O que é este blog?

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

Mostrando postagens com marcador editorial The New York Times. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador editorial The New York Times. Mostrar todas as postagens

segunda-feira, 20 de outubro de 2014

Ebola: o papel positivo e valoroso de Cuba no seu combate (editorialNYT)

Cabe reconhecer o papel de Cuba na luta contra a terrivel epidemia.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

La Impresionante Contribución de Cuba en la Lucha Contra el Ébola


Cuba es una isla pobre y relativamente aislada. Queda a más de 7,000 kilómetros de los países africanos donde el ébola se está esparciendo a un ritmo alarmante. Sin embargo, debido a su compromiso de desplazar a cientos de médicos y enfermeros al eje de la pandemia, Cuba podría terminar jugando el papel más destacado entre las naciones que están trabajando para refrenar la propagación del virus.
La enorme contribución de Cuba, sin duda, forma parte de sus esfuerzos por mejorar su estatus en el escenario mundial. Aún así, debe ser aplaudida e imitada.
El pánico que ha generado la epidemia alrededor del mundo no ha producido una respuesta adecuada por parte de las naciones que tienen la capacidad de contribuir. Aunque Estados Unidos y otros países han ofrecido su disposición a contribuir dinero, únicamente Cuba y unas pocas organizaciones no gubernamentales están proporcionando lo que se necesita con mayor urgencia: profesionales médicos dispuestos a atender pacientes.
Los médicos en África occidental necesitan urgentemente apoyo internacional para construir centros de aislamiento y poner en práctica mejores mecanismos para diagnosticar pacientes, antes de que desarrollen síntomas avanzados. Más de 400 profesionales médicos han sido infectados y, aproximadamente, 4,450 pacientes han muerto. Dado que se han diagnosticado unos pocos casos en Estados Unidos y Europa, las autoridades médicas temen que el virus pronto podría volverse una crisis mundial.

Continue reading the main story

Leer en Inglés (Read in English)


Es lamentable que Washington, el principal contribuyente financiero a la lucha contra el ébola, no tenga vínculos diplomáticos con La Habana, dado que Cuba podría terminar desempeñando la labor más vital. En este caso, la enemistad tiene repercusiones de vida o muerte, ya que las dos capitales no tienen mecanismos para coordinar sus esfuerzos a alto nivel.
Para la administración Obama, este dilema tiene que enfatizar la idea de que los frutos de normalizar la relación con Cuba conlleva muchos más beneficios que riesgos.
De los extranjeros que trabajan en África occidental, los médicos cubanos van a estar entre los más expuestos y, es muy posible, que algunos contraigan el virus. La Organización Mundial de la Salud está coordinando la labor de los médicos, pero no está claro cómo manejaría la atención y el traslado de aquellos que llegaran a enfermarse. Para transportar pacientes con ébola se necesitan equipos de expertos y aviones equipados con cabinas de aislamiento. La mayoría de compañías de seguros han dicho que no están dispuestas a trasladar pacientes con ébola.
El Secretario de Estado John F. Kerry elogió el viernes el “coraje de todo profesional médico que está asumiendo este desafío”, e hizo una alusión breve a la contribución de Cuba. El Ejército estadounidense ha desplazado aproximadamente 550 soldados para respaldar a las autoridades médicas en los países afectados. Sería cuestión de sentido común y compasión que el Pentágono les ofreciera asistencia a los cubanos, en caso de que alguno se enfermase. Por ejemplo, debería darles acceso al centro médico que construyó en la capital de Liberia, y ayudar con la evacuación de médicos enfermos. Es indispensable reconocer que la labor de los especialistas cubanos contribuye al esfuerzo mundial.
Sin embargo, las autoridades estadounidenses, insensiblemente, se han rehusado a indicar si estarían dispuestos a brindar algún tipo de apoyo.
Miembros del sector médico en Cuba son conscientes de los riesgos que toman al asumir misiones peligrosas. Médicos cubanos desempeñaron el rol principal en la lucha contra el cólera en Haití, después del terremoto de 2010. Cuando algunos regresaron enfermos a Cuba, la isla tuvo que combatir el primer brote de la enfermedad en una década. Si el ébola llegara a Cuba, representaría un desafío más serio para la isla y la región, lo que elevaría el riesgo de que se dispare el número de casos en el hemisferio.
Cuba ha enviado médicos y enfermeros a zonas de desastre durante décadas. Luego del huracán Katrina en 2005, el Gobierno en La Habana ofreció enviar a equipos médicos para atender heridos en Nueva Orleans. Líderes estadounidenses rechazaron ese ofrecimiento. Pero se alegraron al oír, en días recientes, que Cuba estuviera movilizando un grupo para misiones en Sierra Leona, Liberia y Guinea.
Con apoyo técnico de la Organización Mundial de la Salud, el gobierno cubano capacitó a 460 médicos y enfermeros en cuanto a las estrictas precauciones que son necesarias para atender a los pacientes que padecen un virus altamente contagioso. El primer grupo, conformado por 165 profesionales, llegó a Sierra Leona en días recientes. José Luis Di Fabio, el representante de la entidad de salud, dijo que el equipo enviado a África incluye médicos que han trabajado anteriormente en la región, lo cual los hace aún más valiosos. “Cuba cuenta con un personal de salud muy competente”, dijo Di Fabio, quien es de origen uruguayo.
Di Fabio dijo que las sanciones que Estados Unidos mantiene sobre la isla han generado dificultades para el sector médico, ya que varios centros carecen de equipos modernos y suministros suficientes.
En una columna publicada este fin de semana en el diario del Gobierno cubano, Granma, Fidel Castro argumenta que Estados Unidos y Cuba deben poner a un lado sus diferencias, así sea temporalmente, para combatir una amenaza global. Tiene toda la razón.



domingo, 11 de maio de 2014

Alarma para o novo perigo mundial: bacterias super-resistentes -Editorial NYT

Raras vezes o jornal produz um editorial deste tipo. O problema é de fato grave.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

EDITORIAL The New York Times, 
10/05/2014

The Rise of Antibiotic Resistance

The World Health Organization has surveyed the growth of antibiotic-resistant germs around the world — the first such survey it has ever conducted — and come up with disturbing findings. In a report issued late last month, the organization found that antimicrobial resistance in bacteria (the main focus of the report), fungi, viruses and parasites is an increasingly serious threat in every part of the world. “A problem so serious that it threatens the achievements of modern medicine,” the organization said. “A post-antibiotic era, in which common infections and minor injuries can kill, far from being an apocalyptic fantasy, is instead a very real possibility for the 21st century.”
The growth of antibiotic-resistant pathogens means that in ever more cases, standard treatments no longer work, infections are harder or impossible to control, the risk of spreading infections to others is increased, and illnesses and hospital stays are prolonged.
All of these drive up the costs of illnesses and the risk of death. The survey sought to determine the scope of the problem by asking countries to submit their most recent surveillance data (114 did so). Unfortunately, the data was glaringly incomplete because few countries track and monitor antibiotic resistance comprehensively, and there is no standard methodology for doing so.
Still, it is clear that major resistance problems have already developed, both for antibiotics that are used routinely and for those deemed “last resort” treatments to cure people when all else has failed.
Carbapenem antibiotics, a class of drugs used as a last resort to treat life-threatening infections caused by a common intestinal bacterium, have failed to work in more than half the people treated in some countries. The bacterium is a major cause of hospital-acquired infections such as pneumonia, bloodstream infections, and infections in newborns and intensive-care patients. Similarly, the failure of a last-resort treatment for gonorrhea has been confirmed in 10 countries, including many with advanced health care systems, such as Australia, Canada, France, Sweden and Britain. And resistance to a class of antibiotics that is routinely used to treat urinary tract infections caused by E. coli is widespread; in some countries the drugs are now ineffective in more than half of the patients treated. This sobering report is intended to kick-start a global campaign to develop tools and standards to track drug resistance, measure its health and economic impact, and design solutions.
The most urgent need is to minimize the overuse of antibiotics in medicine and agriculture, which accelerates the development of resistant strains. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration has issued voluntary guidelines calling on drug companies, animal producers and veterinarians to stop indiscriminately using antibiotics that are important for treating humans on livestock; the drug companies have said they will comply. But the agency, shortsightedly, has appealed a court order requiring it to ban the use of penicillin and two forms of tetracycline by animal producers to promote growth unless they provide proof that it will not promote drug-resistant microbes.
The pharmaceutical industry needs to be encouraged to develop new antibiotics to supplement those that are losing their effectiveness. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society, which represents pharmacists in Britain, called this month for stronger financial incentives. It said that no new class of antibiotics has been discovered since 1987, largely because the financial returns for finding new classes of antibiotics are too low. Unlike lucrative drugs to treat chronic diseases like cancer and cardiovascular ailments, antibiotics are typically taken for a short period of time, and any new drug is apt to be used sparingly and held in reserve to treat patients resistant to existing drugs.
Antibiotics have transformed medicine and saved countless lives over the past seven decades. Now, rampant overuse and the lack of new drugs in the pipeline threatens to undermine their effectiveness.

segunda-feira, 21 de abril de 2014

Global trade: longo editorial do New York Times em favor do modeloamericano

This Time, Get Global Trade Right 

Editorial The New York Times, 19/04/2014


Many Americans have watched their neighbors lose good-paying jobs as their employers sent their livelihoods to China. Over the last 20 years, the United States has lost nearly five million manufacturing jobs. In that same time, however, the prices that Americans pay for basic goods like T-shirts and televisions have fallen. The cost of clothing is down 8.2 percent since 1993, as “made in China” and “made in Bangladesh” labels have crowded out “made in U.S.A.” on the shelves of the local mall.

There is a national ambivalence about our trade of goods and services with the rest of the world, which has more than doubled in the last two decades. Americans want the benefits of trade — and they are potentially big and quite real, including opening up new markets to American cars and software — but they’re increasingly anxious about the downside, which includes closed factories and lower wages. The country needs to pursue new trade agreements, but this time we need to get the agreements right.

With imports outpacing exports, America’s trade deficit has deepened and the country has lost manufacturing jobs.

The deficit in goods is much deeper with China than with the Nafta partners. But there is a job-creating surplus in services, which is bigger with Nafta countries.

This page has long argued that removing barriers to trade benefits the economy and consumers, and some of those gains can be used to help the minority of people who lose their jobs because of increased imports. But those gains have not been as widespread as we hoped, and they have not been adequate to assist those who were harmed. As the Obama administration negotiates two big trade agreements — one with 11 countries along the Pacific Ocean and the other with the European Union — it is appropriate to take stock of what we have learned in the 20 years since the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement and use that knowledge to design better agreements.

To gain the support of a divided Congress and public, the administration must ensure that new agreements are much stronger than Nafta and other pacts. President Obama, who criticized the agreement with Canada and Mexico as a candidate in 2008, promised that his negotiations would avoid a race to lower costs and standards by requiring that countries adhere to common regulations in areas like labor rights, environmental protection and patents. Living up to that promise should be one of his highest priorities.

If done right, these agreements could improve the ground rules of global trade, as even critics of Nafta like Representative Sander Levin, Democrat of Michigan, have argued. They could reduce abuses like sweatshop labor, currency manipulation and the senseless destruction of forests. They could weaken protectionism against American goods and services in countries like Japan, which have sheltered such industries as agriculture and automobiles.

The Pacific agreement, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, could also encourage China, which is not part of the talks, to reconsider its currency and labor policies to avoid being at a disadvantage. (The participants are Vietnam, Malaysia, Japan, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Singapore, New Zealand, Chile, Peru and Brunei.) And a pact with the European Union could harmonize overlapping regulations to reduce the cost of doing business and increase competition. Both pacts could aid American foreign policy by strengthening alliances in Asia and Europe.

WELCOMING BUSINESS, NOT THE PUBLIC

One of the biggest fears of lawmakers and public interest groups is that only a few insiders know what is in these trade agreements, particularly the Pacific pact.

The Obama administration has revealed so few details about the negotiations, even to members of Congress and their staffs, that it is impossible to fully analyze the Pacific partnership. Negotiators have argued that it’s impossible to conduct trade talks in public because opponents to the deal would try to derail them.

But the administration’s rationale for secrecy seems to apply only to the public. Big corporations are playing an active role in shaping the American position because they are on industry advisory committees to the United States trade representative, Michael Froman. By contrast, public interest groups have seats on only a handful of committees that negotiators do not consult closely.

That lopsided influence is dangerous, because companies are using trade agreements to get special benefits that they would find much more difficult to get through the standard legislative process. For example, draft chapters from the Pacific agreement that have been leaked in recent months reveal that most countries involved in the talks, except the United States, do not want the agreement to include enforceable environmental standards. Business interests in the United States, which would benefit from weaker rules by placing their operations in countries with lower protections, have aligned themselves with the position of foreign governments. Another chapter, on intellectual property, is said to contain language favorable to the pharmaceutical industry that could make it harder for poor people in countries like Peru to get generic medicines.

Another big issue is whether these trade agreements will give investors unnecessary power to sue foreign governments over policies they dislike, including health and environmental regulations. Philip Morris, for example, is trying to overturn Australian rules that require cigarette packs to be sold only in plain packaging. If these treaties are written too loosely, big banks could use them to challenge new financial regulations or, perhaps, block European lawmakers from enacting a financial-transaction tax.

SEEKING THE REAL SOURCE OF JOB LOSS

Could these agreements lead to further job losses and exacerbate income inequality in the United States? Many critics are legitimately concerned about more outsourcing of jobs, and there is no doubt that trade, along with automation and financial deregulation, has contributed to income inequality.

But it’s important to remember that our trade with trade-agreement countries, like Mexico, is much more balanced than our trade with China. Those countries buy more American goods and services than they would without an agreement, sending money and jobs back in this direction.

A study published last year blamed increased imports from China for 44 percent of the decline in manufacturing employment from 1990 to 2007. People who lost those jobs were more likely to stop seeking work or to find lower-wage jobs in other industries, suggesting that government programs to retrain workers hurt by trade are inadequate. A second paper by the same scholars concluded that the negative impact of imports from Mexico and Central American nations with which the United States has agreements were “economically small and statistically insignificant.”

It’s easy to point the finger at Nafta and other trade agreements for job losses, but there is a far bigger culprit: currency manipulation. A 2012 paper from the Peterson Institute for International Economics found that the American trade deficit has increased by up to $500 billion a year and the country has lost up to five million jobs because China, South Korea, Malaysia and other countries have boosted their exports by suppressing the value of their currency.

HOW TO WRITE A BETTER AGREEMENT

The trade agreements the Obama administration is negotiating provide a chance for the United States to press countries to stop manipulating their currencies. The administration appears to be afraid that raising the issue could scuttle the talks. It’s time the administration stiffened its spine.

The president also needs to make clear to America’s trading partners that they need to adhere to enforceable labor and environmental regulations. This would level the playing field for American workers and improve the lives of tens of millions of workers in developing countries.

The Obama administration also needs to do much more to counter the demands of corporations with those of the public interest. Consumer and workers groups should have been on the same industry advisory committees. And Mr. Froman, the trade representative, must make clear that these agreements will allow countries to adopt regulations without the threat of a lawsuit from powerful businesses. On patents, the agreements should not cut off developing countries’ access to lifesaving generic medicines.

In recent months the debate about trade, and the Pacific agreement in particular, has become increasingly polarized. Senior Democrats like the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, and the House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, have come out against granting the president trade promotion authority, under which Congress agrees to vote up or down on agreements without amendments.

To a large extent, the administration has only itself to blame. By keeping secret so much information about trade negotiations, which have ceased to be purely about trade matters like tariffs and quotas, the government has made itself a target for criticism. Mr. Obama and Mr. Froman argue that their critics have misunderstood or misrepresented their intentions. But that is precisely why the president should provide answers to the questions people have raised about these agreements. It is time for him to make a strong case for why these new agreements will be good for the American economy and workers.s (EUA) - This Time, Get Global Trade Right (Editorial)


Many Americans have watched their neighbors lose good-paying jobs as their employers sent their livelihoods to China. Over the last 20 years, the United States has lost nearly five million manufacturing jobs. In that same time, however, the prices that Americans pay for basic goods like T-shirts and televisions have fallen. The cost of clothing is down 8.2 percent since 1993, as “made in China” and “made in Bangladesh” labels have crowded out “made in U.S.A.” on the shelves of the local mall.

There is a national ambivalence about our trade of goods and services with the rest of the world, which has more than doubled in the last two decades. Americans want the benefits of trade — and they are potentially big and quite real, including opening up new markets to American cars and software — but they’re increasingly anxious about the downside, which includes closed factories and lower wages. The country needs to pursue new trade agreements, but this time we need to get the agreements right.

With imports outpacing exports, America’s trade deficit has deepened and the country has lost manufacturing jobs.

The deficit in goods is much deeper with China than with the Nafta partners. But there is a job-creating surplus in services, which is bigger with Nafta countries.

This page has long argued that removing barriers to trade benefits the economy and consumers, and some of those gains can be used to help the minority of people who lose their jobs because of increased imports. But those gains have not been as widespread as we hoped, and they have not been adequate to assist those who were harmed. As the Obama administration negotiates two big trade agreements — one with 11 countries along the Pacific Ocean and the other with the European Union — it is appropriate to take stock of what we have learned in the 20 years since the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement and use that knowledge to design better agreements.

To gain the support of a divided Congress and public, the administration must ensure that new agreements are much stronger than Nafta and other pacts. President Obama, who criticized the agreement with Canada and Mexico as a candidate in 2008, promised that his negotiations would avoid a race to lower costs and standards by requiring that countries adhere to common regulations in areas like labor rights, environmental protection and patents. Living up to that promise should be one of his highest priorities.

If done right, these agreements could improve the ground rules of global trade, as even critics of Nafta like Representative Sander Levin, Democrat of Michigan, have argued. They could reduce abuses like sweatshop labor, currency manipulation and the senseless destruction of forests. They could weaken protectionism against American goods and services in countries like Japan, which have sheltered such industries as agriculture and automobiles.

The Pacific agreement, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, could also encourage China, which is not part of the talks, to reconsider its currency and labor policies to avoid being at a disadvantage. (The participants are Vietnam, Malaysia, Japan, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Singapore, New Zealand, Chile, Peru and Brunei.) And a pact with the European Union could harmonize overlapping regulations to reduce the cost of doing business and increase competition. Both pacts could aid American foreign policy by strengthening alliances in Asia and Europe.

WELCOMING BUSINESS, NOT THE PUBLIC

One of the biggest fears of lawmakers and public interest groups is that only a few insiders know what is in these trade agreements, particularly the Pacific pact.

The Obama administration has revealed so few details about the negotiations, even to members of Congress and their staffs, that it is impossible to fully analyze the Pacific partnership. Negotiators have argued that it’s impossible to conduct trade talks in public because opponents to the deal would try to derail them.

But the administration’s rationale for secrecy seems to apply only to the public. Big corporations are playing an active role in shaping the American position because they are on industry advisory committees to the United States trade representative, Michael Froman. By contrast, public interest groups have seats on only a handful of committees that negotiators do not consult closely.

That lopsided influence is dangerous, because companies are using trade agreements to get special benefits that they would find much more difficult to get through the standard legislative process. For example, draft chapters from the Pacific agreement that have been leaked in recent months reveal that most countries involved in the talks, except the United States, do not want the agreement to include enforceable environmental standards. Business interests in the United States, which would benefit from weaker rules by placing their operations in countries with lower protections, have aligned themselves with the position of foreign governments. Another chapter, on intellectual property, is said to contain language favorable to the pharmaceutical industry that could make it harder for poor people in countries like Peru to get generic medicines.

Another big issue is whether these trade agreements will give investors unnecessary power to sue foreign governments over policies they dislike, including health and environmental regulations. Philip Morris, for example, is trying to overturn Australian rules that require cigarette packs to be sold only in plain packaging. If these treaties are written too loosely, big banks could use them to challenge new financial regulations or, perhaps, block European lawmakers from enacting a financial-transaction tax.

SEEKING THE REAL SOURCE OF JOB LOSS

Could these agreements lead to further job losses and exacerbate income inequality in the United States? Many critics are legitimately concerned about more outsourcing of jobs, and there is no doubt that trade, along with automation and financial deregulation, has contributed to income inequality.

But it’s important to remember that our trade with trade-agreement countries, like Mexico, is much more balanced than our trade with China. Those countries buy more American goods and services than they would without an agreement, sending money and jobs back in this direction.

A study published last year blamed increased imports from China for 44 percent of the decline in manufacturing employment from 1990 to 2007. People who lost those jobs were more likely to stop seeking work or to find lower-wage jobs in other industries, suggesting that government programs to retrain workers hurt by trade are inadequate. A second paper by the same scholars concluded that the negative impact of imports from Mexico and Central American nations with which the United States has agreements were “economically small and statistically insignificant.”

It’s easy to point the finger at Nafta and other trade agreements for job losses, but there is a far bigger culprit: currency manipulation. A 2012 paper from the Peterson Institute for International Economics found that the American trade deficit has increased by up to $500 billion a year and the country has lost up to five million jobs because China, South Korea, Malaysia and other countries have boosted their exports by suppressing the value of their currency.

HOW TO WRITE A BETTER AGREEMENT

The trade agreements the Obama administration is negotiating provide a chance for the United States to press countries to stop manipulating their currencies. The administration appears to be afraid that raising the issue could scuttle the talks. It’s time the administration stiffened its spine.

The president also needs to make clear to America’s trading partners that they need to adhere to enforceable labor and environmental regulations. This would level the playing field for American workers and improve the lives of tens of millions of workers in developing countries.

The Obama administration also needs to do much more to counter the demands of corporations with those of the public interest. Consumer and workers groups should have been on the same industry advisory committees. And Mr. Froman, the trade representative, must make clear that these agreements will allow countries to adopt regulations without the threat of a lawsuit from powerful businesses. On patents, the agreements should not cut off developing countries’ access to lifesaving generic medicines.

In recent months the debate about trade, and the Pacific agreement in particular, has become increasingly polarized. Senior Democrats like the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, and the House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, have come out against granting the president trade promotion authority, under which Congress agrees to vote up or down on agreements without amendments.

To a large extent, the administration has only itself to blame. By keeping secret so much information about trade negotiations, which have ceased to be purely about trade matters like tariffs and quotas, the government has made itself a target for criticism. Mr. Obama and Mr. Froman argue that their critics have misunderstood or misrepresented their intentions. But that is precisely why the president should provide answers to the questions people have raised about these agreements. It is time for him to make a strong case for why these new agreements will be good for the American economy and workers.

quarta-feira, 25 de dezembro de 2013

Diplomatas e a escravidao moderna: ainda o caso da India vs EUA -editorial NYT

Eu já tinha postado aqui uma matéria informativa do mesmo jornal sobre este caso de escravidão contemporânea, um típico exemplo do padrão Casa Grande e Senzala muito comum na Índia e ainda vigente em certas partes do Brasil, onde o elitismo e o racismo ainda perduram (e não é no Sul Maravilha).
Agora temos esse editorial do NYTimes para nos relembrar de que não se trata de um ataque à soberania da Índia -- como aliás tentaram fazer alguns calhordas, no passado, ao explorar politicamente um outro caso vinculado ao Brasil, querendo fazer acreditar que a soberania do país residia nos sapatos de um seu representante -- e sim de simples cumprimento à lei.
Mais até do que um caso de soberania, se trata apenas de uma questão de dignidade humana, e até de simples civilidade regular.
O regime de castas na Índia sempre foi uma forma de escravidão e de opressão social. Misturar isso com a soberania do país é um outro exemplo de calhordice, de que são capazes certas pessoas que não tem grandes princípios de direitos humanos, apenas se enrolam na bandeira da pátria, como os canalhas do conhecido refrão sobre o cinismo político.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

EDITORIAL

India’s Misplaced Outrage



Instead of concerning themselves with that injustice, many in India seem incensed that Ms. Khobragade was arrested at all.India’s overwrought reaction to the arrest of one of its diplomats in the United States is unworthy of a democratic government. Officials in New Delhi have inflamed anti-American outrage instead of calling for justice, especially for the domestic worker who is at the heart of the case.
The charges brought against Devyani Khobragade, the deputy consul general in New York, by Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan, should concern anyone who values worker rights. Ms. Khobragade was arrested last week and accused of submitting false documents to obtain a work visa for her housekeeper and paying her far less than the minimum legal wage. Prosecutors say the diplomat promised American authorities she would pay $4,500 a month but actually paid just $573 a month and made the housekeeper work far more than 40 hours a week.
It is not unusual in India for domestic employees to be paid poorly and required to work more than 60 hours a week. But such practices are not allowed under American law, and abuses by anyone should not be tolerated, regardless of their status. It was puzzling that Secretary of State John Kerry issued a statement on Wednesday expressing regret for the incident. All diplomats, including Ms. Khobragade, presumably are made aware of their legal obligations and American procedures before accepting an assignment in the United States.
Even more disturbing is the fact that Indian officials would take extreme steps to retaliate for the arrest — they removed security barriers surrounding the American Embassy compound. Despite the way many Indians seem to view the case, it is not a challenge to India’s honor. It is a charge against one diplomat accused of submitting false documents to evade the law. Ms. Khobragade’s lawyer said she would plead not guilty and challenge the arrest on the grounds of diplomatic immunity, which prosecutors say does not apply in this case. In any event, she will have a full opportunity to defend herself against the charges.

terça-feira, 8 de outubro de 2013

Deu no New York Times: capitalismo companheiro chegou ao seu limite

Que distinção: o Brasil ser contemplado por um editorial sério do New York Times...
Pena que não foi pelos bons motivos...
Aliás, o editorial já começa errado, falando de uma década de crescimento rápido, o que é absolutamente equivocado. O Brasil NUNCA passou de uma média de 4%, e alguns impulsos acima disso não se revelaram sustentáveis. Enquanto o Brasil não investir, não vai haver crescimento decente. E não pode haver investimento, se o governo continuar raspando dois quintos da riqueza produzida pela sociedade.
O Brasil tem uma poupança medíocre (17% do PIB, apenas), e uma carga fiscal elefantesca: 38% do PIB.
Investe menos de 20%, já que o governo não consegue deixar de sugar a riqueza social para gastos correntes.
Será muito difícil de compreender isto?
Leiam vocês mesmos:

EDITORIAL

Brazil’s Next Steps

After a decade of fast growth and rising incomes, Brazil has hit a rough patch that is testing its government’s ability to manage the economy and satisfy the growing aspirations of its people. President Dilma Rousseff, who faces elections next year, needs to push through policy reforms and public investment projects to revive growth and bring inflation under control.

Last year, Brazil’s economy grew only 0.9 percent because private investment slowed down. Analysts expect the growth rate to recover to 2.5 percent this year, but that is still far slower than the 7.5 percent the country achieved in 2010.
In June, tens of thousands of people joined street protests that were prompted by an increase in public-transit fares but quickly became a way for Brazilians to air broader grievances about the rising cost of living, weak infrastructure, political corruption and government spending on big sporting events like the 2014 World Cup. In response to the protests, Ms. Rousseff said she would push for political reforms and investments in infrastructure, but her government has not yet delivered on those promises.
Brazil has made impressive gains under Ms. Rousseff and her predecessor, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Programs like Bolsa Familia, which provides cash to families if they immunize their children and send them to school, have bolstered incomes of the poor and improved their health. About 8 percent of Brazilians lived on less than $2 a day last yeardown from 20 percent 10 years earlier. Infant mortality has fallen by nearly 50 percent.
But while the incomes of the country’s poorest citizens have grown faster than those of its richest in recent years, income inequality remains high. And inflation, which erodes rising incomes, is taking a big toll on the poorest Brazilians. The country’s inflation rate was 6.09 percent in August, according to the central bank, which has raised interest rates several times this year.
People living in cities like São Paulo pay more for food, housing and other basic goods than people in other comparable countries. A big reason for the high prices is that the government has not built enough roads, railways, ports and other infrastructure to keep up with the economy’s growth. Brazil also imposes high import duties and taxes that inflate the price of many goods and services.
The country also needs to reform its education system, which does a poor job preparing young people for skilled jobs in the manufacturing and the service sector. In an international test of the reading, math and science skills of 15-year olds, Brazilian students scored lower than their counterparts in other Latin American countries like Uruguay, Mexico and Colombia.
Brazil has such chronic shortages of skilled professionals that the government is planning to import doctors from other countries. That might be a fine temporary solution, but the government needs to build more universities and improve teaching in primary and secondary schools to make sure more students can pursue higher education.
The nation has seen social advancements in a short time, and now its citizens expect more from their leaders.

domingo, 14 de julho de 2013

Democracy in Egypt: is it possible? - Carol Giacomo (The New York Times)

EDITORIAL
Is Democracy Possible in Egypt?

Hussein Malla/Associated Press
Supporters of Mohamed Morsi, Egypt’s former president, protesting in Cairo on July 10, a week after his ouster by the military.


There is a poll on the Muslim Brotherhood’s English language Web site that asks whether the group should participate in any future election in Egypt. The right answer is yes. But the Brotherhood may not get the chance. After overthrowing President Mohamed Morsi on July 3, the army has tried to crush the Brotherhood, making it hard to see how its members could be enticed to rejoin the political fray or, even if they could be, whether other Egyptian factions would let them compete.
Egypt is the largest and most important country in the Arab world. How it evolves politically and economically will have an enormous impact on stability in the Middle East and will serve as a template for other countries in the region. Euphoria over the Arab Spring and its potential for constructive change subsided long ago, but the alarming events of the past 10 days have raised serious questions about what democracy means and, in Washington at least, questions about whether it can take root in Egypt — ever.
It has been especially surprising to watch many Egyptians and Americans try to cast a military coup — which is what the army executed when it deposed Mr. Morsi, detaining him and many of his Brotherhood allies — as a democratic tool. The Obama administration, hoping to avoid a legally mandated cutoff of United States aid to Egypt, thus further inflaming anti-Americanism there, has used tortuous rhetoric to avoid calling a coup a coup, or even condemning it. So have many lawmakers and analysts who say the surest way to protect American interests in the Egypt-Israel peace treaty, the Suez Canal and Egypt’s cooperation in countering terrorism is to work with the army, Egypt’s most powerful institution.
A different but equally pragmatic case is made by Egyptian liberals, secularists and non-Islamists who bravely took to the streets to force the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak in 2011, voted (in many cases) for Mr. Morsi, then turned against him. As Mr. Morsi proved increasingly eager to impose Islamic authoritarianism on the country, the opposition said it collected more than 20 million signatures on a petition demanding his removal (surpassing the 13 million votes Mr. Morsi won in the 2012 election ) and rallied millions of protesters. In their analysis, the army was simply honoring the people’s will when it forced Mr. Morsi out. Some Egyptians say they will do that again if the next president also fails them.
The basic flaw in these arguments is that coups, forcible overthrows, whatever one calls them, do not provide a foundation for stability or sound representative government. And unlike Mr. Mubarak, Mr. Morsi was not an autocrat imposed by the army, but the country’s first freely elected president. True, he was a disastrous leader. But as The Times has reported, remnants of Mr. Mubarak’s old order worked hard to sabotage him. It would have been better if his opposition, including the protesters, had worked to defeat him at the ballot box.
Many Egyptians say they want a second chance to begin building a “real democracy,” with guaranteed equal rights for all and a separation of religion and politics. They deserve it. But it seems unlikely that the army, which has played a dominant role since 1952 and is now back in control, will help them reach that goal. In addition to appointing the leaders of a new interim government who may or may not have any real power, the generals have dictated a conservative, pro-military interim constitution and set a rushed timetable for elections.
Elections alone, of course, are not enough, as the Morsi debacle proved. Egypt is facing daunting economic and social problems, and it needs to find a consensus way forward to build the institutions — judiciary, electoral system, schools — that allow all citizens a say in civic life, protect against autocratic leaders, and adapt and endure over time. One American analyst, Walter Russell Mead, says the White House should “purge all short- or even medium-term thoughts of promoting Egypt’s transition to democracy.” But that would only ensure that the newly empowered old order retains the upper hand. It remains distressingly unclear whether President Obama believes that promoting Egyptian democracy is a priority of American foreign policy. It should be.


A version of this editorial appeared in print on July 14, 2013, on page SR10 of the New York edition with the headline: Is Democracy Possible in Egypt?.

sexta-feira, 21 de junho de 2013

Deu (de novo) no New York Times: "Despertar social no Brasil" (não seria o adormecer da razao?)

Esse tal de despertar social no Brasil, segundo o editorial do New York Times, pode ser um adormecer da democracia, pois está claro que os grupelhos organizados que provocaram a onda de manifestações não estão interessados num processo de reformas gradual, para tirar o Brasil do brejo corrupto e corruptor no qual ele se encontra hoje. Nem o governo, acuado como se vê, vai deixar de recorrer a forças policiais, e até às Forças Armadas, para restabelecer uma aparência de ordem, que foi perdida muito tempo atrás, quando o próprio governo sancionou, tolerou, foi até conivente com todas as violações da legalidade, com a violência de meliantes organizados politicamente, com todas as barbaridades cometidas pelos seus próprios "aliados".
Ou seja, temos e teremos tempos sombrios pela frente, até que o vigor da tropa acalme as tribos bárbaras que andam depredando e queimando um pouco em todas as partes.
Talvez o próprio governo se convença do bem fundamentado que é o velho adágio popular: cacete não é santo, mas de vez em quando faz milagres...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

The New York Times, June 20, 2013

Social Awakening in Brazil



The huge street protests sweeping across Brazil this week caught almost everyone by surprise. But maybe they shouldn’t have.
For all of Brazil’s achievements over the past few decades — a stronger economy, democratic elections, more money and attention directed toward the needs of the poor — there is still a huge gap between the promises of Brazil’s ruling leftist politicians and the harsh realities of day-to-day life outside the political and business elite.
The World Bank lists Brazil as the world’s seventh-largest economy, but puts it in the bottom 10 percent on income equality. Its 15-year-olds rank near the bottom in global rankings of reading and math skills. A succession of its top politicians have been implicated in flagrant payoff schemes and other misuse of public funds.
No wonder that public-transit fare increases provoked outrage from the poor and middle class, who are burdened by a regressive tax system. No wonder that lavish spending on World Cup soccer stadiums while public education remains grievously underfinanced became a rallying cry. To her credit, President Dilma Rousseff has tried to be responsive to the demonstrators. She declared that she welcomes the desire for change, and will respond to it. Local authorities have rolled back the transit fare increases that triggered the protests.
But this week’s marches and demonstrations have revealed public anger at skewed spending priorities and failures in education and other social services as well as a broad constituency for change. In the northeastern city of Fortaleza Wednesday, soccer fans in the newly built stadium and star players on the field signaled their support for the protesters outside.
Brazil’s long silent majority seems to be finding its political voice. Ms. Rousseff, who is up for re-election next year, will have to address new demands with substance as well as sympathy.