Temas de relações internacionais, de política externa e de diplomacia brasileira, com ênfase em políticas econômicas, em viagens, livros e cultura em geral. Um quilombo de resistência intelectual em defesa da racionalidade, da inteligência e das liberdades democráticas.
O que é este blog?
Este blog trata basicamente de ideias, se possível inteligentes, para pessoas inteligentes. Ele também se ocupa de ideias aplicadas à política, em especial à política econômica. Ele constitui uma tentativa de manter um pensamento crítico e independente sobre livros, sobre questões culturais em geral, focando numa discussão bem informada sobre temas de relações internacionais e de política externa do Brasil. Para meus livros e ensaios ver o website: www.pralmeida.org. Para a maior parte de meus textos, ver minha página na plataforma Academia.edu, link: https://itamaraty.academia.edu/PauloRobertodeAlmeida;
Meu Twitter: https://twitter.com/PauloAlmeida53
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/paulobooks
quinta-feira, 30 de janeiro de 2014
Piada macabra: Celac fala de democracia e direitos humanos em Cuba - ABC Color
sábado, 3 de agosto de 2013
Conferencia internacional sobre Direitos Humanos, Uniceub (Brasilia, 5-6/08/2013)
segunda-feira, 29 de julho de 2013
Conferencia internacional sobre Direitos Humanos - Uniceub (Brasilia), 5-6/08/2013
sexta-feira, 14 de junho de 2013
Iran: eleicoes e direitos humanos - Mansour Osanloo (NYT)
Op-Ed Contributor
Reading Marx in Tehran
By MANSOUR OSANLOO
The outside world is primarily focused on whether the election will signal a shift in the Iranian regime’s stand on the nuclear issue. But for the average Iranian the most important issue is the impact of this election on her pocketbook — especially for the hardworking masses, whose purchasing power has drastically decreased as they struggle to provide the most basic necessities for their families.
Iran’s industrial workers, teachers, nurses, government and service-sector employees have been hit hard. The profound mismanagement of the economy by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s government, coupled with stringent international sanctions, has made these workers’ plight the most important aspect of Iran’s domestic politics.
The situation inside Iran may appear calm, because of the government’s harsh repression, but there are widespread workers’ protests. Dissidents from all walks of life, including educated but unemployed young people and women, are searching for any opportunity to express their grievances peacefully. Just last week in Isfahan, during the funeral of the prominent dissident cleric Ayatollah Jalaledin Taheri, thousands chanted “Death to the dictator” and “Political prisoners must be set free.”
The authorities in Iran are aware of the time bomb that the impoverishment of large segments of the population is creating. During a recent meeting of Iran’s National Security Council, high-ranking officials expressed their concern about possible uprisings of “the hungry.”
I know how far the authorities will go. I spent more than five years in prison for my labor-organizing activities. I was physically and psychologically tortured and threatened with rape. My interrogators also often threatened to detain, torture and rape my wife and children.
My son Puyesh was imprisoned and severely tortured. The authorities expelled my other son, Sahesh, from his university. Intelligence agents kidnapped Sahesh’s wife, Zoya, three times. She was beaten and threatened, and during one of these episodes, she miscarried. Tehran’s notorious prosecutor, Saeed Mortazavi, threatened my wife many times simply because she was pursuing my case with the judiciary. And my interrogators constantly harassed her with threatening calls and vulgar text messages.
For the slightest protest against my treatment, I was held in solitary confinement — once for 7 months and 23 days. Interrogators often threatened to kill me, telling me, “No one knows you are here, we can easily kill you with impunity.” They would remind me of the massacres of political prisoners during the 1980s and the many killed in detention since then.
But I was fortunate enough to have widespread international support, especially from international labor unions and human rights organizations. News about my case had an effect on my relationship with the prison guards. They were exposed to the news about my activism and reasons behind my imprisonment through satellite television channels and the Internet. As a result, their attitude toward me changed over time. I even forged friendships with some of my prison guards, themselves from working-class backgrounds, advising them on how to pursue work-related grievances against their employer.
I recently left the country because of death threats. But Iranian workers in many sectors are still organizing; some are publicly known, others remain under the radar to avoid the sharp sword of repression. Intimidation, prosecution and imprisonment of labor activists are rampant, but unions in Iran haven’t been fully silenced, and some have even had some limited success. My colleagues in the Tehran Bus Drivers Union managed to win an 18 percent wage increase, despite the imprisonment and firing of several of its members. Widespread unemployment, runaway inflation, shortages of essential goods and a precipitous decline in the value of Iran’s currency have had such a debilitating impact on workers and wage earners that they can’t afford to remain silent and indifferent.
In the face of this economic crisis, none of the current candidates on the ballot has put forward a tangible economic plan that addresses workers’ concerns. They have made references to difficulties and criticized the Ahmadinejad administration’s mismanagement and corruption, but they have not proposed or discussed any solutions to the workers’ plight.
We welcome international support from all those who care for our struggle. The American left has rightly opposed military adventurism against Iran, but it should also oppose sanctions that hurt ordinary Iranians and back our struggle to gain the freedom of speech and association, as well as the right to bargain collectively and advocate for workplace improvements. Those basic liberties are essential for our dignity — and for the future of genuine democracy in Iran.
quinta-feira, 30 de maio de 2013
Comissao da (In)Verdade e Direitos Humanos Parciais, Seletivos - Hector Ricardo Leis
Direitos humanos, menores e verdade
sexta-feira, 5 de abril de 2013
Alba: contra direitos humanos, democracia e controle de armas
Le Monde, 05.04.2013
Le Traité sur le commerce des armes, adopté par l'Assemblée générale des Nations unies le 2 avril, était à l'origine une initiative du Costa Rica, plus précisément de son ancien président Oscar Arias, Prix Nobel de la paix 1987. Ce petit pays d'Amérique centrale est un Etat démilitarisé : les forces armées ont été dissoutes en 1948, après une guerre civile, au profit de l'éducation, de la santé publique et du système de sécurité sociale, le plus performant des Amériques.
En 1995, Oscar Arias avait rassemblé un groupe de Prix Nobel de la paix qui avaient interpellé l'ONU sur la question des armes conventionnelles (soit tout ce qui n'est pas armement nucléaire, biologique ou chimique, objet d'autres textes ou instances internationaux).
En 2006, la machine onusienne s'est enfin mise en branle en vue de négocier le premier traité règlementant le juteux commerce des armes, évalué à 70 milliards de dollars (54 milliards d'euros) par an.
Les diplomates du Mexique et d'Amérique centrale ont réussi à inclure dans le traité les armes de poing et les armes légères, les plus utilisées dans l'inflation d'homicides dans la région. Aux Etats-Unis, la National Rifle Association n'a guère apprécié cette inclusion des « armes civiles », un concept dont on appréciera la subtilité...
Après une négociation laborieuse, le traité a été voté à l'ONU par 154 pays. Seuls la Corée du Nord, l'Iran et la Syrie ont voté contre. La plupart des pays exportateurs d'armes, Etats-Unis et pays européens en tête, ont approuvé ce texte qui tente de mettre un peu d'ordre dans la course aux armements. La Russie et la Chine, deux des principaux marchands d'armes au monde, ont pris la tête des 23 pays qui se sont abstenus.
Alors que l'Amérique latine était en pointe sur le sujet, cinq pays de la région ont choisi l'abstention : Cuba, Venezuela, Equateur, Bolivie et Nicaragua, qui forment l'Alliance bolivarienne pour les Amériques (ALBA). Selon l'ambassadeur cubain, le traité aurait des « lacunes légales », de « sérieuses limitations » et de « multiples ambigüités ».
L'ALBA a préféré s'aligner sur Moscou et Pékin plutôt que sur l'immense majorité de l'Amérique latine. Comme l'a dit Oscar Arias, « l'application du traité sera difficile, mais il vaut mieux avoir cet instrument plutôt que rien ».
L'ALBA minoritaire en Amérique latine
C'est la deuxième fois en quelques jours que les Etats de l'ALBA ont campé sur des positions contraires au reste de l'Amérique latine. Le débat sur la Commission interaméricaine des droits de l'homme, le 22 mars à Washington, avait opposé l'ALBA à toutes les autres nations des Amériques.
En dépit des coups de chapeau à Simon Bolivar et des déclarations lénifiantes dans des sommets régionaux sans lendemain, l'ALBA est non seulement minoritaire en Amérique latine, ce qu'on savait depuis le début, mais elle évolue à contre-courant des orientations prédominantes, sur des sujets aussi essentiels que les droits de l'homme, le désarmement ou l'ouverture économique et commerciale.