemony to be stable. 

Since 2015, Venezuela suffered an economic slowdown, social unrest, and government corruption. Left parties in Latin American states such as Argentina and Brazil lost elections, leading to right-wing groups coming to power. American hawks hope to overthrow the Maduro administration by ratcheting up pressure through influence brought by political changes in Argentina, Brazil, and Colombia.

The US has been cracking down not only on Maduro's administration but also on other Latin American left-wing governments. US National Security Adviser John Bolton branded Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Cuba a "troika of tyranny," "stretching from Havana to Caracas to Managua" last year and predicted that the "troika" would "meet its demise." 

In the past 20 years, left-wing parties in certain Latin American countries have been elected to office. They have deepened cooperation and unity for development, strengthened regional integration, sought diversified diplomacy and built equitable partnerships on the international stage. The establishment of the Union of South American Nations and Community of Latin American and Caribbean States has shown that Latin America can take care of its own problems.

Anxious about being marginalized in Latin America, the Barack Obama administration tweaked its Latin American policy to create a rift in the alliance of left-wing nations. Certain goodwill measures like normalizing ties with Cuba were taken. Then US Secretary of State John Kerry even declared that "the era of the Monroe Doctrine is over" in November 2013. Monroe Doctrine was the core of the US' Latin American policy. Washington has regarded the Americas, including Latin America, as its own geopolitical sphere, and prevented other countries from spreading their influence on the continents. 

After Trump took office, neoconservative hawks have led the Latin American policy and intended to reuse the "Monroe Doctrine." They have intervened in Latin American affairs without hesitating to throw the norms of international relations to the winds. It is foreseeable that future US-Latin America relations and ties within Latin America will enter a troubled period.

The crux of Venezuela's ongoing political instability and insecurity lies in the choice of development path, which could only be decided by its own people. 

To solve the problem, various Venezuelan political forces should embrace dialogue, and strive for coordinated economic and social development while safeguarding national stability and peace. The international community should respect Venezuela's sovereignty and right to self-determination, oppose interference in its internal affairs, and be wary of the "Monroe Doctrine" once again sowing seeds of disaster in Latin America.


The author is a senior researcher of Taihe Institute and a senior reporter with People's Daily. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn

domingo, 27 de enero de 2019

Taliban Officials Claim Foreign Forces Will Leave Afghanistan Within 18 Months Under Draft Peace Deal
January 26, 2019
KABUL/PESHAWAR, Pakistan (Reuters) - Taliban officials said U.S. negotiators on Saturday agreed a draft peace deal stipulating the withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan within 18 months of the agreement being signed.
The details were given to Reuters by Taliban sources at the end of six days of talks with U.S. special peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad in Qatar aimed at ending the United States' longest war.
They have yet to be confirmed by U.S. officials nor has either side released an official statement. Officials at the U.S. embassy in Kabul were not immediately available to comment.
Khalilzad is heading to the Afghan capital Kabul to brief President Ashraf Ghani after the longer-than-expected talks, the sources and a diplomat said.
According to the Taliban sources, the hardline Islamic group gave assurances that Afghanistan will not be allowed to be used by al-Qaeda and Islamic State militants to attack the United States and its allies -- a key early demand of Washington.
It is not known if the draft is acceptable to both sides or when it will be completed and signed.
The Taliban sources said a key provision to the deal included a ceasefire but they had yet to confirm a timeline and will only open talks with Afghan representatives once the ceasefire is implemented.
Up until now, the Taliban has repeatedly rejected the Afghan government's offer of holding talks, preferring instead to talk directly to the U.S. side, which it regards as its main enemy.
"In 18 months if the foreign forces are withdrawn and a ceasefire is implemented then other aspects of the peace process can be put into action," a Taliban source said, quoting from a portion of the draft.
Fresh talks on the draft are expected in February, again in the Qatari capital Doha, the Taliban sources said.
They expect their side to be led by new political chief Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the movement's co-founder and a former military commander who was released from prison in Pakistan last year.
While they said his appointment had boosted momentum for a deal, it was unclear if he joined the talks.
Taliban officials believe the U.S. was keen to get Baradar -- who was captured in a joint Pakistani-U.S. intelligence raid in 2010 -- to the table so they could be sure of speaking to the movement's most powerful figures.
Near-daily attacks
Other clauses in the draft include an agreement over the exchange and release of prisoners, the removal of an international travel ban on several Taliban leaders by Washington and the prospect of an interim Afghan government after the ceasefire is struck, the Taliban sources said.
The suggestion to appoint an interim government in Afghanistan comes at a time when top politicians including Ghani have filed their nominations for the presidential polls in July this year. Ghani has repeatedly rejected the offer to agree to the formation of an interim government.
News of progress on a deal comes as the Taliban continues to stage near-daily attacks against the Western-backed Afghan government and its security forces.
Despite the presence of U.S.-led foreign forces training, advising and assisting their Afghan counterparts 17 years after the U.S. led an invasion to drive them from power, the Taliban controls nearly half of Afghanistan.
Ghani said last week that 45,000 members of the country's security forces had been killed since he took office in 2014.
The United States has some 14,000 troops in Afghanistan as part of the NATO-led mission, known as Resolute Support, as well as a U.S. counter-terrorism mission directed at groups such as Islamic State and al-Qaeda.
Despite reports in December last year that the United States was considering pulling out almost half of its forces, a White House spokesman said that U.S. President Donald Trump had not issued orders to withdraw the troops. However, the administration has not denied the reports, which have prompted fears of a fresh refugee crisis.
The Taliban sources also confirmed provisions in the draft that have broader implications for Afghanistan's ties with its neighbors, particularly Pakistan, India, and China.
They said the deal included provisions that Baloch separatist militants will not be allowed to use Afghan soil to target Pakistan.

Balochistan, a resource-rich yet often-neglected province in southwest Pakistan, has produced separatist insurgencies for more than 60 years.

sábado, 26 de enero de 2019

Venezuela: necesario recuento de daños
Giordana García Sojo*
En días recientes se ha hecho evidente el carácter central de Venezuela en la agenda geopolítica mundial. Las trazas que ha tomado el conflicto en tanto fermento de bloques de apoyo o de ataque muestran un escenario de enfrentamiento de dimensiones hemisféricas. EU ya no está en la cumbre de la globalización; Rusia y China y las potencias emergentes amplifican la posibilidad de multipolaridad.
Estratégicamente es la puerta caribeña de América del Sur, además de poseer grandes cantidades de agua, petróleo, oro y coltán. Hasta 1999 sus gobiernos entraron por el carril de la democracia vitrina, inauguradora de los desaparecidos políticos (y del plan Cóndor), pero en el marco civil de lo políticamente correcto y democrático.
Hugo Chávez se convirtió en un obstáculo radical. Desde que asumió la presidencia y planteó un proyecto autónomo y alternativo al neoliberalismo, la escalada de ataques trazó un hilo permanente de desestabilización.
Contra Venezuela se desató una guerra híbrida total. No han faltado los intentos de golpe de Estado, paros empresariales, formación de células paramilitares, ataques a la moneda y un bien financiado trabajo de creación de opinión pública y subjetividad: fake news, satanización de figuras del gobierno, continua mención negativa en programas mainstream y redes sociales, alusión en películas taquilleras, en suma, una deformación que recuerda a los tiempos de la guerra fría y la estigmatización del otro.
Con la muerte de Chávez se acrecentó la guerra contra el gobierno chavista, ahora dirigido por Nicolás Maduro. Desde el golpe de Estado de 2002 quedó claro el talante proestadunidense de la dirigencia opositora. Pero en 2015 se formalizó el conflicto: Barack Obama declaró a Venezuela como una amenaza inusual y extraordinaria para la seguridad nacional y la política exterior de EUy en 2018 Donald Trump afirmó su intención de intervenir militarmente para aportar ayuda humanitaria.
La tragedia de la oposición venezolana no ha sido la ausencia de gente que la apoye dadas las circunstancias de la guerra (vivir una coyuntura permanente), los privilegios de clase como bandera y el desgaste natural de 20 años de gobierno. Su problema estructural es la falta de proyecto de país. Mientras el chavismo elaboró un sistema de propuestas, planes, alianzas y símbolos, la oposición se estancó en actitudes reactivas negadoras del chavismo. En esta lid, ha fluctuado entre la vía violenta y la política, pero siempre con un único objetivo: acabar con el chavismo, sacar a Maduro.
El triunfo opositor en las elecciones legislativas de 2015 fue despilfarrado a causa de disputas internas. En medio de la crisis económica del país, los partidos de la oposición se enfrascaron en la discusión de cómo sacar a Maduro: si por referendo, enmienda constitucional o renuncia. Al no lograr un acuerdo, declararon que aplicarían las tres estrategias a la vez.
La vía de las protestas violentas falló en 2014, pero volvieron a ella en 2017. Ocurrió entonces el terrible saldo de decesos en las llamadas guarimbas, donde el odio contra el chavismo fue el motor principal de la convocatoria (la quema de personas vivas por parecer chavistas significó un duro golpe a la convivencia nacional).
En 2018 se extinguió la fragil unidad opositora alentando la abstención en las elecciones presidenciales. Los partidos que decidieron participar en la contienda no lograron acercarse a los 6.190.612 de votos obtenidos por Nicolás Maduro. El Consejo Nacional Electoral ejerció las mismas funciones que en 2015, cuando la oposición ganó la Asamblea Nacional (AN). Esta vez los resultados no fueron aceptados por los líderes opositores.
Comenzó 2019 con fuertes amenazas por parte del Grupo de Lima de no reconocer a Maduro. El 23 de enero, Juan Guaidó, diputado por el partido Voluntad Popular de la AN se autoproclamó presidente interino, sin ningún acompañamiento formal de otros poderes ni de otros miembros de la AN que lo avalaran. No hizo falta, de inmediato la Casa Blanca emitió su aval vía Twitter.
Asistimos a una mutación del derecho internacional, la diplomacia devino en instrumento de la guerra híbrida contra Venezuela, en consonancia con la retórica transmedia aceitada para lograr el mismo objetivo: eliminar al chavismo, sacar a Maduro.
La impericia política y, sobre todo, moral de la dirigencia opositora venezolana los ha llevado al límite de resguardarse en un golpe de Estado ejecutado directamente por el gobierno de EU. La entrega del país y sus recursos pareciera ser el único proyecto detentado. A lo interno, tanto el chavismo como la oposición movilizan gente. Afuera, la pulseada geopolítica se agudiza.
¿Qué pasará si logran consumar el golpe de Estado?

*Investigadora cultural, analista política y docente venezolana

viernes, 25 de enero de 2019

DOES THE CRISIS OF DRUG ADDICTION IN THE UNITED STATES ONLY OWE TO THE OFFER?
President Trump has continually pointed out that the only cause of drug consumption and its effects on American society is the entry of illicit substances through the southern border.
At no time has indicated that the drug addiction of 30 million Americans to these substances is the main engine that generates drug trafficking and associated deaths. Here is an explanation of what addiction means for American Addiction Centers[1]:
The Disease Debate
The definition of addiction varies among individuals, organizations, and medical professionals, and society’s viewpoints about addiction are ever-evolving. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) all similarly describe addiction as a long-term and relapsing condition characterized by the individual compulsively seeking and using drugs despite adverse consequences.1
These organizations call addiction a disorder or a disease because:1
·         Addiction changes how the brain responds in situations involving rewards, stress, and self-control.
·         These changes are long-term and can persist well after the person has stopped using drugs.
Comparing substance addiction to heart disease may help illustrate why it is defined as a disease by so many:1
·         Both addiction and heart disease disturb the regular functioning of an organ in the body – the heart for heart disease and the brain for addiction.
·         They both can lead to a decreased quality of life and increased risk of premature death.
·         Addiction and many types of heart disease are largely preventable by engaging in a healthy lifestyle and avoiding poor choices.
·         They are both treatable to prevent further damage.
Furthermore, since addiction is marked by periods of recovery and symptom recurrence (relapse), it resembles other diseases like hypertension and type-2 diabetes.[3] These diseases are lifelong conditions that require continual effort to manage. Symptoms will likely return during periods where treatment compliance is low or absent, and symptoms will likely diminish when compliance with treatment begins again in earnest. 3
The idea that substance addiction is a disease is not, however, universal. Some would argue that addiction is not a disease because of:[4]
·         Addiction is not transmissible or contagious.
·         Addiction is not autoimmune, hereditary, or degenerative.
·         Addiction is self-acquired, implying the person gives the condition to himself.
Proponents of this way of thinking put much more emphasis on the social and environmental factors of addiction—one proponent claims that addictions may be “cured” by locking addicts in a cell where there is no access to substances—instead of on the brain changes that occur as a result of substance abuse.4
Some schools of thought view treatment for addiction as little more than the individual making the decision to stop using.[5]
Specific aspects of these opinions are hard to refute. For example, it is true that most substance abuse begins with a decision (although in many cases substance use began with a prescription from a doctor for a real medical problem and evolved into abuse).
But while no one forced an addicted person to begin misusing a substance, it’s hard to imagine someone would willingly ruin their health, relationships, and other major areas of their lives. Surely, if overcoming addiction were as easy as simply choosing to stop, the problem of addiction would be much easier to address and relapse would not be as common.
It should be noted that “addiction is a choice” view is largely relegated to individuals and small groups. There are few, if any, nationally recognized substance abuse-focused organizations whose views have not evolved to understanding addiction as a disorder or disease. In fact, the NIH views the idea that addiction is a moral failing as an outdated, ill-informed relic of the past.[6]
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) no longer uses “addiction” as a term or diagnosis. Instead, the APA adopted the phrase “substance use disorder” as a way to describe problems related to “compulsive and habitual” substance use.[7]The change was made specifically to avoid confusion surrounding the term addiction and it’s “uncertain” definition, as well as the negative stigma attached to the word. 7
No matter how one defines addiction or what term is used, what is clear is that addiction is an enormous problem in the U.S. that affects millions. Another irrefutable fact is that many drugs—both illicit and prescription—are quite addictive.
Why Are Drugs Addictive?
People get addicted to drugs for many reasons, but one of the major factors behind why drugs are so addictive is the rewarding, euphoric high they bring about. Drugs have the potential to significantly impact the systems in the brain relating to pleasure and motivation and make it difficult for other natural pleasures to compare.1
Every person experiences natural rewards in their life like a delicious meal, a favorite song, the pleasant feeling following exercise, or happiness after sex, but drugs offer something more. The high that comes from abusing drugs is bigger, brighter, louder, and more gratifying than any natural reward, and it can make natural rewards seem small, dim, and quiet by comparison.
One of the brain chemicals often discussed in the addictive power of substances is dopamine.Scientists believe, when a rewarding event occurs, the brain releases dopamine to signal the experience and encourage repetition.1 In terms of natural rewards, this is healthy and keeps life going; consider the pleasure derived from sex: it encourages repetition, thus perpetuating the reproduction of the species.
Dopamine tells the brain that the experience of using a drug is important and should be repeated. The brain is programmed to remember the people, places, and things associated with the use, so it will be easier for the person to repeat the situation.
With repetition, these bursts of dopamine tell the brain to value drugs more than natural rewards, and the brain adjusts so that the reward circuit becomes less sensitive to natural rewards. This can make a person feel depressed or emotionally “flat” at times they aren’t using drugs.1 If natural rewards are a plate of broccoli, drugs are a huge bowl of ice cream, and broccoli is even less appetizing after ice cream.
Over time, the desire for drugs becomes a learned reflex—a person can be triggered to use by the people, places, and things that are linked to their drug use, just as someone might get hungry driving by their favorite restaurant, only the desire is likely to be much more overwhelming. Cravings can feel uncontrollable even years after a person gets sober.1
At the same time, the drug is producing these changes in the brain that are associated with the development of addiction, the individual may also come to tolerate higher doses and even depend on the drug to feel well. 3 Tolerance and dependence develop because of adjustments the brain makes to manage the alterations that come from the repeated presence of a drug. Tolerance and dependence are two signs of a substance use disorder but may also develop to some extent in the absence of addiction. 3 So what are they?
·         Tolerance is a state where the body’s reaction to the presence of a given amount of drug becomes diminished over time. To compensate, the person will consume a higher dose or consume it more often (or both).1 A growing tolerance to a substance’s effect and the ensuing increase in substance use may hasten the development of an addiction and increase the risk of overdose.
·         Physical dependence is the state of needing alcohol or other drugs just to feel normal. 3 Without these substances in the system, the withdrawal will arise, and depending on the substance, symptoms could range from irritating to life-threatening.7

Addiction and physical dependence are often talked about as though they are interchangeable; however, they are separate phenomena that can exist without the other. 3 Someone using their opioid pain medications as prescribed can develop some physiological dependence but may not exhibit the compulsive behaviors of addiction. Conversely, some drugs may be used in a compulsive manner that indicates an addiction without physically relying on it to feel well.
What Are the Causes?
There is no single cause of addiction; people begin using substances for many reasons and one person’s path to addiction may look drastically different from that of another.
Apart from the case of beginning drug use via a prescription from a doctor, there are 4 main reasons people may try substances, according to NIDA:1
·         To feel good. Drugs may lure people with the appeal of:
o    A euphoric high.
o    Feelings of power.
o    Increased confidence.
o    Energy.
o    Relaxation.
·         To feel better. Someone with anxiety, high stress, or depression might turn to drugs to try and manage distressing symptoms.
·         To do better. Some drugs have the reputation of improving athletic or academic performance, so people may see them as a way of getting ahead or even just keeping up.
·         To fit in or experiment. People, adolescents especially, may use out of sheer curiosity or to try and impress their peers.
People who have an intensely good experience their first time using begin to learn that drugs can make them feel great and the foundations of addiction are set. Not everyone responds the same way to drugs and alcohol, however.
For years, experts have debated if it was nature (biology/ genes) or nurture (upbringing/ environment) that determined whether someone will become addicted. Now, the prevailing view is that there is no one thing we can look at to predict someone’s risk of developing a SUD—rather, the interaction of the person’s unique biology and environment BOTH influence how the drug will impact a person’s susceptibility to becoming addicted.1
Biological factors impacting addiction account for between 40% and 60% of someone’s risk for addiction.1Possible biological factors include:1
·         Genes and epigenetics (the way environment impacts gene expression).
·         Gender.
·         Ethnicity.
·         Stage of development.
The person’s developmental stage is particularly important since teens who use drugs are much more likely to become addicted and remain addicted to adulthood.1
Environmental factors include all situations and experiences a person lives through. The most significant environmental influences include: 1
·         Home environment.
·         Family dynamics.
·         Friends.
·         School.
Each person will have a number of biological and environmental risk and protective factors.1 A risk factor is something that puts the individual in more danger of becoming addicted, while a protective factor is something that minimizes that danger.
Possible biological and environmental risk factors include:1
·         Family history of addiction.
·         Family history of mental illness.
·         Chaotic home life.
·         Adverse childhood experiences (ACE) like neglect or physical, mental, or sexual abuse.
·         Negative attitudes of parents and friends.
·         Unsupportive community.
·         Poor school achievement.
·         Easy access to drugs and alcohol.
Possible biological and environmental protective factors are:1
·         No family history of addiction or mental illness.
·         Good physical health.
·         Supportive, involved family.
·         Healthy relationships at home and in the community.
·         Access to positive resources in the neighborhood like community groups, safe playgrounds, recreation centers, etc.
·         Academic success.
·         Strong impulse control.
Finally, the risk of addiction may be strongly impacted by the route of administration of the abused substance. Certain routes will produce stronger highs. For example, injecting opioids will produce a rapid intense euphoria that snorting or swallowing opioids can’t match.1
Intense highs that come on rapidly also tend to dissipate quickly,1 and the quicker comedown may further encourage drug abuse.