Castro Hangs Up on U.S. Telecom Initiative
Posted using ShareThis
martedì, ottobre 20, 2009
lunedì, ottobre 19, 2009
Olla de Ruta Duquenal
Daniel es una de las pocas personas que yo conosca que pueda arriesgarse a poner en la mesa una propuesta asi' compleja: yo no puedo evaluarla, pero apoyarla a la ciega, si.
Aqui van los posts:
domenica, ottobre 18, 2009
El Alba implementa el Sucre, una moneda que suscita controversia
COCHABAMBA, Bolivia — Los nueve países de América Latina y el Caribe que integran el Alba, con un PIB anual combinado de unos 540.000 millones de dólares, adoptaron este viernes el Sucre, una moneda intrarregional cuya implementación genera dudas en medios económicos.
La VII Cumbre del Alba (Alianza Bolivariana de las Américas) aprobó este viernes el tratado que constituye el Sistema Unico de Compensación Regional (Sucre) para las operaciones de comercio exterior entre los países miembros.
Posterior a las deliberaciones de los ministros de Economía del Alba, se firmó el acuerdo que implica que se abandona el dólar estadounidense en los intercambios entre los nueve países.
Tras su implementación, que será gradual, los países del Alba pretenden aplicar posteriormente, aunque también sin fecha, una moneda común, al igual que el euro en Europa.
Para que entre en vigencia el Sucre, los países miembros deberán hacer depósitos en sus respectivas monedas locales en el Banco del Alba que tiene su sede en Caracas, según lo acordado.
El Sucre "es un paso a nuestra soberanía monetaria para liberarnos de la dictadura del dólar, que el imperio yanqui le impuso al mundo", señaló el presidente venezolano, Hugo Chávez.
La iniciativa partió en noviembre pasado, en plena crisis internacional, y fue liderada por el propio Chávez.
El ALBA está integrado por Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Honduras, Cuba, San Vicente y las Granadinas, Dominica y Antigua y Barbuda.
Chávez ha invitado a otros países -como Argentina y todas las naciones centroamericanas- a esta iniciativa, mientras que el presidente de Ecuador, Rafael Correa se refirió al Sucre como un elemento importante de la "nueva arquitectura financiera regional".
El viceministro de Exportaciones y Comercio Interno boliviano, Huáscar Ajata, explicó recientemente que con el Sucre "ganamos en soberanía económica y monetaria, ya que realizaríamos las transacciones mediante un medio de compensación propio".
Pero la medida ha generado fuertes críticas en sectores empresarios y de derecha.
El ex presidente boliviano Jorge Quiroga, crítico acérrimo del actual mandatario, Evo Morales, señaló que la idea de crear el Sucre es un exabrupto.
"Les aseguro que va a erosionar enormemente la confianza en la moneda boliviana ahora y a futuro, al entrar en esa clase de aventuras con países que no tenemos relación comercial, que tienen políticas cambiarias insostenibles", señaló Quiroga.
Dijo que en naciones con poco comercio entre ellos y "muy inestables, como Venezuela, en su régimen cambiario y dolarizados (Ecuador), es que es absolutamente inviable, demencial, desquiciado el contemplar o buscar una moneda regional".
En Managua los empresarios nicaragüenses desestimaron también la adopción del Sucre.
El presidente del Consejo Superior de la Empresa Privada (Cosep), José Adán Aguerri, señaló que las exportaciones de Nicaragua en un 90% van al mercado donde "prevalece la divisa dólar" como Estados Unidos, México, Centroamérica y Europa.
"Nuestro esfuerzo va a continuar en colocar los productos (nicaragüenses) en estos mercados y va a seguir prevaleciendo el dólar", dijo Aguerri.
En Quito el secretario del privado Observatorio de Política Fiscal de Ecuador, Jaime Carrera, dijo a la AFP que la aplicación del Sucre entre los países del Alba "entorpecerá el comercio en virtud de que el cruce de cuentas se realizará a través de los bancos centrales".
Y "en el caso de Ecuador, habría incertidumbre al creerse que sería una medida camino a la desdolarización de la economía", indicó.
El Alca fue creada en 2004 por Cuba y Venezuela para contrarrestar al Area de Libre Comercio para las Américas (ALCA), que por entonces impulsaba Estados Unidos para su comercio con América Latina.
Blogged with the Flock Browser
sabato, ottobre 17, 2009
Cuando vengan por Colombia… ya no habrá nadie que nos ayude. - Jaime Eduardo Botero Gómez
Por Jaime Eduardo Botero Gómez
Domingo, 27 de Setiembre de 2009 | ||
The case of Honduras - POWERLINE
The case of Honduras
October 15, 2009 Posted by Scott at 6:48 AM
In Honduras the Obama administration seeks the restoration to power of a lawfully deposed Chavista thug. Among other things, in pursuit of this objective, the administration has
According to Mary Anastasia O'Grady: "The lesson, presumably, is that judges in small foreign nations are required to accept America's interpretation of their own laws." O'Grady rightly observed: "The upshot is that the U.S. is trying to force Honduras to violate its own constitution and is also using its international political heft to try to interfere with the country's independent judiciary."
From the perspective of the national interest of the United States, the administration is running a fool's errand. The case of Honduras presents a remarkable example of Obama's foreign policy. It is a foreign policy that provides a continuing lesson in how to alienate friends and amuse enemies.
We await only the speech in which Obama explains how Americans have at long last overcome their inordinate love of freedom. A reading of Charles Krauthammer's important essay on Obama suggests that such a speech would illuminate administration policy both at home and abroad.
The Chavista thug supported by the administration snuck into Honduras last month. Since then he has been holed up in the Brazilian embassy.
On his recent trip to Honduras, Senator Jim Demint made an interesting discovery: "In a day packed with meetings, we met only one person in Honduras who opposed Mr. Zelaya's ouster, who wishes his return, and who mystifyingly rejects the legitimacy of the November elections: U.S. Ambassador Hugo Llorens."
Senator Demint sought an explanation of the administration's policy: "When I asked Ambassador Llorens why the U.S. government insists on labeling what appears to the entire country to be the constitutional removal of Mr. Zelaya a 'coup,' he urged me to read the legal opinion drafted by the State Department's top lawyer, Harold Koh."
Senator Demint would like to read Koh's opinion. "As it happens," Senator Demint reports, "I have asked to see Mr. Koh's report before and since my trip, but all requests to publicly disclose it have been denied." Senator Demint also noted the analysis prepared by the Law Library of Congress confirming the legality and constitutionality of Zelaya's ouster.
The government of Honduras continues to negotiate with representatives of Zelaya to resolve the current crisis. The negotiations were in the news again yesterday. The negotiations bear on the prospective treatment of the outcome of Honduras's regularly scheduled presidential election on November 29. The Obama administration, of course, has joined others in threatening not to recognize the outcome of the election if the current crisis is not resolved to its satisfaction with Zelaya's restoration to power.
For those seeking an understanding of the sum and substance of the Obama administration's foreign policy, Honduras provides an excellent case study
Blogged with the Flock Browser
venerdì, ottobre 16, 2009
Karl Marx:The Communist Manifesto - OUTHITW
The Communist Manifesto
"A dead communist . . ."
- 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
-- Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, 1848
Blogged with the Flock Browser
Dirty tricks behind the Honduran scenes - La Gringa Blogicito
One more excellent resume by La Gringa. WOW!
Friday, October 16, 2009
Dirty tricks behind the Honduran scenes
A few Chávez puppets are missing from this cartoon,notably José Insulz of the OAS
Rumors have been circulating for a few days that Mel was going to accept exile in Spain. I did not believe that Zelaya would agree to that. His ego is too big to consider what is best for the country. Though not often reported, since the beginning Roberto Micheletti has offered to resign and be replaced by a third party if Zelaya would do the same, an offer which puts the country above personal interests but was rejected out of hand by Zelaya. Zelaya may end up accepting exile but I believe that will only happen if he somehow loses support from the international community.
Interestingly, my source in Tegucigalpa tells me that the "international community" are the ones who were pushing for exile for Mel. He said that US President Obama personally called Zapatero of Spain to ask if Spain would accept him. They are the ones who also wanted Honduras governed by a Consejo de Ministros (Council of Ministers), half Zelaya supporters and half Micheletti supporters.
I say 'Micheletti supporters' only to make it clear to readers but those in Honduras know that this is much more complicated than a power struggle between two men. Unfortunately, the international media has portrayed it as just that − two stubborn men butting heads because one went a little too far to the left. Not so.
This council of 16 ministers would be led by Victor Meza, former Secretary of Government and Justice and current head of Zelaya's Guaymuras delegation. Apparently, Article 242 of the constitution could possibly be interpreted to allow this, but that seems a stretch.
This is what the international community is pushing for, but at the same time they say they want a HONDURAN solution (translated from diplospeak: but only as long as it matches their own solution). They are still threatening that if no agreement is reached and Mel is not at least symbolically reinstated they will NOT recognize the elections − very undemocratic, especially considering that the president plays no part in Honduran elections. There is no reason not to recognize the future democratically elected president of Honduras except as misplaced retribution.
By the way, Canucks, my source gives the Canadian representative much credit with helping to advance the agreement. The US Embassy, on the other hand, was summoning businessmen to meetings with a State Department representative (for a little last minute arm twisting?) on Sunday according to El Tiempo.
Apparently Mel is not happy with this or any of the other suggestions involving symbolic restoration. My source tells me that Zelaya is 100% tied to Hugo Chávez and that Chávez does not want him agree to anything. If Mel accepts a deal, it's all over between him and Chávez, and Zelaya is very afraid of Chávez.
Speaking of revenge, Patricia Rodas, former Minister of Foreign Relations, has been working the UN for weeks, hand in hand with the Venezuelan UN Ambassador, to increase sanctions on Honduras. Finding reasons to demand non-recognition of the elections is the favorite out of Patty's and Mel's bag of tricks, a true sign (among many others) that they never intended to hold them to start with.
Speaking at the ALBA summit today, Rodas said that if Honduras does not submit today to international demands to reinstate Zelaya (so much for the dialogue) she hoped that there will be profound isolation of Honduras. If she could ask ALBA or the UN to bomb Honduras into submission, I have no doubt she would do so. To get a flavor of this woman, see the video [English translation] of her Oscar-worthy speech at the UN. To get a flavor of the idiocy of the UN representatives, they ate up all the talk of "the poor oppressed people of Honduras walking across the world in their campaign for freedom and democracy" and her characterization of Honduras as an enormous "concentration camp".
Patty and Mel developed a list of golpistas which includes Micheletti, the 15 Supreme Court Justices, the 123 Diputados (out of 128 Senators) that voted for Mel's removal and substitution, the Attorney General, the Ministers who stayed with Micheletti, the top police brass, the top military officers, ex-presidents, businessmen, media owners, and everyone else who strikes their fancy.
Can you imagine? Can you imagine the US Supreme Court Justices being tried in international court if the "international community" decides that they don't agree with a decision? It seems that judges and senators and other officials in other countries might get worried about setting a global precedent for intimidation here.
Of course, the main purpose of the trials would be to declare a state of emergency to dismantle the constitutional government of Honduras. With basically the entire government accused of crimes, what better time to throw out the constitution and appoint your buddies to the new constitutional assembly which would then become the new government of Honduras, led by who else but Manuel Zelaya and Patty Rodas.
But make no mistake about this: The world community, particularly the OAS has a lot more to do with this Guaymuras dialogue than the media is telling you.
Outside pressure and serious threats are the rule of the day, no recognition of elections or the next government, more sanctions, Honduras will be isolated, blah, blah, blah.
They also use the strategy that they are deeply worried that if a solution is not reached that Chávez will invade Honduras and the United States will not do anything, and that they, the international community, will not be able to do anything because no one recognizes Honduras' government. So they argue that they are actually on our side, and are trying to shove their agreement down our throats to save us dumb Hondurans from the Mad Man Chávez, and that only the OAS cares about Honduras because Chavez and Obama don't.
How's that for bass-ackward diplomatic logic? The reason that Zelaya was removed was to protect Honduras from Chavismo, now we are supposed to take him back to protect Honduras from Chavismo because they won't. Incredible that the free world is using Hugo Chávez as a threat against Honduras!
The OAS has threatened to try Roberto Micheletti and ALL the others mentioned in the list above as coup plotters in international court. Many are not worried because they had nothing to do with Zelaya's removal but they aren't relishing their reputations being tarnished forever in history by what can only be called blackmail. The OAS has already told Micheletti what his verdict will be: Guilty, with a life sentence in a European prison.
So, folks, this is the way the world really works. Are you as surprised as I am?
Blogged with the Flock Browser
Stay the course - Carlos Alberto Montaner
In any case, one of the first decisions the new government will have to make is what to do with Zelaya. Will it grant him amnesty, give him safe conduct or leave him permanently ensconced in the Brazilian Embassy?
Former Cuban President Manuel Urrutia -- the first chief executive designated by the revolution after the fall of Batista -- spent more than two years secluded in the embassies of Venezuela and Mexico in Havana until Castro granted him safe conduct. Peruvian President Victor Raúl Haya de la Torre spent five years in the Colombian Embassy in Lima. It's a question of firmness.
Blogged with the Flock Browser
Brazil can't be leader in region - Carlos Alberto Montaner
The United States isn't in the slightest interested in continuing to be the power responsible for stability and good governance in Latin America. That was an uncomfortable task in the 20th century. But it's over. Now that the Soviet Union is gone, American politicians see no potential danger to national security lurking in the region.
Blogged with the Flock Browser
giovedì, ottobre 15, 2009
The 2010 Venezuelan votes: the messages - Daniel duquenal
Daniel wrote ather excellent and courageous article, tryng to make "la olla de ruta para oposicion".
Before starting an electoral contest usually political parties try to put together a message to attract voters. With at least two general elections coming next year, this should not be the exception in Venezuela. In fact, chavismo has already started campaigning hard even though there is not a single candidate named yet. But it does not matter, they all ride on Chavez's coat tails anyway and since it has sort of worked for the last ten years, why not not repeat the formula? If people have been willing to vote for zillions of promises and very few achievements chavismo has all the right to think that it will work once again. They know very well the cattle they herd ("conocen su ganado" as we say in Venezuela).
Tonight we had yet another cadena illustrating this point, following already the Sunday cadena of nearly 6 hours. Brace yourself, we are in for a cadena almost every day for the next few months. Both forced nation wide broadcast had only one objective: put up a show to try to cover up what has become an obvious failure: the famous Mision Barrio Adentro which has proven to be unsustainable. What Chavez is doing is simply promise that it will all be fixed, by 2019 there will not be any poor left in Venezuela (I kid you not) and watch out, we are bringing back the Cubans; without of course bothering to explain how come the Cubans left and why were they not replaced with Venezuelan medics. But when you run inconceivable populist campaigns you do not pay attention to the details.
Opposition delays
If chavismo is right and ready, not bothering with subtleties whatsoever, the opposition is yet to emit a peep-squeek of an electoral offer. And yet, paradoxically obtaining an electoral message for the opposition should be the simplest of matters and yet it seems that it is slowing down everything. Why?
First the opposition has placed itself in front of an unnecessary dilemma. Apparently the clearly expressed wishes of unity from the electorate are interpreted by politicians as the need to create an united government plank, thus missing totally the whole point of the coming elections.
Second, the wishes to nitpick everything and the belief that the election is all but won make a few leaders among the opposition already think about the next presidential election.
As far as I am concerned, the elections are already lost unless by late December the political opposition has come up with a sensible plan and at least a strategy to nominate unity candidates. And yet, Chavez will have already been campaigning for three months and the opposition nothing yet, making it a much harder uphill battle than what it should have been. I let you imagine the polls by January first...
A simple platform
There is no reason why we should be at such dire point so early in the campaign. So I am going to help the opposition out, knowing full well that no one in the leadership will read it and that even if they were to read it their arrogance will blind them anyway. But I have to do my duty. Heck! I might even translate this and start my own Spanish language blog....
Let's start by the basics: what are we electing. Let's forget about the municipal council elections, the message is mostly local and the real problem there is a way to generate unity candidates that will run on local issues platform. So, we just need to focus on the message for the Nazional Assembly election.
The constitution of Venezuela is quite clear, the national Assembly is not the one that runs the country. It proposes laws that will hep the executive run the country, it will receive law proposals from the executive to examine and it will exert control functions on how the executive spends tax money. There are other items but for an election purpose those are the ones that count, there is no need to even bother about the other ones except perhaps hinting at some constitutional reform to guarantee for example a better decentralization of the country.
In other words the message should be quite clear:
We are going to let Chavez run the country as you wished for in 2006,
but we are going to control the government,
making sure that the monies reach the social services
and not the pocket of the corrupt governmental agents.
This is enough of a message, all the rest risks to be fanciful distraction that could even be dangerous to maintain opposition unity. For example, how can you bridge the divergence between left PODEMOS and more right wing groups that oppose, say, barrio adentro if you try to include in your platform new rules for barrio adentro? It is impossible! How can you bridge the judicial differences between AD and PJ if you want to include ways to nominate judges in the platform?
How to design the platform
In short the opposition needs to bother only about an electoral plank of things that can be done of common agreement among ALL parties to control the regime, restore democracy and decentralize the country, forcing chavista local officials to work on their own without the protection of Chavez. All the rest not only is superfluous but I would go as far as proposing that it should be left at the free conscience of each political party. For example if PODEMOS wishes to negotiate different social programs with chavismo because together they represent a majority of seats, then so be it, PODEMOS should be allowed to do so as long as they respect the basic agreement. If PODEMOS and AD decide to join PSUV to reorganize the high court, so be it, PJ should just seat on the side realizing that it can only be an improvement from he present TSJ.
In other words the less conditions the platform has, the better the message can pass, the more solid the unity will be. Starting to discuss rebuilding the country and other such nincompooperies is not only counterproductive but stupid: as long as Chavez is in Miraflores the only thing you can hope is to control him better, force him to waste less and wait for 2012 and beat him at elections. Let's not forget that Chavez will have important weapons such as new constitutional amendments, and even the power to dissolve the new Assembly if necessary by creating a crisis.
Now, how difficult can it be for the opposition to come up with a simple, short, clear, limited proposal? This is what I would propose in no particular order:
- exert the financial control of the National Assembly to limit corruption.
- stop credits for foreign countries unless duly consulted with the National Assembly. This include the ALBA. Venezuelan money should be spent first on Venezuela.
- reestablish the constitutional quota of oil money that go directly to the local governments.
- vote laws to return responsibilities to local officials along with more funds, creating a system that allows for all states to be treated as equal.
- modify laws that have diminished the freedom of the people, in particular those that bring censorship, that bring unjust judicial proceedings, etc....
- force the government to spend more on jails, on police, etc., returning part of the security apparatus to the governors who wish to exert their responsibility there.
- increase democracy and popular participation:
$$ reformulate the heath system plan and pension system to force the government to fulfill its promises yet to be accomplished (even if Chavez votes in a hurry some law to that effect you can claim that as a success). Offer for example that local referenda will decide whether the people want their governor to manage the local hospitals instead of the central government.
$$ offer local referenda as to whether people want their mayors/governors to manage their public schools instead of the central government.
$ guarantee constitutional provisions to name judges
$ organize consejos comunales to fight corruption
- defend small and medium property, giving property rights to everyone in "ranchos". Include those who got only "permits" from Chavez land seizures (there will always be time to compensate folks later).
- guarantee freedom of association and work by voting laws that limit governmental abuse in trade union elections.
- give freedom to individual opposition parties to negotiate with the government items that are not included in the platform, as long as they respect that electoral platform
And what SHOULD not be included:
- mention of controlling the army (way to early and too difficult to do considering how corrupt the army has become).
- reversing any social program: they are all accepted, we are just going to make sure they work the way they should work, you approved them in 2006.
- constitutional amendments: people are sick of voting. Besides the constitution is so sick that it is way past amending. Simply state that you are willing to work with Chavez from the National Assembly but if it does not work out you reserve your options, such as constituent assembly.
In other words, an eventual victory of the opposition WILL generate conflict with Chavez. Announcing how the opposition would deal with such conflict is only a sign of weakness.
Conclusion
There! Was that so difficult? Serious people can put up together a simple program as the one described above in a matter of weeks, not even a month. It should fit in at most a dozen pages so it can be printed cheaply and distributed around. The language should be simple and directed to to sectors E and D (the chavista electoral bulk) since the other sectors already vote in their majority against Chavez. It could even take the gamble to add point blank as an introduction "that since we do not know how much money is left in the public coffers we abstain to offer material promises that we could not fulfill, and besides, that is the role of the government, not of the Assembly: we just make sure that Chavez fulfill his promises"
-The end-
Blogged with the Flock Browser
The Prague List of 307 Cuban political prisoners - at uncommon sense
At the Forum 2000 Conference on "Democracy and Freedom in a Multipolar World" this week in Prague, Cuban human rights activists, led by former political prisoner José Gabriel Ramón Castillo, presented a document listing the names of 307 political prisoners on the island. The list, which is now known as the "Lista de Praga," or "The Prague List," is not meant to be inclusive, but it does provide a general idea of the scope of repression on the island, and how many people are imprisoned because of their opposition to the Castro dictatorship.
To give you a sense of how pervasive that repression is, consider this: Cuba is a nation of about 11 million people; the U.S. is at just under 308 million. If the U.S. government jailed its opponents at the rate the Castro dictatorship does, there would be about 8,600 political prisoners in American jails.
Do you think that would get more notice than what Cuban political prisoners get today?
Ramón and other activists, like the Cuban Democratic DIrectorate, are trying to break that embargo on information about those imprisoned in the Castro gulag.
At the forum, Ramón personally delivered a copy to former Czech Republic president, and former political prisoner, Vaclav Havel, who then added his name to a list of dignitaries expressing their support for the Cuban prisoners, and demanding their immediate release. (You can watch a video of Ramón meeting with Havel, here.)
You can do the same, by reading this list, and forwarding it to others.
(H/T for the list to Cuban Democratic Directorate.)
Blogged with the Flock Browser
mercoledì, ottobre 14, 2009
More on the UN study on Constitutional Coup in honduras - La Gringa
Interview with Hondudiario Executive Director
In this telephone interview with Hondudiario Executive Director Aristides Aceituno, he states that he has part of the UN report (discussed in the last article) which clearly declares that the action to remove Manuel Zelaya was a constitutional succession.
Aceituno also said that the report states that many of the problems that happened in Honduras had roots in the UN General Assembly, led by Miguel D'Escoto Brockman, in which they came to a decision about Honduras in only 48 hours without any investigation. He seemed to be reading from the report when he said that the UN General Assembly did not have authority to decide on a domestic matter of Honduras and that the UN resolution taken on June 30 violated Article 2.7 of the UN's own charter which states that they are not authorized to intervene in internal matters of any state.
Aceituno refers to Carlos Arturo Reina's statement that this report has no validity, but says that the report clearly concludes that there was no coup d'etat in Honduras, that it was a constitutional succession.
An anonymous commenter to my last article wrote that it is true that the report exists and that Zelaya's man in the UN, Jorge Arturo Reina, is trying to block its issuance. In Aceituno's interview, he says that any country could make the report public at any time.
After a few hours with a glimmer of hope for Honduras, today the office of UN Secretary General issued this press release:
The United Nations wishes to clarify that its position, regarding the legality of the removal of President Zelaya in Honduras has been clearly articulated by the General Assembly Resolution 63/301 adopted on 1 July 2009. This resolution “condemns the coup d'etat in the Republic of Honduras that has interrupted the democratic and constitutional order and the legitimate exercise of power in Honduras.”
A recent Honduran media report appears to refer to an analysis submitted by a consultant as representing the views of the Department of Political Affairs This is highly misleading. The Department of Political Affairs routinely receives reports and analyses of this type from consultants, academics and other experts. But its views are strictly in line with that outlined in the General Assembly Resolution.
The Secretary-General urges the parties in Honduras to avoid distractions at this critical moment in the negotiations and remain focused on arriving at a consensual agreement to end the crisis in Honduras through dialogue.
He continues to strongly support OAS-led efforts to assist the parties in reaching a solution.
So, apparently like the US Library of Congress report, which also concluded that the Honduran Supreme court acted correctly, this report will also be ignored because it does not coincide with the knee-jerk reactions that were taken in the first 48 hours, without any investigation or dialogue with the parties involved except Manual Zelaya who has been proven over and over again to be a liar.
How many other reports are out there being covered up because they don't come to the 'right' conclusion? Where is the Koh report that Senator DeMint has asked for? If it supports the US position, why hasn't it been released?
martedì, ottobre 13, 2009
Yoani Sánchez no podrá recoger el Maria Moors Cabot en Nueva York
El gobierno le niegala salida del país por cuarta vez consecutiva desde 2008.
Blogged with the Flock Browser
lunedì, ottobre 12, 2009
Nueva reforma militar en Venezuela
El Informe Otálvora
El Nuevo País. Caracas 11 de octubre, 2009
en NOTICIAS24
- Comienza aplicación de la nueva legislación militar: Gobierno crea unidades paramilitares de defensa rural como las que ya existieron en Colombia.
- Áreas de defensa militar reemplazarían a gobernantes municipales
- La Milicia operará como cuerpo de defensa armada de empresas
- Milicianos actuarán en estados de excepción y adquieren la categoría de militares sujetos a leyes de guerra
El Nuevo País. Caracas 11 de octubre, 2009
en NOTICIAS24
sabato, ottobre 10, 2009
La Comunidad Internacional. - Eloy Page
Eloy Page
Octubre 09, 2009.
Octubre 09, 2009.
En escritos anteriores, he manifestado que para la solución de un problema, lo primero que tenemos que hacer es identificar el mismo. De lo contrario, la solución nunca llegara y si logramos algo, no llenará las expectativas que estamos buscando. Esta premisa gerencial, se aplica igualmente a la situación que estamos pasando en Honduras.
Zelaya y sus partidarios, han venido buscando el consenso de la llamada Comunidad Internacional. Múltiples han sido las amenazas vertidas contra Honduras, tanto por zelaya que no puede dirigirse a nadie sin mencionarla, como por la misma supuesta Comunidad Internacional, como los hondureños creemos conocer.
Sin embargo, esta "Comunidad Internacional", no es otra cosa que el Foro de Sao Pablo. Qué es el Foro de Sao Pablo? Y donde encaja en la problemática hondureña?.
El Foro de Sao Pablo, es una organización formada por todas las organizaciones de izquierda de Latino América, incluyendo los movimientos armados guerrilleros. El nombre se lo debe a que fue precisamente en esa ciudad de Brasil, que se llevo a cabo la primera reunión de todas estas organizaciones. El Foro de Sao Pablo no tiene una sede conocida, sus reuniones se alternan entre ciudades de América Latina. Recientemente se dieron cita en la ciudad e México, donde el tema principal, propiciado por los países del Alba, fue la situación hondureña.
Luego de la caída de la Unión Soviética, los países satélites como Cuba y las organizaciones de izquierda en Latino América que estaban siendo subvencionadas por los soviéticos, se vieron en situación de desamparo. Cuba, quien vendía su producción de azúcar a precios de petróleo a la Unión Soviética. Las organizaciones guerrilleras como las FARC, el ELN, ambas de Colombia, el Partido de los trabajadores de Brasil, partido político de Lula da Silva y muchas otras organizaciones izquierdistas, vieron perdida su fuente de ingresos con la cual, financiaban su proceder en sus respectivas localidades.
Debido a esta precaria situación, estas organizaciones decidieron formar una organización, para que todos juntos, le hicieran frente a la falta de "patrocinio", el cual, había caducado con la caída de su mas grande benefactor. Bajo esta premisa, Fidel Castro, Lula da Silva, entre otros, fundaron el Foro de Sao Pablo.
A través del tiempo, el Foro ha ido tomando fuerza, al extremo que hoy, es una organización fuerte a la cual pertenecen, no solo las organizaciones de izquierda, sino también los países que de alguna u otra manera, han caído en poder de las organizaciones miembros del Foro de Sao Pablo. Con el tiempo, el Foro ha venido trazando estrategias para la toma del poder en los países latino americanos. Importante es mencionar que, sea cual fuere la meta a alcanzar por cualquiera de sus organizaciones miembros, todos los miembros del Foro, aportan lo que les compete para el logro de sus objetivos, de allí la anuencia de Lula a no respetar tratados internacionales de asilo, permitiendo a zelaya que llame a la insurrección en Honduras, desde su embajada y haciendo de ella tal cual fuera su hacienda personal.
A través del tiempo, países que han venido cayendo en las garras del Foro de Sao Pablo, como Venezuela con Chávez, se han unido para reforzar la estrategia del Foro con el fin de afianzar la izquierda en los países latinoamericanos. Con la entrada de Venezuela al Foro, problemas como el cubano, se han visto solucionados con el aporte económico de sus organizaciones miembros. Prueba de esto es el apoyo que Venezuela le brinda a Cuba, a quien le suple de petróleo a costa de nada, siendo el pueblo venezolano quien al final paga la factura.
A partir de todo esto, los países latinoamericanos, han venido sufriendo de los embates del Foro de Sao Pablo con la finalidad de hacerlos caer e implementar las políticas del Foro, el comunismo mal llamado Socialismo del Siglo XXI.
Honduras no se escapó a esta trama internacional, ya que encontraron en Honduras tierra fértil en la escasa educación y pobre convicción democrática del ex presidente zelaya rosales, quien a cambio del poder que representaba pertenecer a la iniciativa del Alba, miembro solapado del Foro de Sao Pablo, pretendió implementar en Honduras, las estrategias, entiéndase franquicia, del Socialismo del Siglo XXI.
Los hondureños, luego de la defenestración de zelaya por sus constantes violaciones a la constitución y su reiterada desobediencia a las leyes hondureñas, hemos venido siendo objeto de presiones comandadas por la llamada "Comunidad Internacional".
Quien es esta Comunidad Internacional? Ni mas ni menos que los países miembros del Foro de Sao Pablo. No ha sido una, sino varias estrategias a las que el Foro de Sao Pablo ha recurrido para restablecer a su "socio" en el poder en Honduras. No tiene razón alguna, el hablarles ni exponer las razones por la cual se sabe, que la OEA, de la mano de Insulza, responde a las órdenes emanadas del Foro de Sao Pablo. La organización que debiera velar por la democracia en el continente, como lo manda la Carta Democrática Interamericana, hoy no es mas que un instrumento, al servicio del dictador de Venezuela y miembro sobresaliente del Foro.
Hoy, el Foro de Sao Pablo, entiéndase OEA, está en Honduras supuestamente como observadores del proceso de diálogo para buscar la alternativa mas viable de solución a la crisis política que vive la nación. No es de extrañar, que la misión que tiene la comitiva de la OEA, es la restitución en el poder del protegido del miembro mas prominente del Foro de Sao Pablo, Hugo Chávez. Despues de todo, no les importa Honduras, sino cumplir su cometido.
Los cancilleres de la comitiva de la OEA, tienen una tarea que cumplir, restaurar a zelaya en el poder, no importa cómo. Siendo que a todas luces, la imparcialidad no es una de las cualidades de esta comisión de "observadores", considero que Honduras debe hacer caso omiso del disfraz que la OEA ha utilizado en esta ocasión, puesto que no es más, que el Foro de Sao Pablo, mal llamado, Comunidad Internacional.
Mientras esta comisión del Foro de Sao Pablo, "observa" e impone condiciones en el dialogo Guaymuras, las turbas de zelaya agitan en las calles de Honduras, exigiendo no a las elecciones y pidiendo se instale la Constituyente. Siendo que precisamente, los puntos mas importantes del dialogo son, la renuncia de zelaya a implantar una constituyente y que se respete las elecciones, sus seguidores nos están demostrando que zelaya no tiene intenciones de respetar ningún acuerdo, lo cual no es de extrañar, conociendo la soberbia que lo caracteriza. Si se llegara a reinstalar en el poder a zelaya, veríamos a las turbas volcadas a las calles pidiendo la constituyente y a zelaya implantándola puesto que el "pueblo" se lo pide. La cantidad de mentiras vertidas por zelaya y sus seguidores en los últimos meses, hace que su palabra no valga nada, por lo que es imposible que tenga valor alguno si se estampara en un documento tan importante como el diálogo Guaymuras.
La comision en Honduras de la OEA, salvo unos pocos de sus cancilleres, no responden a Cartas Democráticas Interamericanas, sino a los mandatos del Foro de Sao Pablo, por lo que difícil es esperar que el dialogo, con semejantes observadores, pueda tener un resultado positivo. Esto no es más, que otros de los tantos ataques consensuados de Chávez, Lula y Fidel Castro.
sabato, ottobre 03, 2009
La teoría de los pueblos pendejos - Álvaro Albornoz
La teoría de los pueblos pendejos
Álvaro Albornoz
Sábado, 3 de octubre de 2009Los gobiernos de los diversos países que señalan que en HONDURAS hubo un Golpe de Estado, consideran que los pueblos y las instituciones, distintas al Poder Ejecutivo, que conforman el Poder Público deben comportarse como unos pendejos. Es decir, que no pueden protestar ni criticar ni mucho menos cuestionar la conducta del Presidente de la República; sino que por el contrario deben tolerar y permitir todos los actos que se le ocurran al Presidente; deben permitir la corrupción, el atropello, las violaciones a las leyes, las violaciones a los derechos humanos, el irrespeto al pueblo, y en fin, todos los desmanes y barbaridades que pueda realizar el intocable Presidente de un país.De acuerdo a esta teoría, los Presidentes son sagrados y deben cumplir sus periodos de gobierno completamente, así cometan las más abusivas barbaridades y arbitrariedades contra el pueblo. En este sentido, no importa que el Presidente despilfarre todo el erario público en adquisiciones militares innecesarias, no importa que el Presidente persiga a la oposición democrática de un país, no importa que el Presidente cierre los medios de comunicación, no importa que se vulneren los derechos humanos de los individuos, no importa que existan presos políticos, no importa que el Presidente no cumpla las órdenes de los otros poderes, no importa que viole la Constitución, no importa que haga fraude electoral; lo único que importa es que el Presidente cumpla su mandato completamente, así tenga sometido a su pueblo a las situaciones más ignominiosas que se pueda imaginar.
Hace poco, en una entrevista que le hizo una periodista venezolana al Presidente de Costa Rica, Oscar Arias, éste expresó que se debía restituir a Manuel Zelaya en la Presidencia de HONDURAS porque había sido electo por un periodo determinado y tenía que culminarlo sin que importaran los errores en que haya incurrido. Esta teoría defendida obviamente por muchos Presidentes, la podemos denominar “La Teoría de los Pueblos Pendejos”; es decir, la Teoría según la cual los pueblos y las instituciones deben comportarse como unos pendejos frente a las tropelías de un Presidente y deben tolerarlas hasta que culmine su mandato, así las acciones del Presidente estén destruyendo al país.
Esta Teoría defendida ardorosamente por los Presidentes autocráticos y déspotas, señala que los Jefes de Estados tienen derecho a violar flagrantemente toda la Constitución y las leyes de un país, que pueden realizar cualquier actuación sin cumplir con los procedimientos y formalidades legales, atropellando y vulnerando todo el Estado de Derecho. Pero en cambio, sostiene esta Teoría, que para tratar de sacar del poder a un Presidente se deben cumplir minuciosamente supuestos procedimientos y respetarle al máximo el derecho a la defensa al Presidente, a tal punto de hacer imposible sacarlo del cargo. En otras palabras, el Presidente puede violar todas las leyes y procedimientos, pero el pueblo y los demás poderes no pueden obviar ningún trámite ni etapa de algún procedimiento para juzgar o someter a derecho a un Presidente.
Esta es la Teoría que defienden los que atacan a HONDURAS y los que condenan miserablemente a su pueblo por no ser pendejos, por defender su democracia y su libertad.
Para los defensores de esta Teoría resulta indispensable el retorno de Zelaya al poder porque de eso depende su mantenimiento en sus cargos de Presidente para seguir enriqueciéndose ilícitamente y para seguir sometiendo a sus pueblos a oprobiosos regimenes autocráticos. Para ellos, HONDURAS resulta un mal ejemplo, porque constituye una lección de honor, coraje y dignidad que demostró que los catrachos no son pendejos, y eso no le conviene a los sostenedores de esta vil Teoría. Según ellos, los pueblos y las instituciones del Estado deben comportarse como pendejos, como personas sin discernimiento y sin capacidad de análisis ni de actuación, como eunucos mentales. En otras palabras, deben ser idiotas que no pueden impedir las violaciones a su Constitución por parte del Presidente de la República, quien una vez electo por el pueblo, tiene un cheque en blanco para hacer lo que le de la gana sin que nadie tenga derecho a impedírselo. La elección del Presidente, a juicio de esta Teoría, implica una licencia para delinquir, una especie de autorización para destruir a un país impunemente.
En HONDURAS se demostró que la Teoría de los Pueblos Pendejos no tiene cabida y eso irrita a los impulsores de dicha Teoría y por eso atacan tan cobardemente a este digno pueblo, descendiente de Morazán y Lempira.
Gracias a HONDURAS los pueblos en el mundo están despertando y están dejando de ser pendejos y ahí radica el temor de los enemigos de la libertad y la verdadera democracia.
Doctor en Derecho Constitucional,
Abogado Summa Cum Laude,
Profesor Universitario Venezolano
venerdì, ottobre 02, 2009
Los Aldeanos - Popurrí Infantil
Me encanto' esta cancion que encontre' en el excelente blog BARACUTEYCUBANO,
(PPAC me perdonara' por copiarlo)
Elpidio Valdes, el toki, la patrulla, todo es real de una manera trastornada y casi magica.
El B. y los Aldeanos son de lo mejor de hoydia.
El texto es de Valentina Cueto, y ayuda a comprender mejor.
Elpidio Valdes, el toki, la patrulla, todo es real de una manera trastornada y casi magica.
El B. y los Aldeanos son de lo mejor de hoydia.
El texto es de Valentina Cueto, y ayuda a comprender mejor.
Valentina Cueto
LA HABANA, Cuba, octubre (www.cubanet.org) – Somos musicales por naturaleza. En la sangre llevamos sones y danzones, mambos, boleros. Y ahora hasta el hip-hop. En la actualidad se imponen ciertos grupos musicales de carácter contestatario que, aunque no se promueven en los medios, son conocidos y admirados por la juventud; por ejemplo, Los Aldeanos, grupo dirigido por el Aldo Padrón quien, a través de sus textos, denuncia lo más feo de la realidad cubana.
Los Aldeanos no fueron invitados a presentarse en el Concierto por la Paz, pero la agrupación fue mencionada por Juanes al final del espectáculo. ¿Quiénes son estos artistas desconocidos para los medios de comunicación, pero disfrutan de más popularidad que algunos de los reconocidos oficialmente?
Entre los éxitos de Los Aldeanos en 2008 se encuentran DHL, Hermosa Habana, Donde quiera que te encuentres y Mima. La pieza AL2, que hace referencia al nombre del director involucra creativamente a conocidos personajes de los dibujos animados, para recrear situaciones vinculadas a la marginalidad dentro de la sociedad.
En ese tema, el personaje Elpidio Valdés, paradigma del cubano que lucha para liberar su patria del yugo español, se encuentra boteando en la Quinta Avenida, montado en su caballo Palmiche, y termina preso en la estación de policía más cercana. Su novia María Silvia, mambisa de pura cepa, se pasea, nada más y nada menos que con el sargento español Resoples, enemigo de los mambises.
Padrón declara que “hay mentiras disfrazadas de mosquitos”, y que Chuncha (otro personaje de las tiras cómicas) “se fue pa’ la estación con tremenda chusmería porque en el agro la estafaron con gran osadía”. Los conocidos Frutis representan a los vendedores del agro mercado: de ellos otra canción dice: Se encuentran en el mostrador con cara de nostalgia y con la pesa haciendo magia.
De Arroz con leche, la melodía que ha pasado de una generación a otra, Aldo dice que “Arroz con leche se quiere casar con un extranjerito para cruzar el mar; que sepa querer, que sepa pagar, y alimente a su familia hasta que la pueda sacar”. De Caín, aquel personaje bullicioso que animaba un programa infantil dominical en los años noventa, Aldo comenta: “No forma bulla porque se lo llevan en la patrulla”. Y, contrariamente a lo que ocurre en las historietas tradicionales, Aldo Padrón declara que “estos personajes vivieron infelices para siempre”.
El grupo Los Aldeanos logra, en un ambiente más oscuro y opresivo, abordar situaciones cotidianas con un estilo distinto al de otros grupos musicales tradicionales.
AL2
mercoledì, settembre 30, 2009
Honduras contra a mentira global - Olavo de Carvalho
A mentalidade revolucionária não admite leis ou valores acima do poder revolucionário, não conhece caridade ou humanitarismo exceto como expedientes publicitários a serviço da revolução, não admite lealdade senão ao aparato revolucionário, não aceita a existência da verdade senão como simulacro de credibilidade da mentira revolucionária.
Com toda a evidência, é assim que funciona a mente dos srs. Luís Inácio Lula da Silva, Hugo Chávez, Marco Aurélio Garcia e demais próceres do Foro de São Paulo.
Honduras contra a mentira global - Olavo de Carvalho
It';s Time to Confront Hugo Chavez
It's Time to Confront Hugo Chavez
By Jorge Castaneda
Shared via AddThis
In early September, Colombia's biggest businesses surprised everyone by declaring their wholehearted support for the country's president, Alvaro Uribe, in his deepening conflict with Venezuela. If they lost the huge export market next door, well, that would simply be too bad.
For the first time, Colombian exporters of just about everything Venezuela buys, from toilet paper to gasoline, fruit and vegetables, and milk and meat, gave their president the green light to confront Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, instead of continuing to turn the other cheek, as they had been pressing him to do in the eight years since Uribe took office.
Banzé brasuca em Tegucigalpa - José Nêumanne
Banzé brasuca em Tegucigalpa
José Nêumanne
O presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva é um gênio da política e disso não dá para duvidar. Reconhecer essa verdade, contudo, não esclarecerá se ele foi sincero (e, portanto, de um desconhecimento sesquipedal dos fatos) ou se apenas destilou um gosto peculiar pela ironia quando, na Cúpula América do Sul-África, execrou "retrocessos" institucionais em nosso continente - caso da deposição de Manoel Zelaya. Pois o fez ao lado do tirano líbio Muamar Kadafi, no poder há 40 anos, e do ditador de Zimbábue há 29 anos, Robert Mugabe. Falar em ironia no episódio chega a ser um cruel acinte à memória das vítimas de tantas ditaduras que prosperaram na América Central à sombra das bananeiras em flor. E, justiça seja feita, se se trata de mera ignorância, ela teria de ser imputada também a vários colegas de Lula, entre os quais o americano Barack Obama. Sem falar nos coleguinhas jornalistas que, rejeitando os fatos, classificam de "golpista" o governo de facto de Honduras.
Mel, como é apelidado o latifundiário eleito pela direita que aderiu ao bolivarianismo de Hugo Chávez, foi deposto, é verdade, e não submetido a um processo regular de impeachment, como o foi o primeiro presidente brasileiro eleito pelo voto popular depois da ditadura militar de 1964, Fernando Collor. Isso ocorreu, porém, à luz do ignorado artigo 239 da Constituição de Honduras, que reza peremptoriamente: "O cidadão que desempenhou a titularidade do Poder Executivo não poderá ser presidente ou vice-presidente da República. Quem quebrar este dispositivo ou propuser sua reforma, assim como aqueles que o apoiem direta ou indiretamente, terá de imediato cessado o desempenho de seu respectivo cargo e ficará inabilitado por dez (10) anos para o exercício de qualquer função pública."
Collor nem sonhou tentar o que Zelaya tentou: mudar a Constituição e convocar um plebiscito para permitir sua permanência no cargo, ao arrepio do Congresso e da Justiça. O ex-presidente hondurenho pediu apoio aos militares e, não o tendo obtido, demitiu o comandante das Forças Armadas. A Justiça mandou depô-lo, empossou o presidente do Congresso e não permitiu que ele se vestisse, embarcando-o de pijama para o exterior. O mundo inteiro se revoltou com a desfaçatez dos "golpistas" de Honduras por crassa ignorância das regras constitucionais vigentes num país minúsculo e miserável. Teceu-se, aí, com rapidez, a cortina de fumaça do governo "golpista" e do "martírio" do presidente eleito pelo povo e deposto por militares num novo e típico pronunciamiento latino-americano.
No afã de não repetir Bush, Barack Obama, assessorado por madame Clinton, absolutamente jejuna em quaisquer assuntos ao sul do Rio Grande, condenou a deposição, mas depois foi tratar de problemas mais relevantes. Com o "não temos nada com isso" dos xerifes do mundo, tudo se encaminhava para uma solução simples e cômoda do episódio: as eleições presidenciais poderiam ser realizadas e a paz democrática voltaria a reinar naquele antigo pedaço do império da United Fruit Company.
Aí entrou em ação o coronel golpista Hugo Chávez, que despachou de volta para o centro dos acontecimentos o presidente deposto. Este cruzou a fronteira, mas voltou por cima dos pés para, em seguida, empreender uma entrada espetacular em Tegucigalpa, mercê do engenho estratégico do amigo venezuelano e do peculiar conceito sobre democracia da companheirada brasileira. Dirigente sindical no fim da ditadura militar, quando o general Geisel cunhou sua "democracia relativa", Lulinha Paz e Amor inventou a "democracia de conveniência", adaptação petista da sentença de Artur Bernardes: "Para os amigos, tudo; para os inimigos, o rigor da lei." Ahmadinejad roubou a eleição no Irã? Isso não interessa ao Brasil, que não pode intervir na soberania iraniana. Ahmadinejad nega o holocausto? O fato de sermos amigos não nos força a pensarmos da mesma forma.
Mas o mesmo não vale para Honduras, que não tem projeto bélico nuclear nem bate boca com o vilão ianque. E foi assim que, quando o mundo inteiro esperava um banho de votos para lavar a mauvaise conscience pelo completo desconhecimento internacional das regras constitucionais hondurenhas, o governo brasileiro, para apoiar Chávez, foi à caça do apoio de tiranos africanos para repor Mel Zelaya no poder. Para tanto mandou às favas todas as regras do civilizado convívio internacional. Como nunca antes na história deste planeta, abrigou na "embaixada" brasileira não um fugitivo de um regime ditatorial, mas alguém que decidiu impor a própria vontade de continuar mandando em casa, sem dar bola para as instituições e a opinião pública locais. Esses episódios sempre terminam com um salvo-conduto ao abrigado na embaixada e seu asilo pelo país que o hospedou. Mas este não pode ser o caso: Zelaya não quer fugir de Honduras, mas ficar lá, sob a proteção de Lula, porque Chávez mandou.
O absurdo não para por aí. Lula tem exigido respeito absoluto ao território brasileiro da "embaixada" depois de ter chamado o embaixador de volta e mantido em Tegucigalpa apenas um encarregado de negócios. O governo de facto ainda não ocupou o prédio só para evitar pretextos intervencionistas, pois, como não reconhece a autoridade "golpista", o Brasil não tem mais embaixada em Tegucigalpa.
O ex-chanceler mexicano Jorge Castañeda tem razão ao se dizer - em entrevista a Lúcia Guimarães no caderno Aliás deste jornal, no domingo - espantado com a intromissão brasileira em Honduras. Estamos é fazendo um banzé brasuca estúpido em terreiro alheio, que, aliás, não tem interesse nem importância nenhuma para nós. Ao mundo, que tenta se esconder do vexame de ignorar as regras da democracia de um país pobre, o Brasil parece bater no peito e proclamar com arrogância: "Sou ignorante, sim, mas quem aí não é?"
José Nêumanne, jornalista e escritor, é editorialista do Jornal da Tarde
Mel, como é apelidado o latifundiário eleito pela direita que aderiu ao bolivarianismo de Hugo Chávez, foi deposto, é verdade, e não submetido a um processo regular de impeachment, como o foi o primeiro presidente brasileiro eleito pelo voto popular depois da ditadura militar de 1964, Fernando Collor. Isso ocorreu, porém, à luz do ignorado artigo 239 da Constituição de Honduras, que reza peremptoriamente: "O cidadão que desempenhou a titularidade do Poder Executivo não poderá ser presidente ou vice-presidente da República. Quem quebrar este dispositivo ou propuser sua reforma, assim como aqueles que o apoiem direta ou indiretamente, terá de imediato cessado o desempenho de seu respectivo cargo e ficará inabilitado por dez (10) anos para o exercício de qualquer função pública."
Collor nem sonhou tentar o que Zelaya tentou: mudar a Constituição e convocar um plebiscito para permitir sua permanência no cargo, ao arrepio do Congresso e da Justiça. O ex-presidente hondurenho pediu apoio aos militares e, não o tendo obtido, demitiu o comandante das Forças Armadas. A Justiça mandou depô-lo, empossou o presidente do Congresso e não permitiu que ele se vestisse, embarcando-o de pijama para o exterior. O mundo inteiro se revoltou com a desfaçatez dos "golpistas" de Honduras por crassa ignorância das regras constitucionais vigentes num país minúsculo e miserável. Teceu-se, aí, com rapidez, a cortina de fumaça do governo "golpista" e do "martírio" do presidente eleito pelo povo e deposto por militares num novo e típico pronunciamiento latino-americano.
No afã de não repetir Bush, Barack Obama, assessorado por madame Clinton, absolutamente jejuna em quaisquer assuntos ao sul do Rio Grande, condenou a deposição, mas depois foi tratar de problemas mais relevantes. Com o "não temos nada com isso" dos xerifes do mundo, tudo se encaminhava para uma solução simples e cômoda do episódio: as eleições presidenciais poderiam ser realizadas e a paz democrática voltaria a reinar naquele antigo pedaço do império da United Fruit Company.
Aí entrou em ação o coronel golpista Hugo Chávez, que despachou de volta para o centro dos acontecimentos o presidente deposto. Este cruzou a fronteira, mas voltou por cima dos pés para, em seguida, empreender uma entrada espetacular em Tegucigalpa, mercê do engenho estratégico do amigo venezuelano e do peculiar conceito sobre democracia da companheirada brasileira. Dirigente sindical no fim da ditadura militar, quando o general Geisel cunhou sua "democracia relativa", Lulinha Paz e Amor inventou a "democracia de conveniência", adaptação petista da sentença de Artur Bernardes: "Para os amigos, tudo; para os inimigos, o rigor da lei." Ahmadinejad roubou a eleição no Irã? Isso não interessa ao Brasil, que não pode intervir na soberania iraniana. Ahmadinejad nega o holocausto? O fato de sermos amigos não nos força a pensarmos da mesma forma.
Mas o mesmo não vale para Honduras, que não tem projeto bélico nuclear nem bate boca com o vilão ianque. E foi assim que, quando o mundo inteiro esperava um banho de votos para lavar a mauvaise conscience pelo completo desconhecimento internacional das regras constitucionais hondurenhas, o governo brasileiro, para apoiar Chávez, foi à caça do apoio de tiranos africanos para repor Mel Zelaya no poder. Para tanto mandou às favas todas as regras do civilizado convívio internacional. Como nunca antes na história deste planeta, abrigou na "embaixada" brasileira não um fugitivo de um regime ditatorial, mas alguém que decidiu impor a própria vontade de continuar mandando em casa, sem dar bola para as instituições e a opinião pública locais. Esses episódios sempre terminam com um salvo-conduto ao abrigado na embaixada e seu asilo pelo país que o hospedou. Mas este não pode ser o caso: Zelaya não quer fugir de Honduras, mas ficar lá, sob a proteção de Lula, porque Chávez mandou.
O absurdo não para por aí. Lula tem exigido respeito absoluto ao território brasileiro da "embaixada" depois de ter chamado o embaixador de volta e mantido em Tegucigalpa apenas um encarregado de negócios. O governo de facto ainda não ocupou o prédio só para evitar pretextos intervencionistas, pois, como não reconhece a autoridade "golpista", o Brasil não tem mais embaixada em Tegucigalpa.
O ex-chanceler mexicano Jorge Castañeda tem razão ao se dizer - em entrevista a Lúcia Guimarães no caderno Aliás deste jornal, no domingo - espantado com a intromissão brasileira em Honduras. Estamos é fazendo um banzé brasuca estúpido em terreiro alheio, que, aliás, não tem interesse nem importância nenhuma para nós. Ao mundo, que tenta se esconder do vexame de ignorar as regras da democracia de um país pobre, o Brasil parece bater no peito e proclamar com arrogância: "Sou ignorante, sim, mas quem aí não é?"
José Nêumanne, jornalista e escritor, é editorialista do Jornal da Tarde
VIDEOLINK: Oppenheimer analiza crisis política en Honduras
Oppenheimer analiza crisis política en Honduras EN CNN
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)