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

terça-feira, 25 de março de 2014

Venezuela: contra duas ditaduras despreziveis, os mestres e os vassalos- NYT

CARACAS JOURNAL

Protesting in Venezuela, With Antipathy Toward Cuba

At a protest this month in Caracas, Venezuela, doctors’ signs spoke to a Cuban presence in their field.
MERIDITH KOHUT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES

CARACAS, Venezuela — Enraged as they are by their nation’s leaders, many of the protesters who have spilled onto Venezuela’s streets have their eyes fixed on another government altogether, one they resent perhaps just as bitterly as their own: Cuba’s.
The Cuban government and its president, Raúl Castro, they contend, have leeched off Venezuela’s oil wealth, grafted Cuba’s rigid brand of socialism onto their country and helped choreograph a broad crackdown on dissent.
Their rancor is echoed by the Cuban opposition, which has thrown itself behind the Venezuelan protesters’ cause with gusto, sharing photos and videos of protests and police abuse on Twitter, urging Venezuelans to resist and evenrapping an apology for what they call Cuba’s meddling.
The fixation with the influence of Cuba in Venezuela’s affairs reflects how meshed the two countries’ economic and political realities remain a year after the death of Venezuela’s longtime president, Hugo Chávez, who was Fidel Castro’s closest foreign ally.



“We are invaded by Cubans,” said Reinerit Romero, 48, a secretary who attended a recent demonstration here to protest shortages of basic foodstuffs. The Venezuelan armed forces, she asserted, are infiltrated with Cuban agents dressed in Venezuelan uniforms.
At the same march, Carlos Rasquin, 60, a psychiatrist, carried a sign that read, “No to Cubanization.” By “Cubanization,” he said, he meant repressing dissident activity, quashing private enterprise and eliminating perceived enemies of the government in civil society.
“You can’t see it very much, but you can feel it a lot,” he said of the Cuban presence.
“Everyone knows that the Cubans control military intelligence, police intelligence,” he added, standing near dozens of soldiers in riot gear, armed with shotguns, tear gas and truncheons, who blocked demonstrators from marching on government offices. “They control the coordination of the armed forces.”
Such convictions are held by critics in both countries, although they offer little hard evidence to back their suspicions. And while some former Venezuelan military officers say that Cubans are involved in decision-making in the armed forces, some protesters go further, professing to see what they call “the hairy hand” of Cuba everywhere: saying they have detected Cuban “infiltrators” at street protests; seeing a Cuban hallmark in the tactics of Venezuela’s armed forces; and circulating unsubstantiated Internet reports that Cuban special forces, or Black Wasps, are operating in Venezuela.
“You can hear their accents,” said Rubén Izquierdo, an engineer who said that Cuban agents were surely among the crowd at the recent march. “I’ve seen it. They direct the repression.”
When government officials called last week for a criminal investigation of a prominent opposition lawmaker, María Corina Machado, accusing her of treason for supporting the protests, she said, “It’s clear to me that it was the Castro brothers who gave the order” for the actions against her.
The Cuban government, which dismisses its own domestic opposition as mercenaries paid by the American government, has not responded directly to such assertions.
Instead, Bruno Rodríguez, the Cuban foreign minister, made an attack this month on “interference” in Venezuela — by the Organization of American States and the United States, where lawmakers like Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, have called for tougher action against Venezuela’s government and accused Cuba of “exporting repression” there.
Mr. Rubio, a fiery defender of the American economic embargo of Cuba,introduced legislation with two other senators this month that would authorize $15 million in new funding next year for human rights and civil society programs in Venezuela and require President Obama to impose sanctions on people involved in serious human rights violations.
The protests in Venezuela have energized members of Cuba’s fragmented and heavily monitored opposition, becoming a focus for activism that, some feel, yields frustratingly little on the island.
“My Twitter account right now is basically Venezuelan,” said Orlando Luis Pardo Lazo, a Cuban opposition blogger currently in the United States. He said he was in touch with members of the Venezuelan opposition via Facebook and Twitter, and would like to see actions that show solidarity, such as a “peace flotilla” off the Venezuelan coast.
“The fate of Castro-ism may be at play in Venezuela,” Mr. Pardo said. “What we were not able to topple in Cuba, we may be able to topple there.”
Venezuelan opposition members’ resentment of Cuba stems partly from a deal under which their oil-rich country ships about $4 billion worth of crude oil to Cuba each year. In return, Cuba has sent thousands of doctors, dentists, technicians and sports coaches to work in Venezuela. Critics question how the value of those workers is calculated and point to problems in some of the social programs they work in, but many among Venezuela’s poor praise the Cuban presence, especially the doctors.
“It’s a great benefit,” said Marisol Echenique, 34, who on a recent morning stopped at a free neighborhood clinic operated by Cuban doctors, where she was given medicine for a stomach problem. “We can come here at any hour and depend on the Cubans.” She added that a niece takes dance lessons with a Cuban instructor through a separate government program.
Still, even among supporters of the relationship, there are occasional culture clashes.
“I value the Cuban doctors,” said Arizay Vegas, 40, waiting at a clinic staffed by Cuban doctors in Caracas. She recalled rushing to the clinic at 4 a.m. about a year ago, when her 2-year-old granddaughter fell out of bed and cut her head. “Here it’s very fast, and the treatment is good,” she said.
But when the Cuban doctor in charge of the clinic asked a reporter to leave because he did not have permission to interview patients, Ms. Vegas became indignant.
“We’re not in Cuba, we’re in Venezuela,” Ms. Vegas said. “I’m free to say whatever I want.”
The opposition is deeply suspicious of Cuba’s influence over policy and government decisions. Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, frequently praises the Castros in public speeches. When Mr. Chávez was ailing from cancer he went to Cuba for his surgery. And in the weeks before his death last year, Havana seemed almost to have become a de facto seat of Venezuela’s government, as a stream of top officials jetted there for meetings.
Beyond that, there is a sense among some in the Venezuelan opposition that the country, with its shortages of basic products and long lines, is becoming more like Cuba by the day.
“It’s a kind of a replay of the misery and the lines that you see in Cuba,” Mr. Rasquin said.
Danilo Maldonado Machado, a Cuban graffiti artist known as El Sexto, hopes that the protests will force out Mr. Maduro, bring an end to the oil subsidies and plunge Cuba into economic chaos. “I am convinced Maduro will fall,” Mr. Maldonado said.
That is a fearful prospect for many Cubans, who lived through years of blackouts and punishing shortages after the Soviet Union collapsed. It is also highly speculative: The government appears very stable, although Mr. Maduro, who was elected nearly a year ago, frequently says he is the target of conspiracies and coup plots. On Tuesday, he said that three air force generals had been arrested and accused of planning a military uprising.
Berta Soler, leader of the Ladies in White, a prominent dissident group in Cuba, said it was unclear what effect events in Venezuela would have on the island. “At the end of the day, we have to find our own way forward,” she said.
Still, the notion that Cuba’s future is at play in Venezuela is tempting hard-liners from both sides, including influential Cuban Americans, to polarize the conflict further, said Arturo López-Levy, a former Cuban security analyst who lectures at the University of Denver.
“Compromise is not a word in the lexicon of the Cuban revolution,” or of the Cuban exile community, Mr. López-Levy said.
For all the connections between the countries, Venezuela is far from the level of state vigilance that keeps Cubans on edge and allows security officials to snuff out protests before dissidents even leave their houses, analysts and opposition members said.
“There is a civil society in Venezuela,” said Eugenio Yañez, a Cuban commentator and former academic who lives in Miami. “The Cuban opposition would love to be able to do what they’re doing in Venezuela, but they can’t.

sexta-feira, 21 de março de 2014

Historia: tiranos perdem ao final - Venezuela

Não custa lembrar: quanto mais Hitler invadia, matava, dominava, massacrava, mais ele perdia e se aproximava de seu final. Demorou um pouco: 3 anos ou mais, mas ele acabou derrotado. 
A opressão sempre perde para a liberdade, quaisquer que sejam os sacrifícios consentidos. 
Paulo Roberto de Almeida 


Venezuelan Mayors Are Jailed Amid Protests


CARACAS, Venezuela — The authorities have jailed the mayors of two cities that have experienced some of the most intense unrest in a wave of protests that has shaken the country in recent weeks. The arrests came as the National Assembly called for a criminal investigation of a prominent opposition lawmaker on charges related to the demonstrations.
The intelligence police on Wednesday arrested Daniel Ceballos, the mayor of San Cristóbal, a city near the western border with Colombia where the protests began in early February. Many parts of San Cristóbal have been virtually shut down for weeks by demonstrators manning barricades, and clashes between residents and security forces are common.
Mr. Ceballos was arrested during a trip to Caracas, the capital. The justice minister, Miguel Rodríguez, said that the mayor had been taken into custody on a judicial order after citizens filed court papers accusing him of failing to take appropriate measures, like picking up garbage, to keep the city functioning during the protests.
Mr. Ceballos belongs to the Popular Will party, headed by Leopoldo López, a former mayor of a wealthy section of Caracas. Mr. López was jailed on President Nicolás Maduro’s orders over a month ago on charges of instigating violence.
The other mayor, Enzo Scarano, who leads a municipality within the nation’s third-largest city, Valencia, was also jailed on Wednesday after the Supreme Court ruled that he had not carried out an order to remove barricades set up by protesters. The court sentenced him to more than 10 months in jail and ordered him removed from office.
In a televised speech, Mr. Maduro vowed, “There will be justice here, and no one and nothing is going to undermine the will for justice of the Venezuelan state and society.”
Mr. Maduro calls the protesters fascists and has taken to mocking them and opposition politicians with references to the horror movie character Chucky, a murderous doll. On Thursday he referred to a group of opposition leaders, including Mr. López, in this way: “This man who is in prison, Chucky-crazy, Chucky-prisoner, the other Chucky, Chucky-chucky, Chucky-chucka, this Chucky, Chucky-lookie.”
He called Mr. Ceballos “this murderer we now have in prison” and accused Mr. Scarano of openly supporting a coup.
Also this week, the National Assembly, which is controlled by Mr. Maduro’s Socialist Party, asked the national prosecutor to investigate the opposition lawmaker María Corina Machado, a close ally of Mr. López’s.
The protests began with student demonstrations over violent crime and soon expanded to express complaints about a crippled economy and frustration over the Socialist Party’s monopoly control of all branches of government.
Students held a rally in Caracas on Thursday to protest the arrests of the mayors. When they tried to march to a nearby university, they were blocked by the police and soldiers.
“By arresting the mayors, the government is throwing more fuel on the fire,” said Gabriela Sariegui, 22, an engineering student.
María Eugenia Díaz contributed reporting.

quarta-feira, 26 de fevereiro de 2014

Venezuela-Ucrania: comparacoes possiveis? - Barbara Kotschwar

Can Venezuela Learn from Ukraine?

by 
Peterson Institute of International Economics, February 25th, 2014 | 01:37 pm 
Even as the crisis in Ukraine abates, with an incumbent president on the run and a prominent opposition leader freed from prison, a similar crisis in Venezuela rages on. While the nature and details of the two conflicts differ, both have been spurred by a fundamental disagreement regarding the country’s economic development model.
Ukraine has stagnated while its neighbors, most prominently Poland, have modernized and grown more prosperous. The decision by President Viktor Yanukovich to withdraw from a European Union Economic Association Agreement and turn towards Russia touched off a firestorm of protest. In Venezuela, the accumulated effects of former President Hugo Chavez’s socialist model, carried forward by his hand-picked successor, Nicolas Maduro, have led to heightened crime, inflation and rampant shortages, compounded by suspicions of corruption and a lack of transparency. These conditions have touched off a series of protests.
Venezuela is a sharply divided society. Stark socioeconomic divisions stemming from decades of political polarization and the management of wealth by two alternating political parties led to the rise of Chavez. Chavez managed to redistribute some of Venezuela’s wealth to the poor and lower middle classes and gave a voice to many who were disenfranchised by the elitist power structure. He failed to put in place a sustainable economic model, however, and Venezuelans have suffered as a result. Venezuela’s inflation rate, about 55 percent last year, vies with countries such as Sudan for the highest in the world. While support for Chavez’s socialist model has endured for more than a decade, this month’s protests signify that the rapidly deteriorating economic conditions and the political controls required to continue with this model have exhausted some of that support. The presidential elections last year reflected this trend: Opposition leader Henrique Capriles won 49.1 percent of the popular vote against Maduro’s 50.6 percent.
Examples of the exhaustion of Chavez’s model abound. Shortages—famously, of toilet paper, but also of necessities such as milk, cooking oil, and medicines—have become a part of daily life in Venezuela. The exchange rate, officially at 6.3 bolivares per dollar, trades in unofficial markets at between 75 and 88 bolivares per dollar. Oil-rich Venezuela also suffers from regular power blackouts. Maduro blames these on sabotage by the opposition or by US conspirators, but a more likely cause is the deterioration of the electrical grid. Transportation infrastructure is in collapse. So is the economy. Crime is high and has been rising. The murder rate—brought to international attention by the January slaying of a Venezuelan beauty queen and her family—has quadrupled in the past decade and a half and now stands at 79 per 100,000 (122 homicides per 100,000 residents in the capital, Caracas).
While Venezuela protests have not yet risen to the scale of violence as experienced by Ukraine this month, at least eight people have died since the protests began in early February, and at least a hundred have been injured. Maduro seems to be following Yanukovich’s repressive lead, jailing an opposition leader, sending troops to border areas, threatening to cut off gas supplies to opposition areas and vowing to continue to crack down on the protesters and opposition. Maduro has also resorted to his default tactic of blaming the United States, expelling three US diplomats last week and revoking the press credentials of a number of CNN journalists.
The Ukrainian opposition to repression was sparked by its call for a closer relationship with the European Union, and EU diplomacy helped broker a deal calling for new elections and discussions for assistance in a post-Yanukovych era. Venezuela does not have an European Union to turn to. The closest proxy could have been the Mercosur, or Southern Common Market, the customs union whose largest member, Brazil, has considerable influence in the region. But with Venezuela chairing the customs union, it is unlikely that Mercosur can play a role.
The Maduro administration continues to receive domestic support, particularly from those who suffered most under the previous regime. Pro-government demonstrations match the opposition protesters. The question now is how long Maduro can last. Oil exports offer some policy space, although Venezuela is hampered by a rapid decline in reserves. The Central Bank reports $21.3 billion, the lowest level since 2004, when the price of oil was less than half the current level. Mercosur has emphasized the importance of democracy and supporting Maduro, and Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has proclaimed her solidarity with him as well.
Mercosur’s core principles include economic integration and the adherence to democracy. In fact, its “democracy clause” calls for the immediate expulsion of members who deviate from this system of governance.1 Since Venezuela joined the group in 2012, however, it has performed terribly on both economics and democracy. The power of the executive has increasingly grown. In November 2013, Venezuela’s National Assembly granted President Maduro the power to pass laws on economic and anti-corruption issues by decree for a period of 12 months, effectively limiting their own power of checks and balances. Limits have increasingly been placed on the press and other media. Opposition television stations were denied licenses, and content is regulated. Venezuela’s 2004 media law makes it illegal to disseminate information that could sow panic among the general public, and in November 2013, the telecommunications regulator ordered Internet service providers to block websites providing the black market exchange rate.
Last week Freedom House, in response to Maduro’s censure of international channel NTN24, which was covering the protests, condemned Venezuela for its effort to “tighten press restrictions, including censorship of media, as well as detentions and violence against journalists.” According to Transparency International, Venezuela ranks 160th out of 177 countries in terms of its corruption perception index—one step below Zimbabwe. None of these examples inspire confidence in the state of Venezuela’s democracy—or in Mercosur’s willingness to call out its member’s transgressions.
The other actor that could potentially play a positive role is the United States, Venezuela’s largest trading partner. US-Venezuela relations are bitter, however. President Chavez, citing diplomatic cables at the time, accused the United States of masterminding a 2002 coup against him, and the two countries have not exchanged ambassadors since 2008. Statements accusing the United States of sabotage and invitations to provide asylum for the antisecrecy activist Edward J. Snowden have not helped. However, Secretary of State John F. Kerry did meet with Foreign Minister Elias Jaua last summer, and bilateral thawing efforts have taken place intermittently. President Maduro has reportedly called for a high level meeting with the United States to provide information relating to the protests.
For Venezuela’s sake, President Maduro should be watching events unfold in Ukraine and act to avoid the sort of bloodshed that finally led to the ouster of Yanukovych. If he does, he may buy himself some more time to devise a strategy to unwind some of the most egregious economic distortions.
Last April, at the Peterson Institute’s spring Global Economic Prospects meeting, we predicted [pdf] that Venezuelan President Maduro would be unable to continue Hugo Chavez’s legacy of 21st century socialism because of serious economic and political pressures. Those pressures have only increased. With his own party far from united, question marks regarding the role of the military, and a strengthening protest movement, it is only a matter of time before Venezuela also reaches a breaking point. Perhaps helped by a coordinated effort by the Mercosur countries and the United States, Venezuela should step up to the challenge.
Note
1. In fact, the democracy clause has been invoked twice—once, successfully preventing General Oviedo from effecting a coup in Paraguay in 1996, and the second time, more controversially, invoked against Paraguay in 2012 for impeaching its left-leaning president. This latter expulsion of Paraguay from the Mercosur cleared the way for Venezuela’s entry into the bloc.

sexta-feira, 21 de fevereiro de 2014

Venezuela: os amigos da Carta Democratica da OEA sobre a violencia

Estes "amigos" fazem aquilo que o Secretário Geral da OEA não faz, ou seja, defender a Carta Democrática, seus valores e princípios, e tampouco os governos amigos do governo bolivariano da Venezuela.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

De: Voluntad Popular Internacional [mailto:coordinacioninternacionalvp@gmail.com]
Enviada em: sexta-feira, 21 de fevereiro de 2014 16:07
Assunto: Declaración de los Amigos de la Carta Democrática Interamericana sobre Venezuel

Declaración de los Amigos de la Carta Democrática Interamericana sobre la situación en Venezuela

Los Amigos de la Carta Democrática Interamericana expresan su rechazo ante los hechos ocurridos con ocasión de la manifestación pacífica convocada por organizaciones estudiantiles el 12 de febrero pasado en Venezuela. En este sentido, el grupo de Los Amigos lamenta la perdida de vidas humana y los heridos, y hace pública su enérgica condena a la detención de más de 100 estudiantes, algunos de los cuales han denunciado que sufrieron atentados a su integridad física.
Especialmente preocupante es el allanamiento a la oficina de un partido político sin orden judicial, así como la detención del coordinador del partido político Voluntad Popular, Leopoldo López.  Dicha situación configura una criminalización de la actividad política de los sectores de oposición, lo cual es inaceptable en una sociedad democrática.
Igualmente preocupantes son los obstáculos existentes para que los medios de comunicación informen sobre los acontecimientos, incluyendo las amenazas de penalidades que conduce a la autocensura, la eliminación del aire de un canal televisora internacional y la falta de papel para la prensa escrita.
En virtud de estos graves hechos, el Grupo de Amigos de la Carta Democrática:
1.     Condenan la represión de las manifestaciones pacíficas y la detención arbitraria de estudiantes venezolanos;
2.     Condenan la detención arbitraria de dirigentes políticos;
3.     Requieren la inmediata liberación de todas las personas todavía detenidas, en los términos en que el derecho a la libertad personal está garantizado por la Constitución venezolana, el Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos de Naciones Unidas, y otros instrumentos internacionales que obligan a Venezuela, sin perjuicio de que quienes hayan sido inculpados por hechos de violencia o vandalismo, sean sometidos a los procedimientos legales para determinar su responsabilidad, con las debidas garantías al debido proceso;
4.     Requieren una investigación independiente exhaustiva y transparente de los hechos de violencia así como de las denuncias de abusos contra estudiantes detenidos;
5.     Llaman al Gobierno de Venezuela a respetar y garantizar las condiciones necesarias para la realización de las actividades políticas por parte de la oposición y los sectores sociales que lo adversan, como está garantizado en la Carta Democrática Inter-Americana;
6.     Recuerdan a todos los venezolanos y venezolanas que el ejercicio de su derecho constitucional a protestar deber ser pacífico, tolerante y respetuoso del pluralismo de una sociedad democrática.
Urgimos a los líderes políticos buscar urgentemente soluciones y mecanismos que prevengan una escalada del conflicto en el país.

El Grupo de Amigos de la Carta Democrática Interamericana lo integran ex Presidentes, ex Primeros Ministros, ex miembros de gabinete, expertos y promotores de los Derechos Humanos del hemisferio, que procuran incrementar el reconocimiento y cumplimiento de la Carta Democrática Interamericana, así como prevenir que tensiones políticas se conviertan en crisis que amenacen la estabilidad democrática. Los Amigos de la Carta Democrática visitan países para analizar conflictos políticos, animar a la ciudadanía y a los gobiernos a utilizar los instrumentos internacionales para proteger sus democracias y resolver conflictos constitucionales. Asimismo, formulan recomendaciones a la Organización de Estados Americanos para aplicar la Carta Democrática con un carácter preventivo y constructivo. El Centro Carter actúa como la secretaría de los Amigos de la Carta Democrática Interamericana.
Amigos de la Carta Democrática Interamericana
Diego Abente Brun
Ex Ministro de Justicia y Trabajo - Paraguay
Cecilia BlondetEx Ministra para la Promoción de la Mujer y el Desarrollo Humano - Perú
Jorge CastañedaEx Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores - México
Joe Clark
Ex Primer Ministro y ex Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores Canadá
John Graham
Presidente Emérito, Fundación Canadiense Para las Américas (FOCAL), Canadá
Osvaldo Hurtado
Ex Presidente - Ecuador
John ManleyEx Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores - Canadá
Torquato JardimEx Magistrado del Tribunal Superior Electoral - Brasil
Barbara McDougallEx Secretaria de Estado para Relaciones Exteriores - Canadá
Sonia Picado
Presidenta Instituto inter-americano de Derechos Humanos
Andrés Pastrana
Ex Presidente Colombia
Eduardo SteinEx Vicepresidente Guatemala
Sergio Ramirez
Ex Vicepresidente Nicaragua
Joaquín VillalobosFundador del Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional (FMLN), Firmante de los Acuerdos de Paz de El Salvador en 1992
Sir Ronald Sanders
Miembro del Grupo de Personas Eminentes del Commonwealth 2010-2011
Alejandro Toledo
Ex Presidente de Perú
Fernando Tuesta SoldevillaEx Director 
Oficina Nacional de Procesos Electorales - Perú

quinta-feira, 13 de fevereiro de 2014

Venezuela: uma situacao que se deteriora a cada instante; e a Unasur???

NOTICIA EN DESARROLLO

Reportan que comisión del Servicio Bolivariano de Inteligencia llegó a la sede del partido Voluntad Popular

Reportan que comisión del Servicio Bolivariano de Inteligencia llegó a la sede del partido Voluntad Popular
NTN24
A través de redes sociales reportan que una comisión del Servicio Bolivariano de Inteligencia (Sebin), llegó a la sede del partido político Voluntad, cuyo coordinador nacional es el opositor Leopoldo López.


MÁS DE 30 DETENIDOS

Ecuador expresa su apoyo a Maduro tras jornada de manifestaciones en Venezuela que dejó tres muertos

Ecuador expresa su apoyo a Maduro tras jornada de manifestaciones en Venezuela que dejó tres muertos
Archivo AFP
Ecuador expresó este miércoles su "total apoyo" al gobierno de Nicolás Maduro, tras disturbios en manifestaciones a favor y en contra de su aliado venezolano, que dejaron al menos tres muertos y decenas de heridos.

En un comunicado, la cancillería de Quito atribuyó los hechos de violencia a la oposición venezolana.
Ecuador "condena los actos de violencia y vandalismo producidos por elementos irresponsables de la oposición", según el mensaje oficial.
Asimismo, "hace votos por el pronto restablecimiento de la paz social" y por que "prime el respeto al gobierno y las instituciones legítimamente constituidas" en Venezuela.
Al menos tres muertos, 26 heridos y más de 30 detenidos dejaban este miércoles las protestas en varias ciudades del país contra el gobierno venezolano, cuyo presidente las calificó como un intento de golpe de Estado.
Miles de estudiantes, acompañados por dirigentes de la oposición, marcharon contra la inseguridad, la inflación y la falta de productos básicos.
Las marchas derivaron en choques entre opositores, grupos chavistas y unidades antimotines.
Publicado el 13 Febrero 2014

SURGE TRAS DENUNCIAS DE MADURO

Ministra de Información convoca a marchas "en desagravio por la violencia opositora” en Venezuela

Ministra de Información convoca a marchas "en desagravio por la violencia opositora” en Venezuela
Ministra de Información Delcy Rodríguez / Foto tomada de Twitter @@DrodriguezMinci
El gobierno venezolano convocó este jueves a manifestaciones "contra el fascismo", horas después que universitarios protagonizaran las mayores protestas que haya enfrentado el presidente Nicolás Maduro y que dejaron un saldo de tres muertos y decenas de heridos y detenidos.

Bajo el lema "Venezuela unida contra el fascismo", la ministra de Información Delcy Rodríguez convocó el jueves a "todos los movimientos sociales y pueblo" a una concentración "en desagravio por la violencia opositora!!".
 
La convocatoria sucede a la denuncia de Maduro sobre un "golpe de Estado en marcha" y a la orden de detención emitida contra el líder opositor Leopoldo López, acusado de homicidio, lesiones graves y asociación para delinquir.
 
 
Este jueves varias plazas y parques del país amanecieron fuertemente custodiados por las fuerzas de seguridad. Antes que el gobierno convocara a la marcha de este jueves, varios voceros estudiantiles habían prometido que se mantendrían en las calles, pero no había ningún acto convocado formalmente más allá de varios mensajes en twitter.
 
"El llamado es a la lucha no violenta del pueblo de Venezuela. NO HAY MIEDO", escribió Gaby Arellano, líder estudiantil de la Universidad de Los Andes (ULA), que en los últimos días inició protestas en los estados Táchira, Zulia y Mérida (oeste), en cuya capital hubo una decena de estudiantes detenidos y cinco heridos de bala el martes.
 
Una vocera de la diputada opositora María Corina Machado, una de las promotoras de las manifestaciones, dijo a una agencia internacional de noticias que por ahora no han convocado ningún acto en las calles.
 
En un encendido discurso por radio y televisión tras los disturbios, Maduro denunció "un golpe de Estado en desarrollo", pero prometió que "la revolución bolivariana va a triunfar" y aseguró dio "instrucciones muy claras a los cuerpos de seguridad [...] quien salga a tratar de ejercer violencia sin permiso para movilizarse será detenido".
 
Publicado el 13 Febrero 2014
Fuentes: AFP

sexta-feira, 21 de dezembro de 2012

Venezuela: incertezas no pos-Chavez (entrevista PRA)

Um assistente do jornalista Sidney Rezende solicitou-me uma opinião sobre a Venezuela pós-Chávez. Como sempre, jornalistas reduzem tudo o que conseguem em poucas linhas, o que deveria valer para o jornal impresso (não para blogs e sites).
Em todo caso, transcrevo primeiro o que saiu publicado, e logo abaixo, a íntegra do que escrevi, para conferir o que faltou...
Eu não disse, exatamente, que o pós-Chávez seria traumático para a Venezuela. Acho, na verdade, que seria uma boa coisa, um alívio, para todos (menos para os que gostam de ditaduras, como os companheiros), mas que o processo, em si, seria traumático, pois ditadores fascistas costumam dividir o país, e contribuir para o aumento da violência, com brigadas de energúmenos armados. Acho que o potencial de termos mais sofrimento humano, além do desastre econômico é muito grande.  
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Nesta semana, o presidente da Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, internado em Cuba devido a um câncer na região pélvica, foi vítima de uma infecção pulmonar que agravou seu estado de saúde. O quadro aumentou a possibilidade de Chávez não assumir seu novo mandato no próximo 10 de janeiro e acendeu o debate sobre as consequências de uma possível troca de presidente no país.
Para entender melhor o que pode acontecer não só na Venezuela mas em todo o continente americano caso o atual líder deixe o poder, o SRZD conversou com Paulo Roberto de Almeida, doutor em Ciências Sociais pela Universidade de Bruxelas e professor do Instituto de Relações Internacionais do Centro Universitário de Brasília.
Almeida não tem dúvidas de que uma troca no posto mais alto do executivo venezuelano provocaria grandes transformações no contexto político do continente. "As consequências seriam extremamente significativas para a Venezuela, para os países dependentes dos petrodólares e para os alinhados às suas teses políticas, como Bolívia e Equador", afirma.
O professor ressalta que Chávez representou uma mudança de impacto imensurável em sua nação. "Ele minou as bases do antigo sistema político e o substituiu por um baseado na oposição entre o próprio caudilho e todos os demais", comenta Almeida. "Apesar da linguagem de esquerda, seu governo teve traços fascistas como a exaltação de sua figura, a concentração de poderes do executivo, a transformação ideológica das forças armadas e a constituição de brigadas de milicianos".
Segundo o professor, a saída de Chávez do poder também provocaria uma
reviravolta econômica, já que o socialista intensificou a dependência do petróleo na economia "sem qualquer controle institucional sobre esses recursos, convertidos segundo as preferências pessoais do caudilho", nas palavras do especialista.
Se Hugo Chávez não vier a tomar posse em seu novo mandato, Almeida prevê
uma grande instabilidade no país. "É provável que o grau de anomia política, de desestruturação institucional e mesmo de violência política aumentem. Nenhum país consegue sair impune de um regime de exceção como foi o de Hugo Chávez", declara o professor.
Caso a doença impeça Chávez de se manter no poder, novas eleições seriam convocadas em 30 dias. O candidato da situação seria o atual vice-presidente, Nicolás Maduro. Segundo Paulo Roberto, "ele teria de construir seu comando sobre as forças chavistas e estabelecer sua própria legitimidade política, o que não se baseia apenas em resultados eleitorais, mas em apelo popular, o que não se sabe se ele terá".
Por fim, o professor compara a situação com a de países socialistas que passaram por trocas de comando. "Em outras nações, ou se adotou a solução 'dinástica' ou ocorreram rupturas traumáticas. A China, por exemplo, estabilizou temporariamente o regime cuidando da sucessão em bases colegiais, algo impossível na Venezuela. A ruptura ocorrerá mais cedo ou mais tarde. É só uma questão de tempo", conclui Almeida.
==============

A Venezuela de Chávez no pós-Chávez

Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Diplomata, professor de Economia Política
no Mestrado e Doutorado do Uniceub (Brasília)
Respostas a questões colocadas por
para site de informações de Sidney Rezende (SRZD)

1) Quais seriam as implicações políticas na Venezuela e no restante do continente americano caso Chávez não possa assumir a presidência no novo mandato?

PRA: Existe inclusive a hipótese de que Hugo Chávez não termine seu atual mandato. Em todo caso, se ele não conseguir tomar posse para um novo mandato presidencial, a partir de 10 de janeiro de 2013, as consequências para a Venezuela seriam extremamente significativas, talvez menos para o resto do continente, embora de grande importância para alguns países dependentes dos petrodólares chavistas, como Cuba, e outros alinhados com suas teses políticas (ditos “bolivarianos”), ou seja, a Bolívia, em primeiro lugar, e de modo bastante significativo, mas talvez o Equador, igualmente. Essas implicações não se resumem à convocação de novas eleições em 30 dias, conforme determina a Constituição por ele mesmo promulgada, mas levarão à completa transformação do panorama político venezuelano, como comentado a seguir.
Do ponto de vista da política e da sociedade venezuelanas, as implicações seriam bem mais relevantes do que a simples sucessão de uma liderança carismática, o que sem dúvida alguma o caudilho militar o foi, dotado de enorme receptividade entre os mais pobres e os militantes de esquerda. Mas o chavismo representou, sobretudo, um conjunto de mudanças de enorme impacto no país, bem mais inclusive do que ditaduras do passado (a de Perez Jimenez, por exemplo, de 1952 a 1958).
O caudilho – que se autodenominou, um pouco abusivamente e arbitrariamente, “bolivariano” – desmantelou completamente as bases do antigo sistema político e o substituiu por um novo, menos baseado na competição livre entre partidos de ideologias diferentes, e bem mais na oposição maniqueísta entre o próprio caudilho (e o seu movimento, depois partido) e todos os demais que não rezavam por sua cartilha, uma mistura de nacionalismo e de marxismo vulgar.  Ele também inaugurou um novo modo de governar, baseado na extrema centralização de decisões em sua própria pessoa (e num número reduzido de áulicos, seguidores e familiares), com impactos significativos sobre a distribuição da principal riqueza do país – os royalties e a venda do petróleo – e sobre o equilíbrio entre os poderes (que de fato cessou de existir). Todas essas mudanças também representaram uma transformação nas bases sociais do regime, uma vez que Chávez alijou completamente os velhos e corruptos oligarcas, mas também a classe média educada, e colocou no aparato do Estado seguidores fieis, que passaram a mobilizar as novas camadas de apoio, basicamente setores subalternos e o enorme contingente de pobres, num país que tinha uma das mais altas rendas per capita do continente (até a desestruturação da economia pelo “socialismo do século 21”).
Curiosamente, a esquerda, venezuelana, continental e mundial, não percebe que Chávez, a despeito de sua linguagem aparentemente de esquerda – feita de invectivas contra o capitalismo, a burguesa, o imperialismo e assemelhados –, criou um regime que pode ser basicamente assimilado ao fascismo mussoliniano e, sob certos aspectos, ao nazismo hitlerista. O fascismo do coronel também está construído com base na exaltação da figura do líder, da extrema concentração de poderes e decisões no executivo – na verdade, no próprio caudilho --, na transformação ideológica das forças armadas e na constituição de brigadas de milicianos devotados – que podem ser equiparados aos antigos camisas negras do fascismo europeu – e na mobilização permanente das massas deseducadas pela completa manipulação dos meios de comunicação e no alijamento destes dos partidos tradicionais, a começar pela oposição política. O fato de que o regime chavista seja bastante identificado com os ideais da revolução cubana – que derivou numa simples tirania personalista – e com alguns slogans aparentemente de esquerda, faz com que muitos observadores, e certamente a própria esquerda, considere o caudilho como um dos seus, quando ele tem, de fato, um DNA fascista claramente expresso no seu perfil mussoliniano. Esta constatação apenas confirma, aliás, que fascismo e socialismo, em lugar de serem opostos, possuem princípios e valores muito semelhantes, senão totalmente coincidentes. O caudilho é o mais próximo exemplo de fascismo latino-americano conhecido nos últimos cinquenta anos no continente, depois do encerramento da experiência peronista em 1955.
Existem, igualmente, enormes implicações econômicas, bem mais para a própria Venezuela do que para outros países, a despeito do fato de que o regime chavista construiu uma rede de “clientes” e dependentes de seus petrodólares. Hugo Chávez, além de desmantelar o antigo sistema político venezuelano, também atingiu profundamente as bases da economia nacional, já anteriormente muito dependente do petróleo, o que foi exacerbado durante o regime chavista, mas sem qualquer controle institucional sobre esses recursos, totalmente convertidos para uso do caudilho, segundo suas preferencias pessoais. Poucos economistas saberiam analisar o orçamento da Venezuela e a contabilidade da PDVSA com bases em critérios normais de contas nacionais ou de normas contábeis aplicadas a empresas, uma vez que o caudilho exerce manipulação sobre todos esses fluxos de recursos. Se em alguma coisa a economia da Venezuela se parece com um regime “socialista”, sem dúvida isso está refletido na enorme penúria de bens de todo gênero no comércio varejista, ademais, e bem mais importante, a estatização dos chamados setores estratégicos da economia, mas também por vezes de simples atividades do terciário que sempre foram privadas. Aqui também o desparecimento do caudilho provocará impacto significativo, pois já não haverá um líder cesarista a decidir sozinho sobre o uso de enormes recursos financeiros como são os da economia petrolífera (ela também bastante diminuída pelo completo descalabro administrativo e a incompetência manifesta que marcaram o regime chavista).

2) Sendo eleito, o atual vice-presidente Nicolas Maduro tenderia a manter a mesma forma de governar de Chávez?

PRA: Se o vice-presidente designado pelo caudilho for eleito, não é seguro que ele consiga manter a unidade das hostes chavistas, seja no PSUV, seja nas forças militares (tanto as das Forças Armadas quanto as da milícias bolivarianas). O que é seguro é que ele jamais conseguiria governar como Chávez, ou seja, manipular completamente todos os poderes e todos os meios de comunicação a seu serviço exclusivo; para isso se requer carisma, por certo, mas também uma vontade férrea para impor sua vontade, dividindo, cooptando e afastando parceiros e aliados, esmagando opositores, concentrando todos os recursos financeiros em suas mãos, e uma série de outras alavancas de poder que apenas o caudilho podia controlar.
Difícil dizer quais seriam as previsões, mas é provável que o grau de anomia política, de desestruturação institucional, e mesmo de violência política aumentem, até o ponto de ruptura e de uma futura “normalização” da qual os contornos exatos estão longe de serem definidos atualmente. Será, em todo caso, uma experiência traumática para a Venezuela, pois nenhum país consegue sair impune de um regime de exceção como foi o de Hugo Chávez, ainda que com aparências formalmente democráticas.
Nicolas Maduro teria de construir seu comando sobre as forças chavistas – o que talvez não seja fácil – e estabelecer sua própria legitimidade política, que não se baseia apenas em resultados eleitorais, mas em apelo popular que não se sabe se ele terá. Ou seja, o potencial de incertezas e de tensões é enorme.

3) E mesmo caso Chávez possa assumir a presidência, a situação no país fica instável devido à doença do presidente estar se agravando?

PRA: Ainda que ele consiga tomar posse em 10 de janeiro de 2013, sua sobrevida física e, sobretudo política, não está assegurada, o que apenas transfere para algumas semanas ou meses além o desenlace que poderia ocorrer atualmente. Talvez o caudilho consiga “institucionalizar o carisma”, o que sempre foi difícil em qualquer regime de tipo autoritário e personalista como o dele. Em alguns países socialistas, se adotou a solução “dinástica” ou familiar, ou ocorreram rupturas traumáticas; a liderança comunista chinesa conseguir estabilizar temporariamente o regime, cuidando da sucessão de líderes em bases colegiais, o que no entanto é impossível em regimes como o castrista ou o chavista. A ruptura ocorrerá, mais cedo ou um pouco mais tarde. É apenas uma questão de tempo...

Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Brasília, 19 de dezembro de 2012.

sexta-feira, 30 de novembro de 2012

Violencia nas Americas: Caracas distinguida...

New York City celebrates day without violent crime

Police officers in New York on 2 November 2012 Monday was not an especially busy day for New York City's police officers
For the first time in living memory, New York has spent a day entirely without violent crime.
The city police department's chief spokesman said that Monday was the most bloodshed-free 24-hour period in recent history.
Not a single murder, shooting, stabbing or other incident of violent crime was reported for a whole day.
Despite a July spike in homicides, the city's murder rate is on target to hit its lowest point since 1960.
Just a few months ago, residents were living through what one tabloid newspaper called the "summer of blood".
Aggressive prevention tactics Despite the fall in homicides, statistics point to a 3% overall rise in crime.
A New York detective recounts his days running the anti-pickpocket unit
There has also been a 9% increase in larceny, which police blame on a surge in smartphone thefts.
But killings are now down 23% compared with last year, which represents a 50-year low.
There have been 366 murders so far this year in New York City, compared with 472 at this time last year.
Experts say such a low number of homicides is highly unusual for a US city of eight million people.
Gang-plagued Chicago, Illinois, has chalked up 462 murders this year, despite having a population of about 2.7 million people.
There have been 301 murders in 2012 in the city of Philadelphia, which has 1.5 million people.
Some experts are praising the New York police department's aggressive crime-prevention tactics, notably the so-called Stop And Frisk policy, which has rooted out dozens of illegal guns.
But critics argue that it has led to hundreds of thousands of young blacks and Latinos being stopped without cause.
Chart of global murder rates 

sexta-feira, 7 de outubro de 2011

Estaria o animal humano ficando mais bonzinho?

Is Violence History?

THE BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE

Why Violence Has Declined
By Steven Pinker
Illustrated. 802 pp. Viking. $40.

It is unusual for the subtitle of a book to undersell it, but Steven Pinker’s “Better Angels of Our Nature” tells us much more than why violence has declined. Pinker, a professor of psychology at Harvard who first became widely known as the author of “The Language Instinct,” addresses some of the biggest questions we can ask: Are human beings essentially good or bad? Has the past century witnessed moral progress or a moral collapse? Do we have grounds for being optimistic about the future?
If that sounds like a book you would want to read, wait, there’s more. In 800 information-packed pages, Pinker also discusses a host of more specific issues. Here is a sample: What do we owe to the Enlightenment? Is there a link between the human rights movement and the campaign for animal rights? Why are homicide rates higher in the southerly states of this country than in northern ones? Are aggressive tendencies heritable? Could declines in violence in particular societies be attributed to genetic change among its members? How does a president’s I.Q. correlate with the number of battle deaths in wars in which the United States is involved? Are we getting smarter? Is a smarter world a better world?
In seeking answers to these questions Pinker draws on recent research in history, psychology, cognitive science, economics and sociology. Nor is he afraid to venture into deep philosophical waters, like the role of reason in ethics and whether, without appealing to religion, some ethical views can be grounded in reason and others cannot be.
The central thesis of “Better Angels” is that our era is less violent, less cruel and more peaceful than any previous period of human existence. The decline in violence holds for violence in the family, in neighborhoods, between tribes and between states. People living now are less likely to meet a violent death, or to suffer from violence or cruelty at the hands of others, than people living in any previous century.
Pinker assumes that many of his readers will be skeptical of this claim, so he spends six substantial chapters documenting it. That may sound like a hard slog, but for anyone interested in understanding human nature, the material is engrossing, and when the going gets heavy, Pinker knows how to lighten it with ironic comments and a touch of humor.
Pinker begins with studies of the causes of death in different eras and peoples. Some studies are based on skeletons found at archaeological sites; averaging their results suggests that 15 percent of prehistoric humans met a violent death at the hands of another person. Research into contemporary or recent hunter-gatherer societies yields a remarkably similarly average, while another cluster of studies of pre-state societies that include some horticulture has an even higher rate of violent death. In contrast, among state societies, the most violent appears to have been Aztec Mexico, in which 5 percent of people were killed by others. In Europe, even during the bloodiest periods — the 17th century and the first half of the 20th —­ deaths in war were around 3 percent. The data vindicates Hobbes’s basic insight, that without a state, life is likely to be “nasty, brutish and short.” In contrast, a state monopoly on the legitimate use of force reduces violence and makes everyone living under that monopoly better off than they would otherwise have been. Pinker calls this the “pacification process.”
It’s not only deaths in war, but murder, too, that is declining over the long term. Even those tribal peoples extolled by anthropologists as especially “gentle,” like the Semai of Malaysia, the Kung of the Kalahari and the Central Arctic Inuit, turn out to have murder rates that are, relative to population, comparable to those of Detroit. In Europe, your chance of being murdered is now less than one-tenth, and in some countries only one-fiftieth, of what it would have been if you had lived 500 years ago. American rates, too, have fallen steeply over the past two or three centuries. Pinker sees this decline as part of the “civilizing process,” a term he borrows from the sociologist Norbert Elias, who attributes it to the consolidation of the power of the state above feudal loyalties, and to the effect of the spread of commerce. (Consistent with this view, Pinker argues that at least part of the reason for the regional differences in American homicide rates is that people in the South are less likely to accept the state’s monopoly on force. Instead, a tradition of self-help justice and a “culture of honor” sanctions retaliation when one is insulted or mistreated. Statistics bear this out — the higher homicide rate in the South is due to quarrels that turn lethal, not to more killings during armed robberies — and experiments show that even today Southerners respond more strongly to insults than Northerners.)
During the Enlightenment, in 17th-and 18th-century Europe and countries under European influence, another important change occurred. People began to look askance at forms of violence that had previously been taken for granted: slavery, torture, despotism, dueling and extreme forms of cruel punishment. Voices even began to be raised against cruelty to animals. Pinker refers to this as the “humanitarian revolution.”
Against the background of Europe’s relatively peaceful period after 1815, the first half of the 20th century seems like a sharp drop into an unprecedented moral abyss. But in the 13th century, the brutal Mongol conquests caused the deaths of an estimated 40 million people — not so far from the 55 million who died in the Second World War — in a world with only one-seventh the population of the mid-20th century. The Mongols rounded up and massacred their victims in cold blood, just as the Nazis did, though they had only battle-axes instead of guns and gas chambers. A longer perspective enables us to see that the crimes of Hitler and Stalin were, sadly, less novel than we thought.
Since 1945, we have seen a new phenomenon known as the “long peace”: for 66 years now, the great powers, and developed nations in general, have not fought wars against one another. More recently, since the end of the cold war, a broader “new peace” appears to have taken hold. It is not, of course, an absolute peace, but there has been a decline in all kinds of organized conflicts, including civil wars, genocides, repression and terrorism. Pinker admits that followers of our news media will have particular difficulty in believing this, but as always, he produces statistics to back up his assertions.
The final trend Pinker discusses is the “rights revolution,” the revulsion against violence inflicted on ethnic minorities, women, children, homosexuals and animals that has developed over the past half-century. Pinker is not, of course, arguing that these movements have achieved their goals, but he reminds us how far we have come in a relatively short time from the days when lynchings were commonplace in the South; domestic violence was tolerated to such a degree that a 1950s ad could show a husband with his wife over his knees, spanking her for failing to buy the right brand of coffee; and Pinker, then a young research assistant working under the direction of a professor in an animal behavior lab, tortured a rat to death. (Pinker now considers this “the worst thing I have ever done.” In 1975 it wasn’t uncommon.)
What caused these beneficial trends? That question poses a special challenge to an author who has consistently argued against the view that humans are blank slates on which culture and education draws our character, good or evil. There has hardly been time for the changes to have a basis in genetic evolution. (Pinker considers this possibility, and dismisses it.) So don’t the trends that Pinker chronicles prove that our nature is more the product of our culture than our biology? That way of putting it assumes a simplistic nature-nurture dichotomy. In books like “How the Mind Works,” “The Blank Slate” and “The Stuff of Thought,” Pinker has argued that evolution shaped the basic design of our brain, and hence our cognitive and emotional faculties. This process has given us propensities to violence — our “inner demons” as well as “the better angels of our nature” (Abraham Lincoln’s words) — that incline us to be peaceful and cooperative. Our material circumstances, along with cultural inputs, determine whether the demons or the angels have the upper hand.
Other large-scale trends have paralleled the decline in violence and cruelty, but it is not easy to sort out cause and effect here. Are factors like better government, greater prosperity, health, education, trade and improvements in the status of women the cause or the effect of the decline in violence and cruelty? If we can find out, we may be able to preserve and extend the peaceful and better world in which we live. So in two chapters on human psychology, Pinker does his best to discover what has restrained our inner demons and unleashed our better angels, and then in a final chapter, draws his conclusions.
Those conclusions are not always what one might expect. Yes, as already noted, the state monopoly on force is important, and the spread of commerce creates incentives for cooperation and against violent conflict. The empowerment of women does, Pinker argues, exercise a pacifying influence, and the world would be more peaceful if women were in charge. But he also thinks that the invention of printing, and the development of a cosmopolitan “Republic of Letters” in the 17th and 18th centuries helped to spread ideas that led to the humanitarian revolution. That was pushed further in the 19th century by popular novels like “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” and “Oliver Twist” that, by encouraging readers to put themselves in the position of someone very different from themselves, expanded the sphere of our moral concern.
To readers familiar with the literature in evolutionary psychology and its tendency to denigrate the role reason plays in human behavior, the most striking aspect of Pinker’s account is that the last of his “better angels” is reason. Here he draws on a metaphor I used in my 1981 book “The Expanding Circle.” To indicate that reason can take us to places that we might not expect to reach, I wrote of an “escalator of reason” that can take us to a vantage point from which we see that our own interests are similar to, and from the point of view of the universe do not matter more than, the interests of others. Pinker quotes this passage, and then goes on to develop the argument much more thoroughly than I ever did. (Disclosure: Pinker wrote an endorsement for a recent reissue of “The Expanding Circle.”)
Pinker’s claim that reason is an important factor in the trends he has described relies in part on the “Flynn effect” — the remarkable finding by the philosopher James Flynn that ever since I.Q. tests were first administered, the scores achieved by those taking the test have been rising. The average I.Q. is, by definition, 100; but to achieve that result, raw test scores have to be standardized. If the average teenager today could go back in time and take an I.Q. test from 1910, he or she would have an I.Q. of 130, which would be better than 98 percent of those taking the test then. Nor is it easy to attribute this rise to improved education, because the aspects of the tests on which scores have risen most do not require a good vocabulary or even mathematical ability, but instead test powers of abstract reasoning. One theory is that we have gotten better at I.Q. tests because we live in a more symbol-rich environment. Flynn himself thinks that the spread of the scientific mode of reasoning has played a role.
Pinker argues that enhanced powers of reasoning give us the ability to detach ourselves from our immediate experience and from our personal or parochial perspective, and frame our ideas in more abstract, universal terms. This in turn leads to better moral commitments, including avoiding violence. It is just this kind of reasoning ability that has improved during the 20th century. He therefore suggests that the 20th century has seen a “moral Flynn effect, in which an accelerating escalator of reason carried us away from impulses that lead to violence” and that this lies behind the long peace, the new peace, and the rights revolution. Among the wide range of evidence he produces in support of that argument is the tidbit that since 1946, there has been a negative correlation between an American president’s I.Q. and the number of battle deaths in wars involving the United States.
Reason also, Pinker suggests, moves us away from forms of morality more likely to lead to violence, and toward moral advances that, while not eschewing the use of force altogether, restrict it to the uses necessary to improve social welfare, like utilitarian reforms of the savage punishments given to criminals in earlier times. For reason does, Pinker holds, point to a particular kind of morality. We prefer life to death, and happiness to suffering, and we understand that we live in a world in which others can make a difference to whether we live well or die miserably. Therefore we will want to tell others that they should not hurt us, and in doing so we commit ourselves to the idea that we should not hurt them. (Pinker quotes a famous sentence from the 18th-century philosopher William Godwin: “What magic is there in the pronoun ‘my’ that should justify us in overturning the decisions of impartial truth?”) That morality can be grounded in some commitment to treating others as we would like them to treat us is an ancient idea, expressed in the golden rule and in similar thoughts in the moral traditions of many other civilizations, but Pinker is surely right to say that the escalator of reason leads us to it. It is this kind of moral thinking, Pinker points out, that helps us escape traps like the Cuban missile crisis, which, if the fate of the world had been in the hands of leaders under the sway of a different kind of morality — one dominated by ideas of honor and the importance of not backing down — might have been the end of the human story. Fortunately Kennedy and Khrushchev understood the trap they were in and did what was necessary to avoid disaster.
“The Better Angels of Our Nature” is a supremely important book. To have command of so much research, spread across so many different fields, is a masterly achievement. Pinker convincingly demonstrates that there has been a dramatic decline in violence, and he is persuasive about the causes of that decline. But what of the future? Our improved understanding of violence, of which Pinker’s book is an example, can be a valuable tool to maintain peace and reduce crime, but other factors are in play. Pinker is an optimist, but he knows that there is no guarantee that the trends he has documented will continue. Faced with suggestions that the present relatively peaceful period is going to be blown apart by a “clash of civilizations” with Islam, by nuclear terrorism, by war with Iran or wars resulting from climate change, he gives reasons for thinking that we have a good chance of avoiding such conflicts, but no more than a good chance. If he had been able to see, before his book went to press, a study published in Nature as recently as August of this year, he might have been less sanguine about maintaining peace despite widespread climate change. Solomon Hsiang and colleagues at Columbia University used data from the past half-century to show that in tropical regions, the risk of a new civil conflict doubles during El Niño years (when temperatures are hotter than usual and there is less rainfall). If that finding is correct, then a warming world could mean the end of the relatively peaceful era in which we are now living.

Peter Singer is professor of bioethics at Princeton University. His books include “Animal Liberation,” “Practical Ethics,” “The Expanding Circle” and “The Life You Can Save.”