Para quem estudou economia nos velhos manuais, o nome de Paul Samuelson era inevitável e incontornável...
-----------------
Paulo Roberto Almeida
Paul A. Samuelson, Groundbreaking Economist, Dies at 94
By MICHAEL M. WEINSTEIN
The New York Times, December 14, 2009
Paul A. Samuelson, the first American Nobel laureate in economics and the foremost academic economist of the 20th century, died Sunday at his home in Belmont, Mass. He was 94.
His death was announced by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which Mr. Samuelson helped build into one of the world’s great centers of graduate education in economics.
In receiving the Nobel Prize in 1970, Mr. Samuelson was credited with transforming his discipline from one that ruminates about economic issues to one that solves problems, answering questions about cause and effect with mathematical rigor and clarity.
When economists “sit down with a piece of paper to calculate or analyze something, you would have to say that no one was more important in providing the tools they use and the ideas that they employ than Paul Samuelson,” said Robert M. Solow, a fellow Nobel laureate and colleague.of Mr. Samuelson’s at M.I.T.
Mr. Samuelson attracted a brilliant roster of economists to teach or study at the Cambridge, Mass., university, among them Mr. Solow as well as such other future Nobel laureates as George A. Akerlof, Robert F. Engle III, Lawrence R. Klein, Paul Krugman, Franco Modigliani, Robert C. Merton and Joseph E. Stiglitz.
Mr. Samuelson wrote one of the most widely used college textbooks in the history of American education. The book, “Economics,” first published in 1948, was the nation’s best-selling textbook for nearly 30 years. Translated into 20 languages, it was selling 50,000 copies a year a half century after it first appeared.
“I don’t care who writes a nation’s laws — or crafts its advanced treatises — if I can write its economics textbooks,” Mr. Samuelson said.
His textbook taught college students how to think about economics. His technical work — especially his discipline-shattering Ph.D. thesis, immodestly titled “The Foundations of Economic Analysis” — taught professional economists how to ply their trade. Between the two books, Mr. Samuelson redefined modern economics.
The textbook introduced generations of students to the revolutionary ideas of John Maynard Keynes, the British economist who in the 1930s developed the theory that modern market economies could become trapped in depression and would then need a strong boost from government spending or tax cuts, in addition to lenient monetary policy, to get back on track. No student would ever again rest comfortable with the 19th-century nostrum that private markets would cure unemployment without need of government intervention.
That lesson was reinforced in 2008, when the international economy slipped into the steepest downturn since the Great Depression, when Keynesian economics was born. Back then, governments stood pat or made matters worse by trying to balance fiscal budgets and erecting trade barriers. But 80 years later, having absorbed the Keynesian preaching of Mr. Samuelson and his followers, most industrialized countries took corrective action, raising government spending, cutting taxes, keeping exports and imports flowing and driving short-term interest rates to near zero.
Lessons for President Kennedy
Mr. Samuelson explained Keynesian economics to American presidents, world leaders, members of Congress and the Federal Reserve Board, not to mention other economists. He was a consultant to the United States Treasury, the Bureau of the Budget and the President’s Council of Economic Advisers.
His most influential student was John F. Kennedy, whose first 40-minute class with Mr. Samuelson, after the 1960 election, was conducted on a rock by the beach at the family compound at Hyannis Port, Mass. Before class, there was lunch with politicians and Cambridge intellectuals aboard a yacht offshore. “I had expected a scrumptious meal,” Mr. Samuelson said. “We had franks and beans.”
As a member of the Kennedy campaign brain trust, Professor Samuelson headed an economic task force for the candidate and held several private sessions on economics with him. Many would have a bearing on decisions made during the Kennedy administration.
Though Professor Samuelson was President Kennedy’s first choice to become chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, he refused, on principle, to take any government office because, he said, he did not want to put himself in a position in which he could not say and write what he believed.
After the 1960 election, he told the young president-elect that the nation was heading into a recession and that Mr. Kennedy should push through a tax cut to head it off. Mr. Kennedy was shocked.
“I’ve just campaigned on a platform of fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets and here you are telling me that the first thing I should do in office is to cut taxes?” Professor Samuelson recalled, quoting the president.
Kennedy eventually accepted the professor’s advice and signaled his willingness to cut taxes, but he was assassinated before he could take action. His successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, carried out the plan, however, and the tax cut reinvigorated the economy.
Adding a Bite to Academia
In the classroom, Mr. Samuelson was a lively, funny, articulate teacher. On theories that he and others had developed to show links between the performance of the stock market and the general economy, he famously said: “It is indeed true that the stock market can forecast the business cycle. The stock market has called nine of the last five recessions.”
His speeches and his voluminous writing had a lucidity and bite not usually found in academic technicians. He tried to give his economic pronouncements a “snap at the end,” he said, “like Mark Twain.” When women began complaining about career and salary inequities, for example, he said in their defense, “Women are men without money.”
Remarkably versatile, Mr. Samuelson reshaped academic thinking about nearly every economic subject, from what Marx could have meant by a labor theory of value to whether stock prices fluctuate randomly. Mathematics had already been employed by social scientists, but Mr. Samuelson brought the discipline into the mainstream of economic thinking, showing how to derive strong theoretical predictions from simple mathematical assumptions.
His early work, for example, presented a unified mathematical structure for predicting how businesses and households alike will respond to changes in economic forces, how changes in wage rates will affect employment, and how tax rate changes will affect tax collections.
His relentless application of mathematical analysis gave rise to an astonishing number of groundbreaking theorems, resolving debates that had raged among theorists for decades, if not centuries.
Early in his career, Mr. Samuelson developed the rudimentary mathematics of business cycles with a model, called the multiplier-accelerator, that captured the inherent tendency of market economies to fluctuate. The model showed how markets magnify the impact of outside shocks and turn, say, an initial one-dollar increase in foreign investment into a several-dollar increase in total domestic income, to be followed by a decline.
The Stolper-Samuelson Theorem
Mr. Samuelson provided a mathematical structure to study the impact of trade on different groups of consumers and workers. In a famous theorem, known as Stolper-Samuelson, he and a co-author showed that competition from imports of clothes and similar goods from underdeveloped countries, where producers rely on unskilled workers, could drive down the wages of low-paid workers in industrialized countries.
The theorem provided the intellectual scaffold for opponents of free trade. And late in his career, Mr. Samuelson set off an intellectual commotion by pointing out that the economy of a country like the United States could be hurt if productivity rose among the economies with which it traded.
Yet Mr. Samuelson, like most academic economists, remained an advocate of open trade. Trade, he taught, raises average living standards enough to allow the workers and consumers who benefit to compensate those who suffer, and still have some extra income left over. Protectionism would not help, but higher productivity would.
Mr. Samuelson also formulated a theory of public goods — that is, goods that can be provided effectively only through collective, or government, action. National defense is one such public good. It is non-exclusive; the Navy, for example, exists to protect every citizen. It also eliminates rivalry among its many consumers; that is, the amount of security that any one citizen derives from the Navy subtracts nothing from the amount of security that any other citizen derives.
The features of public goods, Mr. Samuelson taught, stand in direct contrast to those of ordinary goods, like apples. An apple eaten by one consumer is not available to any other. Public goods, he concluded, cannot be sold in private markets because individuals have no incentive to pay for them voluntarily. Instead they hope to get a free ride off the decisions of others to make the public goods available.
‘Correspondence Principle’
Mr. Samuelson pushed mathematical analysis to new levels of sophistication. His “correspondence principle” showed that information about the stability or instability of a theoretical economic system — whether, after a disruption, the economy returns to fixed levels of prices and output or, instead, flies out of control — could be used to predict the aggregate outcome of decisions taken by consumers and business firms. He showed, for example, that only a stable economic system would undergo ordinary business cycles like those captured by Mr. Samuelson’s multiplier-accelerator model.
He analyzed the evolution of economies with a mathematical model, called an overlapping generations model, that scholars have since used to study, for example, the functioning over time of the Social Security System and the management of public debt.
He also helped develop linear programming, a mathematical tool used by corporations and central planners to calculate how to produce pre-set levels of various goods and services at the least cost.
Late in his career, Mr. Samuelson laid out the mathematics of stock price movements, an analysis that became the basis for Nobel-prize-winning research by his student Mr. Merton and Myron S. Scholes. They designed formulas that Wall Street analysts use to trade options and other complicated securities known as derivatives.
But beyond his astonishing array of scientific theorems and conclusions, Mr. Samuelson wedded Keynesian thought to conventional economics. He developed what he called the Neoclassical Synthesis. The neoclassical economists in the late 19th century showed how forces of supply and demand generate equilibrium in the market for apples, shoes and all other consumer goods and services. The standard analysis had held that market economies, left to their own devices, gravitated naturally toward full employment.
Economists clung to this theory even in the wake of the Great Depression of the 1930s. But the need to explain the market collapse, as well as unemployment rates that soared to 25 percent, gave rise to a contrary strain of thought associated with Lord Keynes.
Mr. Samuelson’s resulting “synthesis” amounted to the notion that economists could use the neoclassical apparatus to analyze economies operating near full employment, but switch over to Keynesian analysis when the economy turned sour.
Midwestern Roots
Paul Anthony Samuelson was born on May 15, 1915 in Gary, Ind., the son of Frank Samuelson, a pharmacist, and the former Ella Lipton. His family, he said, was “made up of upwardly mobile Jewish immigrants from Poland who had prospered considerably in World War I, because Gary was a brand new steel town when my family went there.”
But after his father lost much of his money in the years after the war, the family moved to Chicago. Young Paul attended Hyde Park High School, where as a freshman he began studying the stock market. At one point he helped his algebra teacher select stocks to buy in the boom of the 1920s.
“Hupp Motors and other losers,” he remembered in an interview in 1996. “Proof of the fallibility of systems,” he explained.
He left high school at age 16 to enter the University of Chicago. “I was born as an economist on Jan. 2, 1932,” he said. That was the day he heard his first college lecture, on Thomas Malthus, the 18th-century British economist who studied the relation between poverty and population growth. Hooked, he began taking economics courses.
The University of Chicago developed the century’s leading conservative economic theorists, under the later guidance of Milton Friedman. But Mr. Samuelson regarded the teaching at Chicago as “schizophrenic.” This was at the height of the Depression, and courses about the business cycle naturally talked about unemployment, he said. But in economic-theory classes, joblessness was not mentioned.
“The niceties of existence were not a matter of concern,” he recalled, “yet everything around was closed down most of the time. If you lived in a middle-class community in Chicago, children and adults came daily to the door saying, ‘We are starving, how about a potato?’ I speak from poignant memory.”
After receiving his bachelor’s degree from Chicago in 1935, he went to Harvard, where he was attracted to the ideas of the Harvard professor Alvin Hansen, the leading exponent of Keynesian theory in America.
As a student at Chicago and later at Cambridge, Paul Samuelson had at first reacted negatively to Keynes. “What I resisted most was the notion that there could be equilibrium unemployment” — that some level of unemployment would be impossible to eliminate and have to be tolerated. “I spent four summers of my college career on the beach at Lake Michigan,” he explained. “It was pointless to look for work. I didn’t even have to test the market because I had friends who would go to 350 potential employers and not be able to get any job at all.”
Eventually he was converted. “Why do I want to refuse a paradigm that enables me to understand the Roosevelt upturn from 1933 to 1937?” he asked himself.
A Bold Dissertation
Mr. Samuelson was perceived at the outset of his career as a brilliant mathematical economist. He shot to academic fame as a 22-year-old l’enfant terrible at Harvard when he began a boldly sweeping and highly technical doctoral dissertation, published in 1947 by Harvard University Press.
At Harvard, as at Chicago, he was not shy about critiquing his professors — “respecting neither age nor rank,” according to James Tobin, a Nobel laureate of Yale University. The young Mr. Samuelson’s chief complaint against economists was that they preoccupied themselves with finer economic principles while all around them people were being thrown into bread lines.
His attitudes did not endear him to the austere chairman of the economics department at Harvard, Harold Hitchings Burbank, with whom he had a rocky relationship.
But the publication of his dissertation was an immediate success. It won him the John Bates Clark Medal awarded by the American Economic Association to the economist showing the most scholarly promise before the age of 40; it would eventually help him win his Nobel Prize, and it was frequently reprinted despite the heavy resistance of Professor Burbank, selling to economists around the world for more than 20 years. (“Sweet revenge,” Mr. Samuelson said.)
Among Mr. Samuelson’s fellow students was Marion Crawford. They married in 1938. Mr. Samuelson earned his master’s degree from Harvard in 1936 and a Ph.D. in 1941. He wrote his thesis between 1937 and 1940 as a member of the prestigious Harvard Society of Junior Fellows. In 1940, Harvard offered him an instructorship, which he accepted, but a month later M.I.T. invited him to become an assistant professor.
Harvard made no attempt to keep him, even though he had by then developed an international following. Mr. Solow said of the Harvard economics department at the time: “You could be disqualified for a job if you were either smart or Jewish or Keynesian. So what chance did this smart, Jewish, Keynesian have?”
Indeed, American university life before World War II was anti-Semitic in a way that hardly seemed possible later, and Harvard, along with Yale and Princeton, was a flagrant example.
During World War II, Mr. Samuelson worked in M.I.T.’s Radiation Laboratory, developing computers for tracking aircraft, and was a consultant for the War Production Board. After the war, having resumed teaching, he and his wife started a family. When she became pregnant the fourth time, she gave birth to triplets, all boys.
Marion Samuelson died in 1978. Mr. Samuelson is survived by his second wife, Risha Clay Samuelson; six children from his first marriage: Jane Raybould, Margaret Crawford-Samuelson, William and the triplet sons Robert, John and Paul; a brother, Robert Summers, a professor emeritus of economics at the University of Pennsylvania, and 15 grandchildren.
A Keynesian Textbook
The birth of the triplets doubled the number of children in the Samuelson household, which soon found itself sending 350 diapers to the laundry per week. His friends suggested that Mr. Samuelson needed to write a book to earn more money.
He decided on writing an economics textbook, but one that would not only be compelling for students but also sophisticated and complete. And he wanted to center it on the still poorly understood Keynesian revolution. President Herbert Hoover, he noted, had never referred to Keynes other than as “the Marxist Keynes.”
“I never quite understood that venom, Mr. Samuelson said.
He said he “sweated blood” writing his book, employing detailed charts, color graphics and humor. He wrote: “Economists are said to disagree too much but in ways that are too much alike: If eight sleep in the same bed, you can be sure that, like Eskimos, when they turn over, they’ll all turn over together.”
It would be difficult to overestimate the influence of “Economics.” Business Week, taking note of the textbook’s publication in Greek, Punjabi, Hebrew, Russian, Serbo-Croatian and other languages, once said that it had “gone a long way in giving the world a common economic language.” Students were attracted to its lively prose and relevance to their everyday lives. Many textbook authors began to copy its presentation.
“Economics,” together with shrewd investing, made Mr. Samuelson a millionaire many times over.
Friendship and Rivalry With Friedman
A historian could well tell the story of 20th-century public debate over economic policy in America through the jousting between Mr. Samuelson and Milton Friedman, who won the Nobel prize in 1976. Mr. Samuelson said the two had almost always disagreed with each other but had remained friends. They met in 1933 at the University of Chicago, when Mr. Samuelson was an undergraduate and Mr. Friedman a graduate student.
Unlike the liberal Mr. Samuelson, the conservative Mr. Friedman opposed active government participation in most areas of the economy except national defense and law enforcement. He thought private enterprise and competition could do better and that government controls posed risks to individual freedoms.
Both men were fluid speakers as well as writers, and they debated often in public forums, in testimony before congressional committees, in op-ed articles and in columns each of them wrote for Newsweek magazine. But Professor Samuelson said he always had fear in his heart when he prepared for combat with Professor Friedman, a formidably engaging debater.
“If you looked at a transcript afterward, it might seem clear that you had won the debate on points,” he said. “But somehow, with members of the audience, you always seemed to come off as elite, and Milton seemed to have won the day.”
Mr. Samuelson said he had never regarded Keynesianism as a religion, and he criticized some of his liberal colleagues for seeming to do so, earning himself, late in life, the label l’enfant terrible, emeritus. The experience of nations in the second half of the century, he said, had diminished his optimism about the ability of government to perform miracles.
If government gets too big, and too great a portion of the nation’s income passes through it, he said, government becomes inefficient and unresponsive to the human needs “we do-gooders extol,” and thus risks infringing on freedoms.
But, he said, no serious political or economic thinker would reject the fundamental Keynesian idea that a benevolent democratic government must do what it can to avert economic trouble in areas the free markets cannot. Neither government alone nor the markets alone, he said, could serve the public welfare without help from the other.
As nations became locked in global competition, and as the computerization of the workplace created daunting employment problems, he agreed with the economic conservatives in advocating that American corporations must stay lean and efficient and follow the general dictates of the free market.
But he warned that the harshness of the market place had to be tempered and that corporate downsizing and the reduction of government programs “must be done with a heart.”
Despite his celebrated accomplishments, Mr. Samuelson preached and practiced humility. The M.I.T. economics department became famous for collegiality, in no small part because no one else could play prima donna if Mr. Samuelson refused the role, and, of course, he did. Economists, he told his students, as Churchill said of political colleagues, “have much to be humble about.”
=======
O MIT o=postou o seguinte obituario:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/obit-samuelson
domingo, 13 de dezembro de 2009
1564) O petroleo do Iraque e a teoria da conspiracao americana...
Uma das "teorias" que procurava "explicar" a invasao americana do Iraque, era a de que a intencao americana era a de se assegurar a posse, exclusivamente para os EUA, do oleo barato do Iraque para as companhias americanas.
Bem, quanto ao "petroleo barato" nao é preciso elaborar, em vista dos 150 dolares o barril de 2008.
Quanto ao dominio exclusivo, esta materia do Washington Post deste domingo se encarrega de enterra-lo...
-------------
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
U.S. firms lag in bids for Iraqi oil
Nathaniel Vaughn Kelso
The Washington Post, Sunday, December 13, 2009
Russians, Europeans and Chinese win most contracts for developing major fields
BAGHDAD -- Chinese, Russian and European companies won the right this weekend to develop major oil fields in Iraq, while U.S. firms made a paltry showing at auctions that represent the first major incursion of foreign oil companies into Iraq in four decades.
The companies that secured 10 contracts in auctions held over the weekend and in June stand to profit handsomely, but they are taking a significant gamble.
Iraq has the third-largest proven crude reserves in the world, but the country remains perilous; it suffers from chronic corruption and acrimonious politics that have prevented the passing of new laws to regulate the sector.
Of the seven U.S. companies that registered for the auctions, only one emerged as the leading partner in a consortium that won a contract. Another U.S. company has a minority stake in a contract.
China's state-owned oil company has a major stake in two contracts. Russian firms are parties in two others.
European firms made a strong showing. Royal Dutch Shell, Italy's Eni, British Petroleum and Norway's Statoil got deals.
Companies from Malaysia and Angola were parties to five winning bids.
Oil analysts say the outcome was surprising, considering that U.S. oil companies have long yearned to work in Iraq.
The analysts said it is ironic that U.S. companies do not appear poised to cash in on the aftermath of a war that many in the United States and the Middle East argued was motivated by a desire to tap into Iraq's oil reserves.
After the invasion, the United States paid oil executives to advise Iraq's Oil Ministry and set up large military and civilian task forces to boost the country's ailing energy sector.
"American oil executives provided free training to the ministry," said Ben Lando, bureau chief of Iraq Oil Report, a trade news outlet. "It is quite strange that after wanting access to Iraqi oil for so long, U.S. companies have largely remained on the sidelines."
Security concerns, underscored by coordinated bombings Tuesday, and the threat of political instability as the U.S. military withdraws probably gave American oil executives pause, analysts said.
In some cases, U.S. companies were at a disadvantage because their rivals, particularly the Chinese and Russians, have lower labor costs and do not answer to shareholders, which might allow them to take more risks.
"U.S. companies report back to their shareholders, not to public opinion," said Ruba Husari, editor of Iraq Oil Forum, another trade news site. Nonetheless, she said, "their low profile is intriguing," considering that the auctions are widely seen as the last major opportunity for years for international oil firms wanting to do business in Iraq.
U.S. Ambassador Christopher R. Hill called the opening of Iraq's oil industry to foreign investment an achievement of "historical significance" and said he was encouraged by how transparent the process had been.
Hill said the embassy advised U.S. companies as they weighed the pros and cons of doing business in Iraq, as diplomats do around the world.
"I'm not in a position to express disappointment," he said of the American showing at the auctions. "They had to make a decision based on what they're prepared to pay."
Exxon Mobil was the only U.S. company that led a winning consortium. Los Angeles-based Occidental Petroleum Inc. got roughly a 25 percent share in another.
The state-owned Chinese National Petroleum Corp. bid on more contracts than any other company.
In marked contrast to the Americans, Chinese diplomats in Baghdad have kept a low profile in recent years, working out of a hotel and drawing little public attention. But Iraqi officials say they have been struck by the caliber of Chinese diplomats, many of whom speak flawless Arabic and have developed a nuanced understanding of Iraqi politics.
"We all know that China is on track to become a major economic as well as technological power," said Assam Jihad, a spokesman for the Oil Ministry.
Under the 20-year service contracts, the Iraqi government will pay companies a set fee for each barrel produced above the current output level at each field.
The contracts also position the companies to play major roles in Iraq if the government loosens restrictions on foreign investment. The contracts awarded at the auctions are service contracts, which do not give companies a share of profits.
This weekend's auction was far more successful than the one in June, when the ministry awarded one contract out of the 10 on the auction block. Two other deals from that auction were reached later.
Of the 10 fields up for grab in the second round, the ministry awarded seven contracts.
Iraq's oil revenue, the backbone of its economy, has dipped below target this year as a result of lower prices and export volumes. Officials hope the refurbished fields could pump as much as 11 million barrels per day in eight years. The country currently pumps 2.4 million a day.
A dispute over federalism between politicians in Baghdad and their counterparts in the autonomous Kurdish regional government in northern Iraq is one of the biggest challenges oil companies entering Iraq are likely to face.
The chairman of the Iraqi parliament's oil and gas committee, a Kurd, has warned executives that the contracts are illegal. He has called for the resignation of Oil Minister Hussain Shahristani.
"These companies should think twice before signing contracts," said the lawmaker, Ali Hussein Belo.
Meanwhile, deals the Kurds have signed with foreign companies for fields in northern Iraq have come under fire in Baghdad, which banned those companies from participating in the auctions.
The fight could draw oil companies into one of the most protracted battles over power in Iraq. "We have faith in the government," Mounir Bouaziz, a vice president for Shell, said after his company won a coveted field. "The government is behind these contracts."
Special correspondents K.I. Ibrahim and Aziz Alwan contributed to this report.
sábado, 12 de dezembro de 2009
1563) Antiglobalizadores: de novo, mais transpiracao do que inspiracao...
Ufa, quando menos a gente espera, lá vem mais um boletim dos antiglobalizadores -- que preferem ser chamados de altermundialistas, embora eles ainda não tenham explicado direitinho de que será feito esse "outro mundo possível" -- prometendo uma nova supermegajumbo reunião (mais apropriadamente equiparada a um jamboree, ou um picnic inconsequente de ideias vazias), que pretende continuar fazendo barulho em torno de objetivos obscuros e metas inatingíveis.
Pois é: recebi, como sempre recebo, uma boletim dos organizadores brasileiros do Forum Social Mundial que promete grandes reuniões, sem dizer exatamente em torno do quê.
Sem cobrar nada do FSM, nem pedir lecença para criticá-los, vou transcrever abaixo, para eventuais interessados e true believers, esse boletim recebido, que anuncia as birlhantes atividades que eles pretendem organizar, aos dez anos de estruturação do movimento.
Sinto dizer, mas os antiglobalizadores não conseguem dizer nada de significativo sobre os problemas do nosso tempo, e todas as suas sugestões são economicamente inexequíveis, politicamente surrealistas, socialmente desastrosas e ambientalmente insustentáveis (a despeito de tudo o que eles dizem de politicamente correto em torno desses temas genéricos).
Já escrevi dezenas de artigos -- que podem ser buscados em meu site, no instrumento Google de pesquisa, sob as rubricas globalização e antiglobalização -- contestando todas as ideias (se é que eles têm alguma) que surgem nesses convescotes animados (muito parecidos a assembléias da UNE, com muita cerveja, música pesada, sexo e algumas drogas) voltados para derrubar o capitalismo, a globalização e o neoliberalismo.
Esses órfãos do socialismo e do idealismo mal conduzido e mal orientado vão um dia aprender alguma coisa. Eles fariam melhor se se informassem, para começar, sobre como o mundo realmente funciona, nao como seus gurus dizem que ele funciona.
Recuperáveis sonhadores...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida (12.12.2009)
Boletim FSM
10 de dezembro de 2009
Índice
1) Até 18 de dezembro, Klimaforum09 reúne sociedade civil durante a Conferência do Clima em Copenhague
2) Saiba como será o Fórum Social Mundial em 2010
a) Leia documento com propostas para conectar os eventos FSM em 2010
b) Kpomassé, Madri, Praga, Salvador e Grande Porto Alegre receberão os primeiros fóruns sociais de 2010
c) Fórum Social 10 Anos Grande Porto Alegre divulga programação de seminário internacional
d) Confira a lista dos eventos já programados para 2010
3) 2011: Organizadores do FSM Dacar realizaram, em novembro, primeiro seminário preparatório
4) Confira boletim com informações do Fórum Social Europeu
5) FSM Online
a) Open FSM
b) WSF TV
c) Fórum de Rádios
d) Ciranda Internacional de Informação Independente
1) Até 18 de dezembro, Klimaforum09 reúne sociedade civil durante a Conferência do Clima em Copenhague
De 7 a 18 de dezembro, durante a Conferência do Clima, em Copenhague, Dinamarca, ativistas, organizações e movimentos sociais de todo o mundo estarão reunidos no Klimaforum 09, evento que funciona como uma contrapartida da sociedade civil global à conferência oficial da ONU. Saiba mais.
2) Saiba como será o Fórum Social Mundial em 2010:
a) Leia documento com propostas para conectar os eventos FSM em 2010
Documento preparado pelo Grupo de Enlace é baseado nos debates da última reunião do Conselho Internacional ocorrida em Outubro, em Montreal, e é voltado especialmente aos organizadores dos eventos e ações de 2010. Leia mais.
b) Kpomassé, Madri, Praga, Salvador e Grande Porto Alegre receberão os primeiros fóruns sociais de 2010
Kpomassé, Madri, Praga, Salvador e Grande Porto Alegre estão entre as cidades que darão início às celebrações dos 10 anos do processo do Fórum Social Mundial em 2010. Saiba mais.
c) Fórum Social 10 Anos Grande Porto Alegre divulga programação de seminário internacional
Já estão confirmadas as mesas e alguns nomes de palestrantes do Seminário Internacional "10 Anos depois: desafios e propostas para um outro mundo possível", que acontecerá dentro da programação do Fórum Social 10 Anos Grande Porto Alegre, de 25 a 29 de janeiro. Leia mais.
d) Confira a lista dos eventos já programados para 2010: Clique aqui
3) 2011: Organizadores do FSM Dacar realizaram, em novembro, primeiro seminário preparatório
Entre os dias 16 e 18 de novembro, aconteceu em Dacar, no Senegal, o primeiro seminário preparatório para o Fórum Social Mundial 2011. Saiba mais.
4) Confira boletim com informações do Fórum Social Europeu: clique aqui.
5) FSM Online
a) Open FSM
Conheça a rede social que reúne ativistas e militantes de todo o mundo identificados com a Carta de princípios do FSM. Este espaço virtual aberto possibilita a troca de informações e a realização de debates entre os participantes do processo Fórum e interessados.
b) WSF TV
O site WSF TV segue no ar exibindo produções audiovisuais relacionadas aos temas do Fórum Social Mundial. O portal pode ser utilizado para hospedar vídeos realizados por qualquer pessoa ou organização identificada com com a Carta de Princípios do FSM.
c) Fórum de Rádios
Conheça o Fórum de Rádios, um espaço compartilhado pelas rádios participantes do processo Fórum Social Mundial, com produção de informação livre em formato radiofônico.
d) Ciranda Internacional de Informação Independente
A Ciranda é uma iniciativa de participantes do Fórum Social Mundial que se reúnem para organizar coberturas compartilhadas dos eventos a partir do olhar, do trabalho e das ações coletivas e solidárias das mídias alternativas.
Pois é: recebi, como sempre recebo, uma boletim dos organizadores brasileiros do Forum Social Mundial que promete grandes reuniões, sem dizer exatamente em torno do quê.
Sem cobrar nada do FSM, nem pedir lecença para criticá-los, vou transcrever abaixo, para eventuais interessados e true believers, esse boletim recebido, que anuncia as birlhantes atividades que eles pretendem organizar, aos dez anos de estruturação do movimento.
Sinto dizer, mas os antiglobalizadores não conseguem dizer nada de significativo sobre os problemas do nosso tempo, e todas as suas sugestões são economicamente inexequíveis, politicamente surrealistas, socialmente desastrosas e ambientalmente insustentáveis (a despeito de tudo o que eles dizem de politicamente correto em torno desses temas genéricos).
Já escrevi dezenas de artigos -- que podem ser buscados em meu site, no instrumento Google de pesquisa, sob as rubricas globalização e antiglobalização -- contestando todas as ideias (se é que eles têm alguma) que surgem nesses convescotes animados (muito parecidos a assembléias da UNE, com muita cerveja, música pesada, sexo e algumas drogas) voltados para derrubar o capitalismo, a globalização e o neoliberalismo.
Esses órfãos do socialismo e do idealismo mal conduzido e mal orientado vão um dia aprender alguma coisa. Eles fariam melhor se se informassem, para começar, sobre como o mundo realmente funciona, nao como seus gurus dizem que ele funciona.
Recuperáveis sonhadores...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida (12.12.2009)
Boletim FSM
10 de dezembro de 2009
Índice
1) Até 18 de dezembro, Klimaforum09 reúne sociedade civil durante a Conferência do Clima em Copenhague
2) Saiba como será o Fórum Social Mundial em 2010
a) Leia documento com propostas para conectar os eventos FSM em 2010
b) Kpomassé, Madri, Praga, Salvador e Grande Porto Alegre receberão os primeiros fóruns sociais de 2010
c) Fórum Social 10 Anos Grande Porto Alegre divulga programação de seminário internacional
d) Confira a lista dos eventos já programados para 2010
3) 2011: Organizadores do FSM Dacar realizaram, em novembro, primeiro seminário preparatório
4) Confira boletim com informações do Fórum Social Europeu
5) FSM Online
a) Open FSM
b) WSF TV
c) Fórum de Rádios
d) Ciranda Internacional de Informação Independente
1) Até 18 de dezembro, Klimaforum09 reúne sociedade civil durante a Conferência do Clima em Copenhague
De 7 a 18 de dezembro, durante a Conferência do Clima, em Copenhague, Dinamarca, ativistas, organizações e movimentos sociais de todo o mundo estarão reunidos no Klimaforum 09, evento que funciona como uma contrapartida da sociedade civil global à conferência oficial da ONU. Saiba mais.
2) Saiba como será o Fórum Social Mundial em 2010:
a) Leia documento com propostas para conectar os eventos FSM em 2010
Documento preparado pelo Grupo de Enlace é baseado nos debates da última reunião do Conselho Internacional ocorrida em Outubro, em Montreal, e é voltado especialmente aos organizadores dos eventos e ações de 2010. Leia mais.
b) Kpomassé, Madri, Praga, Salvador e Grande Porto Alegre receberão os primeiros fóruns sociais de 2010
Kpomassé, Madri, Praga, Salvador e Grande Porto Alegre estão entre as cidades que darão início às celebrações dos 10 anos do processo do Fórum Social Mundial em 2010. Saiba mais.
c) Fórum Social 10 Anos Grande Porto Alegre divulga programação de seminário internacional
Já estão confirmadas as mesas e alguns nomes de palestrantes do Seminário Internacional "10 Anos depois: desafios e propostas para um outro mundo possível", que acontecerá dentro da programação do Fórum Social 10 Anos Grande Porto Alegre, de 25 a 29 de janeiro. Leia mais.
d) Confira a lista dos eventos já programados para 2010: Clique aqui
3) 2011: Organizadores do FSM Dacar realizaram, em novembro, primeiro seminário preparatório
Entre os dias 16 e 18 de novembro, aconteceu em Dacar, no Senegal, o primeiro seminário preparatório para o Fórum Social Mundial 2011. Saiba mais.
4) Confira boletim com informações do Fórum Social Europeu: clique aqui.
5) FSM Online
a) Open FSM
Conheça a rede social que reúne ativistas e militantes de todo o mundo identificados com a Carta de princípios do FSM. Este espaço virtual aberto possibilita a troca de informações e a realização de debates entre os participantes do processo Fórum e interessados.
b) WSF TV
O site WSF TV segue no ar exibindo produções audiovisuais relacionadas aos temas do Fórum Social Mundial. O portal pode ser utilizado para hospedar vídeos realizados por qualquer pessoa ou organização identificada com com a Carta de Princípios do FSM.
c) Fórum de Rádios
Conheça o Fórum de Rádios, um espaço compartilhado pelas rádios participantes do processo Fórum Social Mundial, com produção de informação livre em formato radiofônico.
d) Ciranda Internacional de Informação Independente
A Ciranda é uma iniciativa de participantes do Fórum Social Mundial que se reúnem para organizar coberturas compartilhadas dos eventos a partir do olhar, do trabalho e das ações coletivas e solidárias das mídias alternativas.
sexta-feira, 11 de dezembro de 2009
1562) Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize
Recapitulando, transcrevendo e informando:
1) Discurso de Barack Obama, na cerimônia de entrega do Prêmio Nobel da Paz, Oslo, 10 de dezembro de 2009:
From White House Blog: speech and video
Complete speech, here.
Obama’s Nobel Remarks
Texto extraído do New York Times, December 11, 2009
Vídeo from You Tube: http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/president-obamas-nobel-peace-prize-acceptance-speech-from-oslo-norway/960715278
Following is the transcript of President Obama's speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo on Wednesday, as released by the White House:
Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:
I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations -- that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.
And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. (Laughter.) In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who've received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I.
But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries -- including Norway -- in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.
Still, we are at war, and I'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict -- filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.
Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease -- the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.
And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.
Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of "just war" was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations -- total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it's hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.
In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another world war. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations -- an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize -- America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.
In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty and self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.
And yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.
Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states -- all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred.
I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.
We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.
I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naïve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.
But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another -- that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.
So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly inreconcilable truths -- that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions." A gradual evolution of human institutions.
What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?
To begin with, I believe that all nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don't.
The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait -- a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.
Furthermore, America -- in fact, no nation -- can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don't, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.
And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.
I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.
America's commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.
The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they've shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That's why NATO continues to be indispensable. That's why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That's why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali -- we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers -- but as wagers of peace.
Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant -- the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.
Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. (Applause.) And we honor -- we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it is hard.
I have spoken at some length to the question that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me now turn to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.
First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.
One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I'm working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.
But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.
The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma -- there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy -- but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.
This brings me to a second point -- the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.
It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.
And yet too often, these words are ignored. For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists -- a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.
I reject these choices. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests -- nor the world's -- are served by the denial of human aspirations.
So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements -- these movements of hope and history -- they have us on their side.
Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach -- condemnation without discussion -- can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.
In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable -- and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul's engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There's no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.
Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights -- it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.
It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. It does not exist where children can't aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.
And that's why helping farmers feed their own people -- or nations educate their children and care for the sick -- is not mere charity. It's also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement -- all of which will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action -- it's military leaders in my own country and others who understand our common security hangs in the balance.
Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, the determination, the staying power, to complete this work without something more -- and that's the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there's something irreducible that we all share.
As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we're all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.
And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities -- their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we're moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.
And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it's incompatible with the very purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. For we are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best of intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.
But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached -- their fundamental faith in human progress -- that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.
For if we lose that faith -- if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace -- then we lose what's best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.
Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."
Let us reach for the world that ought to be -- that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. (Applause.)
Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, a soldier sees he's outgunned, but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school -- because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child's dreams.
Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of deprivation, and still strive for dignity. Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that's the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
========
2) Editorial do New York Times de 11 de dezembro de 2009 a respeito do discurso de Obama ao receber o prêmio em Oslo, em 10.12.2009:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/opinion/11fri1.html?th&emc=th
President Obama in Oslo
Editorial New York Times, December 11, 2009
Accepting the Nobel Peace Prize on Thursday, President Obama gave the speech he needed to give, but we suspect not precisely the one the Nobel committee wanted to hear.
Mr. Obama was appropriately humble. He said that “compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize,” his accomplishments “are slight” and suggested that he had been chosen not so much for what he had done but for what he is expected to do.
He then acknowledged that most of what he called “the considerable controversy” surrounding his selection came from the fact that he is “the commander in chief of the military of a nation that is in the midst of two wars.” He made no apologies for that.
In a speech that was both somber and soaring, he returned again and again to Afghanistan, arguing that the war was morally just and strategically necessary to defend the United States and others from more terrorist attacks.
In a moving passage, he invoked the memories of Mahatma Gandhi and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., saying that without Dr. King’s vision, leadership and sacrifice, he never would have been standing at that lectern in Oslo.
But he said he could not be guided by their examples alone. “For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince Al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms.”
In his introduction, the chairman of the Nobel committee, Thorbjorn Jagland, made only a brief, forbearing reference to Afghanistan. He made clear that Mr. Obama was chosen because of his commitment, and early steps, to unwind the worst policies and abuses of George W. Bush’s presidency. He pointed to Mr. Obama’s embrace of “multilateral diplomacy,” his offer to negotiate with Iran, his decision to ban torture, his efforts to revive arms control negotiations and address global warming. “President Obama is a political leader who understands that even the mightiest are vulnerable when they stand alone,” Mr. Jagland said.
It is a great relief to hear an American president described with such hope and respect. In his speech, Mr. Obama recommitted himself to those policies and principles, warning that “we lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend.”
What struck us most is how often Mr. Obama used the war in Afghanistan to make his points. He said that even as the United States confronts “a vicious adversary that abides by no rules,” this country must remain “a standard-bearer in the conduct of war.”
While he reserved the right to act unilaterally in a world where threats are “more diffuse and missions more complex,” he said, “America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan.” And he directly challenged the widespread ambivalence and aversion toward the war in the United States and in Europe. “The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it,” he said.
When he announced his plan to send an additional 30,000 troops last week, Mr. Obama’s speech was well argued but sounded more like a legal brief than an exemplar of presidential oratory. At the time, he was coming out of months of difficult internal debates and girding himself for the skepticism and disappointment of many members of his own party.
On Thursday in Oslo, Mr. Obama argued his case far more eloquently.
We’ll leave it to the philosophers to debate what is and what is not a just war. But we agree that this war is a very difficult but necessary one.
We also know that there is no chance at all of winning it, and the broader fight against terrorism, unless the United States hews to international standards and upholds its own ideals. That is Mr. Obama’s promise and his challenge going forward.
========
3) Comentário do Le Monde, sobre essa cerimônia:
Le traité d’Obama
Le Monde, 10 décembre 2009
Jamais “lecture” n’a aussi bien porté son nom. Lecture comme on dirait cours de fac ou leçon inaugurale.
Le discours de Barack Obama à Oslo a ressemblé à un cours de droit international. Sans citer explicitement Bush ou l’Irak, il a insisté sur un retour aux fondements juridiques: dans quel cas a-t-on le droit de faire la guerre (auto-défense, guerre “juste”).
Et si guerre doit être menée, alors il faut la faire dans les règles du droit (Il a cité Henry Dunant, premier Nobel, et artisan des conventions de Genève)
Au coeur de l’Europe attachée au désarmement, il a défendu la guerre tout en recevant le Prix Nobel de la Paix.
- “I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it”.
Lui qui a été plutôt discret sur les droits de l’homme jusqu’à présent en a fait une des conditions pour une paix durable.
-“For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting”.
Plus novatrice, la partie sur la doctrine. Obama rejette la fracture entre réalistes et idéalistes.
- “Within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists — a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.
- I reject these choices. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear”.
Ni blanc ni noir; ni républicain ni totalement démocrate, ni réaliste, ni idéaliste: Obama défend ses petits pas: c’est la rencontre Nixon-Mao -malgré la révolution culturelle- qui a permis l’essor de la Chine d’aujourd’hui, dit-il. C’est Jean-Paul II a ouvert la voie à Lech Walesa ..
- There’s no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.
========
4) Discurso de Barack Obama ao ser comunicado que tinha acabado de receber o prêmio Nobel da paz pelo comitê Nobel de Oslo, em 9 de outubro de 2009 (video):
http://www.videosift.com/video/Barack-Obama-s-Nobel-Peace-Prize-Acceptance-Speech
O texto de seu discurso de aceitação pode ser lido aqui: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Full-text-of-Obamas-Nobel-acceptance-speech/articleshow/5107214.cms
1) Discurso de Barack Obama, na cerimônia de entrega do Prêmio Nobel da Paz, Oslo, 10 de dezembro de 2009:
From White House Blog: speech and video
Complete speech, here.
Obama’s Nobel Remarks
Texto extraído do New York Times, December 11, 2009
Vídeo from You Tube: http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/president-obamas-nobel-peace-prize-acceptance-speech-from-oslo-norway/960715278
Following is the transcript of President Obama's speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo on Wednesday, as released by the White House:
Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:
I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations -- that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.
And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. (Laughter.) In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who've received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I.
But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries -- including Norway -- in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.
Still, we are at war, and I'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict -- filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.
Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease -- the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.
And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.
Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of "just war" was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations -- total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it's hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.
In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another world war. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations -- an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize -- America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.
In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty and self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.
And yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.
Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states -- all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred.
I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.
We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.
I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naïve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.
But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another -- that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.
So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly inreconcilable truths -- that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions." A gradual evolution of human institutions.
What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?
To begin with, I believe that all nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don't.
The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait -- a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.
Furthermore, America -- in fact, no nation -- can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don't, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.
And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.
I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.
America's commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.
The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they've shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That's why NATO continues to be indispensable. That's why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That's why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali -- we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers -- but as wagers of peace.
Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant -- the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.
Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. (Applause.) And we honor -- we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it is hard.
I have spoken at some length to the question that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me now turn to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.
First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.
One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I'm working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.
But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.
The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma -- there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy -- but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.
This brings me to a second point -- the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.
It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.
And yet too often, these words are ignored. For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists -- a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.
I reject these choices. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests -- nor the world's -- are served by the denial of human aspirations.
So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements -- these movements of hope and history -- they have us on their side.
Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach -- condemnation without discussion -- can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.
In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable -- and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul's engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There's no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.
Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights -- it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.
It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. It does not exist where children can't aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.
And that's why helping farmers feed their own people -- or nations educate their children and care for the sick -- is not mere charity. It's also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement -- all of which will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action -- it's military leaders in my own country and others who understand our common security hangs in the balance.
Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, the determination, the staying power, to complete this work without something more -- and that's the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there's something irreducible that we all share.
As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we're all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.
And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities -- their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we're moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.
And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it's incompatible with the very purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. For we are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best of intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.
But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached -- their fundamental faith in human progress -- that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.
For if we lose that faith -- if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace -- then we lose what's best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.
Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."
Let us reach for the world that ought to be -- that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. (Applause.)
Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, a soldier sees he's outgunned, but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school -- because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child's dreams.
Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of deprivation, and still strive for dignity. Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that's the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
========
2) Editorial do New York Times de 11 de dezembro de 2009 a respeito do discurso de Obama ao receber o prêmio em Oslo, em 10.12.2009:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/opinion/11fri1.html?th&emc=th
President Obama in Oslo
Editorial New York Times, December 11, 2009
Accepting the Nobel Peace Prize on Thursday, President Obama gave the speech he needed to give, but we suspect not precisely the one the Nobel committee wanted to hear.
Mr. Obama was appropriately humble. He said that “compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize,” his accomplishments “are slight” and suggested that he had been chosen not so much for what he had done but for what he is expected to do.
He then acknowledged that most of what he called “the considerable controversy” surrounding his selection came from the fact that he is “the commander in chief of the military of a nation that is in the midst of two wars.” He made no apologies for that.
In a speech that was both somber and soaring, he returned again and again to Afghanistan, arguing that the war was morally just and strategically necessary to defend the United States and others from more terrorist attacks.
In a moving passage, he invoked the memories of Mahatma Gandhi and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., saying that without Dr. King’s vision, leadership and sacrifice, he never would have been standing at that lectern in Oslo.
But he said he could not be guided by their examples alone. “For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince Al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms.”
In his introduction, the chairman of the Nobel committee, Thorbjorn Jagland, made only a brief, forbearing reference to Afghanistan. He made clear that Mr. Obama was chosen because of his commitment, and early steps, to unwind the worst policies and abuses of George W. Bush’s presidency. He pointed to Mr. Obama’s embrace of “multilateral diplomacy,” his offer to negotiate with Iran, his decision to ban torture, his efforts to revive arms control negotiations and address global warming. “President Obama is a political leader who understands that even the mightiest are vulnerable when they stand alone,” Mr. Jagland said.
It is a great relief to hear an American president described with such hope and respect. In his speech, Mr. Obama recommitted himself to those policies and principles, warning that “we lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend.”
What struck us most is how often Mr. Obama used the war in Afghanistan to make his points. He said that even as the United States confronts “a vicious adversary that abides by no rules,” this country must remain “a standard-bearer in the conduct of war.”
While he reserved the right to act unilaterally in a world where threats are “more diffuse and missions more complex,” he said, “America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan.” And he directly challenged the widespread ambivalence and aversion toward the war in the United States and in Europe. “The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it,” he said.
When he announced his plan to send an additional 30,000 troops last week, Mr. Obama’s speech was well argued but sounded more like a legal brief than an exemplar of presidential oratory. At the time, he was coming out of months of difficult internal debates and girding himself for the skepticism and disappointment of many members of his own party.
On Thursday in Oslo, Mr. Obama argued his case far more eloquently.
We’ll leave it to the philosophers to debate what is and what is not a just war. But we agree that this war is a very difficult but necessary one.
We also know that there is no chance at all of winning it, and the broader fight against terrorism, unless the United States hews to international standards and upholds its own ideals. That is Mr. Obama’s promise and his challenge going forward.
========
3) Comentário do Le Monde, sobre essa cerimônia:
Le traité d’Obama
Le Monde, 10 décembre 2009
Jamais “lecture” n’a aussi bien porté son nom. Lecture comme on dirait cours de fac ou leçon inaugurale.
Le discours de Barack Obama à Oslo a ressemblé à un cours de droit international. Sans citer explicitement Bush ou l’Irak, il a insisté sur un retour aux fondements juridiques: dans quel cas a-t-on le droit de faire la guerre (auto-défense, guerre “juste”).
Et si guerre doit être menée, alors il faut la faire dans les règles du droit (Il a cité Henry Dunant, premier Nobel, et artisan des conventions de Genève)
Au coeur de l’Europe attachée au désarmement, il a défendu la guerre tout en recevant le Prix Nobel de la Paix.
- “I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it”.
Lui qui a été plutôt discret sur les droits de l’homme jusqu’à présent en a fait une des conditions pour une paix durable.
-“For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting”.
Plus novatrice, la partie sur la doctrine. Obama rejette la fracture entre réalistes et idéalistes.
- “Within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists — a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.
- I reject these choices. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear”.
Ni blanc ni noir; ni républicain ni totalement démocrate, ni réaliste, ni idéaliste: Obama défend ses petits pas: c’est la rencontre Nixon-Mao -malgré la révolution culturelle- qui a permis l’essor de la Chine d’aujourd’hui, dit-il. C’est Jean-Paul II a ouvert la voie à Lech Walesa ..
- There’s no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.
========
4) Discurso de Barack Obama ao ser comunicado que tinha acabado de receber o prêmio Nobel da paz pelo comitê Nobel de Oslo, em 9 de outubro de 2009 (video):
http://www.videosift.com/video/Barack-Obama-s-Nobel-Peace-Prize-Acceptance-Speech
O texto de seu discurso de aceitação pode ser lido aqui: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Full-text-of-Obamas-Nobel-acceptance-speech/articleshow/5107214.cms
terça-feira, 8 de dezembro de 2009
1561) Mercosul: além de protecionista para dentro e para fora, retrocedendo na multilateralizaçao de pagamentos
Parece incrível, mas ao Mercosul se aplica o conhecido dito: desgraça pouca é bobagem...
Não contentes de serem protecionistas uns contra os outros e todos contra terceiros, os países do Mercosul também retrocedem na questão da multilateralização dos pagamentos.
Como se a deterioração do dólar impedisse comércio e pagamentos nessa moeda.
Bilateralização de pagamentos é um atraso, não um avanço, e os países deveria avançar para a plena conversibilidade de suas moedas, ou seja, a multilateralização cada vez mais ampla dos pagamentos.
Parece que certas pessoas apenas ostentam um preconceito irracional contra o dólar...
Ministro quer ampliar comércio com moedas locais
Valor Econômico, Terça-feira, 8 de dezembro de 2009
Em uma situação irônica no Mercosul, que quase implodiu na virada da década por causa da desvalorização do real e do peso, a fragilidade do dólar tornou-se o principal ponto de discussão dos representantes de ministérios de Economia e dos bancos centrais do bloco. As maiores preocupações giraram em torno de seus efeitos para o comércio exterior e para o valor das reservas internacionais mantidas por Brasil e Argentina.
O ministro argentino da Economia, Amado Boudou, pediu a ampliação dos sistemas de pagamento de importações em moedas locais e dos swaps cambiais entre bancos centrais da região. O comércio sem uso do dólar abrange atualmente 2% das operações entre Brasil e Argentina. Com o Uruguai, o Brasil deverá iniciar o sistema em 2010.
Boudou disse que o Mercosul coordenará uma posição comum sobre o assunto para levar à próximo reunião do G-20, no Canadá. Não vamos mudar o mundo, mas não queremos o continente invadido por mercadorias chinesas, afirmou o ministro argentino.
Ele manifestou preocupação com a insistência da China em manter sua moeda, atrelada ao dólar, artificialmente desvalorizada. O chefe de gabinete do Ministério da Fazenda do Brasil, Luiz Melin, concordou. Para ele, os países com comércio em dólar não podem ficar reféns da disputa entre Estados Unidos e China sobre o valor do yuan.
Para evitar a apreciação do peso, o Banco Central da Argentina tem feito compras diárias de US$ 100 milhões, segundo Boudou. Ele defendeu a política de aumento das reservas internacionais pelos países da região: Todos sofremos com a falta de reservas no passado, afirmou.
Ele apontou, porém, outro problema: a perda de valor dessa poupança, com a trajetória de queda do dólar. Para o mundo inteiro, não ter uma ordem de grandeza para a taxa nominal de câmbio leva sempre os governos a ficar atentos e monitorar (a situação) com calma, acrescentou Melin.
Boudou sugeriu o monitoramento conjunto das reservas, mas rejeitou interpretações de que estava dando a ideia, por exemplo, de criação de uma espécie de fundo soberano regional. O ministro aproveitou para elogiar a recuperação da economia brasileira, que deverá ajudar a Argentina a crescer pelo menos 3% em 2010.
O Brasil teve um bom comportamento fiscal, um comércio internacional que foi melhorando ao longo do tempo e está investindo em infraestrutura, disse Boudou, marcando posição contrária às avaliações de economistas como o americano Paul Krugman, que esteve no Brasil na semana passada, e que apontam a existência de uma bolha financeira e do mercado de capitais no país.
Não contentes de serem protecionistas uns contra os outros e todos contra terceiros, os países do Mercosul também retrocedem na questão da multilateralização dos pagamentos.
Como se a deterioração do dólar impedisse comércio e pagamentos nessa moeda.
Bilateralização de pagamentos é um atraso, não um avanço, e os países deveria avançar para a plena conversibilidade de suas moedas, ou seja, a multilateralização cada vez mais ampla dos pagamentos.
Parece que certas pessoas apenas ostentam um preconceito irracional contra o dólar...
Ministro quer ampliar comércio com moedas locais
Valor Econômico, Terça-feira, 8 de dezembro de 2009
Em uma situação irônica no Mercosul, que quase implodiu na virada da década por causa da desvalorização do real e do peso, a fragilidade do dólar tornou-se o principal ponto de discussão dos representantes de ministérios de Economia e dos bancos centrais do bloco. As maiores preocupações giraram em torno de seus efeitos para o comércio exterior e para o valor das reservas internacionais mantidas por Brasil e Argentina.
O ministro argentino da Economia, Amado Boudou, pediu a ampliação dos sistemas de pagamento de importações em moedas locais e dos swaps cambiais entre bancos centrais da região. O comércio sem uso do dólar abrange atualmente 2% das operações entre Brasil e Argentina. Com o Uruguai, o Brasil deverá iniciar o sistema em 2010.
Boudou disse que o Mercosul coordenará uma posição comum sobre o assunto para levar à próximo reunião do G-20, no Canadá. Não vamos mudar o mundo, mas não queremos o continente invadido por mercadorias chinesas, afirmou o ministro argentino.
Ele manifestou preocupação com a insistência da China em manter sua moeda, atrelada ao dólar, artificialmente desvalorizada. O chefe de gabinete do Ministério da Fazenda do Brasil, Luiz Melin, concordou. Para ele, os países com comércio em dólar não podem ficar reféns da disputa entre Estados Unidos e China sobre o valor do yuan.
Para evitar a apreciação do peso, o Banco Central da Argentina tem feito compras diárias de US$ 100 milhões, segundo Boudou. Ele defendeu a política de aumento das reservas internacionais pelos países da região: Todos sofremos com a falta de reservas no passado, afirmou.
Ele apontou, porém, outro problema: a perda de valor dessa poupança, com a trajetória de queda do dólar. Para o mundo inteiro, não ter uma ordem de grandeza para a taxa nominal de câmbio leva sempre os governos a ficar atentos e monitorar (a situação) com calma, acrescentou Melin.
Boudou sugeriu o monitoramento conjunto das reservas, mas rejeitou interpretações de que estava dando a ideia, por exemplo, de criação de uma espécie de fundo soberano regional. O ministro aproveitou para elogiar a recuperação da economia brasileira, que deverá ajudar a Argentina a crescer pelo menos 3% em 2010.
O Brasil teve um bom comportamento fiscal, um comércio internacional que foi melhorando ao longo do tempo e está investindo em infraestrutura, disse Boudou, marcando posição contrária às avaliações de economistas como o americano Paul Krugman, que esteve no Brasil na semana passada, e que apontam a existência de uma bolha financeira e do mercado de capitais no país.
1560) Triste fim de Mercosul Policarpo Quaresma?
Sinto ter de recorrer ao engraçado, mas patético, título do conhecido romance de Lima Barreto sobre um coronel que se acreditava predestinado, mas que acabou morrendo melancolicamente, embora eu creio que a metáfora se aplica: o Mercosul, pelo andar da carruagem (ou simples carroça) se aproxima do final, e ninguém parece muito preocupado com isso, como se fosse um fim de festa, ou talvez um "fin de règne"...
Nenhum país membro parece interessado no cumprimento de regras ou em negociações conjuntas com terceiros mercados. Pior: ninguém se preocupa mais em manter as aparências. Chefes de Estado e ministros sequer se dão ao trabalho de comparecer às cúpulas. Uma chatice, devem pensar: para que? Se é para sorrir amarelo, melhor ficar em casa...
Brasil cede e Mercosul prorroga listas de exceção à TEC até 2011
Daniel Rittner, de Montevidéu
Valor Econômico, 08/12/2009
Relações externas: Mudanças na tarifa foram as únicas definidas na esvaziada 38ª cúpula
Por pressão da Argentina, o governo brasileiro concordou em adiar o fim das listas de exceção à Tarifa Externa Comum (TEC), pilar da união aduaneira no Mercosul. Na abertura da 38ª reunião de cúpula do bloco, a decisão evidenciou as dificuldades dos quatro sócios em acertar a uniformização das alíquotas cobradas de produtos importados. Em vez de terminar em dezembro de 2010 e de forma gradual, conforme haviam prometido dois anos atrás, os países do Mercosul resolveram extinguir o mecanismo apenas em dezembro de 2011 e de uma só vez.
Embora esse seja o novo compromisso formal, diplomatas brasileiros admitiam ontem que dificilmente o prazo será cumprido. "A essa altura haverá até mesmo outro governo na Argentina e ninguém pode prever como se dará a discussão daqui em diante", dizia um diplomata.
Para proteger ou estimular setores específicos de suas economias, Brasil e Argentina podem colocar 100 produtos cada um em listas de exceção à alíquota conjunta cobrada no momento da importação. O Uruguai e o Paraguai têm direito a 125 e a 150 produtos, respectivamente, por serem economias menores e mais frágeis. Essas listas reforçam o que se chama de "perfuração da TEC". Ou seja, ao negociar em bloco acordos comerciais com outros países, o Mercosul se vê numa situação em que, na prática, cada sócio cobra uma tarifa de importação diferente.
Mesmo lamentando a decisão, negociadores do Itamaraty apresentaram argumentos para justificar que o recuo não era tão grave. "Temos mais de 9 mil posições tarifárias (produtos) e deixar 100 deles numa lista de exceção não é tanta coisa assim", afirmou um diplomata. A ministra argentina da Produção, Débora Giorgi, minimizou: "Não é nada novo. O sistema continua sendo exatamente o mesmo."
Além de prorrogar o mecanismo das exceções, os quatro sócios do Mercosul aceitaram o pedido brasileiro de aumentar a TEC para 11 produtos lácteos, cujas alíquotas passarão de 11% para 28%. Entre esses produtos estão leite em pó, soro de leite e algumas variedades de queijo. O objetivo é conter a entrada de lácteos provenientes da União Europeia e dos Estados Unidos que são subsidiados nos países de origem. A alíquota de 28% já vigorava no Brasil, que havia colocado esses produtos na lista de exceção à tarifa comum. Agora, com a uniformização da alíquota entre os países do Mercosul, o Brasil poderá alterar sua lista.
Também houve acordo para outras mudanças na TEC. Para evitar a invasão de matérias-primas chinesas, as alíquotas para fios e filamentos têxteis subirão de 14% para 18%. Já produtos como mochilas e bolsas de mão, a pedido da Argentina, terão tarifas de até 35% - vinha sendo cobrada alíquota de 16% a 18%.
Esvaziada de autoridades, a cúpula começou ontem com um encontro de ministros de Economia e presidentes dos bancos centrais. Guido Mantega e Henrique Meirelles, os titulares do Brasil no grupo, enviaram representantes. A reunião de chanceleres, prévia à dos chefes de Estado, não teve a participação do ministro Celso Amorim - do lado brasileiro, a delegação foi chefiada pelo secretário-geral do Itamaraty, Antônio Patriota.
O próprio presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva planejava ficar poucas horas no Uruguai. Ele tinha chegada prevista à 1 hora de hoje e voltaria a Brasília logo após o almoço. Diante da ausência de muitas autoridades, chamou atenção a falta de novos acordos e mecanismos para aprofundar a integração regional. A cúpula deverá acabar se transformando apenas em um encontro de amigos, marcando a despedida do presidente do Uruguai, Tabaré Vázquez, que deixará o cargo em março. Seu sucessor eleito há dez dias, o ex-guerrilheiro tupamaro José Mujica, participará da reunião e fará sua estreia na arena internacional. A Argentina assumirá por seis meses, em seguida, a presidência pro-tempore do Mercosul.
Nenhum país membro parece interessado no cumprimento de regras ou em negociações conjuntas com terceiros mercados. Pior: ninguém se preocupa mais em manter as aparências. Chefes de Estado e ministros sequer se dão ao trabalho de comparecer às cúpulas. Uma chatice, devem pensar: para que? Se é para sorrir amarelo, melhor ficar em casa...
Brasil cede e Mercosul prorroga listas de exceção à TEC até 2011
Daniel Rittner, de Montevidéu
Valor Econômico, 08/12/2009
Relações externas: Mudanças na tarifa foram as únicas definidas na esvaziada 38ª cúpula
Por pressão da Argentina, o governo brasileiro concordou em adiar o fim das listas de exceção à Tarifa Externa Comum (TEC), pilar da união aduaneira no Mercosul. Na abertura da 38ª reunião de cúpula do bloco, a decisão evidenciou as dificuldades dos quatro sócios em acertar a uniformização das alíquotas cobradas de produtos importados. Em vez de terminar em dezembro de 2010 e de forma gradual, conforme haviam prometido dois anos atrás, os países do Mercosul resolveram extinguir o mecanismo apenas em dezembro de 2011 e de uma só vez.
Embora esse seja o novo compromisso formal, diplomatas brasileiros admitiam ontem que dificilmente o prazo será cumprido. "A essa altura haverá até mesmo outro governo na Argentina e ninguém pode prever como se dará a discussão daqui em diante", dizia um diplomata.
Para proteger ou estimular setores específicos de suas economias, Brasil e Argentina podem colocar 100 produtos cada um em listas de exceção à alíquota conjunta cobrada no momento da importação. O Uruguai e o Paraguai têm direito a 125 e a 150 produtos, respectivamente, por serem economias menores e mais frágeis. Essas listas reforçam o que se chama de "perfuração da TEC". Ou seja, ao negociar em bloco acordos comerciais com outros países, o Mercosul se vê numa situação em que, na prática, cada sócio cobra uma tarifa de importação diferente.
Mesmo lamentando a decisão, negociadores do Itamaraty apresentaram argumentos para justificar que o recuo não era tão grave. "Temos mais de 9 mil posições tarifárias (produtos) e deixar 100 deles numa lista de exceção não é tanta coisa assim", afirmou um diplomata. A ministra argentina da Produção, Débora Giorgi, minimizou: "Não é nada novo. O sistema continua sendo exatamente o mesmo."
Além de prorrogar o mecanismo das exceções, os quatro sócios do Mercosul aceitaram o pedido brasileiro de aumentar a TEC para 11 produtos lácteos, cujas alíquotas passarão de 11% para 28%. Entre esses produtos estão leite em pó, soro de leite e algumas variedades de queijo. O objetivo é conter a entrada de lácteos provenientes da União Europeia e dos Estados Unidos que são subsidiados nos países de origem. A alíquota de 28% já vigorava no Brasil, que havia colocado esses produtos na lista de exceção à tarifa comum. Agora, com a uniformização da alíquota entre os países do Mercosul, o Brasil poderá alterar sua lista.
Também houve acordo para outras mudanças na TEC. Para evitar a invasão de matérias-primas chinesas, as alíquotas para fios e filamentos têxteis subirão de 14% para 18%. Já produtos como mochilas e bolsas de mão, a pedido da Argentina, terão tarifas de até 35% - vinha sendo cobrada alíquota de 16% a 18%.
Esvaziada de autoridades, a cúpula começou ontem com um encontro de ministros de Economia e presidentes dos bancos centrais. Guido Mantega e Henrique Meirelles, os titulares do Brasil no grupo, enviaram representantes. A reunião de chanceleres, prévia à dos chefes de Estado, não teve a participação do ministro Celso Amorim - do lado brasileiro, a delegação foi chefiada pelo secretário-geral do Itamaraty, Antônio Patriota.
O próprio presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva planejava ficar poucas horas no Uruguai. Ele tinha chegada prevista à 1 hora de hoje e voltaria a Brasília logo após o almoço. Diante da ausência de muitas autoridades, chamou atenção a falta de novos acordos e mecanismos para aprofundar a integração regional. A cúpula deverá acabar se transformando apenas em um encontro de amigos, marcando a despedida do presidente do Uruguai, Tabaré Vázquez, que deixará o cargo em março. Seu sucessor eleito há dez dias, o ex-guerrilheiro tupamaro José Mujica, participará da reunião e fará sua estreia na arena internacional. A Argentina assumirá por seis meses, em seguida, a presidência pro-tempore do Mercosul.
segunda-feira, 7 de dezembro de 2009
1559) Concurso do Itamaraty - Guia de Estudos
Já se encontra no sítio eletrônico da CESPE o Guia de Estudos 2010 para os aspirantes à carreira de diplomata.
Link:
http://www.cespe. unb.br/concursos /DIPLOMACIA2010/ arquivos/ FINAL_GUIA_ DE_ESTUDOS_ 2010_07.10. 2009.pdf
Link:
http://www.cespe. unb.br/concursos /DIPLOMACIA2010/ arquivos/ FINAL_GUIA_ DE_ESTUDOS_ 2010_07.10. 2009.pdf
1558) Os verdes, esses incuraveis sofismadores...
Sustainability: An Assault on Economics
Tyler A. Watts
Mises Daily, Friday, December 04, 2009
Ah, the greens. They're not just treehuggers anymore. They've been browbeating us to recycle, eat soy, save energy, drive less, ride the bus, and a thousand other ways to "act local" for many years now. Now they've even got a hip new huckster on the big screen: "No Impact Man," your conductor on a first-class guilt trip to ecoland. Despite the massive popularity of their cause, I don't think they're satisfied. They want to control us. If we don't watch out, these people hell-bent on saving the planet are going to end up micromanaging our daily lives.
The idea of sustainability itself sounds pretty benign — it merely implies that people ought to be forward thinking, prudent, and thrifty in their use of economic resources. And I'm OK with this basic idea — on the surface, it sounds like simple wisdom, in league with similarly bland and benevolent values like responsibility and generosity.
But deep down, there's something unsettling about the basic premise of sustainability. Sustainability advocates — let's call them "sustainists" — are damning in their fervor, poise, and rhetoric. Their ideology is pregnant with an accusation that the way things currently are is somehow unsustainable. There's an alarmism here which essentially claims, "there's a crisis, it's your fault for being ignorant, irrational, and greedy. You must do as we say to fix it, or we'll all die."
This alarmist crusade, which underlies the sustainability movement, should rankle people with an economic understanding of the world. A basic tenet of economics is that markets are self-correcting and orderly; prices indicate resource constraints and guide people in economizing on their use. Prices change as underlying supply and demand conditions change, inducing appropriate adjustments in consumption and production patterns. Prices channel the profit motive — a natural aspect of the human condition — into productive and innovative activities. In short, prices work.
Sustainists are either ignorant or in denial of this basic lesson. Either way, we economists have our work cut out for us.
The Sustainists' Lament
The gist of the problem, as the sustainists see it, is that people are using resources irresponsibly — either using them up too fast, using too much of them, or using them in a way that will have negative long-term ramifications. In brief, sustainists disapprove of other peoples' actions, and are taking steps to correct their wayward brethren.
Because these wasteful others, through either ignorance, laziness, or stubbornness, will not wake up and adopt sustainable practices on their own, sustainists see the need for a self-conscious effort — organized campaigns, eco–guilt trips, and yes, even laws — to correct this misuse of resources. We need to change our patterns of action; we need a motivating force beyond mere "economic self-interest" (i.e., the profit motive). Sustainability, then, has become a full-fledged crusade to "save the planet," and if you're not part of the solution, you're surely part of the problem.
Let's interpret this through the lens of economics. Sustainability arguments fall under one of two broad categories: (1) The nonrenewable resources argument that the supplies of certain important resources are shrinking; by the time people realize this it will be "too late" — resource shortages will strain the capitalist economies to the breaking point.[1] (2) The climate-change argument that there are large, though delayed, negative externalities to current patterns of resource use.
Whatever their type, sustainability arguments invoke market failure. Indeed, the very practices cited as unsustainable arise on the free market. Therefore some outside corrective, whether aggressive moral suasion or economic regulation, is needed to prevent the impending catastrophe of unsustainable resource use.
Are Prices Not Sufficient?
I don't want to dwell on the particulars of the sustainability movement. There are dozens of manifestations, from green building to organic farming to mandatory recycling to decarbonization — indeed, the sustainability bandwagon (which of course is painted green and powered by renewable energy) seems infinitely expandable to include every industry and interest group under the sun. Instead, I want to draw out the essential implications of the sustainability movement.
The sustainability movement is an assault on economics. It claims at its core that prices don't operate through time to direct consumption and production decisions in a sustainable way. A lesson in basic economics should suffice to defend against the sustainists' attack.
Prices arise in the market economy as a concomitant of mutually beneficial exchange. People want things that improve their lives — we call this value. Some valuable things are more scarce than others; take the classic case of water and diamonds. In absolute terms, water is more valuable than diamonds: you don't need diamonds to live.
Yet water is, pound for pound, far cheaper. Why? Although it's valuable, it is also relatively abundant; in many parts of the world, it literally does fall from the sky. The price of any good reflects this combination of value and scarcity. We're willing to pay more for valuable things as they become relatively scarce (e.g., oil); and we needn't pay as much for valuable things as they become more abundant (e.g., grain).
Likewise, as scarce things lose their value, people are no longer willing to pay for them (e.g., typewriters), and people must pay more for scarce things that suddenly become sought after (e.g., vintage Michael Jackson records). The awesome thing about prices is that they seamlessly convey this combination of facts about an item's value (demand) and it's scarcity (supply). Prices, of course, are subject to change — prices of certain goods fluctuate every day. But this is a good thing; discernable trends in prices over time indicate relative changes in the "market fundamentals" of supply and demand.
In this sense, prices reliably guide individuals, both consumers and producers, toward a rational use of resources. Savvy consumers listen to the prices; a rising price trend tells them to cut back on that particular item, and a falling price tells them to go ahead and use a little more of it. The same basic logic applies on the production side.
Entrepreneurs, driven by the profit motive, are like bloodhounds sniffing out these price trends in search of profit opportunities — chances to create value through exchange. If the price of a good trends strongly upwards over time (indicating it has become scarcer and/or more valuable), they rush to find cheaper substitutes. The cheaper the substitutes, the higher the profits to be had, especially if you're the first to market. If prices trend downwards over time (indicating that the resource is becoming more abundant relative to its usefulness), entrepreneurs devote their efforts elsewhere.
The general outcome of these economic processes is captured by the statement "prices coordinate."[2] In other words, the price system acts as an "invisible hand,"[3] guiding people — both consumers and producers — in their economic actions. The real beauty of this free-market price system is that it brings about its own kind of sustainability. This is not so much sustainability in the use of particular resources — for particular goods fall in and out of favor according to supply and demand factors — but sustainability of high economic growth and high standards of living in the economically developed, capitalist economies.
Take, as an example, the transition in the market for interior illumination: tallow candles were replaced by whale-oil lamps, which were replaced by kerosene lamps, which were replaced by incandescent bulbs powered by electricity. There was no social or political pressure needed to accomplish this evolution; there was no "peak whale oil" movement, no kerosene conservationists, no sustainability crusade of yore. All it took was a functional price system, combined with the ever-present entrepreneurial drive for profits under a competitive, free-market order.
Likewise, in our time as sustainists and other worrywarts fret about resource depletion, the price system remains functional, quietly yet assuredly guiding individuals to economize on resources, search out profitable substitutes, and anticipate future trends. All this happens without preaching, without crusades, and without activism.
Is the Sustainability Crusade Sustainable?
How long will sustainists be able to beat their drum, simultaneously trumpeting their greener-than-thou self-image and attempting, with varying degrees of coercion, to make the rest of us act "sustainable" too? With the global warming scare losing credibility by the day, the likelihood of sustainists being able to claim even a moral victory is fading.[4] Barring the earth melting down from a little bit of smoke, I'm not too worried about sustainists having much of a long-run impact.
Hardcore sustainists are asking for a radically disruptive change from the natural order of the free-market economy. They're asking us to forego wealth and embrace privation in the name of their cause.[5] Although citizens of the Western democracies have seemingly become easy marks for anything green, we will only go so far toward saving the planet, especially when it becomes apparent that sustainability requires a march toward poverty and a deeply regimented and regulated society (and that the planet's not really in peril, after all).
Also, and perhaps more importantly, people in developing countries will be increasingly turned off by the sustainists' demands for sacrifice. Having just arrived at the high living standards that long-term capitalist development yields, my sense is that they will turn a cold shoulder to the idea of ratcheting down their development.
The current resurgence of the classical-liberal tradition in economics will also reduce the appeal of sustainability. The idea of imposed or centrally planned sustainability will crumble under the realization that the spontaneous order wrought by the invisible hand of the free-market price system is amazingly sustainable in and of itself. Add to the mix the hardships of the current recession, and it won't be long before enough people, even sustainist crusaders come crawling back, box of chocolates in hand, to the free-market economy.
Tyler A. Watts
Mises Daily, Friday, December 04, 2009
Ah, the greens. They're not just treehuggers anymore. They've been browbeating us to recycle, eat soy, save energy, drive less, ride the bus, and a thousand other ways to "act local" for many years now. Now they've even got a hip new huckster on the big screen: "No Impact Man," your conductor on a first-class guilt trip to ecoland. Despite the massive popularity of their cause, I don't think they're satisfied. They want to control us. If we don't watch out, these people hell-bent on saving the planet are going to end up micromanaging our daily lives.
The idea of sustainability itself sounds pretty benign — it merely implies that people ought to be forward thinking, prudent, and thrifty in their use of economic resources. And I'm OK with this basic idea — on the surface, it sounds like simple wisdom, in league with similarly bland and benevolent values like responsibility and generosity.
But deep down, there's something unsettling about the basic premise of sustainability. Sustainability advocates — let's call them "sustainists" — are damning in their fervor, poise, and rhetoric. Their ideology is pregnant with an accusation that the way things currently are is somehow unsustainable. There's an alarmism here which essentially claims, "there's a crisis, it's your fault for being ignorant, irrational, and greedy. You must do as we say to fix it, or we'll all die."
This alarmist crusade, which underlies the sustainability movement, should rankle people with an economic understanding of the world. A basic tenet of economics is that markets are self-correcting and orderly; prices indicate resource constraints and guide people in economizing on their use. Prices change as underlying supply and demand conditions change, inducing appropriate adjustments in consumption and production patterns. Prices channel the profit motive — a natural aspect of the human condition — into productive and innovative activities. In short, prices work.
Sustainists are either ignorant or in denial of this basic lesson. Either way, we economists have our work cut out for us.
The Sustainists' Lament
The gist of the problem, as the sustainists see it, is that people are using resources irresponsibly — either using them up too fast, using too much of them, or using them in a way that will have negative long-term ramifications. In brief, sustainists disapprove of other peoples' actions, and are taking steps to correct their wayward brethren.
Because these wasteful others, through either ignorance, laziness, or stubbornness, will not wake up and adopt sustainable practices on their own, sustainists see the need for a self-conscious effort — organized campaigns, eco–guilt trips, and yes, even laws — to correct this misuse of resources. We need to change our patterns of action; we need a motivating force beyond mere "economic self-interest" (i.e., the profit motive). Sustainability, then, has become a full-fledged crusade to "save the planet," and if you're not part of the solution, you're surely part of the problem.
Let's interpret this through the lens of economics. Sustainability arguments fall under one of two broad categories: (1) The nonrenewable resources argument that the supplies of certain important resources are shrinking; by the time people realize this it will be "too late" — resource shortages will strain the capitalist economies to the breaking point.[1] (2) The climate-change argument that there are large, though delayed, negative externalities to current patterns of resource use.
Whatever their type, sustainability arguments invoke market failure. Indeed, the very practices cited as unsustainable arise on the free market. Therefore some outside corrective, whether aggressive moral suasion or economic regulation, is needed to prevent the impending catastrophe of unsustainable resource use.
Are Prices Not Sufficient?
I don't want to dwell on the particulars of the sustainability movement. There are dozens of manifestations, from green building to organic farming to mandatory recycling to decarbonization — indeed, the sustainability bandwagon (which of course is painted green and powered by renewable energy) seems infinitely expandable to include every industry and interest group under the sun. Instead, I want to draw out the essential implications of the sustainability movement.
The sustainability movement is an assault on economics. It claims at its core that prices don't operate through time to direct consumption and production decisions in a sustainable way. A lesson in basic economics should suffice to defend against the sustainists' attack.
Prices arise in the market economy as a concomitant of mutually beneficial exchange. People want things that improve their lives — we call this value. Some valuable things are more scarce than others; take the classic case of water and diamonds. In absolute terms, water is more valuable than diamonds: you don't need diamonds to live.
Yet water is, pound for pound, far cheaper. Why? Although it's valuable, it is also relatively abundant; in many parts of the world, it literally does fall from the sky. The price of any good reflects this combination of value and scarcity. We're willing to pay more for valuable things as they become relatively scarce (e.g., oil); and we needn't pay as much for valuable things as they become more abundant (e.g., grain).
Likewise, as scarce things lose their value, people are no longer willing to pay for them (e.g., typewriters), and people must pay more for scarce things that suddenly become sought after (e.g., vintage Michael Jackson records). The awesome thing about prices is that they seamlessly convey this combination of facts about an item's value (demand) and it's scarcity (supply). Prices, of course, are subject to change — prices of certain goods fluctuate every day. But this is a good thing; discernable trends in prices over time indicate relative changes in the "market fundamentals" of supply and demand.
In this sense, prices reliably guide individuals, both consumers and producers, toward a rational use of resources. Savvy consumers listen to the prices; a rising price trend tells them to cut back on that particular item, and a falling price tells them to go ahead and use a little more of it. The same basic logic applies on the production side.
Entrepreneurs, driven by the profit motive, are like bloodhounds sniffing out these price trends in search of profit opportunities — chances to create value through exchange. If the price of a good trends strongly upwards over time (indicating it has become scarcer and/or more valuable), they rush to find cheaper substitutes. The cheaper the substitutes, the higher the profits to be had, especially if you're the first to market. If prices trend downwards over time (indicating that the resource is becoming more abundant relative to its usefulness), entrepreneurs devote their efforts elsewhere.
The general outcome of these economic processes is captured by the statement "prices coordinate."[2] In other words, the price system acts as an "invisible hand,"[3] guiding people — both consumers and producers — in their economic actions. The real beauty of this free-market price system is that it brings about its own kind of sustainability. This is not so much sustainability in the use of particular resources — for particular goods fall in and out of favor according to supply and demand factors — but sustainability of high economic growth and high standards of living in the economically developed, capitalist economies.
Take, as an example, the transition in the market for interior illumination: tallow candles were replaced by whale-oil lamps, which were replaced by kerosene lamps, which were replaced by incandescent bulbs powered by electricity. There was no social or political pressure needed to accomplish this evolution; there was no "peak whale oil" movement, no kerosene conservationists, no sustainability crusade of yore. All it took was a functional price system, combined with the ever-present entrepreneurial drive for profits under a competitive, free-market order.
Likewise, in our time as sustainists and other worrywarts fret about resource depletion, the price system remains functional, quietly yet assuredly guiding individuals to economize on resources, search out profitable substitutes, and anticipate future trends. All this happens without preaching, without crusades, and without activism.
Is the Sustainability Crusade Sustainable?
How long will sustainists be able to beat their drum, simultaneously trumpeting their greener-than-thou self-image and attempting, with varying degrees of coercion, to make the rest of us act "sustainable" too? With the global warming scare losing credibility by the day, the likelihood of sustainists being able to claim even a moral victory is fading.[4] Barring the earth melting down from a little bit of smoke, I'm not too worried about sustainists having much of a long-run impact.
Hardcore sustainists are asking for a radically disruptive change from the natural order of the free-market economy. They're asking us to forego wealth and embrace privation in the name of their cause.[5] Although citizens of the Western democracies have seemingly become easy marks for anything green, we will only go so far toward saving the planet, especially when it becomes apparent that sustainability requires a march toward poverty and a deeply regimented and regulated society (and that the planet's not really in peril, after all).
Also, and perhaps more importantly, people in developing countries will be increasingly turned off by the sustainists' demands for sacrifice. Having just arrived at the high living standards that long-term capitalist development yields, my sense is that they will turn a cold shoulder to the idea of ratcheting down their development.
The current resurgence of the classical-liberal tradition in economics will also reduce the appeal of sustainability. The idea of imposed or centrally planned sustainability will crumble under the realization that the spontaneous order wrought by the invisible hand of the free-market price system is amazingly sustainable in and of itself. Add to the mix the hardships of the current recession, and it won't be long before enough people, even sustainist crusaders come crawling back, box of chocolates in hand, to the free-market economy.
1557) Uma pequena licao sobre protecionismo e livre-comercio, de Frederic Bastiat
A petição dos fabricantes de velas
Frédéric Bastiat
Instituto Von Mises Brasil, 6/12/2009
Aos Membros da Câmara de Deputados.
Cavalheiros:
Estais no caminho certo. Rejeitais as teorias abstratas e tendes pouca consideração para com a abundância e a barateza. Preocupais-vos, sobretudo, com os interesses do produtor. Desejais protegê-lo da concorrência externa e quereis reservar o mercado nacional para a indústria nacional.
Vimos oferecer-vos uma maravilhosa oportunidade para aplicardes a vossa - como diremos? A vossa teoria? Não, nada é mais enganador que a teoria. A vossa doutrina? O vosso sistema? O vosso princípio? Mas vós não gostais de doutrinas, tendes horror aos sistemas, e, quanto aos princípios, vós negais que eles existam na economia. Diremos, pois, a vossa prática - a vossa prática, sem teorias e sem princípios.
Estamos sofrendo a intolerável concorrência de um rival estrangeiro que, ao que parece, se beneficia de condições muito superiores às nossas para a produção de luz, com a qual ele inunda completamente o nosso mercado nacional a um preço fabulosamente baixo. No momento em que ele surge, as nossas vendas cessam, todos os consumidores recorrem a ele, e um ramo da indústria francesa, cujas ramificações são inumeráveis, é subitamente atingido pela mais completa estagnação. Este rival, que vem a ser ninguém menos que o sol, faz-nos uma concorrência tão impiedosa, que suspeitamos ser incitado pela pérfida Inglaterra (boa diplomacia nos tempos que correm!), visto que tem por aquela esnobe ilha uma condescendência que se dispensa de ter para conosco.
Pedimos-vos encarecidamente, pois, a gentileza de criardes uma lei que ordene o fechamento de todas as janelas, clarabóias, frestas, gelosias, portadas, cortinas, persianas, postigos e olhos-de-boi; numa palavra, de todas as aberturas, buracos, fendas e fissuras pelas quais a luz do sol tem o costume de penetrar nas casas, para prejuízo das meritórias indústrias de que nos orgulhamos de ter dotado o país - um país que, por gratidão, não poderia abandonar-nos hoje a uma luta tão desigual.
Certos estamos, nobres deputados, de que não tomareis o nosso pedido por uma sátira, e não o rejeitareis sem ao menos escutar as razões que exortaremos em seu apoio.
Em princípio, e se fechardes, o máximo possível, todo o acesso à luz natural, criando assim uma demanda por luz artificial, qual indústria francesa não se sentirá estimulada?
Se mais sebo for consumido, terá de haver mais gado bovino e ovino; e, consequentemente, ver-se-á multiplicarem-se as pastagens, a carne, a lã, o couro e, sobretudo, o estrume, que é o alicerce de toda a riqueza agrícola.
Se mais óleos forem consumidos, ver-se-á expandir-se a cultura da papoula, da oliveira e do nabo. Estas plantas ricas e erosivas oportunamente nos permitirão aproveitarmo-nos da crescente fertilidade que o rebanho adicional trará às nossas terras.
Nossos campos cobrir-se-ão de árvores resinosas. Numerosos enxames de abelhas recolherão, nas nossas montanhas, tesouros perfumados que emanam das flores - as quais hoje desperdiçam suas fragrâncias no ar desértico. Não haverá, pois, um único ramo da agricultura que não se beneficiará enormemente de tal política.
A mesma observação vale para a navegação: milhares de barcos dedicar-se-ão à caça de baleias e, em pouco tempo, haveremos de ter uma frota capaz de manter a honra da França e de gratificar as aspirações patrióticas dos peticionários abaixo assinados: os fabricantes de vela e outros.
Mas que diremos nós dos artigos manufaturados em Paris? Já podemos visualizar os enfeites dourados, os bronzes, os cristais nos candelabros, nos lampadários, nos lustres e nos candeeiros brilhando em espaçosos magazines, face aos quais as lojas de hoje não passam de meras butiques.
O pobre resineiro, no alto do litoral, ou o triste mineiro, no fundo da sua negra galeria, irão regozijar-se com maiores salários e com seu bem-estar aumentado.
Querei refletir sobre isto, cavalheiros; e ficareis convencidos de que não há talvez um só francês, do mais opulento proprietário de minas de carvão ao mais humilde vendedor de fósforos, a quem o sucesso da nossa petição não traga melhorarias de condição.
Prevemos as vossas objeções, cavalheiros; mas sabemos que vós não nos oporeis uma única objeção que não tenhais retirado daqueles decadentes livros utilizados pelos defensores do livre comércio. Ousamos desafiar-vos a pronunciar uma só palavra contra nós que não se volte imediatamente contra vós próprios e contra os princípios que norteiam toda a vossa política.
Dir-nos-eis que, se por um lado nós ganhamos com esta proteção que buscamos, por outro a França só terá a perder com ela, uma vez que o consumidor arcará com as despesas.
Responder-vos-emos:
Não mais tendes o direito de invocar os interesses do consumidor. Pois sempre que o interesse deste se viu em confrontação com o do produtor, sacrificastes sempre o próprio consumidor - e assim procedestes, de maneira sábia, para estimular o trabalho e aumentar o emprego. Pelo mesmo motivo, deveis de novo fazê-lo.
Haveis respondido vós próprios à objeção. Quando vos diziam que o consumidor está interessado na livre importação do ferro, do carvão, do sésamo, do trigo, dos têxteis, vós dizíeis: "sim, mas o produtor está interessado na sua exclusão". Pois bem! Se os consumidores estão interessados na livre admissão da luz natural, os produtores de luz artificial estão igualmente interessados na sua proibição.
Porém, novamente, vós podereis dizer ao povo que o produtor e o consumidor são indivisíveis. Se o fabricante ganhar com a proteção, fará do agricultor também um ganhador. E se a agricultura prosperar, abrir-se-ão mercados para as fábricas. Destarte, se nos conferirdes o monopólio da iluminação durante o dia, compraremos muito sebo, carvão, óleo, resina, cera, álcool, prata, ferro, bronze e cristal para alimentar a nossa indústria. Além disso, nós e os nossos numerosos fornecedores, enriquecidos, consumiremos muito e espalharemos a prosperidade por todos os ramos da indústria nacional.
Se disserdes que a luz do sol é uma dádiva da natureza, e que rejeitar tais dádivas seria o mesmo que rejeitar a própria riqueza sob o pretexto de se estar estimulando os meios de adquiri-la, então teremos de alertar-vos que estais pondo em risco toda a vossa própria política.
Notai que até agora haveis sempre rejeitado o produto estrangeiro exatamente por ele se aproximar da dádiva gratuita. Para aquiescerdes às exigências dos outros monopolistas, não foram necessários motivos; e rejeitar-nos fundamentando-vos precisamente naquilo em que estamos mais fundamentados que os outros seria como adotar a equação: + × + = - . Em outras palavras, seria acumular absurdo sobre absurdo.
A natureza e o trabalho humano cooperam em proporções diversas (dependendo dos países e dos climas) para a criação de um produto. A parte que corresponde à natureza é sempre gratuita; é a parte executada pelo trabalho humano que dá valor ao produto e é por ela que se paga.
Se uma laranja de Lisboa é vendida pela metade do preço de uma laranja de Paris, é porque o calor natural, e por consequência gratuito, faz por uma o que o calor artificial, e por isso custoso, precisa fazer pela outra
Assim, quando uma laranja nos chega de Portugal, podemos dizer que metade nos é dada gratuitamente e a outra metade, com custos; em outras palavras, ela chega a nós pela metade do preço da laranja de Paris.
Ora, é precisamente essa "semi-gratuidade" (perdão pela palavra) que deve ser repudiada. Vós direis: Como poderia a mão-de-obra nacional suportar a concorrência da mão-de-obra estrangeira quando a primeira tem tudo a fazer, e a última não tem de satisfazer senão metade das necessidades, encarregando-se o sol do resto?
Mas se essa "semi-gratuidade" vos leva a rejeitar a concorrência, por que a "gratuidade" inteira vos levaria a admitir a concorrência? Ou não sois lógicos, ou deveis, rejeitando a semi-gratuidade como prejudicial à indústria nacional, rejeitar com o dobro do zelo a gratuidade inteira.
Repetindo: quando produtos como carvão, trigo ou têxteis nos chegam de fora e podemos adquiri-los com menos trabalho do que se o fizéssemos nós mesmos, a diferença é uma dádiva gratuita que nos é conferida. Essa dádiva será mais ou menos considerável quanto maior ou menor for essa diferença. Esta diferença será de um quarto, metade, ou três quartos do valor do produto se o estrangeiro nos pedir apenas três quartos, metade ou um quarto do preço que pagaríamos normalmente. E ela será máxima quando o doador (como faz o sol em relação à luz) não nos pede nada.
A questão, e colocamo-la formalmente, é essa: quereis para a França o benefício do consumo gratuito ou as pretensas vantagens da produção onerosa? Escolhei, mas sede lógicos; pois, enquanto rejeitais o carvão, o ferro, o trigo e os têxteis estrangeiros pelo fato de seus preços se aproximarem de zero, que inconsistência seria admitir a luz do sol, cujo preço é zero, durante todo o dia!
Frédéric Bastiat foi o grande proto-austrolibertário cujas análises polêmicas ridicularizavam todos os clichês estatistas. Seu desejo primordial como escritor era passar às pessoas, da maneira mais prática possível, a urgência moral e material da liberdade.
Frédéric Bastiat
Instituto Von Mises Brasil, 6/12/2009
Aos Membros da Câmara de Deputados.
Cavalheiros:
Estais no caminho certo. Rejeitais as teorias abstratas e tendes pouca consideração para com a abundância e a barateza. Preocupais-vos, sobretudo, com os interesses do produtor. Desejais protegê-lo da concorrência externa e quereis reservar o mercado nacional para a indústria nacional.
Vimos oferecer-vos uma maravilhosa oportunidade para aplicardes a vossa - como diremos? A vossa teoria? Não, nada é mais enganador que a teoria. A vossa doutrina? O vosso sistema? O vosso princípio? Mas vós não gostais de doutrinas, tendes horror aos sistemas, e, quanto aos princípios, vós negais que eles existam na economia. Diremos, pois, a vossa prática - a vossa prática, sem teorias e sem princípios.
Estamos sofrendo a intolerável concorrência de um rival estrangeiro que, ao que parece, se beneficia de condições muito superiores às nossas para a produção de luz, com a qual ele inunda completamente o nosso mercado nacional a um preço fabulosamente baixo. No momento em que ele surge, as nossas vendas cessam, todos os consumidores recorrem a ele, e um ramo da indústria francesa, cujas ramificações são inumeráveis, é subitamente atingido pela mais completa estagnação. Este rival, que vem a ser ninguém menos que o sol, faz-nos uma concorrência tão impiedosa, que suspeitamos ser incitado pela pérfida Inglaterra (boa diplomacia nos tempos que correm!), visto que tem por aquela esnobe ilha uma condescendência que se dispensa de ter para conosco.
Pedimos-vos encarecidamente, pois, a gentileza de criardes uma lei que ordene o fechamento de todas as janelas, clarabóias, frestas, gelosias, portadas, cortinas, persianas, postigos e olhos-de-boi; numa palavra, de todas as aberturas, buracos, fendas e fissuras pelas quais a luz do sol tem o costume de penetrar nas casas, para prejuízo das meritórias indústrias de que nos orgulhamos de ter dotado o país - um país que, por gratidão, não poderia abandonar-nos hoje a uma luta tão desigual.
Certos estamos, nobres deputados, de que não tomareis o nosso pedido por uma sátira, e não o rejeitareis sem ao menos escutar as razões que exortaremos em seu apoio.
Em princípio, e se fechardes, o máximo possível, todo o acesso à luz natural, criando assim uma demanda por luz artificial, qual indústria francesa não se sentirá estimulada?
Se mais sebo for consumido, terá de haver mais gado bovino e ovino; e, consequentemente, ver-se-á multiplicarem-se as pastagens, a carne, a lã, o couro e, sobretudo, o estrume, que é o alicerce de toda a riqueza agrícola.
Se mais óleos forem consumidos, ver-se-á expandir-se a cultura da papoula, da oliveira e do nabo. Estas plantas ricas e erosivas oportunamente nos permitirão aproveitarmo-nos da crescente fertilidade que o rebanho adicional trará às nossas terras.
Nossos campos cobrir-se-ão de árvores resinosas. Numerosos enxames de abelhas recolherão, nas nossas montanhas, tesouros perfumados que emanam das flores - as quais hoje desperdiçam suas fragrâncias no ar desértico. Não haverá, pois, um único ramo da agricultura que não se beneficiará enormemente de tal política.
A mesma observação vale para a navegação: milhares de barcos dedicar-se-ão à caça de baleias e, em pouco tempo, haveremos de ter uma frota capaz de manter a honra da França e de gratificar as aspirações patrióticas dos peticionários abaixo assinados: os fabricantes de vela e outros.
Mas que diremos nós dos artigos manufaturados em Paris? Já podemos visualizar os enfeites dourados, os bronzes, os cristais nos candelabros, nos lampadários, nos lustres e nos candeeiros brilhando em espaçosos magazines, face aos quais as lojas de hoje não passam de meras butiques.
O pobre resineiro, no alto do litoral, ou o triste mineiro, no fundo da sua negra galeria, irão regozijar-se com maiores salários e com seu bem-estar aumentado.
Querei refletir sobre isto, cavalheiros; e ficareis convencidos de que não há talvez um só francês, do mais opulento proprietário de minas de carvão ao mais humilde vendedor de fósforos, a quem o sucesso da nossa petição não traga melhorarias de condição.
Prevemos as vossas objeções, cavalheiros; mas sabemos que vós não nos oporeis uma única objeção que não tenhais retirado daqueles decadentes livros utilizados pelos defensores do livre comércio. Ousamos desafiar-vos a pronunciar uma só palavra contra nós que não se volte imediatamente contra vós próprios e contra os princípios que norteiam toda a vossa política.
Dir-nos-eis que, se por um lado nós ganhamos com esta proteção que buscamos, por outro a França só terá a perder com ela, uma vez que o consumidor arcará com as despesas.
Responder-vos-emos:
Não mais tendes o direito de invocar os interesses do consumidor. Pois sempre que o interesse deste se viu em confrontação com o do produtor, sacrificastes sempre o próprio consumidor - e assim procedestes, de maneira sábia, para estimular o trabalho e aumentar o emprego. Pelo mesmo motivo, deveis de novo fazê-lo.
Haveis respondido vós próprios à objeção. Quando vos diziam que o consumidor está interessado na livre importação do ferro, do carvão, do sésamo, do trigo, dos têxteis, vós dizíeis: "sim, mas o produtor está interessado na sua exclusão". Pois bem! Se os consumidores estão interessados na livre admissão da luz natural, os produtores de luz artificial estão igualmente interessados na sua proibição.
Porém, novamente, vós podereis dizer ao povo que o produtor e o consumidor são indivisíveis. Se o fabricante ganhar com a proteção, fará do agricultor também um ganhador. E se a agricultura prosperar, abrir-se-ão mercados para as fábricas. Destarte, se nos conferirdes o monopólio da iluminação durante o dia, compraremos muito sebo, carvão, óleo, resina, cera, álcool, prata, ferro, bronze e cristal para alimentar a nossa indústria. Além disso, nós e os nossos numerosos fornecedores, enriquecidos, consumiremos muito e espalharemos a prosperidade por todos os ramos da indústria nacional.
Se disserdes que a luz do sol é uma dádiva da natureza, e que rejeitar tais dádivas seria o mesmo que rejeitar a própria riqueza sob o pretexto de se estar estimulando os meios de adquiri-la, então teremos de alertar-vos que estais pondo em risco toda a vossa própria política.
Notai que até agora haveis sempre rejeitado o produto estrangeiro exatamente por ele se aproximar da dádiva gratuita. Para aquiescerdes às exigências dos outros monopolistas, não foram necessários motivos; e rejeitar-nos fundamentando-vos precisamente naquilo em que estamos mais fundamentados que os outros seria como adotar a equação: + × + = - . Em outras palavras, seria acumular absurdo sobre absurdo.
A natureza e o trabalho humano cooperam em proporções diversas (dependendo dos países e dos climas) para a criação de um produto. A parte que corresponde à natureza é sempre gratuita; é a parte executada pelo trabalho humano que dá valor ao produto e é por ela que se paga.
Se uma laranja de Lisboa é vendida pela metade do preço de uma laranja de Paris, é porque o calor natural, e por consequência gratuito, faz por uma o que o calor artificial, e por isso custoso, precisa fazer pela outra
Assim, quando uma laranja nos chega de Portugal, podemos dizer que metade nos é dada gratuitamente e a outra metade, com custos; em outras palavras, ela chega a nós pela metade do preço da laranja de Paris.
Ora, é precisamente essa "semi-gratuidade" (perdão pela palavra) que deve ser repudiada. Vós direis: Como poderia a mão-de-obra nacional suportar a concorrência da mão-de-obra estrangeira quando a primeira tem tudo a fazer, e a última não tem de satisfazer senão metade das necessidades, encarregando-se o sol do resto?
Mas se essa "semi-gratuidade" vos leva a rejeitar a concorrência, por que a "gratuidade" inteira vos levaria a admitir a concorrência? Ou não sois lógicos, ou deveis, rejeitando a semi-gratuidade como prejudicial à indústria nacional, rejeitar com o dobro do zelo a gratuidade inteira.
Repetindo: quando produtos como carvão, trigo ou têxteis nos chegam de fora e podemos adquiri-los com menos trabalho do que se o fizéssemos nós mesmos, a diferença é uma dádiva gratuita que nos é conferida. Essa dádiva será mais ou menos considerável quanto maior ou menor for essa diferença. Esta diferença será de um quarto, metade, ou três quartos do valor do produto se o estrangeiro nos pedir apenas três quartos, metade ou um quarto do preço que pagaríamos normalmente. E ela será máxima quando o doador (como faz o sol em relação à luz) não nos pede nada.
A questão, e colocamo-la formalmente, é essa: quereis para a França o benefício do consumo gratuito ou as pretensas vantagens da produção onerosa? Escolhei, mas sede lógicos; pois, enquanto rejeitais o carvão, o ferro, o trigo e os têxteis estrangeiros pelo fato de seus preços se aproximarem de zero, que inconsistência seria admitir a luz do sol, cujo preço é zero, durante todo o dia!
Frédéric Bastiat foi o grande proto-austrolibertário cujas análises polêmicas ridicularizavam todos os clichês estatistas. Seu desejo primordial como escritor era passar às pessoas, da maneira mais prática possível, a urgência moral e material da liberdade.
1556) Ufa, emergindo de uma longa noite censória...
Como qualquer um pode perceber, meu último post foi colocado no domingo 29 de novembro, quando ainda estava em Paris.
Agora também estou em Paris, mas já estamos na segunda-feira 7 de dezembro.
O intervalo foi ocupado com...
Censura, barreiras, muralha da China, total bloqueio informático.
Eu estava na China, claro, sem ter o mínimo acesso a sites e a todos os meus blogs, nada, zero, escuro total...
Estou com toneladas de materiais arquivados que nao pude transmitir, postar, sequer manipular de forma conveniente, posto que dependente de outros links e consultas que não pude efetuar enquanto estava na terra dos mongois, ou dos tartaros, whoever...
Bem, continuo trabalhando, mas sem tempo para retomar todo o material acumulado, que vou ter de reprocessar aos poucos, alguns ja carentes de atualidade, outros submergidos em novas camadas geológicas de material novo, ou urgente, ou mais importante, whatever...
Aproveito um intervalo de almoço, na Embaixada do Brasil, antes de voltar para minhas pesquisas (onde não tenho acesso), para postar esta simples informação.
De volta à civilização.
O que isso quer dizer?
Bem, comprei o International Herald Tribune e o Le Monde, para acompanhar com um pouco mais de detalhe a realidade internacional, escapando do China Daily e do Shanghai News, que só tem notícias e comentários filtrados, obviamente.
Aproveito para informar meu almoço, na praça Alma-Marceau:
Restaurante DeVéz
Noix de Saint Jacques espetados num poireaux, endives confites num creme d'orange, acompanhado de um AOC Muscat de Beaumes de Venise (domaine Perrin, 2007), com degustation de Roquefort, depois, e um café para terminar...
Nao posso reclamar, a não ser do preço, mas isso é o esperado...
De noite já combinei um encontro com o doutorando do meu filho numa livraria de Saint Germain que fica aberta durante a noite (caso desejemos ficar por lá, o que pouco provável), para escolhar um restaurante nas imediações.
Depois informo o menu, para alguns degustarem virtualmente...
Paris, 7.12.2009
Agora também estou em Paris, mas já estamos na segunda-feira 7 de dezembro.
O intervalo foi ocupado com...
Censura, barreiras, muralha da China, total bloqueio informático.
Eu estava na China, claro, sem ter o mínimo acesso a sites e a todos os meus blogs, nada, zero, escuro total...
Estou com toneladas de materiais arquivados que nao pude transmitir, postar, sequer manipular de forma conveniente, posto que dependente de outros links e consultas que não pude efetuar enquanto estava na terra dos mongois, ou dos tartaros, whoever...
Bem, continuo trabalhando, mas sem tempo para retomar todo o material acumulado, que vou ter de reprocessar aos poucos, alguns ja carentes de atualidade, outros submergidos em novas camadas geológicas de material novo, ou urgente, ou mais importante, whatever...
Aproveito um intervalo de almoço, na Embaixada do Brasil, antes de voltar para minhas pesquisas (onde não tenho acesso), para postar esta simples informação.
De volta à civilização.
O que isso quer dizer?
Bem, comprei o International Herald Tribune e o Le Monde, para acompanhar com um pouco mais de detalhe a realidade internacional, escapando do China Daily e do Shanghai News, que só tem notícias e comentários filtrados, obviamente.
Aproveito para informar meu almoço, na praça Alma-Marceau:
Restaurante DeVéz
Noix de Saint Jacques espetados num poireaux, endives confites num creme d'orange, acompanhado de um AOC Muscat de Beaumes de Venise (domaine Perrin, 2007), com degustation de Roquefort, depois, e um café para terminar...
Nao posso reclamar, a não ser do preço, mas isso é o esperado...
De noite já combinei um encontro com o doutorando do meu filho numa livraria de Saint Germain que fica aberta durante a noite (caso desejemos ficar por lá, o que pouco provável), para escolhar um restaurante nas imediações.
Depois informo o menu, para alguns degustarem virtualmente...
Paris, 7.12.2009
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)