O que é este blog?

Este blog trata basicamente de ideias, se possível inteligentes, para pessoas inteligentes. Ele também se ocupa de ideias aplicadas à política, em especial à política econômica. Ele constitui uma tentativa de manter um pensamento crítico e independente sobre livros, sobre questões culturais em geral, focando numa discussão bem informada sobre temas de relações internacionais e de política externa do Brasil. Para meus livros e ensaios ver o website: www.pralmeida.org. Para a maior parte de meus textos, ver minha página na plataforma Academia.edu, link: https://itamaraty.academia.edu/PauloRobertodeAlmeida.

Mostrando postagens com marcador Doutrina Truman. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador Doutrina Truman. Mostrar todas as postagens

domingo, 12 de março de 2017

Presente na criacao da... Guerra Fria: a doutrina Truman (This Day in History)

On This Day: March 12

Updated March 12, 2014, 11:42 am
On March 12, 1947, President Truman established what became known as the Truman Doctrine to help Greece and Turkey resist Communism.
Go to article »

Truman Acts to Save Nations From Red Rule



Asks 400 Million to Aid Greece and Turkey
Congress Fight Likely But Approval Is Seen
NEW POLICY SET UP
President Blunt in Plea to Combat 'Coercion' as World Peril
PLANS TO SEND MEN
Goods and Skills Needed as Well as Money, He Tells Congress
By Felix Belair Jr.
Special to The New York Times
RELATED HEADLINESCongress is Solemn:Prepares to Consider Bills After Hearing the President Gravely: Soviet Called Issue: Some Hold Truman Plan Is Blow to U.N. - All but Marcantonio Applaud
Bridges Says Plan to Slash Budget 'Is Knocked Askew': He Indicates Revisions Must Be Made to Fit Truman's Plea for Aid to Greece, Turkey - Proposal to Reduce Income Tax Upset
OTHER HEADLINESBevin Sharp in Big 4: Cites Report That Soviet Is Enlisting Germans in Armed Forces: Molotov is Set Back: He Admits Delay in Ship Demolition, Agrees to Prisoner Census
Yugoslavs Block U. N. Entry to Reported Guerrilla Base
Atlee is Upheld in Confidence Vote:Regime's Prestige Drops, but it Wins, 374-198 - Churchill Sees 'Crime Against Britain'
Marshall Ready to By-Pass Soviet if it Rejects 4-Power Cooperation
Dewey to Request $135,000,000 More to Aid City Housing:O'Dwyer, by Agreement, Drops Further Bid for Money in '47, Insures Planned Projects: Realty Tax to go to $2.97: Due, Says Mayor, to Jump in Budget - City Wins Albany Accord on Finance Bills
School Pay Voted by State Senate:Republicans Also Pass Taxes for Bonus, Barring Minority Changes in Both Bills
President Starts Key West Vacation:Makes Air Trip in Five Hours for Four Days of Sunshine and Swimming in Florida
Two-Term Presidency Limit Set by Senate in Voting Tenure Plan
Washington, March 12 - President Truman outlined a new foreign policy for the United States today. In a historic message to Congress, he proposed that this country intervene wherever necessary throughout the world to prevent the subjection of free peoples to Communist-inspired totalitarian regimes at the expense of their national integrity and importance.
In a request for $400,000,000 to bolster the hard-pressed Greek and Turkish governments against Communist pressure, the President said the constant coercion and intimidation of free peoples by political infiltration amid poverty and strife undermined the foundations of world peace and threatened the security of the United States.
Although the President refrained from mentioning the Soviet Union by name, there could be no mistaking his identification of the Communist state as the source of much of the unrest throughout the world. He said that, in violation of the Yalta Agreement, the people of Poland, Rumania and Bulgaria had been subjected to totalitarian regimes against their will and that there had been similar developments in other countries.
Cardinal Points of Departure
As the Senate and House of Representatives sat grim-faced but apparently determined on the course recommended by the Chief Executive, Mr. Truman made these cardinal points of departure from traditional American foreign policy:
"I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.
"I believe that our help should be primarily through economic and financial aid which is essential to economic stability and orderly political processes."
In addition to the $400,000,000 to be expended before June 30, 1948, the President asked Congress to authorize the detail of American civilian and military personnel to Greece and Turkey, upon the request of those countries. The proposed personnel would supervise the use of material and financial assistance and would train Greek and Turkish personnel in special skills.
Lest efforts be made to cast him in the role of champion of things as they are, the President recognized that the world was not static and that the status quo was not sacred. But he warned that if we allowed changes in the status quo in violation of the United Nations Charter through such subterfuges as political infiltration, we would be helping to destroy the Charter itself.
Aware of Broad Implications
President Truman said he was fully aware of the "broad implications involved" if the United States went to the assistance of Greece and Turkey. He said that, while our aid to free peoples striving to maintain their independence would be primarily financial and economic, he reminded Congress that the fundamental issues involved were no different from those for which we fought a war with Germany and Japan.
The standing ovation that marked the close of the President's address was echoing through the Capitol corridors as he left the building to motor to the National Airport, where he left by plane for Key West, Fla., for a four-day rest on orders of his personal physician, Brig. Gen. Wallace Graham.
The President appeared tired from the ordeal of his personal appearance before the joint session, but evidently satisfied that the specific recommendations of his message, with its delineation of the implications of a new policy, had temporarily discharged the obligation of the Executive. It was the turn of Congress to make the next move.
That move was not long in the making. Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, called a meeting of his group for tomorrow morning to consider the President's proposals. The House Foreign Affairs Committee was to consider the kindred $350,000,000 appropriation for destitution relief in liberated countries.
In the sharp and conflicting reaction to the President's program, many voices were raised on each side of the Capitol in approval and in criticism. However, there was little doubt that the vast majority in both houses would reflect the wishes of their leaders and go down the line for the new policy and the added financial responsibility it implied.
Would Bar Any Coercion
Apparently conscious of the advance demands by Senator Vandenberg and others that he set forth the full implications of his recommendations, President Truman explained that one of the primary objectives of our foreign policy had been the creation of conditions in which this and other nations would work out a way of life free from coercion by outside influences.
It was to insure the peaceful development of nations, free from coercion, that the United States had taken a leading role in the establishment of the United Nations, Mr. Truman went on. And the United Nations was designed to provide a lasting freedom and independence for all its members.
But these objectives could not be attained, said the President, "unless we are willing to help free peoples to maintain their free institutions and their national integrity against aggressive movements that seek to impose upon them totalitarian regimes."
Anticipating criticism, not long in developing, that his proposals to lend $250,000,000 to Greece and $150,000,000 to Turkey would "by-pass the United Nations," Mr. Truman explained that, while the possibility of United Nations aid had been considered, the urgency and immediacy were such that the United Nations was not in a position to assist effectively.
The President made it clear that the responsibilities he asked Congress to face squarely had developed suddenly because of the inability of Great Britain to extend help to either the Greek or Turkish Government after March 31. He said the British withdrawal by March 31 foreshadowed the imposition of totalitarian regimes by force in both countries unless the United States stepped in to support the existing Governments.
The President reiterated that it was a serious course on which he was asking Congress to embark. But he said he would not ask it except that the alternative was much more serious. The United States contributed $341,000,000,000 toward the winning of World War II, the President recalled.
Although there was a note of apology for the present Greek Government, which the President conceded had made mistakes, it was described as a freely elected one.
The Greek government, he said, represents 85 per cent of the members of the Greek Parliament. He recalled that 692 American observers had been present in Greece when the Parliament was elected and had certified that the election represented a fair expression of the views of the Greek people.
Although the President did not specify the allocation of the $400,000,000 it has been generally understood that the Administration intends to use $250,000,000 for Greece and $150,000,000 for Turkey. He asked further authority to permit the speediest and most effective translation of the funds into "needed commodities, supplies and equipment," which was taken to refer to the supply of surplus war equipment to the Greek Army out of United States Army supplies in Europe.

sexta-feira, 11 de março de 2016

Existiu uma Doutrina Truman (e ela fez bem ao mundo); existe uma Doutrina Obama? - Iain Martin

Um artigo excelente deste cronista do "capitalismo popular", aqui analisando retrospectivamente o que foi a chamada "Doutrina Truman", ou seja, a contenção do comunismo, a defesa das democracias fragilizadas por problemas econômicos e fraturas políticas (quando o comunismo tinha triunfado na Europa central e ameaçava duas ou três grandes democracias da Europa ocidental). Foi quando alguém, com alguma visão histórica (e Harry Truman tinha isso), precisou decidir quando e onde intervir, ou seja, colocar a força econômica, diplomática e militar dos EUA a serviço da defesa da democracia e do então chamado "mundo livre", ou seha, as democracias de mercado ocidentais.
O autor, Iain Martin, editor of CapX (capitalismo popular), se debruça então sobre uma suposta "doutrina Obama" e só vê inconsistência, muito intelectualismo e pouca ação. Não que o mundo ocidental esteja crucialmente ameaçado, hoje, por um inimigo tão poderoso quanto foi o comunismo soviético no passado da Guerra Fria, mas é que o islamofascismo ameaça a vida de milhares, talvez milhões, de cidadãos pacíficos de Estados falidos no Oriente Médio, e isso causou um enorme problema "demográfico" na Europa, ou seja, as imigrações maciças de refugiados (além dos refugiados econômicos da África).
Tempo para um novo Harry Truman?
Infelizmente não vai dar: com Trump ou com Hillary, os EUA estão singularmente desprovidos de estadistas. Como o Brasil, aliás, mas não precisamos salvar o mundo, não é mesmo? Já temos problemas suficientes para salvar o próprio país...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Iain Martin's weekly newsletter
Barack Obama is no Harry Truman
Iain Martin
Editor of CapX, March 11, 2016
link: http://capx.co/barack-obama-is-no-harry-truman/

Sixty nine years ago this weekend, President Harry Truman made a speech to a joint session of Congress in which he mapped out the anti-Communist doctrine that henceforth bore his name. The choice of timing was down to the British being bust after the War. Contemplating a vast debt mountain, partly owed to the US, Clement Attlee's administration in the UK was unwilling to continue supporting the Greeks against their homegrown Communists. With some reluctance, Truman prepared to step in to financially assist Greece and Turkey, potentially not a particularly popular move in an America that had had enough of abroad.

Yet in that landmark address, in eighteen minutes on Wednesday March 12th 1947, Harry Truman delivered a crisp and clear enunciation of what would become the core of American foreign policy until at least the Vietnam War. Later, a doctrine rooted in the idea of preventing states falling to the Soviets as "dominoes" was recalibrated and successfully updated by Ronald Reagan during his attempts to bring down the Soviet Union. What Truman did that day in 1947 was not only right  in the sense of the Western way of life being worth defending, it was strategically right in that it offered a rallying point and defined a clearly understandable framework for the pursuit of vital policy goals. This matters in a democracy, not because the future destination is predictable, but because people like to know that the person in the highest office has some idea of the direction and means of travel.

Almost seven decades later, "The Obama doctrine" is the headline this week on a much discussed article in the latest issue of The Atlantic. It is based on extensive conversations between the President and the author Jeffrey Goldberg. Although the text is at points fascinating, and in others a little like listening in to a seminar or a windy tutorial, the article is extremely long. It is much, much longer than Harry Truman's clear-sighted speech, yet even so by the end of Goldberg's article I was not much the wiser on what the Obama doctrine actually is.

Of course there is something to be said for the way in which he declines to follow the Washington "playbook". Following the hot-headedness and poor planning of the George W Bush era, a little reservation and canny cautiousness at moments of danger was surely welcome, which is one of the reasons many of us had high hopes that he might develop into a Truman. Only those who detest Obama - and in the US that seems to be about 40% of the population - could possibly regard thinking before action as being a failing in a leader.

That said, introspection only gets a President of the United States so far. And there has been a deeply disappointing hollowness at the heart of the Obama Presidency. It as though he has examined foreign policy from every conceivable angle, ten times, and then decided that it's all very complex, so in that case... what?

The problem is rooted, it appears, in his relentlessly academic, cool as a cucumber approach. In that regard, Obama's supporters are forever extolling the supposedly deep quality of his thinking and his grasp of history. Despite this, he consistently makes an elementary error when it comes to referencing the past. The implied suggestion - sometimes stated - is that decisions now are especially difficult and the world was a lot simpler back then. It was clear. You had Nazis and anti-Nazis and then you had Communists and anti-Communists. Even that omits the reality that for the first stage of the Second World War the Nazis had the Soviets as effectively allies.

The "it's all so complex now" defence is not really a defence; it's a cop-out. Post-war Europe and Asia were not straightforward either and the participants such as Truman were not confronted with simple choices. They did not know then that a devastated Europe would be rebuilt successfully thanks to Truman's Marshall Plan under the cover of what became the Nato umbrella, or that Britain closed down its Empire (with bloodshed along the way, but nothing like on the scale that might have been involved) and that the spread of totalitarian Communism was, eventually, going to be driven back. To us, hindsight means that the contours are clear. The memoirs of those involved sit on our bookshelves. But Truman and his team could not know any of this. Even so, they did something bold and decisive for which those of us who savour freedom should be eternally grateful.

Surveying the tail end of the Obama presidency, and his antiseptic analysis of the problems, it is impossible to say that he has achieved anything remotely comparable to Truman. The best one can say is that he has kept his country out of a few trouble spots, which is something, but that amounts to technocratic managerialism, not great leadership. Rather than galvanising the West, he will leave office with it badly divided, facing Islamofascism and without any rallying point equivalent to the Truman Doctrine. What would that rallying point look like, asks Obama? That's partly what you get paid the big bucks for, to try and find out and then utilise those famed rhetorical skills to convince us. That's your job, Mr President, or it should be.

Many years after the end of Truman's Presidency, one of his closest aides gave an interview in which he reflected on how the occupant of the White House should wield power. Clark Clifford had been White House Counsel at the time of the Truman doctrine speech and later Defense Secretary under Lyndon Johnson, succeeding Robert McNamara. Clifford had originally opposed the Vietnam incursion. In office he tried to win the war and then realised scaling back was essential. He had this to say about Truman's style:

"There is, you know, such a thing as being too intellectual in your approach to a problem. The man who insists on seeing all sides of it often can't make up his mind where to take hold... We'd been through the greatest war in which the world was ever involved... There was every reason for Harry Truman to say, 'This is not for us'... And yet he decided that it had to be done... Harry Truman looks at this, and he just steps up to it."

When the history is written of what will be a very long struggle against Islamofascism, will it be possible to echo Clark's words in relation to Obama? No, it will not.

Iain Martin
Editor of CapX