O que é este blog?

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

Meu Twitter: https://twitter.com/PauloAlmeida53

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/paulobooks

Mostrando postagens com marcador Império. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador Império. Mostrar todas as postagens

segunda-feira, 25 de novembro de 2013

A outra Doutrina Monroe: a Russia e seu entorno imediato

Na verdade, em lugar de um equivalente funcional da doutrina Monroe, se trata mesmo de arrogância imperial e prepotência geopolítica.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

Russia’s Monroe Doctrine just worked in Ukraine

Russia Direct, Nov 21, 2013
Michael Slobodchikoff
As Russia looks to keep European influence out of its “Near Abroad,” the nation is following its own version of America’s Monroe Doctrine. Ukraine was just the latest test case.
Russia seeks to keep the European Union at bay from Ukraine. Pictured: Russian President Vladimir Putin, right, and European Commission President Jose-Manuel Barroso. Photo: AP
Europe is currently courting Ukraine and Moldova over Russia's strong objections. It is urging Ukraine and Moldova to turn to Europe and leave Russia's sphere of influence. In doing so, Europe is directly challenging the power and status of Russia.
In fact, the European Union was convinced that on Nov. 28, Ukraine would sign an Association Agreement with the EU and effectively choose the West over Russia.  However, Ukraine just announced that it would not sign the Association Agreement with the EU, and instead chose to pursue further integration with Russia and the Customs Union.  This was a victory for Russia’s version of the Monroe Doctrine.
The Russian response to Europe pursuing Ukraine and Moldova is predictable. We saw it when NATO expanded to Eastern Europe: Russia at the time stated that it would be much more protective of those states in its "Near Abroad" that were once republics of the Soviet Union. Now observers seem to be surprised that Russia is trying to influence those states from spurning Russia and turning to Europe. These observers lament Russia's bullying tactics, and argue that Russia is strong arming its neighbors.
The fact is, that is exactly what Russia is doing. In applying pressure on Ukraine to achieve geopolitical results, Russia is simply borrowing from the United States' foreign policy playbook. In the past, the United States government has been criticized for strong arming weaker states into conforming to policies that it deems prudent.
One example of this is the Monroe Doctrine, which was established in 1823. This doctrine stated that any efforts to colonize or interfere with lands in North or South America by European powers would be viewed as acts of aggression and would require intervention on the part of the United States. For well over a century, the United States interfered with European powers in the Americas.
During the Cold War, the United States used the Monroe Doctrine to try to keep Communism out of Latin America. They financed groups who fought Communist regimes or Communist insurgents. Even supporting totalitarian regimes with poor human rights records became the norm providing that they were opposed to Communism. The Monroe Doctrine granted the United States the right to interfere in the internal and external affairs of the states in the Americas to prevent outside interference from European powers.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia developed its own form of the Monroe Doctrine. Former Presidents Yeltsin and Clinton had tacit agreements that the West would not interfere in the former Soviet sphere of influence. However, the West violated these agreements by expanding NATO into Eastern Europe. While Yeltsin and Russia were furious about NATO expansion, they made clear to the United States and the West that they would draw a line in the sand about European and Western influence in the former Soviet Union, or what is called in Russia the “Near Abroad.”
One of the main methods that Russia used in creating its own version of the Monroe Doctrine was to provide peacekeeping troops to resolve ethnic conflicts in the former Soviet Union. Russia had peacekeeping forces stationed in Transnistria to prevent civil war in Moldova. They also had peacekeeping forces stationed in Georgia to try to resolve the civil war in Georgia over South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Another method that Russia has used in its version of the Monroe Doctrine is through trade. More specifically, Russia uses its status as a regional hegemon to ensure that weaker regional states must trade with Russia for their own security. This is especially true with oil and natural gas. States in the region that do not accept Russia’s Monroe Doctrine do not benefit from trade with Russia, and cannot receive the oil and gas that they require at below-market rates.
On Nov. 21, Ukraine decided that it would not sign an Association Agreement with the EU at the Vilnius Summit.  Instead, it would choose to pursue integration with Russia and the Customs Union while trying to leave its options open for future cooperation with Europe. Both the EU and Russia have been trying to influence Ukraine in its decision. Russia feels very strongly that Ukraine is within its sphere of influence, and that its Monroe Doctrine applies.
If Ukraine is eventually persuaded to sign the agreement by the EU, Russia will respond economically, by raising rates for gas and not allowing Ukraine the economic benefits of joining the Customs Union. Further, Russia has stated that it considers the Association Agreement to be a violation of previous bilateral treaties between Russia and Ukraine on economic cooperation.
Instead, Russia was able to successfully influence Ukraine’s choice through the use of its own Monroe Doctrine.
The real tragedy of Europe trying to woo Ukraine and Moldova is not Russia's trying to influence those states not to join Europe, but rather, the destabilization of the region that this behavior causes. Europe's zero-sum game in Eastern Europe will lead to a destabilization of the region. Moreover, rather than partnering with Russia to solve problems, Europe is actively isolating it further, poking at a hornet's nest with a stick. Is it any surprise that Russia would be wary of the West?
The West should be wary of provoking Russia for several reasons. First of all, Russia still exports a vast amount of oil and gas to Western Europe. To anger an economic partner is not a prudent economic move. Second, assimilating countries with such weak economies such as Ukraine and Moldova will put a strain on an already strained European economic system.
Third, Russia recently showed that it is still an important international player for dealing with rogue states. Isolating Russia will only inhibit cooperation in the future to resolve international disputes. Finally, such actions on the part of the West only confirm to Russia that a prudent global strategy is not to cooperate with the West, but to continue to turn to China for support and cooperation, which ultimately will hurt Western global economic and security interests.
One of the unintended side effects of Europe pursuing interests in former Soviet republics is that it emboldens these countries to act more aggressively towards Russian interests by relying on support from Europe. This was one of the causes of the 2008 war between Russia and Georgia. Georgia believed that Russia would not attack since it could rely on the protection of the West. This belief emboldened Georgia to attack its breakaway republic of South Ossetia, which in turn led to a Russian retaliation that ended badly for Georgia.
While Europe should rethink their actions in antagonizing Russia, Russia must also be careful in how it responds to European actions. By being heavy handed in their responses, they are driving those countries further away toward Europe. They are confirming that these countries should be wary of Russia, and should embrace a more stable situation in Europe. Ultimately, the Customs Union proposed by Russia may be a better option for states than the European Union, but Russia won't be able to convince them of this unless it is less heavy handed in its attempt at influencing those countries in its "Near Abroad."
Recently, the U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, pronounced that the Monroe Doctrine was no longer being followed by the United States. For well over a century, the United States had fought European influence in the Americas. It did this through economic as well as military means. Despite the fact that the doctrine will no longer be followed by the United States in its foreign policy, we should not be surprised that other regional hegemons have adopted their own version of the Monroe Doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine is, in fact, alive and well in Russia. We just saw the latest example of it at work in Ukraine.
The opinion of the author may not necessarily reflect the position of Russia Direct or its staff.

sexta-feira, 4 de outubro de 2013

Muy bien Maduro, dale duro, a los yankis, dale duro, que se cae de maduro...

Maduro amenaza con expulsar a todos los diplomáticos

Europa Press
Caracas, 3 de octubre de 2013


Las claves
  • Maduro ha instado además a estar "alerta" con cualquier ex funcionario de la Agencia Antidrogas de Estados Unidos (DEA) o de otra agencia gubernamental del país norteamericano que ahora esté trabajando en empresas privadas en Venezuela.
  • "Ayer, la vida me dio la razón por la altanería, la prepotencia, con la que salió la encargada de negocios de Estados Unidos en Venezuela. Nunca se había visto que saliera públicamente a retar a un presidente, a un pueblo entero", ha apuntado.

Al grito de “gringos go home”, Maduro desespera

El análisis
Maria Teresa Romero
(Especial Infolatam).- “Esa  amenaza de expulsar a toda la delegación de la embajada de EE.UU en Caracas -es decir, de cerrar las misión-  podría estar sirviendo para preparar las condiciones necesarias para decretar un estado de excepción o autogolpe por parte del gobierno”.
El presidente de Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, ha advertido este miércoles a los funcionarios estadounidenses de que, “si se ponen cómicos”, los expulsará a “todos” del país iberoamericano, en el marco de la última crisis bilateral.
“Si se ponen cómicos, los expulso a todos. No voy a permitir que nadie venga a meterse con este país. No existe imperio que amedrente a Venezuela”, ha dicho desde la Comandancia General de la Guardia Nacional Bolivariana (GNB), en Caracas.
En la misma línea, ha instado a estar “alerta” con cualquier ex funcionario de la Agencia Antidrogas de Estados Unidos (DEA) o de otra agencia gubernamental del país norteamericano que ahora esté trabajando en empresas privadas en Venezuela.
Además, ha criticado las declaraciones de la encargada de negocios de Estados Unidos en Caracas, Kelly Keiderling, por calificar de “falsas” las acusaciones formuladas por el Gobierno venezolano para expulsar a tres diplomáticos estadounidenses, incluida ella.
“Ayer, la vida me dio la razón por la altanería, la prepotencia, con la que salió la encargada de negocios de Estados Unidos en Venezuela. Nunca se había visto que saliera públicamente a retar a un presidente, a un pueblo entero”, ha apuntado.
Maduro ha explicado que los funcionarios estadounidenses “están molestos” porque “les han metido el dedo donde hay que meterlo”. “Les desarticulé el equipo de vanguardia para desestabilizar nuestro país”, ha sostenido, según ha informado el diario venezolano ‘El Universal‘.
El pasado lunes, Maduro dio un plazo de 48 horas a Keiderling y a los también diplomáticos estadounidensesElizabeth Hoffman y David Moo para salir de Venezuela, asegurando que, junto a la oposición, preparaban un plan para derrocar a su Gobierno.
Maduro ha presentado como pruebas un vídeo y unas fotografías del pasado 27 de septiembre donde Keiderling, Hoffman, y Moo aparecen reunidos con el alcalde del municipio de Heres –ubicado en el estado de Bolívar (sur)–, el opositor Víctor Fuenmayor.
“Todas las acusaciones de conspiración, de que vamos a acabar con el mundo, son falsas”, dijo Keiderling, en la rueda de prensa celebrada ayer en Caracas, al tiempo que admitió que “si la acusación es reunirse con la sociedad civil”, era culpable.
En respuesta, Estados Unidos ordenó expulsar a los diplomáticos venezolanos Calixto Ortega, encargado de negocios; Mónica Alejandra Sánchez Morales, subsecretaria de la Embajada en Washington; y Marisol Gutiérrez de Almeida, cónsul general en Houston.
“Es completamente rechazable que el Gobierno venezolano haya decidido expulsar otra vez a diplomáticos estadounidenses con acusaciones infundadas, por lo que merece una acción recíproca”, explicó un portavoz del Departamento de Estado a la cadena CNN.
No obstante, se mostró consciente de que las expulsiones de diplomáticos “son contraproducentes”. “No atienden al interés de ninguno de los dos países y, desde luego, no son una forma seria de dirigir la política exterior”, reconoció.

terça-feira, 1 de outubro de 2013

Venezuela: ah, esses estadunidenses, especialistas em provocar paranoias...

O império, inacreditavelmente, é perverso o bastante, para provocar apagões, complotar com a direita, criar paranoias indevidas, enfim, fazer o diabo.
Devem ter espionado também.
Pronto, receberam o que mereciam.
Vivam os companheiros bolivarianos, sempre tão atentos...
PRA


Venezuelan President’s Office, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
President Nicolás Maduro during a speech in which he ordered the expulsion of three officials from the United States Embassy.


  • FACEBOOK
  • TWITTER
  • GOOGLE+
  • SAVE
  • E-MAIL
  • SHARE
  • PRINT
  • REPRINTS

CARACAS, Venezuela — Stepping up hostilities with the United States, President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela expelled the top American diplomat and two other embassy officials from the country on Monday, accusing them of supporting plots to sabotage the country’s electrical grid and the economy.
World Twitter Logo.

Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow@nytimesworld for international breaking news and headlines.
“Get out of Venezuela! Yankee go home!” Mr. Maduro shouted as he announced the expulsions at a military event to commemorate the bicentennial of a battle in Venezuela’s war of independence.
“We have detected a group of officials of the United States Embassy in Caracas, in Venezuela, and we have been tracking them for several months,” Mr. Maduro said during a live television broadcast. “These officials spend their time meeting with the Venezuelan extreme right wing, financing them and encouraging them to take actions to sabotage the electrical system, to sabotage the Venezuelan economy.”
The expulsions were the latest diplomatic swipe at Washington by Mr. Maduro since he took over for the country’s longtime president, Hugo Chávez, who died in March. Late last year, as Mr. Chávez grew increasingly ill, the two nations held informal talks aimed at improving the long-strained relations between them, and there was some optimism on the American side that Mr. Maduro, a former foreign minister sometimes described as pragmatic, would be amenable to a thaw.
But it quickly became clear that Mr. Maduro intended to stick closely to Mr. Chávez’s example, painting the United States as an imperialist aggressor out to undermine his government. Early on, he accused the Obama administration of plotting against him, and hours before he announced the death of Mr. Chávez on March 5, he kicked out two American military attachés, saying they had tried to recruit Venezuelan military personnel to conspire against the government.
The diplomats expelled on Monday included Kelly Keiderling, the chargé d’affaires, who runs the embassy in the absence of an ambassador here. The United States has not had an ambassador in Caracas since 2010, when Mr. Chávez refused to accept the new one proposed by Washington because of remarks that Mr. Chávez said were disrespectful.
Mr. Chávez had already expelled the American ambassador, Patrick Duddy, in 2008, saying that his government had discovered an American-supported plot by military officers to topple him. Mr. Duddy was later allowed to return to Caracas.
Another one of the diplomats expelled on Monday was Elizabeth Hoffman, an official in the embassy’s political section, whom Mr. Maduro had publicly accused at least as early as April of meeting with opposition figures to plot sabotage of the electrical system. He said at the time that he had proof but took no action until Monday. The third official being expelled is David Moo, the vice consul.
Foreign Minister Elías Jaua later said on television that the evidence against the American diplomats included meetings held in recent weeks with democracy advocates, union members and elected officials belonging to the political opposition, whom he accused of planning to destabilize the country. 
Mr. Maduro said the officials had 48 hours to leave the country.
“We completely reject the Venezuelan government’s allegations of U.S. government involvement in any type of conspiracy to destabilize the Venezuelan government,” the American Embassy said in a statement. It called the meetings held by the officials “normal diplomatic engagements,” adding, “We maintain regular contacts across the Venezuelan political spectrum.”
Ever since he was elected by a narrow margin in April in a special election to replace Mr. Chávez, Mr. Maduro has struggled with intense economic woes and a deeply divided populace. He has often accused plotters and saboteurs of being responsible for a variety of the nation’s ills, including electrical blackouts and the deadly explosion at the national oil company’s enormous Amuay refinery.
“He needs diversions and distractions,” said Michael Shifter, president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a policy group in Washington. “The situation is so dire in Venezuela that he needs to find a scapegoat, and it’s convenient and politically so tempting to kick out U.S. diplomats.”
But Mr. Shifter said that describing the United States as the source of the country’s problems might not have the same effect it did for Mr. Chávez, who was beloved by many of his supporters. Mr. Maduro does not inspire nearly the same devotion, and the country’s economic woes are getting worse, with inflation over 45 percent a year and shortages of many basic foods and goods, including toilet paper.
“I doubt that it has the resonance it used to have,” Mr. Shifter said of the diplomatic expulsions.

María Eugenia Díaz contributed reporting.

segunda-feira, 2 de setembro de 2013

Big Brother, Small Brother e as ironias da vida: se eles ja sabem de tudo, para que a visita?

Bem, seria o caso de suspender a visita de Estado não é?, já que o Obama já sabe de tudo...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida 



A Agência de Segurança Nacional dos Estados Unidos (NSA) monitorou o conteúdo de telefonemas, e-mails e mensagens de celular da presidente Dilma Rousseff e de um número ainda indefinido de “assessores-chave” do governo brasileiro. Além de Dilma, também foram espionados pelos americanos nos últimos meses o presidente do México, Enrique Peña Nieto, — quando ele era apenas candidato ao cargo — e nove membros de sua equipe. 
As informações foram reveladas ontem pelo “Fantástico”, que teve acesso a uma apresentação feita dentro da própria NSA, em junho de 2012, em caráter confidencial. O documento é mais um dos que foram repassados ao jornalista britânico Glenn Greenwald por Edward Snowden, técnico que trabalhou na agência e hoje está asilado na Rússia.
— Se forem confirmados os fatos da reportagem, eles devem ser considerados gravíssimos e caracterizarão uma clara violação à soberania brasileira — disse o ministro, depois de uma reunião com Dilma. — Isso foge completamente ao padrão de confiança esperado de uma parceria estratégica, como é a dos Estados Unidos com o Brasil. Diante desses fatos, vamos exigir explicações formais ao governo americano, o Itamaraty convocará o embaixador dos Estados Unidos (Thomas Shannon) para dar explicações e vamos levar o assunto a todos os fóruns competentes da ONU.

domingo, 10 de fevereiro de 2013

A journey Inside the Whale: explaining the title

Muitos leitores deste blog, pelo menos os mais atentos, ou os mais literários, digamos assim, podem ter questionado o título dado a alguns dos meus posts, os mais diretamente pessoais, sob a rubrica repetida já três vezes de
A Journey Inside the Whale

Posso explicar, mas a razão é puramente fortuita, ou alegórica, e não tem a intenção de reproduzir nenhuma grande obra literária, ou aventura pessoal.
Journey remete a aventura, périplo, caminho, andança, recorrido, percurso, itinerário, ou qualquer equivalente funcional ou conceitual. Ou seja, trata-se simplesmente de uma estada ou excursão.

A palavra remete a várias obras literárias, ou aventuras exóticas, a primeira das quais é o périplo cientifico do suíço-americano Louis Agassiz ao Brazil, a partir de Harvard, onde ele já ensinava. Seu livro foi publicado em Boston, no começo ou meados dos anos 1860 (e pode ser facilmente encontrável na internet, em versão digital), e nele ele relata sua estada de vários meses no Brasil, para pesquisas científicas. O naturalista, apesar de antidarwinista, é considerado um dos país do establishment cientítico americano, pela sua imensa capacidade de trabalho na classificação de espécies e de pesquisas de terreno, em várias áreas, inclusive geologia, mineralogia, botânica, zoologia e outras, destacando-se ainda sua correspondência e amizade com o imperador D. Pedro II, também um humanista interessado nas ciências naturais. A Journey to Brazil é uma descrição sincera de todas as suas andanças, inclusive o confronto com a escravidão e a falta de cultura literária (ou seja, ausência completa de livros), até hoje, aliás, em nosso país.

A segunda referência é ao romance realista de Louis-Ferdinand Céline, Voyage au Bout de la Nuit, um livro inovador para a época (1932), no qual ele relata todo o horror que tinha da Primeira Guerra Mundial, das experiências colonialistas na África e até na América fordista de Detroit, e seu capitalismo desenfreado. Em inglês, o romance se chama A Journey Inside the Night, e nesse título se pode tomar inspiração para qualquer reflexão sobre aventuras, jornadas, passeios e outros percursos que expressem a descrição de lugares e situações com intenções reflexivas e intelectuais. Obviamente, não existe nada que o conecte com o percurso ulterior desse grande autor, no sentido de se aproximar dos fascismos ambientes nos anos 1930 na Europa e de sua experiência colaboracionista, ou simpática, em relação ao regime de Vichy e ao próprio nazismo na França ocupada, postura que quase lhe rendeu uma condenação à morte na Libertação.

A terceira referência é ao livro de memórias e de críticas literárias de George Orwell, Inside the Whale, no qual ele relata suas andanças por Paris e Londres, na maior miséria, por sinal.
Pode-se também remetar à famosa frase do nacionalista cubano José Marti, que dizia conhecer  as "entranhas do monstro", ou seja, do Império, por ter vivido em New York, como exilado político da então dominação espanhola sobre sua ilha natal.

Nenhuma dessas referências é exclusiva, ou deve ser tomada em seu sentido próprio, uma vez que as palavras possuem existência própria e diversos significados. Eu juntei esses conceitos para descrever alguns aspectos de minhas andanças e reflexões no coração do império, embora não esteja bem no coração, e já não tenho certeza de que estou no império (não assumido, em todo caso).
Os EUA são, inquestionavelmente, o centro do mundo, para qualquer coisa que se possa imaginar, menos para a maldade absoluta (isso fica com a Coréia do Norte), para a desfaçatez autoritária (deixemos isso para a pobre Cuba), para a tristeza incomensurável e o sofrimento humano (creio que o recorde ainda pertence ao Congo ex-belga), ou para a mentira institucional (aqui a concorrência é forte, havendo vários latino-americanos na competição, mas talvez a China seja o melhor exemplo).

Os EUA são o império da inovação, da modernidade e, sobretudo, da liberdade, em todos os seus sentidos, inclusive aquele de carregar armas mortíferas que nas mãos dos malucos se convertem em instrumentos ocasionais de morte e sofrimento.
São também o império do pragmatismo, mesmo ao preço do charme e da non-chalance, que pertencem inquestionavelmente à Europa, bem mais rica culturalmente, mas mais difícil materialmente falando.
Enfim, estou no coração do império, pelos próximos três anos, e nele pretendo aproveitar todas as possibilidades de enriquecimento intelectual que aqui existem em tal abundância que não podem ser comparadas a qualquer outro continente ou país, mesmo a Europa e suas instituições seculares.
Vale a experiência, vale uma vida, vale um artigo, como este, modesto e sintético.
Vale!

Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Hartford, 10 de fevereiro de 2013

sábado, 9 de fevereiro de 2013

O Imperio repensa o seu exercito - Foreign Policy

Foreign Policy Situation Report
Foreign Policy February 9, 2013

FP Exclusive: Odierno says the Army must change

Whither the Army? At the end of more than a decade of two large land wars and budget cuts forcing new thinking in the military's role in the world, the Army is at a crossroads. While the much-hyped pivot to Asia seems to give the strategic nod to the Air Force and the Navy, with the small Marine Corps not far behind, the Army is now seen as having to adapt quickly to position itself for a new future. For the man who has to lead that transition, it's all about explaining what the Army does, how important decisions today will affect tomorrow, and what the service must do to change. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno is releasing his "strategic intent" this morning exclusively on FP and here in Situation Report, where he makes the case that his service is still critical, still relevant, and still necessary in an uncertain world. But he says the service must also adapt to meet an array of new challenges by making forces more scalable and investing heavily -- and earlier in their careers -- in building leaders, all while remaining accountable to the taxpayers who make the force possible.

Odierno: "To posture the force for the complexities of the strategic environment, we must simultaneously reform our processes and training to generate forces scalable from squad to corps. We cannot afford to limit our planning to brigade combat teams. Our success going forward will be built on deploying the right soldiers, with the right training, in the right size units, at the right time. Small unit leadership will be at a premium in this potential environment of dispersed, decentralized operations. In some circumstances that may require small teams of soldiers engaged in partnership activities. Others may require the combined mass of brigades, divisions, or corps. This does not necessarily suggest a smaller force, but an Army capable of deploying tailored packages to the point of need, while retaining the ability to rapidly reassemble into larger combat formations as requirements change or small conflicts expand."

On the Army of today: "[A]n objective assessment of what is required to fulfill our mission in a complex future environment against a constantly evolving range of threats demands that we continue to invest in the specific skills, equipment, and forces needed to do so effectively. This demands foresight and innovation, as well as a bottom-up engagement by our most valuable asset -- our soldiers and leaders. It also requires recognition that the Army, like our nation, must be good stewards of our resources in an era of increasing fiscal austerity."

On keeping pace with technology: "The cyber revolution has created new ways for people to connect. Information passes instantly over great distances, and entire virtual communities have been created through social media.... [M]any of our adversaries lack the ability to confront our forces physically, choosing instead to employ virtual weapons with potentially devastating effect. We must take full advantage of these technologies, building our own capabilities to operate in cyberspace with the same level of skill and confidence we enjoy on the land. We will either adapt to this reality or risk ceding the advantage to future enemies."

On equipment and the leaders it needs: "This effort requires equipment that gives our squads, as the foundation of the force, capabilities that overwhelm any potential foe, enabled by vehicles that improve mobility and lethality while retaining survivability. It needs a network that connects all our assets across the joint force together in the most austere of environments to deliver decisive results in the shortest time possible. It demands leaders with the ability to think broadly and critically, aware of the cultural lenses through which their actions will be viewed and cognizant of the potential strategic ramifications of their decisions."

The Navy's Adm. Jon Greenert wrote on FP about the Navy's pivot to Asia in November and the Marine Corps' Lt. Gen. Richard Mills wrote on FP last fall about the need for the Corps to return to the littorals for the bulk of the operations in the future.

Odierno's likely new boss will probably be confirmed by the full Senate next week, we're told. There are still a good many people who believe Chuck Hagel is the right man for the Pentagon's top job, but his showing at the confirmation hearing Thursday was roundly considered lackluster. That's why he's still working the Hill this week, visiting senators who are seen as key to getting him the 70 votes the Hagel camp wants. The Senate Armed Services Committee is expected to vote Thursday, and the full Senate will take up the confirmation next week before the President's Day recess, Situation Report is told. That could put Hagel in office within a couple of weeks. Indeed, Panetta's Farewell Tour begins this week.

quinta-feira, 2 de agosto de 2012

Condolezza Rice sobre a missao unica dos EUA no mundo

Trata-se, possivelmente, de uma das poucas personalidades republicanas claramente intervencionistas que existem no velho partido conservador.
E trata-se, também, de um deabte antigo na história constitucional americana e na própria trajetória desse império não oficializado voluntariamente.
Em todo caso, estima-se importante ler e conhecer seus argumentos.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Financial Times, July 26, 2012 8:37 pm

US must recall it is not just any country

Ingram Pinn illustration
In this young century, the 9/11 attacks, the global financial crisis and the unrest in the Arab world have struck at the heart of vital US interests. If Americans want the tectonic plates of the international system to settle in a way that makes the world safer, freer and more prosperous, the US must overcome its reluctance to lead. We will have to stand up for and promote the power and promise of free markets and free peoples, and affirm that American pre-eminence safeguards rather than impedes global progress.
The list of US foreign policy challenges is long and there will be a temptation to respond tactically to each one. But today’s headlines and posterity’s judgment often differ. The task at hand is to strengthen the pillars of our influence and act with the long arc of history in mind.


More

On this story

On this topic

IN Opinion

In the Middle East we must patiently use our aid, expertise and influence to support the creation of inclusive democratic institutions. The fundamental problem in the region is the absence of institutions that can bridge the Sunni-Shia divide, and protect the rights of women and minorities. Even as we make necessary immediate choices – including arming the Syrian rebels – we must insist upon inclusive politics. The US cannot afford to stand aside; regional powers will bring their own agendas that could exacerbate confessional divisions.
As we work with reformers across the region, we should not forget that Iraq has the kind of institutions that are meant to overcome these divisions. Given its geostrategic importance, the chaos engulfing its neighbours and Iran’s destructive influence, our re-engagement with Baghdad is sorely needed.
The US needs to turn again to the development of responsible and democratic sovereigns beyond the Middle East. The George W. Bush administration doubled aid spending worldwide and quadrupled it to Africa. It channelled assistance to countries that were investing in their people’s health and education, governing wisely and democratically, building open economies and fighting corruption. Ultimately, these states will make the transition from aid to private investment, becoming net contributors to the international economy and global security. US tax dollars will have been well spent.
We must also not lose sight of how democracy is solidifying in the western hemisphere. US assistance and trade policy can help democracies in Latin America to provide an answer to populist dictators. At the same time, we must speak out for dissidents – from Cuba to Venezuela to Nicaragua. Mexico needs attention across a broad agenda that includes the devastating security challenge that threatens both it and the US.
The US “pivot” to Asia (a region that had hardly been abandoned) has focused heavily on security issues. America should remain the pre-eminent military power in the Pacific. But consider this: China has signed free-trade agreements with 15 nations over the past eight years and has explored FTAs with some 20 others; since 2009 the US has ratified three FTAs negotiated during the Bush administration and it has continued – but not concluded – talks on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which began in 2008. One of the US’s best assets in managing China’s rise is its regional economic engagement.
A robust free trade policy will strengthen our economy and influence abroad, as will developing our domestic resources, such as the North American energy platform. High oil prices empower Venezuela, Russia and Iran. We are developing alternative sources of energy but they will not replace hydrocarbons for a long time. It is a gift that much of our demand – possibly all of it – can be met domestically and in co-operation with US allies, Mexico and Canada.
Most important, we need to reassure our friends across the globe. The rush to court adversaries has overshadowed relations with trusted allies. Our engagement with Europe has been sporadic and sometimes dismissive. Strategic ties with India, Brazil and Turkey have neither strengthened nor deepened in recent years. Hugo Chávez and the Iranians have bitten off the extended hand of friendship. There is no Palestinian state because it will only come through negotiation with a secure Israel that is confident in its relationship with the US. The decision to abandon missile defence sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, to “reset” relations with Russia was pocketed by Vladimir Putin who quickly returned to his anti-American ways. Friends must be able to trust in the consistency of our commitment to them.
Finally we cannot forget that strength begins at home. Global leadership rests upon a strong economy built on fiscal discipline and robust private sector growth. Ultimately, our success depends on mobilising human potential, something the US has done better than any country in history. Ours has been a story of possibility, not grievance and entitlement. Ambitious people have come from all over the world to seek out the opportunities America provides. The absence of a humane and sustainable national immigration policy threatens this great asset.
Our talent has historically come from every part of American society, without regard to class and economic circumstance. But when a child’s zip code determines whether she will get a good education, we are losing generations to poverty and despair. The crisis in US education is the greatest single threat to our national strength and cohesion.
The American people have to be inspired to lead again. They need to be reminded that the US is not just any other country: we are exceptional in the clarity of our conviction that free markets and free peoples hold the key to the future, and in our willingness to act on those beliefs. Failure to do so would leave a vacuum, likely filled by those who will not champion a balance of power that favours freedom. That would be a tragedy for American interests and values and those who share them.

The writer is a former US secretary of state
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2012. You may share using our article tools.
Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web

sábado, 30 de junho de 2012

A singular alienacao de um academico americano e a fantasmagoria do declinio dos EUA

Alienação é um conceito hegeliano, apropriado e trabalho por Marx, e muito usado nos anos 1960, depois que Erich Fromm, Herbert Marcuse e outros popularizaram o marxismo acadêmico, uma versão light, ou gramsciana, do velho marxismo-leninismo, ou bolchevismo. Fez certo sucesso, mas depois se esgotou.
Pois bem, o autor desta matéria não é marxista, mas sofre igual e similarmente de alienação, senão mental, pelo menos sociológica.
Ele pretende que os EUA estejam, não em declínio absoluto, mas relativo, e devem agora se confrontar a outros poderes em ascensão. Esses seria, grosso modo os BRICs.
Nem vou me dar ao trabalho de contestá-lo, pois seria primário.
Basta perguntar, por exemplo, quais os produtos -- tangíveis e intangíveis, quais os serviços, inclusive filmes e coisas do gênero -- que jovens e consumidores do mundo inteiro pretenderiam adquirir desses BRICS e mais alguns outros.
Ou seja, o que esses países produzem de tão fascinante assim que eles vão substituir o velho capitalismo ocidental?


Ao que sabe, o que esses países mais produzem, além de crescimento da produção -- mans nem todos crescem rapido, justamente -- é corrupção, promiscuidade de políticos com capitalistas, ineficiência, fascismo econômico, falta de liberdade e outras bobagens inúteis.
Uma segunda pergunta: quantos emigrantes econômicos do mundo, quantos espíritos desejosos de liberdade estão procurando entrar nesses países alternativos ao capitalismo, e estabelecer residência neles?
Nunca vi um artigo tão medíocre de um acadêmico tão conhecido...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
OPINION

America’s Place in the New World

dff

Peter Parks/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
A copy of the legendary Château Maisons-Laffitte, on the outskirts of Beijing.



Washington
IT’S election season again, and the main contenders for the Oval Office are knocking themselves out to reassure Americans that their nation remains at the pinnacle of the global pecking order. Mitt Romney recently declaredthat “this century must be an American century.” Not to be outdone, President Obama insisted in his State of the Union address that “anyone who tells you that America is in decline” doesn’t “know what they’re talking about.”
Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama might overdo it a bit, but they’re actually not far off the mark. Despite two draining wars, sluggish growth and a diffusion of power from the West to China and the “rising rest,” a combination of economic resilience and military superiority will keep the United States at or near the top for decades.
Still, they’re missing the point. The most potent challenge to America’s dominance comes not from the continuing redistribution of global power, but from a subtler change: the new forms of governance and capitalism being forged by China and other rising nations.
The democratic, secular and free-market model that has become synonymous with the era of Western primacy is being challenged by state capitalism in China, Russia and the Persian Gulf sheikdoms. Political Islam is rising in step with democracy across the Middle East. And left-wing populism is taking hold from India to Brazil. Rather than following the West’s path of development and obediently accepting their place in the liberal international order, rising nations are fashioning their own versions of modernity and pushing back against the West’s ideological ambitions.
As this century unfolds, sustaining American power will be the easy part. The hard part will be adjusting to the loss of America’s ideological dominance and fashioning consensus and compromise in an increasingly diverse and unwieldy world.
If American leaders remain blind to this new reality and continue to expect conformity to Western values, they will not only misunderstand emerging powers, but also alienate the many countries tired of being herded toward Western standards of governance.
This transition won’t be easy. Since the founding era, the American elite and the public have believed in the universality of their model. The end of the cold war only deepened this conviction; after the collapse of the Soviet Union, democratic capitalism seemed the only game in town. But the supposed “end of history” didn’t last. Many developing nations have recently acquired the economic and political wherewithal to consolidate brands of modernity that present durable alternatives.
The last 30 years of Chinese development, for example, look nothing like the path followed by Europe and North America. The West’s ascent was led by its middle class, which overturned absolute monarchy, insisted on a separation of church and state and unleashed the entrepreneurial and technological potential vital to the Industrial Revolution. In contrast, the authoritarian Chinese state has won over its middle class, and with reason: its economy outperforms those of Western competitors, enriching its bourgeoisie and lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty.
And in today’s fast and fluid global economy, the control afforded by state capitalism has its distinct advantages, which is precisely why Russia, Vietnam and others are following China’s lead.
The Middle East is similarly set to confound American expectations. Participatory politics may be arriving in the region, but most of the Muslim world recognizes no distinction between the realms of the sacred and the secular; mosque and state are inseparable, ensuring that political Islam is returning as coercive regimes fall. A poll last year revealed that nearly two-thirds of Egyptians want civil law to adhere strictly to the Koran, one of the main reasons Islamists recently prevailed in the country’s parliamentary elections.
And Egypt is the rule, not the exception. If nothing else, the Arab Spring has shown that democratization does not equal Westernization, and that it is past time for Washington to rethink its longstanding alignment with the region’s secular parties.
True, rising powers like India and Brazil are stable, secular democracies that appear to be hewing closely to the Western model. But these countries have democratized while their populations consist mainly of the urban and rural poor, not the middle class. As a result, both nations have embraced a left-wing populism wary of free markets and of representative institutions that seem to deliver benefits only to a privileged elite.
Rising democracies are also following their own paths on foreign policy, foiling America’s effort to turn India into a strategic partner. New Delhi is at odds with Washington on issues ranging from Afghanistan to climate change, and it is deepening commercial ties with Iran just as America is tightening sanctions. Standing up to America still holds cachet in India and Brazil, one reason New Delhi and Brasília line up with Washington less than 25 percent of the time at the United Nations.
Washington has long presumed that the world’s democracies will as a matter of course ally themselves with the United States; common values supposedly mean common interests. But if India and Brazil are any indication, even rising powers that are stable democracies will chart their own courses, expediting the arrival of a world that no longer plays by Western rules.
The 21st century will not be the first time the world’s major powers embraced quite different models of governance and commerce: during the 17th century, the Holy Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, Mughal Empire, Qing Dynasty and Tokugawa Shogunate each ran its affairs according to its own distinct rules and culture.
But these powers were largely self-contained; they interacted little and thus had no need to agree on a set of common rules to guide their relations.
This century, in contrast, will be the first time in history in which multiple versions of order and modernity coexist in an interconnected world; no longer will the West anchor globalization. Multiple power centers, and the competing models they represent, will vie on a more level playing field. Effective global governance will require forging common ground amid an equalizing distribution of power and rising ideological diversity.
With that in mind, Washington should acknowledge that America’s brand of capitalism and secular democracy must now compete in the marketplace of ideas.
To be sure, even as it adopts a more pluralistic approach, the United States should defend not just its interests, but also its values. It should continue to promote democracy, stand resolute in the defense of human rights and do what it can to stop indiscriminate violence of the sort unleashed by Syria’s government.
But American leaders do their country no service when they trumpet a new American century or topple governments in the name of spreading Western values. Doing so will drive away the very nations the United States needs on its side to confront dangerous pariahs and manage a world in which power is broadly shared.
Standing by its own values while also recognizing that there are alternative forms of responsible and responsive governance would ultimately elevate the nation’s moral authority, making it more likely that other countries would be as respectful of America’s preferences as America should be of theirs.
Charles A. Kupchan is a professor of international relations at Georgetown, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and the author of “No One’s World: The West, the Rising Rest, and the Coming Global Turn.”

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on April 8, 2012, on page SR4 of the New York editionwith the headline: America’s Place in the New World.