Temas de relações internacionais, de política externa e de diplomacia brasileira, com ênfase em políticas econômicas, em viagens, livros e cultura em geral. Um quilombo de resistência intelectual em defesa da racionalidade, da inteligência e das liberdades democráticas.
O que é este blog?
Este blog trata basicamente de ideias, se possível inteligentes, para pessoas inteligentes. Ele também se ocupa de ideias aplicadas à política, em especial à política econômica. Ele constitui uma tentativa de manter um pensamento crítico e independente sobre livros, sobre questões culturais em geral, focando numa discussão bem informada sobre temas de relações internacionais e de política externa do Brasil. Para meus livros e ensaios ver o website: www.pralmeida.org. Para a maior parte de meus textos, ver minha página na plataforma Academia.edu, link: https://itamaraty.academia.edu/PauloRobertodeAlmeida.
Uma reflexão sobre as incertezas ocidentais quanto à postura da China no sistema internacional numa conjuntura de alteração dos equilíbrios econômicos existentes nos últimos séculos
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
É simplesmente FALSO que a China represente uma AMEAÇA a princípios e valores das democracias de mercado e às instituições do multilateralismo contemporâneo, como se o governo autocrático do PCC quisesse demolir as democracias existentes atualmente, ou como se a China estivesse desmantelando a ordem mundial criada por elas desde Bretton Woods.
É uma grande HIPOCRISIA dos EUA transformar sua arrogância (hubris) e paranoia por motivos de um declinio relativo (ou perda de preeminência hegemônica absoluta) em mobilização de outras democracias avançadas num esforço coletivo para se CONTRAPOR aos progressos econômicos e tecnológicos da China.
Quanto aos avanços militares da China, eles não se destinam a implantar o comunismo no mundo, mas a evitar que a nação chinesa seja novamente humilhada, como foi no passado, por outras potências dominantes.
O mundo ganharia muito, em especial os países em desenvolvimento, se houvesse total abertura econômica, liberalização comercial, disposição para a complementaridade real das grandes economias na divisão mundial do trabalho e no reforço das instituições multilaterais em prol de investimentos em capital humano nos países mais pobres (que são os que estão na origem das “exportações” indesejadas de seus excentes demográficos miseráveis para os países ricos).
É um EQUÍVOCO dos EUA e de outros parceiros avançados essa atitude confrontacionista vis-à-vis a China, quando ela não é uma potência “revisionista”, como foram os militarismos fascistas expansionistas da primeira metade do século XX, ao prosseguir em sua estratégia de plena inserção no status quo atual, que foi justamente criado pelas grandes potências democráticas de mercado ao favorecerem o multilateralismo, a globalização, o livre comércio e a exportação de capitais.
Trata-se também de uma arrogância típica de países ocidentais seguros de seus valores e princípios fundamentados em regimes democráticos e nos direitos humanos achar que a China deva ter um sistema político que seja um reflexo dos seus.
Por que os americanos se julgam os DONOS DO MUNDO? Eles não admitem que os chineses também possam ser escolhidos para diretorias das agências da ONU. Quem lhes deu esse direito de dizer quem pode e quem não pode? Uma arrogância desse tamanho precisa ser ridicularizada, apenas isso, ridicularizada... Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Outfoxed and Outgunned: How China Routed the U.S. in a U.N. Agency
The race for the top job at an obscure U.N. agency tested great-power influence on the world stage—and Beijing coasted into a victory over Washington.
Qu Dongyu, the new director-general of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. Foreign Policy illustration/AP
In mid-January, Kevin Moley, the senior State Department official responsible for overseeing U.S. relations with the United Nations and other international organizations, issued a stern command to a gathering of visiting U.S. diplomats in Washington: China was on the rise, and America’s diplomatic corps needed to do everything in its power to thwart Beijing’s ambitions.
China’s bid to place one of its own top officials at the head of the Rome-based U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), which helps direct agricultural and food security policies worldwide, offered an early test, Moley noted. The election was still some five months away. But Moley, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs, made clear that defeating China would become a key U.S. foreign-policy goal.
“It was all China, China, China,” recalled a source familiar with the exchange. “‘We have to do anything to beat the Chinese,’” the source recalled Moley as saying.
Five months later, the race ended in a stinging defeat for the United States. Beijing’s candidate, Qu Dongyu, the vice minister of agriculture and rural affairs, overwhelmingly won the June 23 election with 108 out of 191 votes from the organization’s 194 member countries. U.S. diplomats initially anticipated their favored candidate, a former Georgian agriculture minister, receiving at least 60 votes. He ended up getting 12.
Kevin Moley, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs. State Department
The win marked an international triumph for China, showcasing its growing political and economic might and its newfound ability to seed top jobs at international institutions with hand-picked candidates. But the race also fueled allegations that it forgave tens of millions of dollars of debt to an African state in exchange for withdrawing its candidate from the race and threatened economic retaliation against smaller and more developing countries if they opposed China’s plan.
The story, drawing on interviews from nearly two dozen officials and experts, also exposed the confused and clumsy state of diplomacy in the Trump administration. Critics charge that the president and his top diplomats are ceding influence in international organizations while at the same time trying to keep China from assuming greater control of them.
Throughout the process of the FAO election, Washington ignored repeated warning signs about its own strategy, clashed with some of its closest allies, and ultimately paved the way for China to coast into a diplomatic win that could elevate its signature foreign-policy ambitions in the developing world.
The FAO election placed a former senior Chinese government official at the head of an agency that will decide, along with the U.N. secretary-general, who will be the next leader of the World Food Program, a U.S.-led U.N. agency that tackles global famine and food insecurity issues. Qu will have the authority to sign off on all high-level staff appointments at the agency, complicating future U.S. efforts to maintain its dominant role there.
“[Qu] is certainly qualified on paper. He has the right experience to be in this position,” said Kimberly Flowers, an expert on food security issues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “If it was anyone else from any other country, I don’t think it would be a big deal.”
“If it was anyone else from any other country, I don’t think it would be a big deal.”
The FAO, with more than 11,500 staff, flies below the radar of other, higher-profile international bodies. But experts and officials say it is incredibly important for global food security and agricultural industries, in both the United States and developing countries, where Beijing sees agricultural development as a bridgehead for political clout. The FAO sets international standards for food and animal safety and plays a key role in crafting international responses to global hunger, climate change caused by world food production, and priorities in global farming industries.
The internal battle over the FAO chief came as Washington’s national security establishment—and members of Congress from both parties—had become increasingly alarmed with China’s growing influence at the United Nations.
Over the past three years under President Donald Trump, the United States has pared back its funding and clout at the United Nations, withdrawing from key U.N. bodies and racking up unpaid bills to the institution. China has stepped in to fill the void, securing broad U.N. support for the crown jewel of President Xi Jinping’s foreign policy, the Belt and Road Initiative, and snatchingtop jobs in the U.N. system for Chinese nationals. Of the 15 specialized agencies under the U.N., Chinese nationals now head four of them. France, the United Kingdom, and the United States each lead one—though the three Western powers continue to hold monopolies on the most influential U.N. jobs overseeing peacekeeping, humanitarian relief, and political affairs.
China’s Growing U.N. Clout
Chinese nationals now head four of the 15 specialized agencies under the United Nations.
Source: United Nations
China has also succeeded in tamping down international criticism of its mass detention of more than a million ethnic minorities, mostly Uighurs, in the country’s western region of Xinjiang. It secured aminor public relations coup by having the U.N. counterterrorism chief visit the region in June, shoring up its dubious claims that its activities in Xinjiang are reeducation programs aimed at rooting out terrorism.
China’s race to lead the FAO provides a stark example of how it has been gradually chipping away at the United States’ dominant position at the U.N. and other international organizations, prompting fears among U.S. diplomats and lawmakers that it will use its new power to advance Chinese interests over international ones.
“Chinese leadership is not inherently bad—to an extent, the United States should be pleased that Beijing is seeking to take on more responsibility in international organizations. The problem lies in the fact that it’s abusing this responsibility,” said Kristine Lee of the Center for a New American Security. “Chinese officials report back to Beijing and first and foremost serve the narrow interests of the [Chinese Communist Party], rather than truly advancing multilateralism and strengthening transparency and accountability at the U.N.”
Some U.S. officials are still quietly reeling from the defeat. “Everybody was just asking why, how … this happened,” one U.S. official said. “It made us look like complete fools.”
“Everybody was just asking why, how … this happened,” one U.S. official said. “It made us look like complete fools.”
Top State Department officials have vowed not to make the same mistake again. For instance, the department’s regional bureaus, which were largely inactive during the campaign, will now be instructed to play a more proactive role corralling votes from capitals in their regions, according to one source involved in the deliberations.
Moley, a senior Trump appointee who led the campaign, recently announced that heplanned to retire from the department at the end of November. His departure follows the publication of a State Department inspector general report accusing him and another political appointee in his office ofmismanagement and retaliation against career officials deemed insufficiently loyal to Trump. (Moley is one of several political appointees at the State Department who have been accused of mismanagement or mistreating staff. He has denied the charges leveled against him in the inspector general report.)
David Hale, the U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, recently addressed the FAO election at a closed-door town hall at the State Department, according to an account of the meeting obtained by Foreign Policy. “We’ve got some lessons to learn from that experience that we’re now applying to some of the other battles coming up,” he said.
Davit Kirvalidze, left, the U.S.-backed Georgian candidate to lead the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, at FAO headquarters in Rome on June 23. Riccardo Antimiani/ANSA via AP
Moley’s call to action back in January reflected Washington’s alarm over China’s growing success at the United Nations. But the strategy for beating the Chinese in Rome puzzled many of the department’s rank-and-file officials. Moley proposed that the United States throw its support behind a former Georgian agriculture minister, Davit Kirvalidze, who had resigned from his job in May 2013 after several subordinates had been charged with corruption crimes. Kirvalidze was not charged with a crime.
Some U.S. officials felt Kirvalidze demonstrated insufficient understanding of how the FAO functioned, while his government had never participated actively in the work of the U.N. food agency. They thought Kirvalidze lacked a high enough profile in Rome to stand a chance of winning and that the emergence of a consensus European candidate, the French agronomist Catherine Geslain-Lanéelle, heightened the chances of a Western split in votes, enhancing China’s prospects for victory. The strategy, recalled one U.S. official, was “bonkers.”
Others felt Kirvalidze, with nearly three decades of experience in agriculture and rural development, was a credible candidate and could bring valuable experience from a small post-Soviet country that transitioned to a free market democracy. They said Kirvalidze took his candidacy seriously, putting out detailed policy proposals and visions for the FAO if he were elected, and remained engaged in discussions with FAO member states throughout the process.
Qu, meanwhile, was viewed as the candidate to beat. The son of a rice farmer, and an agricultural scientist by background, he had worked his way up the career ladder in Chinese academic and government circles to become vice minister of agriculture and rural affairs, overseeing agricultural initiatives under the Belt and Road Initiative and Beijing’s agricultural modernization plans in Africa. But his victory was by no means seen as inevitable. More than a year earlier, a Chinese-backed candidate hademerged as the front-runner for the top job at UNESCO, but he lost the race decisively to a French candidate, reflecting international trepidation over China’s leadership in a major international cultural organization.
The months that followed, officials said, showcased clumsy diplomacy within the U.S. government, as well as infighting among Western allies over which candidate to back. The European Union rallied behind Geslain-Lanéelle, who won 71 votes but was unable to draw support from the United States, which expressed reservations about France’s approach to food security and stances on issues such as genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, in agriculture.
From the start, there was a deep divide within the Trump administration, with many working-level staffers in the State Department and the National Security Council favoring the French candidate. “There was not a unity of effort in the U.S. government, which significantly damaged [Kirvalidze’s] chances,” one source said. The tug of war over which candidate to back in this election reflected broader tensions between the United States and Europe under the Trump administration.
The strategy, recalled one U.S. official, was “bonkers.”That left it to Georgia, a country of just 4 million people, to wage a campaign against two major powerhouses, China and France, whose candidate enjoyed the full backing of the European Union. The campaign was overseen by Georgia’s U.N. ambassador in New York. But European diplomats said other Georgian officials were largely absent in Rome, leaving a team of American advisors outside the U.S. government to manage a campaign that promoted a greater role for the private sector in the FAO’s work.
According to one source directly involved in the race, Georgia faced “dirty politics from Paris and Brussels” in an attempt to get it to relinquish its candidacy and back the French candidate.
Rumors quickly spread through European circles that Kirvalidze was drunk at a Chatham House program in Rome in April.
But Kirvalidze’s defenders, including his American backers, said they were spreading false rumors; in reality, they claimed, he had food poisoning.
A video recording of the event showed Kirvalidze looking somewhat distracted and unwell, scrolling through his smartphone and wiping his brow. At at least one point during the event, Kirvalidze had to leave the room. He later explained to the audience that he was feeling ill: “I’ve been a victim of unsafe food this morning. I got an egg in the hotel, and really it’s terrible.”
Several European diplomats denied seeking to derail Kirvalidze’s candidacy.
“This is absolutely not the case,” one European diplomat said. “There definitely was no smear campaign. We ran a positive campaign. We ran for a candidate, not against any candidate.”
But in the weeks leading up to the vote, France made a play to persuade the United States to get Kirvalidze to withdraw from the race.
“The French were very aggressive in trying to push the Georgians out of the race,” said the source who was directly involved in the race. “They felt that this was rightfully theirs.”
Two weeks before the vote, the French met with Moley and suggested that the Georgian candidate withdraw from the race, arguing that he had little chance of surviving a first-round ballot and the West had a better chance of defeating the Chinese if they rallied together, according to sources familiar with the exchange. Moley urged the French to try to make a deal with the Georgians but said Washington would not ask Kirvalidze to step down.
But Kirvalidze wasn’t interested. Georgian officials told the French that they didn’t want any consolation deals, including the possible offer of a senior post at the FAO in exchange for backing out of the race. Kirvalidze, they insisted, would remain in the race as long as he enjoyed U.S. backing.
Kirvalidze did not respond to requests for comment for this story.
Amid all the Western infighting, the Chinese unleashed their own shadow campaign to rack up votes, through a combination of strong-arming and, reportedly, lavish spending for votes. Rumors were rife that they paid for first-class plane tickets and luxury accommodations for foreign officials from smaller developing countries and their families for greater sway over the outcome of the FAO election.
In February, a senior Chinese official, Yang Jiechi, traveled to Cameroon and announced that Beijing wouldcancel some $78 million in debt, according to CNN. The following month, the Cameroonian candidate for the FAO director-general position, Medi Moungui, who had locked in the backing of the African Union, withdrew from the race. The timing fueled claims of a payoff among Western officials who worked with the FAO and in their mind opened the door for China to pick off African votes.
The Chinese were “essentially buying up anything and everything that was for sale,” said one source involved in the deliberations.
The Chinese were “essentially buying up anything and everything that was for sale,” said one source involved in the deliberations.
Other current and former U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the race told Foreign Policy that China threatened to block key exports from South American countries, including Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay, if they didn’t fall in line behind Qu’s candidacy. The ballot was secret, but South American and European media outlets reported that all three countries backed Qu.
Representatives from the Chinese and Cameroonian embassies in Washington did not respond to requests for comment.
Before the vote, U.S. and European delegations picked up rumors that China had instructed its supporters to take a screenshot of their ballots to prove they had voted for Qu. They proposed imposing a ban on the use of cell phones in the voting booth and having U.N. security enforce it. But China, backed by Iran and other supporters, opposed the rule. In the end, they reached a compromise. Cell phones would be barred, but there would be no measures to enforce the ban.
Still, on the day of the vote, FAO security had to “shoo away” Chinese representatives who were trying to peer over the top of the voting booths and take photos, according to two diplomatic sources. And some delegates divulged having taken screen shots of their ballots, according to diplomatic sources.
The FAO did not respond to request for comment for this story.
“There is one narrative that says, ‘Sure, this is all about American incompetence and [the] diminishing influence we have in the U.N.,’ which is true to a point,” said one former U.S. diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the subject. “But I do also think that there’s an alarming rise of Chinese hardball tactics and outright bribes that were used.
“It was just a whole messy affair that at the end of the day was a mix of Parisian and Brussels arrogance, with Chinese ambition, and ultimately just showed … how far American influence at the U.N. has fallen.”
Qu, right, celebrates after being elected as the new director-general of the FAO in Rome on June 23. Riccardo Antimiani/ANSA via AP
Shortly after Moley floated Kirvalidze’s name in January, officials from the U.S. Embassy in Rome, where the FAO is based, pushed back.
They argued that the U.S. strategy was deeply flawed and that the Georgian candidate could not win. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which works closely with the FAO, also expressed misgivings about the Georgian’s prospects, according to diplomatic sources.
Some in the U.S. government “were looking at this, and they were just laughing because they knew he didn’t have a chance,” one U.S. official said.
Charles Kupperman, the U.S. deputy national security advisor at the time, emerged as a leading advocate for the French candidate, arguing that Geslain-Lanéelle stood the best chance of winning. Her backers pointed to her background as an agricultural engineer and extensive experience in both French and EU government structures. She also would have been the first female head of the FAO and was the first-ever candidate whom the European Union had collectively backed. But Moley ultimately prevailed.
“She should have won the election,” said the official, who described Geslain-Lanéelle as an “ideal leader” for the FAO. We “talked to dozens of foreign counterparts who made clear they wouldn’t vote for the Georgian.”
“If the U.S. had provided any kind of leadership whatsoever, she would’ve had it.”
“If the U.S. had provided any kind of leadership whatsoever, she would’ve had it.”
But such concerns about the viability of Kirvalidze’s campaign were largely ignored, and the U.S. Embassy in Rome—which was in the best position to lobby delegates who would cast their ballots in secret—soon found itself frozen out of deliberations in Washington on the election, officials familiar with the campaign told Foreign Policy. Those officials said the embassy was pushed aside because they didn’t agree with the State Department’s strategy and were dismissed by officials in Washington when they warned that Kirvalidze had slim chances of winning.
Over the following months, U.S. diplomats in Rome had no clear instructions to lobby on Kirvalidze’s behalf, eliminating opportunities to promote him or rally votes to his side.
One official described an awkward meeting with Kirvalidze back in February. Embassy officials, treating him like any other candidate, peppered the Georgian with questions to test his grasp of international agricultural policy.
Kirvalidze behaved as if he were already the official candidate, and he wanted to know what the United States planned to do to counter the Chinese, whom he accused of bribing other FAO delegates for votes, even though he was unable to provide proof. One official said Kirvalidze displayed a limited understanding of how the FAO operated.
In April, senior diplomats had a chance to quiz all candidates for the FAO director-general position on their leadership and goals that would qualify them for the job during a plenary meeting. At the meeting, Moley engaged in atesty exchange with Qu, pointing to other Chinese nationals who ran international institutions in a manner that appeared to be centered on doing Beijing’s bidding. Moley suggested that Interpol’s chief from 2016 to 2018, the Chinese politician Meng Hongwei, acted on instructions from Beijing and sought Qu’s assurances that he would “make decisions without authorization of [his] government.”
“I am a professional scientist,” Qu responded. “You have to believe my professionalism because I got education from Europe, America, and China.”
Moley also pressed Qu on how he would handle sexual harassment allegations in the workplace if he were elected director-general of the FAO, after a U.N.-wide survey showed staff concerns over sexual harassment issues. “I really do not know how to do it. But I will ask you your advice, OK?” Qu said.
“I think we have our answer. Thank you,” Moley said.
Delegates sit at FAO headquarters during the vote for director-general of the U.N. organization in Rome on June 23. Riccardo Antimiani/ANSA via AP
On June 18, just days before the vote, the United States sent a démarche to delegates saying it would vote for the Georgian candidate but encouraging other countries to vote for either the Georgian or the French candidate—but not the Chinese one.
“[O]ur primary objective is to beat the Chinese candidate,” according to the U.S. paper, which wasobtained by Devex, a news organization that covers humanitarian and development issues. “Chinese leaders at INTERPOL, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) have demonstrated a bias towards Chinese foreign policy and a lack of transparency and accountability.”
“Even by démarche standards, it was a pretty weak one,” said one source involved in the deliberations. To him, it underscored how the United States still hadn’t fully resolved internal rifts over whether to back the Georgian or the French candidate, even after nearly six months of deliberations.
Days before the vote, Moley and Ted McKinney, the undersecretary for trade and foreign agricultural affairs at USDA, traveled to Rome to lead the U.S. delegation.
On June 19, the U.S. ambassador to the FAO, Kip Tom, told his staff that the United States would still be backing the Georgian candidate. Tom, newly confirmed, was just weeks into the job. The vote was in four days.
“Even by démarche standards, it was a pretty weak one.”The French, meanwhile, continued to press their candidate, frustrated at both the Americans and Georgians that they wouldn’t back Geslain-Lanéelle, the only other person capable of challenging the Chinese. In a quintessentially diplomatic sleight, the frustrations turned into a battle of dueling receptions: The Americans organized a reception for Kirvalidze at Tom’s residence the same night that France had previously scheduled a reception in honor of their candidate.
The State Department declined to respond to an extensive list of questions on its role in the election campaign. Instead, a spokesperson for the department provided a general statement to Foreign Policy noting that “the United States supports candidates’ leadership positions in multilateral institutions, including the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, who have the necessary professional standing, experience, and management skills to succeed in such positions.”
“They must also demonstrate knowledge of U.S. values and priorities, recognize that those institutions should act in the interest of all member states, and commit to the highest standards of transparency and accountability,” the spokesperson added.
Amid the infighting among Western allies, China’s candidate coasted into a victory that represents an unprecedented defeat for the West in international organizations. When the votes were finally tallied up in the first round, experts following the election were stunned: Qu secured 108 votes, an overwhelming majority that rendered more rounds of voting useless. When Qu was announced the winner, the chamber at the FAO headquarters erupted with applause.
Some diplomats say China simply ran a better campaign, fielded a stronger candidate, and lobbied vigorously on his behalf. China’s case was also bolstered by its extraordinary success in development, havinglifted more than 850 million people out of poverty since the late 1970s, according to the World Bank.
But others say the United States’ mishandling of the situation, and its infighting with allies, handed China its victory.
The defeat sent shockwaves through Foggy Bottom, where senior officials had been led to believe that Kirvalidze stood to win at least 60 votes. Such an outcome raised the chances that the campaign would be forced to go into a second round, allowing the United States to negotiate a deal with the French to have one of their candidates drop out. But that outcome never came to be. In the end, Kirvalidze received only one-fifth of the votes the United States believed he could get.
“Nobody was really high on the Chinese candidate. … I think that this is more a case of our complete ineptitude and miscalculation on this than it was the Chinese winning,” one U.S. official said.
“I think we could’ve beaten them, I really do.”
Colum Lynch is a senior staff writer at Foreign Policy. Twitter: @columlynch
Robbie Gramer is a diplomacy and national security reporter at Foreign Policy. Twitter: @RobbieGramer
O PT, como todos sabemos, cometeu muitos crimes. Não me refiro apenas a crimes comuns, desses equivalentes a assaltos a bancos, furto qualificado em residências privadas, como podem ser os assaltos aos cofres públicos, as fraudes nas compras governamentais, os superfaturamentos em transações públicas, as aquisições milionárias sem licitações públicas, os desvios nos repasses governamentais, as dotações para ONGs fantasmas, sem falar das comissões recebidas a títulos diversos, enfim, todos crimes comuns, pelos quais bandidos comuns vão para a cadeia devidamente enquadrados pelos Códigos penal e criminal, coisas de bandidos ordinários.
Mas, além desses, pelos quais o partido totalitário e os que cometeram esses crimes comuns merecem ser condenados e encarcerados, o partido e seus chefes aloprados também cometem o que eu chamo de crimes econômicos, aqueles que não se enquadram exatamente nos termos dos códigos acima referidos, mas que costumam provocar despesas e perdas patrimoniais para a nação infinitamente maiores, uma vez que não apenas incorrem em perdas efetivas, nominais, nos valores aferidos, como o que vai abaixo explicitado, como também em perdas potenciais, o que entra na categoria do chamado custo-oportunidade, aquelas perdas que os economistas estimam a partir do que poderia ser potencialmente feito, investido, com esse dinheiro que se perdeu (mas que existe, de fato).
Além disso tudo, tem os crimes derivados da teimosia da mais alta esfera do país, que é um misto de arrogância, suficiência, ignorância deliberada, e demagogia deslavada, como essa que redundou em perdas imensas para todo o setor elétrico, apenas porque o poste, por populismo eleitoreiro, resolveu "baixar" as tarifas de eletricidade. Em lugar de reduzir seus próprios impostos e contribuições, os aloprados econômicos que mal aconselham quem deve tomar a decisão, quiseram obrigar as produtoras e intermediárias a não corrigir seus custos por repasse no preço final, o que deveria ter sido compensado com subsídios do Tesouro. Pois bem, as perdas aqui vão a dezenas de bilhões de reais, e só no caso deste empresa, a Eletrobras, a conta vai a quase 10 bilhões.
Creio que está na hora de fazer um Código Penal para Crimes Econômicos.
Só eu vou ter dezenas de casos para serem enquadrados na nova figura do direito penal.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Estatal terá socorro de R$ 9 bilhões
Danilo Fariello, Geralda Doca, Cristiane Bonfanti e Henrique Gomes Batista
O Globo, 12/12/2014
Dinheiro quitará dívida com Eletrobras. Para analistas, medida resolve "esqueleto" criado por MP do Setor Elétrico
Antes da posse da nova equipe econômica, que promete ser mais austera, o governo federal valeu-se de mais uma manobra para reforçar o caixa da Petrobras e aliviar as contas da Eletrobras, que também enfrenta dificuldades financeiras. A empresa do setor elétrico tem dívida de cerca de R$ 9 bilhões junto à petroleira decorrente do fornecimento de combustível para as usinas térmicas da Região Norte. Com a operação, confirmada ontem pelo ministro de Minas e Energia, Edison Lobão, e antecipada pela "Folha de S. Paulo", o governo vai autorizar a Petrobras a captar recursos no mercado por meio de papeis lastreados nessa dívida e com a garantia do Tesouro. Como possui uma dívida de R$ 6 bilhões com a Eletrobras, o Tesouro vai bancar a maior parte dessa operação. A emissão de títulos deve ocorrer ainda neste ano. Segundo analistas, além de afetar as contas públicas, a operação mostra que há esqueletos que podem representar trabalho adicional ao futuro ministro Joaquim Levy. A dívida da Eletrobras remonta à decisão da presidente Dilma Rousseff de baratear a conta de luz em 2012 por meio da Medida Provisória 579. Nivalde de Castro, da UFRJ, lembra que o governo tentou desonerar a conta de lux tirando encargos como a chamada CCC (Conta de Consumo de Combustíveis) - atual Conta de Desenvolvimento Energético (CDE) - que era uma forma de todos os consumidores subsidiarem a energia elétrica de alguns estados da Região Norte, que têm geração de energia mais cara, a diesel e óleo. Para que não houvesse grande diferença tarifária entre estes clientes e o resto do país, o valor arrecadado pela CCC diretamente pela Eletrobras compensava a compra de combustível da Petrobras para quitar esta conta. Mas com a extinção da CCC, a conta ficou para ser paga pelo Tesouro Nacional. Segundo Lobão, R$ 6 bilhões do total da emissão referem-se a valores que o governo federal já deveria ter transferido. A previsão do governo não é de desembolso imediato . Esses valores e seus custos deverão ser parcelados em até 120 meses, sendo posteriormente pagos pelos consumidores de energia elétrica ou pelo Tesouro Nacional, por meio da CDE. bb vê "oportunidade" Imersa em uma grave crise, a Petrobras poderá, por meio desta operação, captar recursos sem ter de aumentar sua dívida líquida. Sem esse aval do governo, a Petrobras correria o risco de não conseguir levantar os recursos ou ter de pagar juros muito elevados em razão das denúncias de corrupção. - Assina-se o contrato de reconhecimento da dívida entre Eletrobras e Petrobras com o aval do Tesouro Nacional e aí a Petrobras vai ao mercado financeiro emitir papel. Com a garantia do Tesouro - explicou Lobão. O presidente do Banco do Brasil, Aldemir Bendine, disse ontem que as instituições financeiras brasileiras têm apetite em participar da operação. - É uma oportunidade para os bancos, já que a Petrobras não vai conseguir captar no mercado externo. É a maior empresa brasileira, mas que está com dificuldade em acessar o mercado externo. Vai ter um interesse óbvio - afirmou ontem, apos encontro anual da Federação Brasileira dos Bancos (Febraban). Para Bendine, a operação não oferece risco: - A empresa não publicou balanço por causa do processo de investigação. Mas todos os bancos brasileiros conhecem a situação de caixa da Petrobras. Para a professora de Economia Margarida Gutierrez, da UFRJ, o governo não tinha outra solução: - Trata-se de um problema criado no passado, o governo tinha de assumir este esqueleto, pois a outra alternativa, não fazer nada, significaria quebrar de vez o setor elétrico. Mas isso mostra os graves problemas do setor elétrico brasileiro - disse. pagamento de terceirizados Raul Velloso, especialista em contas públicas, destaca que estes esqueletos serão um desafio a mais para as contas públicas: - Há vários esqueletos rondando o governo, que só conhecemos na hora que saem do armário. Temos de enfrentá-los, mas o importante é matá-los de vez, e não deixar estes esqueletos vivos, gerando filhotes que serão novos problemas no futuro - disse. Ontem, a ministra do Planejamento, Miriam Belchior, que é conselheira da Petrobras, disse que os investimentos no pré-sal terão continuidade e que o patamar atual do preço do petróleo - que fechou a US$ 63,68 ontem - permite a manutenção da carteira de negócios da empresa. O governo quer ainda que a Petrobras assuma as dívidas com trabalhadores terceirizados de empresas prestadoras de serviço, cujos contratos estão sendo revistos por suspeitas de irregularidades apontadas na operação Lava-Jato. A medida, defendida pelas centrais sindicais, prevê que a Petrobras deposite os valores devidos, numa espécie de adiantamento, e depois desconte as quantias do montante a ser pago a esses fornecedores. Os trabalhadores seriam beneficiados porque poderão receber mais rapidamente, sem precisar recorrer à Justiça. Para firmar um acordo com abrangência nacional, o Planalto quer o aval do Ministério Público e da Advocacia-Geral da União (AGU). Os detalhes serão discutidos na próxima segunda-feira em reunião coordenada pelo ministro da Casa Civil, Aloizio Mercadante, com a presença das autoridades envolvidas e sindicalistas. Anteontem, trabalhadores das obras da Refinaria de Abreu e Lima (PE) conseguiram fechar um acordo para o recebimento das verbas trabalhistas, em audiência no Tribunal Regional do Trabalho (6ª região), com o sindicato da categoria, a Petrobras e as empresas contratadas. Segundo a Força Sindical, há problemas com trabalhadores terceirizados de prestadores de serviço da Petrobras na Bahia, no Rio Grande do Sul e no Rio (Comperj). Cerca de mil trabalhadores do estaleiro Enseada Indústria Naval realizaram passeata ontem no centro comercial de Salvador e ato em frente à sede regional da Petrobras, em protesto contra 470 demissões no estaleiro, localizado em Maragogipe. O estaleiro tem entre os sócios companhias que estão sendo investigadas na Operação Lava-Jato, como Odebrecht, OAS e UTC.
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.
