O Brasil nao tem reservas em moeda estrangeira, mas sim divida - Ricardo Bergamini

O Brasil não tem reservas em moeda estrangeira, mas sim dívida

Ricardo Bergamini - Prof. de Economia

Capital de empréstimo é sempre dinheiro alugado e não poupança incorporada 

Roberto Campos

Somente um país esquizofrênico faz seguro contra ataques externos à sua moeda com dinheiro alugado.

Curiosidade Econômica Brasileira

Ricardo Bergamini

Em maio de 2017 o Banco Central do Brasil carregava um estoque de dívida externa (pública e privada) no valor de US$ 675,2 bilhões. Deveres monetários do Banco Central em moedas estrangeiras.

Em maio de 2017 as reservas em moedas estrangeiras, no conceito de caixa, em poder do Banco Central do Brasil eram de US$ 377,7 bilhões. Haveres monetários do Banco Central do Brasil em moedas estrangeiras.

Em maio de 2017 o Banco Central do Brasil tinha um saldo devedor em moedas estrangeiras correspondentes a US$ 297,5 bilhões.

Conclusão: O Brasil talvez seja o único país do planeta que regula a sua moeda (comprando e/ou vendendo moedas estrangeiras no mercado) com dívidas, e não com reservas. Avança Brasil (para o abismo).

Arquivos oficiais do governo estão disponíveis aos leitores.

www.ricardobergamini.com.br

Alemanha e Brasil: o grande diferencial em empregos sofisticados - Paulo Gala

Alemanha e Brasil: qual a diferença? Na Alemanha, dos 80 milhões da população, 41,5M (51,8%) trabalhavam em 2011. Dos que trabalhavam, 17,52% estavam na industria e 15,34% nos serviços empresariais e finanças. Ou seja quase 36% em empregos do tipo engenharia, design, marketing, IT, gestão, todos eles com grandes economias de escala e alta qualificação. No Brasil, para uma população de 200M em 2011, 105M (52,5%) trabalhavam em 2011. Desses 10,6% estavam na industria, bem mais low tech em relação a Alemanha e 10,5% em serviços empresariais, também menos high tech do que na Alemanha. O Gráfico acima mostra isso com o somatório de empregos industriais + serviços sofisticados no eixo Y e complexidade da estrutura produtiva no eixo X. Ser um país pobre equivale a não ter complexidade econômica nem empregos de qualidade.

O Apelo de Praga para a Renovacao da Democracia (texto em portugues)

Tomei conhecimento deste "manifesto" de uma coalizão em favor da democracia numa postagem de artigo do professor João Carlos Espada,  duplamente diretor do Instituto de Estudos Políticos da Universidade Católica de Portugal e da revista Nova Cidadania, no site do Observador (http://observador.pt/opiniao/o-apelo-de-praga-coligacao-para-a-renovacao-democratica/), pouco tempo antes de partir a Portugal, para participar, a seu convite e da diretora do programa, Prof. Rita Seabra Brito, do Estoril Political Forum, magnífico conclave de intelectuais, acadêmicos e responsáveis por think tanks e ONGs comprometidos com os ideais democráticos em diversos países do mundo.

Eu já tinha postado o apelo, em sua versão original em inglês, neste mesmo espaço, com a lista de seus primeiros signatários (infelizmente não há nenhum do Brasil, a despeito de nele vermos os nomes de personalidades democráticas de países tão "difíceis" para a democracia quanto a China, Cuba, Arábia Saudita, Venezuela), neste link: 
http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.pt/2017/06/a-chamada-de-praga-para-renovacao-da.html

Ao participar do Forum, encerrado nesta quarta-feira 28 de junho, depois de três dias de intensos debates e apresentações, indaguei do Professor Espada se existia uma versão em Português deste apelo, e ele informou-me que não. Providenciei, assim, rapidamente, uma versão não oficial em Português deste importante documento, que deve, previsivelmente, servir de base para uma vigorosa defesa da democracia em todos os lugares nos quais ela se encontra ameaçada.
Pessoalmente, não compro a tese de que o Brasil seja uma sociedade democrática consolidada. Se assim considerarmos, temos pelo menos de admitir que se trata de uma democracia de baixíssima qualidade, com instituições formais talvez adequadas a seu objetivo principal, mas muitas vezes ocupadas por responsáveis pouco responsáveis, digamos assim. Basta conferirmos, por exemplo, a realidade em nosso país, em meio a investigações de caráter policial e a cargo do poder judiciário, com este trecho do apelo de Praga, que lista os diversos princípios de uma formação política democrática: 

"... a eleição regular dos funcionários governamentais por meio de um processo de escolha verdadeiramente livre, justo, aberto e competitivo; amplas oportunidades, além das eleições, para que os cidadãos participem e vocalizem suas preocupações; transparência governamental e prestação de contas, ambas asseguradas por meio de um forte sistema constitucional de pesos e contrapesos e da supervisão da sociedade civil; um vigoroso primado do direito, garantido por um judiciário independente; uma economia de mercado que esteja isenta de corrupção e conceda oportunidades para todos; e uma cultura democrática feita de tolerância, de civilidade e de não-violência."

Transcrevo, portanto, aqui abaixo, minha versão do "manifesto" em sua íntegra, seguindo-se a lista de seus atuais signatários (e seus respectivos países, em inglês), entre os quais se encontra o professor João Carlos Espada, a quem agradeço a excepcional boa acolhida que nos foi patrocinada, a mim e a Carmen Lícia Palazzo, durante os quatro dias nos quais permanecemos no Estoril. Estendo igualmente minha apreciação e o nosso reconhecimento a todos os demais organizadores e promotores do evento, entre os quais se encontra o professor João Pereira Coutinho, colunista do jornal Folha de São Paulo e que pode ser chamado de maior "brasilianista" português.
Espero que este "manifesto" sirva de documento de apoio aos diversos movimentos e a todas as pessoas que, no Brasil e em outros países, lutam pelo estabelecimento de um verdadeiro sistema democrático, livre da corrupção e de tantas deformações e desvios em suas instituições de Estado.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida 
Estoril, Portugal, 29 de junho de 2017

O Apelo de Praga para a Renovação Democrática

Adotado em Praga em 26 de maio de 2017

A democracia liberal está sob ameaça, e todos os que a prezam devem sair em sua defesa.

A democracia está sendo ameaçada de fora por regimes despóticos na Rússia, na China e em outros países que estão endurecendo a repressão no plano interno e expandindo seu poder globalmente, preenchendo o vácuo deixado pelo poder, pela influência e pela autoconfiança declinantes nas democracias longevas. Os autoritários estão usando velhas armas de hard power assim como as novas mídias sociais e um crescente arsenal de soft power para criar uma ordem mundial pós-democrática na qual as normas de direitos humanos e o primado do direito são substituídos pelo princípio da soberania estatal absoluta.

A democracia também está sendo ameaçada por dentro. O anti-liberalismo está em ascensão na Turquia, na Hungria, nas Filipinas, na Venezuela e em outros contextos de retrocesso democrático. Em outros países – mesmo democracias antigas – o apoio à democracia liberal erodiu em anos recentes, especialmente entre os mais jovens, que não têm memória das lutas contra o totalitarismo. A fé nas instituições democráticas tem declinado por algum tempo, na medida em que os governos se mostram incapazes de lidar com os complexos novos desafios da globalização, que os processos políticos parecem crescentemente esclerosados e disfuncionais, e que as burocracias gerenciando as instituições tanto nacionais quanto as globais parecem distantes e prepotentes. Somando-se às dificuldades, a violência terrorista criou uma clima de medo que é usado por déspotas e demagogos para justificar o poder autoritário e restrições às liberdades.

Tais problemas têm causado ansiedade disseminada, hostilidade contra as elites políticas e cinismo com respeito à democracia – sentimentos que fortaleceram a ascensão de movimentos políticos e de partidos antissistema. Esses sentimentos, por sua vez, foram alimentados e inflamados por desinformação autoritária que cada vez mais penetra no espaço de mídia das democracias. A última pesquisa da Freedom House revela que direitos políticos e liberdades civis têm estado em declínio por onze anos consecutivos e, neste ano, as democracias estabelecidas dominam a lista de países sofrendo retrocessos em matéria de liberdades.

Coletivamente, tais fatores – a retração geopolítica do Ocidente, o ressurgimento de forças políticas autoritárias, a erosão da crença nos valores democráticos e a perda da fé na eficácia das instituições democráticas – acarretaram uma interrupção histórica na marcha do progresso democrático e ameaçam com uma possível “onda reversa” de rupturas democráticas. Os apoiadores da democracia devem se unir para frear tal retrocesso e para organizar uma nova coalizão em prol de sua retomada moral, intelectual e política.

O ponto de partida de uma nova campanha pela democracia é a reafirmação dos princípios fundamentais que inspiraram a expansão da democracia moderna desde o seu nascimento, mais de dois séculos atrás. Tais princípios estão enraizados numa crença na dignidade da pessoa humana e na convicção de que a democracia liberal é o sistema político que melhor pode salvaguardar tal dignidade e permitir que ela floresça. Entre tais princípios, estão os direitos humanos fundamentais, incluindo as liberdades básicas de expressão, de associação e de religião; o pluralismo político e social; a existência de uma vibrante sociedade civil que dê poder aos cidadãos em suas bases; a eleição regular dos funcionários governamentais por meio de um processo de escolha verdadeiramente livre, justo, aberto e competitivo; amplas oportunidades, além das eleições, para que os cidadãos participem e vocalizem suas preocupações; transparência governamental e prestação de contas, ambas asseguradas por meio de um forte sistema constitucional de pesos e contrapesos e da supervisão da sociedade civil; um vigoroso primado do direito, garantido por um judiciário independente; uma economia de mercado que esteja isenta de corrupção e conceda oportunidades para todos; e uma cultura democrática feita de tolerância, de civilidade e de não-violência.

Esses princípios estão sendo desafiados hoje, não apenas por partidários do anti-liberalismo e da xenofobia, mas também por intelectuais relativistas que negam que alguma forma de governo possa ser sustentada como superior. Embora a democracia seja frequentemente considerada uma ideia Ocidental, seus mais ardorosos defensores atualmente são pessoas de sociedades não-Ocidentais que continuam lutando por liberdades democráticas mesmo em face de possibilidades assustadoras. Suas lutas confirmam a universalidade da ideia democrática, e o seu exemplo pode contribuir para o renascimento das convicções democráticas no mundo das democracias avançadas.

Apesar de seu valor intrínseco, a sobrevivência da democracia não pode ser assegurada a menos que demonstre sua capacidade de ajudar as sociedades a enfrentar os desafios de um mundo instável e cambiante. Reconhecemos a forte insatisfação e a insegurança de amplos segmentos das sociedades democráticas e acreditamos que a democracia só será forte se nenhum grupo for deixado para trás.

Ao mesmo tempo em que a democracia encarna valores universais, ela existe em um contexto nacional particular, que Vaclav Havel chamou de “tradições intelectuais, espirituais e culturais que adicionam substância e lhe dão significado”. A cidadania democrática, enraizada em tais tradições, necessita ser reforçada, não levada à atrofia numa era de globalização. A identidade nacional é muito importante para ser entregue à manipulação de déspotas e de populistas demagógicos.

A defesa dos valores democráticos não é um produto de luxo ou um empreendimento puramente idealista. Ela é uma pré-condição de sociedades decentes e inclusivas, a moldura para o progresso social e econômico de pessoas no mundo todo e o fundamento para a preservação da paz e da segurança internacional.

Uma nova Coalizão para a Renovação Democrática servirá como um catalisador moral e intelectual para a revitalização da ideia democrática. O objetivo é mudar o ambiente intelectual e cultural por meio de uma apaixonada batalha de ideias baseada em princípios e informação; defendendo a democracia contra seus críticos; trabalhando para fortalecer as instituições mediadoras e as associações civis; e modelando argumentos persuasivos em prol da democracia liberal que possam definir o curso das discussões públicas. Será igualmente necessário partir para a ofensiva contra os opositores autoritários da democracia, demonstrando solidariedade aos povos corajosos que estão lutando por liberdades democráticas e exibindo os crimes dos cleptocratas que roubam e oprimem seu próprio povo, falsificam os registros políticos e históricos, e buscam dividir e difamar as democracias estabelecidas.

A Coalizão também será um amplo e interativo fórum para o intercâmbio de ideias sobre os melhores meios de encarar os novos e complexos desafios da democracia, tais como a estagnação ou o declínio dos padrões de vida de muitos cidadãos, a reação contrária à crescente imigração, a ascensão da “política da pós-verdade” na era da mídia social, e a erosão do apoio à democracia liberal. Esse centro global também defenderá e promoverá formas efetivas de ação para reanimar a fé na eficácia das instituições democráticas.

Não existem desculpas para o silêncio ou para a inação. Nós não ousamos nos apegar à ilusão de segurança em um tempo no qual a democracia está em perigo. A presente crise oferece uma oportunidade para que democratas comprometidos se mobilizem, e nós precisamos fazê-lo.

Lista de Signatários

Mike Abramowitz, USA

Svetlana Alexievich, Belarus

Manal Al-Sharif, Saudi Arabia

Anne Applebaum, USA

Oscar Arias Sánchez, Costa Rica

Shlomo Avineri, Israel

Sergio Bitar, Chile

Igor Blaževič, Czech Republic

Ladan Boroumand, Iran /France

Martin Bútora, Slovakia

Juan Pablo Cardenal, Spain

Scott Carpenter, USA

David Clark, UK

Irwin Cotler, Canada

Manuel Cuesta Morúa, Cuba

Frederik Willem de Klerk, South Africa

Neelam Deo, India

Larry Diamond, USA

João Carlos Espada, Portugal

Francis Fukuyama, USA

William Galston, USA

Chito Gascon, Philippines

Carl Gershman, USA

Leonid Gozman, Russia

Vartan Gregorian, USA

Emmanuel Gyimah-Boadi, Ghana

Barbara Haig, USA

Amr Hamzawy, Egypt

Ivan Havel, Czech Republic

Toomas Hendrik Ilves, Estonia

Ramin Jahanbegloo, Iran/Canada

Vladimir Kara-Murza, Russia

Garry Kasparov, USA/Russia

Mikhail Kasyanov, Russia

Zoltán Kész, Hungary

Maina Kiai, Kenya

Jakub Klepal, Czech Republic

Ivan Krastev, Bulgaria

Enrique Krauze, Mexico

Péter Krekó, Hungary

Walter Laqueur, USA

Nathan Law, Hong Kong

Bernard-Henri Lévy, France

Mario Vargas Llosa, Peru

Rafael Marques de Morais, Angola

Penda Mbow, Senegal

Adam Michnik, Poland

Emin Milli, Azerbaijan

Yascha Mounk, USA

Surendra Munshi, India

Ghia Nodia, Georgia

Andrej Nosov, Serbia

Šimon Pánek, Czech Republic
Rosa Maria Payá, Cuba

Andrei Piontkovski, Russia/USA

Marc Plattner, USA

Jerzy Pomianowski, Poland

Rodger Potocki, USA

Arch Puddington, USA

Xiao Qiang, China/USA

Jacques Rupnik, France

Karel Schwarzenberg, Czech Republic

Lilia Shevtsova, Russia

Uffe Riis Sørensen, Denmark

Daniel Stid, USA

Tamara Sujú, Venezuela

Rostislav Valvoda, Czech Republic

Alexandr Vondra, Czech Republic

Christopher Walker, USA

George Weigel, USA

Leon Wieseltier, USA

Jianli Yang, China/USA

Richard Youngs, United Kingdom

Michael Žantovský, Czech Republic

Paulo Kramer: "o imoderado poder dos nossos moderadores"

Paulo Kramer, um dos melhores e mais refinados intelectualmente dos nossos cientistas políticos, mostra o comportamento imoderado, arrogante e aristocrático de nossos líderes e representantes políticos, mesmo com a mudança do poder moderador do Imperador para os militares e agora para os membros do poder judiciário e do MPF.

Imoderado poder

Paulo Kramer

A desmoralização de todas as instituições políticas sob o presidencialismo de coalizão, ou de cooptação, ou de corrupção, tanto faz, perpetua uma vergonhosa dependência em relação a qualquer Poder Moderador.

TERÇA-FEIRA, 27/6/2017

Confesso não saber ao certo se caio na gargalhada ou se enxugo uma furtiva lágrima toda vez que ouço os arautos da sabedoria convencional – fronte alta e voz empostada – proclamarem que, a despeito dos escândalos éticos e das crises políticas da atualidade, “as nossas instituições permanecem sólidas”.

Deveras? Ora, NÃO permanecem sólidas, simplesmente porque nunca o foram! Se não, o que dizer de um sistema político que já experimentou quase TODOS os tipos de regimes políticos catalogados pela história, a saber: monarquia absoluta; monarquia constitucional; república presidencialista; ditadura civil; novamente república presidencialista; parlamentarismo; uma vez mais república presidencialista; ditadura militar; e, pela terceira vez, república presidencialista? Ou do fato de que, anteriormente à passagem da faixa presidencial de Lula para Dilma, em 2011, a última vez em que um antecessor diretamente eleito pelo povo havia transferido o poder a um sucessor idem, sob idênticas regras sucessórias, fora o ano de 1926 – de Arthur Bernardes (1875-1955; governou de 1922 a 1926) para Washington Luiz (1869-1957; derrubado pela Revolução de 30)? (Aqui, vale recordar que tanto FHC quanto Lula foram eleitos diretamente, mas que o governo do primeiro, rompendo com a tradição republicana, emendara a Constituição para instituir a possibilidade de uma reeleição consecutiva.) Ou ainda da inquietante constatação de que, desde o referido Bernardes, os únicos presidentes escolhidos em pleito popular direto que lograram concluir seus mandatos foram apenas quatro: Eurico Gaspar Dutra (1883-1974, de 1946 a 1951); Juscelino Kubitschek de Oliveira (1902-1976, de 1956 a 1961); Fernando Henrique Cardoso (de 1995 a 2002) e Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (de 2003 a 2010).? Dilma Vana Rousseff foi destituída por impeachment na primeira metade do seu segundo mandato...

A um tempo efeito e causa dessa instabilidade é a recorrente necessidade de um Poder Moderador ser chamado a intervir para preencher os vácuos de legitimidade resultantes de choques entre Executivo, Legislativo e Judiciário. E pouco importa se esse quarto poder esteja oficialmente inscrito no texto constitucional, como rezavam os artigos 98 a 101 da Constituição Política do Império do Brasil, carta outorgada em 1824 por dom Pedro I, após ter dissolvido a nossa primeira assembleia constituinte, ou se é operado informalmente pelos ‘salvadores’ da hora, papel que em passado não muito distante foi desempenhado pelo Exército. Desta feita, o pêndulo parece estar se deslocando rumo ao Judiciário e ao Ministério Público, e, para complicar ainda mais as coisas, os atuais aspirantes ao exercício do Poder Moderador dilaceram-se em disputas internas ao sistema de Justiça: ministros do STF versusProcuradoria-Geral da República; instâncias judiciais superiores contra inferiores; até mesmo rusgas entre esferas e níveis do Ministério Público. O que resultará do presente imbróglio, ninguém pode prever com exatidão, todavia a experiência republicana ensina que aqueles grupos que empalmaram o Poder Moderador acabavam mandando a moderação às favas até mergulharem o país em novos ciclos de conflito e instabilidade.

Se, como alertou Douglass North no seu discurso de recepção do prêmio Nobel de Economia (1993), as instituições são “regras do jogo” modeladas pela cristalização dos costumes e hábitos de uma sociedade, numa palavra, da sua cultura, então as vicissitudes das nossas repúblicas de sempre encontram explicação nas hipóteses de Raymundo Faoro, em Os Donos do Poder (2ª edição, 1975), e de Roberto DaMatta, em “Você sabem com quem está falando?...” (1979). Governantes e burocratas consideram-se mais importantes e ‘maiores’ que os cargos que exercem e abusam de sua autoridade, apropriando-se patrimonialisticamente dos recursos públicos. Para aquilatar esse problema em toda a sua gravidade, basta contrastar esse vezo aristocrático do comportamento dos mandantes em relação aos mandados com o respeito reverencial que os titulares do poder público nos Estados Unidos – noves fora Donald Trump – devotam às instituições que representam. Não se trata apenas da perene engenhosidade dos checks and balances projetados pelos pais da constituição de 1787, como James Madison (1751-1836), co-autor, com Alexander Hamilton e John Jay, dos magistrais Artigos Federalistas, quarto presidente americano (de 1809 a 1817), arguto leitor de Montesquieu (1689-1755), que no clássico O Espírito das Leis(1748), introduziu a teoria de divisão/separação de poderes no debate político moderno como antídoto ao despotismo – por definição, uma modalidade imoderada de governo. Trata-se, isto sim, da disciplina habitual de respeito mútuo entre os poderes, assegurada pela certeza da punição aos agentes políticos que se atrevam a exorbitar das suas prerrogativas.

Aqui e agora, a desmoralização de todas as instituições políticas sob o presidencialismo de coalizão, ou de cooptação, ou de corrupção, tanto faz – levada ao paroxismo nos períodos Lula e Dilma –, perpetua uma vergonhosa dependência em relação a qualquer Poder Moderador. Ela permanecerá entre nós enquanto as autoridades republicanas continuarem a exercer seu poder... imoderadamente.

____________

*Paulo Kramer é analista de riscos e professor de Ciência Política da UnB.

This Day in History: Tratado de Versalhes, em 1919, o que provocou uma nova guerra

On June 28, 1919, the Treaty of Versailles was signed in France, ending World War I.
Go to article »

Peace Signed, Ends the Great War; Germans Depart Still Protesting; Prohibition Till Troops Disband Enemy Envoys in Truculent Spirit Say Afterward They Would Not Have Signed Had They Known They Were to Leave First by Different Way China Refuses to Sign, Smuts Makes Protest These Events Somewhat Cloud the Great Occasion at Versailles--Wilson, Clemenceau, and Lloyd George Receive a Tremendous Ovation RELATED HEADLINESWilson Promises to Act: Must Wait Until Complete Demobilization, His Word from Paris: This Will Take 7 Weeks: President Calls Attention of Congress to His Request for Repeal: Liquor Men Unprepared: Had Hoped Until Announcement That Executive Would Intervene at the Eleventh Hour President Sends A Prohibition Message; Says He Will Act When Demobilization Ends League Opponents Uniting: Republican Senators Now Seem Agreed on Policy of Reservations: McCumber Is Won Over: But North Dakota Senator Opposes Any Action Nullifying the Covenant: Shantung Action Assailed: Borah Calls It Indefensible--Norris Demands a Reservation Regarding It Wilson Says Treaty Will Furnish the Charter for a New Order of Affairs in the World Violence Grows in Berlin Ferment: Bomb Hurled at Building in Which Officials Were Conferring on Strike: Shots Fired at Ministers: Railway Strikers Ignore Orders from Noske and Union Chiefs to Resume Work Dutch Unwilling To Give Up Kaiser: Majority of the People Firmly Opposed to Yielding to Allies' Demand: Hopeful at Amerongen: Troelstra Says Chamber Would Surrender Ex-Ruler to Germany Only Deport Thirty 'Red' Agitators: Fifteen Have Been Shipped Away in a Week--18 More Waiting at Ellis Island: Most of Them Anarchists: Number Includes Some Suspected of Having a Hand in Plot Against Officials America Greeted By King George: "Brothers in Arms Will Continue Forever to be Brothers in Peace": Sends Message to Wilson: "We Lay Down Our Arms in Proud Consciousness of Valiant Deeds Nobly Done" Versailles, June 28, (Associated Press.)--Germany and the allied and associated powers signed the peace terms here today in the same imperial hall where the Germans humbled the French so ignominiously forty-eight years ago. This formally ended the world war, which lasted just thirty-seven days less than five years. Today, the day of peace, was the fifth anniversary of the murder of Archduke Francis Ferdinand by a Serbian student at Serajevo. The peace was signed under circumstances which somewhat dimmed the expectations of those who had worked and fought during long years of war and months of negotiations for its achievement. Absence of the Chinese delegates, who at the last moment were unable to reconcile themselves to the Shantung settlement, struck the first discordant note. A written protest which General Smuts lodged with his signature was another disappointment. But bulking larger than these was the attitude of Germany and the German plenipotentiaries, which left them, as evident from the expression of M. Clemenceau, still outside of formal reconciliation and made the actual restoration to regular relations and intercourse with the allied nations dependent, not upon the signature of the "preliminaries of peace" today, but upon ratification by the National Assembly. To M. Clemenceau's warning in his opening remarks that they would be expected, and held, to observe the treaty provisions loyally and completely the German delegates, through Dr. Haniel von Halmhausen, replied after returning to the hotel that had they known that they would be treated on a different status after signing than the allied representatives, as shown by their separate exit before the general body of the conference, they never would have signed. Under the circumstances the general tone of sentiment in the historic sitting was one rather of relief at the uncontrovertible end of hostilities than of complete satisfaction. The ceremony had been planned deliberately to be austere, befitting the sufferings of almost five years, and the lack of impressiveness and picturesque color, of which many spectators, who had expected a magnificent State pageant, complained, was a matter of design, not merely omission. The actual ceremony was far shorter than had been expected, in view of the number of signatures which were to be appended to the treaty and the two accompanying conventions, ending a bare forty-nine minutes after the hour set for the opening. Premier Clemenceau called the session to order in the Hall of Mirrors at 3:10 P.M. The signing began when Dr. Hermann M & uuml;ller and Johannes Bell, the German signatories, affixed their names. Herr M & uuml;ller signed at 3:12 o'clock and Herr Bell 3:13 o'clock. President Wilson, the first of the allied delegates, signed a minute later. At 3:49 o'clock the momentous session was over. The most dramatic moment connected with the signing came unexpectedly and spontaneously at the conclusion of the ceremony, when Premier Clemenceau, President Wilson and Premier Lloyd George descended from the Hall of Mirrors to the terrace at the rear of the palace, where thousands of spectators were massed. Great Demonstration for Allied Leaders With the appearance of the three who had dominated the councils of the Allies there began a most remarkable demonstration. With cries of "Vive Clemenceau!" "Vive Wilson!" "Vive Lloyd George!" dense crowds swept forward from all parts of the spacious terrace. In an instant the three were surrounded by struggling, cheering masses of people, fighting among themselves for a chance to get near the statesmen. It had been planned that all the allied delegates would walk across the terrace after signing, to see the great fountains play, but none of the other plenipotentiaries got further than the door. President Wilson, M. Clemenceau and Mr. Lloyd George were caught in the living stream which flowed across the great space and became part of the crowd themselves. Soldiers and bodyguards struggled vainly to clear the way. The people jostled and struggled for a chance to touch the hands of the leaders of the Allies, all the while cheering madly. Probably the least concerned for their personal safety were the three themselves. They went forward smilingly, as the crowd willed, bowing in response to the ovation, and here and there reaching out to shake an insistent hand as they passed on their way through the ch & acirc;teau grounds to watch the playing of the fountains--a part of the program which had been planned as a dignified State processional of all the plenipotentiaries. Every available point of vantage in the palace and about the grounds was filled with thousands of people, who, less hardy than their comrades, had not been able to join the procession. No more picturesque setting could have been selected for this drama. The return of President Wilson, M. Clemenceau, and Lloyd George toward the palace was a repetition of their outward journey of triumph. As they reached the ch & acirc;teau, however, they turned to the left instead of entering. The crowd was in doubt as to what was intended, but followed, cheering tumultuously. Nearby a closed car was waiting and the three entered this and they drove from the grounds together amid a profusion of flowers which had been thrust through the open window. All the diplomats and members of their parties who attended the ceremony of treaty signing wore conventional civilian clothes. Outside of this also there was a marked lack of gold lace and pageantry, with few of the fanciful uniforms of the Middle Ages, whose traditions and practices are so sternly condemned in the great, seal-covered document signed today. One spot of color was made against the sombre background by the French Guards. A few selected members of the Guard were there, resplendent in red-plumed silver helmets and red, white and blue uniforms. A group of allied Generals, including General Pershing, wore the scarlet sash of the Legion of Honor. As a contrast with the Franco-German peace session of 1871, held in the same hall, there were present today grizzled French veterans of the Franco-Prussian war. They took the place of the Prussian guardsmen of the previous ceremony, and the Frenchmen today watched the ceremony with grim satisfaction. The conditions of 1871 were exactly reversed. Today the disciples of Bismarck sat in the seats of the lowly, while the white marble statue of Minerva, Goddess of War, looked on. Overhead, on the frescoed ceiling, were scenes from France's ancient wars. German Protest at the Last Minute Three incidents were emphasized by the smoothness with which the ceremony was conducted. The first of these was the failure of the Chinese delegation to sign. The second was the protest submitted by General Jan Christian Smuts, who declared the peace unsatisfactory. The third, which was unknown to the general public, came from the Germans. When the program for the ceremony was shown to the German delegation, Herr von Haimhausen of the German delegation went to Colonel Henri, French liaison officer, and protested. He said: "We cannot admit that the German delegates should enter the hall by a different door than the Entente delegates; nor that military honors should be withheld. Had we known there would be such arrangements before, the delegates would not have come." After a conference with the French Foreign Ministry it was decided, as a compromise, to render military honors as the Germans left. Otherwise the program as originally arranged was not changed. Secretary Lansing was the first of the American delegation to arrive at the palace, entering the building at 1:45 o'clock. The Peace Treaty was deposited on the table at 2:10 o'clock by William Martin of the French Foreign Office. It was inclosed in a stamped leather case. Premier Clemenceau entered the palace at 2:20 o'clock. Detachments of fifteen soldiers each from the American, British and French forces entered just before 3 o'clock and took their places in embrasures of the windows, overlooking the ch & acirc;teau park, a few feet from Marshal Foch, seated with the French delegation at the peace table. The American soldiers who saw the signing of the treaty were all attached to President Wilson's residence. They were: George W. Bender, Baltimore; Stanley Cohek, Chicopee, Mass.; George Bridgewater, Palestine, Texas; Harlan Hayes, Green City, Wis.; J.S. Horton, Lexington, Miss.; William R. Knox, Temple, Okla.; Albert E. Landreth, Portsmouth, Va.; Sergeant Sam Lane, Prosper, Texas; George Laudance, Philadelphia; M.D. Mary, Havre, Mon.; Fred Quantz, Cleveland; Hubert Ridgeway, Mo.; Raymond Riley, Baltimore, and Frank Wilgus, Allentown, Penn. With the thirty poilus and Tommies they were present as the real "artisans of peace" and stood within the enclosure reserved for plenipotentiaries and high officials of the conference as a visible sign of their role in bringing into being a new Europe. Premier Clemenceau promptly stepped up to the French detachment and shook the hand of each man. The men had been selected from those who bore honorable wounds, and the Premier expressed his pleasure at seeing them there and his regret for the sufferings they had endured for their country. Delegates of the minor powers made their way with difficulty through the crowd to their places at the table. Officers and civilians lined the walls and filled the aisles. President Wilson entered the Hall of Mirrors at 2:50 o'clock. All the allied delegates were then seated except the Chinese, who did not attend. The difficulty of seeing well from many parts of the hall militated against demonstrations on the arrival of the chief personages. Only a few persons saw President Wilson when he came in, and there was but a faint sound of applause for him. An hour before the signing of the treaty those assembled in the hall had been urged to take their seats, but their eagerness to see the historic ceremony was so keen that they refused to remain seated, and crowded toward the centre of the hall, which is so long that a good view was impossible from a distance. Even with opera glasses, correspondents and others were unable to observe satisfactorily, as the seats were not elevated; consequently there was a general scramble for standing room. German correspondents were ushered into the hall just before 3 o'clock and took standing room in a window at the rear of the correspondents' section. When Premier Lloyd George arrived many delegates sought autographs from the members of the Council of Four, and they busied themselves for the next few minutes signing copies of the official program. At 3 o'clock a hush fell over the hall, and the crowds shouted for the officials, who were standing, to sit down, so as not to block the view. The delegates showed some surprise at the disorder, which did not cease until all the spectators had seated themselves or found places against the walls. Muller and Bell Show Great Composure At seven minutes past 3 Dr. M & uuml;ller, German Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and Dr. Bell, Colonial Secretary, were shown into the hall, and quietly took their seats, the other delegates not rising. They showed composure, and manifested none of the uneasiness which Count von Brockdorff-Rantzau, head of the German peace delegation, displayed when handed the treaty at Versailles. Dr. M & uuml;ller and Dr. Bell had driven early to Versailles by automobile from St. Cyr instead of taking the belt line railroad, as did the German delegates who came to receive the terms of peace on May 7. Their credentials had been approved in the morning. In the allotment of seats in the ceremonial chamber places for the German delegates were on the side of the horseshoe table, where they touched elbows with Japanese plenipotentiaries on their right and the Brazilians on their left. Delegates from Ecuador, Peru, and Liberia faced the Germans across the narrow table. M. Clemenceau, as President of the Conference, made this address: "The session is open. The allied and associated powers on one side and the German reich on the other side have come to an agreement on the conditions of peace. The text has been completed, drafted, and the President of the Conference has stated in writing that the text that is about to be signed now is identical with the 200 copies that have been delivered to the German delegation. "The signatures will be given now and they amount to a solemn undertaking faithfully and loyally to execute the conditions embodied by this treaty of peace. I now invite the delegates of the German reich to sign the treaty." There was a tense pause for a moment. Then in response to M. Clemenceau's bidding, the German delegates rose without a word and, escorted by William Martin, master of ceremonies, moved to the signatory table, where they placed upon the treaty the sign manuals which German Government leaders declared until recently would never be appended to this treaty. They also signed a protocol covering changes in the document and the Polish undertaking. It was too distant to see, even with glasses, the expression on the faces on the German plenipotentiaries during the ceremony, but observers among the officials say that the Germans fulfilled their roles without apparent indications of emotions such as marked Count von Brockdorff-Rantzau's dramatic declarations at the first meeting. President First Leader to Sign When they regained their seats after signing, President Wilson immediately arose and, followed by the other American plenipotentiaries, moved around the sides of the horseshoe to the signature tables. President Wilson, and not M. Clemenceau, thus had the honor of signing as first of the leaders of the world alliance, but the honor was due to the alphabet, not other considerations as the signatures occur in the same French alphabetical order as the enumeration of the allied and associated powers in the prologue of the treaty--the same order which determined the seating of the delegations at the plenary sessions of the interallied conference. Premier Lloyd George came next, after the American envoys, with the English delegation. The British dominions followed. The representatives of the dominions signed in the following order: For Canada--Charles J. Doherty, Minister of Justice; Sir George Foster, Minister of Trade and Commerce, and Arthur L. Sifton, Minister of Customs. For Australia--Premier William M. Hughes and Sir Gilbert Cook, Minister for the Navy. For New Zealand--W.F. Massey, Prime Minister and Minister of Labor. For the Union of South Africa--Premier Louis Botha and Jan Christian Smuts, Minister of Defense. For India--Edwin S. Montagu, Secretary for India, and the Maharaja of Bikanir. Surprise Over Smuts's Protest A murmur of surprise passed around the hall when it became known that General Smuts, representing South Africa, signed under protest and filed a document declaring that the peace was unsatisfactory. He held that the indemnities stipulated could not be accepted without grave injury to the industrial revival of Europe. He declared that it would be to the interests of the allied powers to render the stipulations more tolerable and moderate. General Smuts asserted that there were territorial settlements which he believed would need revision, and that guarantees were provided which he hoped would soon be found out of harmony with the new peaceful temper and unarmed state of the Central Powers. Punishments were also foreshadowed, he said, over which a calmer mood might yet prefer to pass the sponge of oblivion. M. Clemenceau with the French delegates, were the next in line for the signing, then came Baron Salonji and the other Japanese delegates. The Italians came after the Japanese, and they, in turn, were followed by the representatives of the smaller powers. During the attaching of the signatures of the great powers and the Germans a battery of moving picture machines and cameras clicked away so audibly that they could be heard above the general disorder. At 3:45 the booming of cannon in celebration of the peace broke the monotony in the Hall of Mirrors, where the crowd had already tired of watching the signing. China's failure to send her delegates to the ceremony created much comment. The vacant seats of the Chinese were noted early in the proceedings, but it was expected that the delegates would arrive later. Then the report was circulated officially that the Chinese would not sign without reservation on Shantung, and would issue a statement this evening on their position. Some Confusion About Arrangements While formal proceedings moved with system and complete adherence to program, the same cannot be said for other arrangements, which detracted markedly from the impressiveness of the event. So many spectators had, in one manner or another, gained access to the hall that the struggle for points of vantage at times approached the stage of a brawl, and the few officials intrusted with keeping order had the greatest difficulty in obtaining a semblance of it. Cries of "Down in front!" which were probably never before heard at a gathering of similar importance, were addressed quite as often to officials of the Conference as to unofficial spectators. The stage for the ceremony was as crowded as the spectators' inclosures, giving a picture of crush and confusion. The plenipotentiaries and attach & eacute;s, instead of arriving in delegations, formally introduced by ushers, as had been planned, drifted in individually as at the earlier sessions. Among the American witnesses of the signing were Mrs. Wilson, accompanied by Miss Wilson and Mrs. Lansing, Mrs. House, Mrs. Wallace, Mrs. Scott, and several other wives of delegates and officials; Herbert Hoover, Bernard M. Baruch; Vance McCormick, John W. Davis, Ambassador to Great Britain; Hugh C. Wallace, Ambassador to France; Henry Morgenthau, and about seventy of the more important attaches of the Peace Commission. The close of the ceremony came so quickly and quietly that it was scarcely noticed until it was all over. M. Clemenceau arose almost unremarked, and in a voice almost lost amid the confusion and the hum of conversation, which had sprung up while the minor delegates were signing, declared the conference closed and asked the allied and associated delegates to remain in their places for a few minutes--this to permit the German plenipotentiaries to leave the hall and the building before the general exodus. None arose as they filed out, accompanied by their suite of secretaries and interpreters, just as all the plenipotentiaries had kept their seats when Dr. M & uuml;ller and Dr. Bell entered. This was regarded as an answer to the action of Count von Brockdorff-Rantzau in reading his speech seated at the first meeting, but even more as an expression of sentiment at the German attitude toward the acceptance of peace. Germans White-Faced as They Left Beyond the demonstration for the allied leaders the main interest of the people about the palace was centred in the arrival and departure of the Germans. Few people witnessed the arrival of the Germans, but, despite the precautions of the soldiers, great crowds gathered about the rear of the palace when the envoys from Berlin left after signing the treaty. There was no audible demonstration against the Germans, but there was a distinct current of hostility evident among the crowd which jammed close to the cars. The Germans were white-faced and quite apparently suffering strong emotion, but whether it was fear, anger, or chagrin one could only surmise. The scene around the palace had been an animated one from an early hour. All day yesterday workmen and officials were busy in the chateau putting final touches on the arrangements, but the Hall of Mirrors was not yet ready. Much remained to be done at the last moment. The peace table--a huge hollow rectangle with its open side facing the windows in the hall--was, however, in place, its tawny yellow coverings blending with the rich browns, blues, and yellows of the antique hangings of the room and the rugs covering the dais. The mellow tints of the historical paintings in the arched roof of the long hall completed the picture. Last minute changes were made today in the program to expedite the signing of the treaty. Two additional tables were placed beside the large one within the Hall of Mirrors. One of the new tables held the Rhine Convention and the other the protocol, containing changes in and interpretations of the treaty. The arrangement of the tables thus enabled three persons to be engaged simultaneously in affixing their signatures. Most of the seventy-two plenipotentiaries had to write their names only twice, once on the treaty and once on the protocol. The convention covering the left bank of the Rhine and the treaties regarding the protection of minorities in Poland was signed only by delegates of the great powers. Because of the size of the treaty and the fragile seals it bore, the plan to present it for signing to Premier Clemenceau, President Wilson, and Premier Lloyd George was given up. A box of old fashioned goose quills, sharpened by the expert pen pointer of the French Foreign Office, was placed on each of the three tables for the use of plenipotentiaries who desired to observe the traditional formalities. Tables for the secretaries were placed inside the table for the plenipotentiaries. Chairs for the plenipotentiaries were drawn up around three sides of the table, which formed an open rectangle fully eighty feet long on its longer side. A chair for M. Clemenceau, President of the Peace Conference, was placed in the centre of the table facing the windows, with those for President Wilson and Premier Lloyd George on the right and left hand, respectively. The German delegates' seats were at the side of the table nearest the entrance which they could take after all the others had been seated. This arrangement was made to permit the Germans to leave after the signature of the treaty before the allied delegations, not waiting for the procession of allied delegates to the terrace to witness the playing of the fountains. Crowds Gathered Early This morning was cloudy, but just before midday the clouds began to break. People began to gather early in the neighborhood of the palace. As the morning wore on the crowds kept increasing in size, but the vast spaces around the ch & acirc;teau swallowed them up at first. By noon eleven regiments of French cavalry and infantry under command of General Brecard had taken positions along the approaches to the palace, while within the court on either side solid lines of infantry in horizon blue were drawn up at attention. Hours before the time set for the ceremony an endless stream of automobiles began moving out of Paris up the cannon-lined hill of the Champs Elys & eacute;es, past the Arc de Triomphe, and out through the shady Bois de Boulogne, carrying plenipotentiaries, officials, and guests to the ceremony. The thoroughfare was kept clear by pickets, dragoons, and mounted gendarmes. In the meantime thousands of Parisians were packing regular and special trains upon the lines leading to Versailles and contending with residents of the town itself for places in the park where the famous fountains would mark the end of the ceremony. Long before the ceremony began a line of gendarmes was thrown across the approaches. While theoretically only persons bearing passes could get through this line, the crowds gradually filtered into and finally filled the square. Within this square hundreds of fortunate persons had taken up positions at the windows of every wing of the palace. The automobiles, bearing delegates and secretaries, had reserved for their use the Avenue du Paris, the broad boulevard leading direct to the ch & acirc;teau's court of honor, French soldiers being ranged along the highway on both sides. At the end of the court a guard of honor was drawn up to present arms as the leading plenipotentiaries passed, this guard comprising a company of Republican Guards in brilliant uniform. The entrance for the delegates was by the marble stairway to the "Queen's Apartments" and the Hall of Peace, giving access thence to the Hall of Mirrors. This formality was not prescribed for the Germans, who had a separate route of entry; coming through the park and gaining the marble stairway through the ground floor.