1381) Principe Regente, D. Joao, diplomata: tomada de Caiena

Simpósio Comemorativo do Bicentenário da Tomada de Caiena

A Diretoria do Patrimonio Historico e Documentacao da Marinha e o Instituto Historico e Geografico Brasileiro, com o apoio do Instituto de Geografia e Historia Militar do Brasil, promoverao um encontro entre historiadores e especialistas, dedicados ao tema que debaterao o primeiro ato militar da politica externa de D. Joao e que se constituiu no batismo de fogo do Corpo de Fuzileiros Navais. O Simposio sera' realizado de 28 a 29/10/2009. Mais informacoes em www.dphdm.mar.mil.br

1380) Entretien sur le Bresil pour la revue Decideurs

Concedi uma longa entrevista a um jornalista francês, que, como sempre acontece, transcreveu apenas uma pequena parte para matéria da revista Décideurs sobre o Brasil e sobre o presidente. Abaixo transcrevo a parte que deve ser em princípio publicada.
Quem desejar ler a matéria completa, com todos os meus comentários (bastante longos, diga-se de passagem), deve acessar este link.

Revue Décideurs
Auteur : Vincent Paes
Ouvrage : Magazine n° 108
Partie : Leader à la loupe

« Lula : l’orateur par excellence »
Entretien avec Paulo Roberto de Almeida, diplomate brésilien et professeur de sociologie et de politique économique à l’Université de Brasilia

Décideurs : Quelle est la plus grande qualité de Lula ?
Paulo Roberto de Almeida : C’est un très bon orateur. Il a une rhétorique très convaincante. Il possède une très forte capacité à communiquer en langage simple, directe, avec des images vives et des références familières.
Ces qualités lui ont permis de séduire les couches populaires brésiliennes. Il a aussi très vite appris à jouer avec la presse. Grâce à elle, il a réussi à se forger une image.

« Ce n’est pas une question de convictions mais d’opportunisme politique»

Décideurs : Beaucoup de membres de son ancien syndicat lui ont reproché de s’être rapproché de la droite. En passant de syndicaliste à homme politique, pensez-vous que Lula ait renié ses convictions ?
P.R de A. : Pour affirmer cela, il faudrait supposer que ses convictions étaient clairement de gauches. Or, selon moi, Lula n’a jamais été un vrai homme de gauche ou un socialiste rationnel. Je m’explique. Il n’a jamais mis en place un programme progressiste typique de la gauche anti-capitaliste. Il y avait beaucoup de théâtre dans les initiatives et les discours de Lula.
Il a su profiter de l’espace ouvert, à la fin du régime militaire et pendant la transition vers la démocratie, pour créer un parti de gauche non communiste et non lié à l’ancien syndicalisme vendu à l’État et aux patrons.

Lula ne s’est pas rapproché de la droite. Au contraire, ce sont les industriels et la presse qui sont venus à lui quand ceux-ci ont senti que le vent avait tourné. En revanche, pour remporter les élections de 2002, Lula a modéré son discours pour gagner la classe moyenne plus conservatrice. Ces choix ne sont donc pas une question de convictions, mais d’opportunisme politique.

Décideurs : Comment jugez-vous les politiques économique et sociales de Lula ?
P.R de A. : Lula a été assez malin pour comprendre que la politique économique de ses compagnons de gauche était proprement schizophrénique. En effet, elle conduirait à un désastre comparable à celui d’Allende au Chili, avec une inflation galopante, une fuite des capitaux et une instabilité politique.

En ce qui concerne sa politique sociale, je ne pense pas qu’elle constitue une rupture, contrairement à ce qui a été souvent dit. Bolsa Familia ne possède pas assez de contreparties, comme le contrôle de la fréquentation scolaire par exemple. Selon moi, ce programme est tout simplement une carte magnétique qui convertit des citoyens auparavant travailleurs en dépendants éternels de l’administration publique. Des personnes qui peuvent se révéler utile lors des périodes électorales.

Décideurs : Lula arrive bientôt à la fin de son second mandat. Selon vous, le bilan est-il positif? Qu'a-t-il apporté au Brésil ?
P.R de A. : Comme toujours, il faut séparer le mythe de la réalité économique et sociale. Le Brésil est-il mieux aujourd’hui qu’il y a sept ou huit ans auparavant ? Oui, mais cela est dû, en grande partie, aux politiques classifiées comme « de droite » : stabilité monétaire, responsabilité fiscale et taux de change flottant. Par exemple, Lula a respecté l’autonomie de la Banque Centrale. Contrairement à ses collègues d’Amérique du Sud, il a réussi à ne pas faire fuir les investisseurs étrangers.

Mais il aurait pu aller plus loin. Le Brésil figure toujours parmi les dernières places du classement du Doing Business réalisé par la Banque Mondiale. Encore plus préoccupant, l’expansion constante et régulière des dépenses de l’État. Elles sont équivalentes au niveau des pays développés (38% du Produit Intérieur Brut) pour un revenu par tête six fois moindre.

Par ailleurs, Lula a réussi à donner une image positive du Brésil. Cela est dû à son caractère jovial et sympathique qui a été largement répandu par la presse. Elle aime voir en lui l’histoire idéale du self made man.

Décideurs : Lula ne pourra pas se représenter pour un troisième mandat. Pensez-vous que son parti pourra l'emporter de nouveau ?
P.R de A. : Difficilement, tant le PT (Parti des travailleurs) reste dépendant du succès de son unique leader. Durant ces deux mandats, Lula n’a rien fait pour imposer un parti fort. Déjà aux dernières élections, le PT a perdu de sa superbe.
Il n’a réussit à obtenir qu’un état. Quant aux municipales, le parti reste présent uniquement sur les villes les plus périphériques et les plus pauvres. Même si Lula réussit à nommer son successeur en mobilisant tout son prestige personnel, il est peu probable que le PT réussisse à s’imposer de nouveau.

1379) Doutorado em Direito no Uniceub: sou parte do processo

Raramente sou dado a fazer publicidades "comerciais" de qualquer coisa, mas como sou professor do Mestrado do UniCEUB desde 2004, e como participei, nos últimos três anos, do processo de preparação do doutoramento, creio que vale o que vai abaixo como informação.

Doutorado em Direito no UniCEUB
26 de agosto de 2009

O UniCEUB é a primeira instituição particular de ensino superior do Centro-Oeste autorizada pelo MEC a oferecer o programa de Doutorado em Direito

“Meu sonho é formar, aqui, o cidadão CEUB, que entre no ensino fundamental e vá até o doutorado, na mesma Instituição”, preconizava, em 1968, João Herculino de Souza Lopes, fundador do UniCEUB. Quarenta e um anos depois, o sonho torna-se realidade, e o Centro Universitário de Brasília passa a ser a primeira instituição privada a oferecer doutoramento em Direito no Centro-Oeste.

Depois de atender aos rígidos critérios da Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – CAPES, que inclui avaliação do corpo docente, das pesquisas realizadas no mestrado e de toda a infraestrutura da Instituição, tanto em quantidade como em densidade e qualidade, o UniCEUB foi autorizado a disponibilizar o Doutorado em Direito.

“A aprovação representa a confirmação da qualidade do UniCEUB. O Conselho Técnico Consultivo da CAPES, que aprovou o doutorado, é formado por professores de alto nível de todas as áreas do conhecimento de várias regiões do país”, explica o professor Marcelo Dias Varella, coordenador da pós-graduação stricto sensu do UniCEUB. Segundo Varella, o doutorado “forma professores, para formar professores”, e destaca: “é o mais alto grau do mundo acadêmico, por isso o controle é tão rígido”.

Parceria internacional - Os mais de vinte grupos de pesquisa e cooperação internacional com entidades de diversos países também reforçaram a aprovação do doutoramento junto à CAPES. As parcerias internacionais permitem, por exemplo, a realização de palestras interativas por meio de videoconferência, com especialistas do mundo inteiro.

Marcelo Varella conta que bancas do programa de Mestrado já podem ter a participação de professores de outros países. França, Espanha, Estados Unidos, Japão, África do Sul, Alemanha, China, Suíça, Reino Unido e Argentina enviam seus estudantes e recebem mestrandos do UniCEUB. A parceria internacional ganha mais força com o programa de doutorado da Instituição.

Segundo o coordenador, o doutorando, para receber o grau, terá disciplinas altamente reflexivas, participará de grupos de pesquisa, orientará alunos, organizará seminários, elaborará projetos de financiamento de pesquisas e publicará artigos em revistas internacionais. “Esse conhecimento será divulgado pela entidade, poderá ser acessado por qualquer membro da comunidade acadêmica e, certamente, vai reforçar o ambiente científico”, ressalta o professor Varella.

O primeiro edital para o processo seletivo deve ser lançado em setembro. As provas serão em novembro, e o início da primeira turma está previsto para fevereiro de 2010.

Fonte: 26/08/2009 - Assessoria de Imprensa - UniCEUB

1378) A ONU não tem dentes (mas isso a gente já sabia...)

Talvez nem o seu Conselho de Segurança, um órgão apenas decorativo, enquanto os cinco MPs (membros permanentes) não se entendem em torno de uma boa (ou má) causa e decidam agir unanimemente para reparar alguma problema sério.
Na falta desse entendimento, os países podem violar impunemente suas resoluções sem que nada, absolutamente nada lhes aconteça, a não ser o fato de seus líderes (ou ditadores), virarem párias temporários no sistema internacional.
A reportagem abaixo, sobre os instintos militares de um vizinho do Brasil, prova o que estou dizendo abundantemente. Seu líder (ops) prepara-se para violar tranquilamente o direito internacional e parece que nada lhe acontecerá: vai cooperar nuclearmente com o Irã e vai receber o presidente (ops) do Sudão, procurando pelo TPI. Ele deveria simplesmente ser empacotado e entregue na Haia. Mas, o TPI tem menos dentes, ainda, do que o CSNU...
Vai ficar para uma conjunção improvável de astros no sistema planetário internacional...

Venezuela's foreign policy
The Economist, September 15, 2009

Friends in low places
Hugo Chavez dreams of forging a new world order

THE mountains and jungles of South America are not ideal terrain for tank warfare. So it is hard to envisage what role Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chávez, has in mind for the dozens of Russian tanks on his latest military shopping list. The strategic purpose of a recent tour that took him to some of the world’s least salubrious regimes is, however, easier to discern. And it led America’s State Department to give warning on Monday September 14th of a “serious challenge to stability” in the region.

Venezuela’s increasingly autocratic leader returned on Friday from a trip that took him to Libya, Iran, Algeria, Syria, Turkmenistan, Belarus and Russia, though he also found time for a visit Spain and the Venice film festival. On his jaunt he was decorated by Libya’s leader, Muammar Qaddafi, and embraced by Aleksandr Lukashenko, president of Belarus.

Apart from discussing weapons and oil with the Russians, he also courted condemnation by inviting Sudan’s pariah president, Omar al-Bashir, to Caracas, and breezily announced a nuclear co-operation deal with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president. Since the latter revelation was made to Le Figaro, a French newspaper, it fell to the French foreign ministry to issue a curt reminder of UN Security Council resolution 1737. This explicitly forbids the export by Iran of material from its controversial nuclear programme, which Mr Chávez supports.

The trip did much to bolster Mr Chávez’s well-earned reputation for outrageous statements. But there is method to his madness. The foreign-policy section of Venezuela’s “First Socialist Plan—2007-2013” (dubbed the “Simón Bolívar National Project”) assigns an “integral political alliance” with Iran, Syria, Belarus and Russia the highest priority outside the Latin American and Caribbean region. The rationale for this curious hotchpotch of alliances is the “common anti-imperialist interests” of those five countries—the imperialist in question being America.

Among the scheme’s aims is the strengthening of national defence and sovereignty. Not only the tanks but sophisticated anti-aircraft systems make up the order to Russia. Mr Chávez, a former lieutenant-colonel in Venezuela’s army, says these weapons will make it “very difficult for foreign aircraft to come and bomb us”. Having already spent at least $4.4 billion on Russian weapons, he has now secured an additional $2.2 billion credit-line from that country to lavish on more military hardware. Three submarines are among other possible purchases, press reports say.

In pursuit of his goal to “break North American imperialist hegemony”, the Venezuelan president has deployed to the full his prime asset—the country’s oil reserves. Thus Iran was promised 20,000 barrels of petrol a day, in potential defiance of sanctions advocated by America and despite Venezuela’s current problems supplying its own markets with fuel. Russia’s national oil consortium was also assigned a patch of the Orinoco heavy oil belt.

Closer to home, Mr Chávez’s strategic plans have come a little unstuck. He has so far failed in his quest for admittance to the Mercosur trade block. ALBA, his alliance of like-minded governments, lost a member after a coup in Honduras just over six weeks ago. And he has failed to secure regional condemnation of Colombia’s decision to allow American troops to deploy in seven military bases in the country.

Undaunted, he continues to pursue “greater world leadership”. If attention is what he is seeking, he finally seems to have got it. Last week Robert Morgenthau, a veteran New York district attorney, gave warning that Venezuela’s alliance with Iran was a threat to American interests. Bank accounts in Andorra supposedly belonging to individuals close to Mr Chávez have been frozen, reportedly because of the American Treasury Department’s suspicions of links to terrorism.

Mr Chávez is determined to play in the big leagues. His avowed calculation is that by helping to stir up trouble for America in many places simultaneously, he can bring about the collapse of “the empire”. The regimes he is so assiduously cultivating are, by this account, the nucleus of a new world order. Although this seems far-fetched perhaps the world should start to take him a little more seriously.

1377) Norman Borlaug: o maior benfeitor da humanidade...

Minha homenagem a um heroi de verdade...

The Man Who Defused the 'Population Bomb'
By GREGG EASTERBROOK
The Wall Street Journal, September 16, 2009

One of America's greatest heroes remains little known in his home country.

Norman Borlaug—arguably the greatest American of the 20th century—died late Saturday after 95 richly accomplished years. The very personification of human goodness, Borlaug saved more lives than anyone who has ever lived. He was America's Albert Schweitzer: a brilliant man who forsook privilege and riches in order to help the dispossessed of distant lands. That this great man and benefactor to humanity died little-known in his own country speaks volumes about the superficiality of modern American culture.

Born in 1914 in rural Cresco, Iowa, where he was educated in a one-room schoolhouse, Borlaug won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his work ending the India-Pakistan food shortage of the mid-1960s. He spent most of his life in impoverished nations, patiently teaching poor farmers in India, Mexico, South America, Africa and elsewhere the Green Revolution agricultural techniques that have prevented the global famines widely predicted when the world population began to skyrocket following World War II.

In 1999, the Atlantic Monthly estimated that Borlaug's efforts—combined with those of the many developing-world agriculture-extension agents he trained and the crop-research facilities he founded in poor nations—saved the lives of one billion human beings.

As a young agronomist, Borlaug helped develop some of the principles of Green Revolution agriculture on which the world now relies—including hybrid crops selectively bred for vigor, and "shuttle breeding," a technique for accelerating the movement of disease immunity between strains of crops. He also helped develop cereals that were insensitive to the number of hours of light in a day, and could therefore be grown in many climates.

Green Revolution techniques caused both reliable harvests, and spectacular output. From the Civil War through the Dust Bowl, the typical American farm produced about 24 bushels of corn per acre; by 2006, the figure was about 155 bushels per acre.

Hoping to spread high-yield agriculture to the world's poor, in 1943 Borlaug moved to rural Mexico to establish an agricultural research station, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. Borlaug's little research station became the International Maize and Wheat Center, known by its Spanish abbreviation CIMMYT, that is now one of the globe's most important agricultural study facilities. At CIMMYT, Borlaug developed the high-yield, low-pesticide "dwarf" wheat upon which a substantial portion of the world's population now depends for sustenance.

In 1950, as Borlaug began his work in earnest, the world produced 692 million tons of grain for 2.2 billion people. By 1992, with Borlaug's concepts common, production was 1.9 billion tons of grain for 5.6 billion men and women: 2.8 times the food for 2.2 times the people. Global grain yields more than doubled during the period, from half a ton per acre to 1.1 tons; yields of rice and other foodstuffs improved similarly. Hunger declined in sync: From 1965 to 2005, global per capita food consumption rose to 2,798 calories daily from 2,063, with most of the increase in developing nations. In 2006, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization declared that malnutrition stands "at the lowest level in human history," despite the global population having trebled in a single century.

In the mid-1960s, India and Pakistan were exceptions to the trend toward more efficient food production; subsistence cultivation of rice remained the rule, and famine struck. In 1965, Borlaug arranged for a convoy of 35 trucks to carry high-yield seeds from CIMMYT to a Los Angeles dock for shipment to India and Pakistan. He and a coterie of Mexican assistants accompanied the seeds. They arrived to discover that war had broken out between the two nations. Sometimes working within sight of artillery flashes, Borlaug and his assistants sowed the Subcontinent's first crop of high-yield grain. Paul Ehrlich gained celebrity for his 1968 book "The Population Bomb," in which he claimed that global starvation was inevitable for the 1970s and it was "a fantasy" that India would "ever" feed itself. Instead, within three years of Borlaug's arrival, Pakistan was self-sufficient in wheat production; within six years, India was self-sufficient in the production of all cereals.

After his triumph in India and Pakistan and his Nobel Peace Prize, Borlaug turned to raising crop yields in other poor nations—especially in Africa, the one place in the world where population is rising faster than farm production and the last outpost of subsistence agriculture. At that point, Borlaug became the target of critics who denounced him because Green Revolution farming requires some pesticide and lots of fertilizer. Trendy environmentalism was catching on, and affluent environmentalists began to say it was "inappropriate" for Africans to have tractors or use modern farming techniques. Borlaug told me a decade ago that most Western environmentalists "have never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for 50 years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists in wealthy nations were trying to deny them these things."

Environmentalist criticism of Borlaug and his work was puzzling on two fronts. First, absent high-yield agriculture, the world would by now be deforested. The 1950 global grain output of 692 million tons and the 2006 output of 2.3 billion tons came from about the same number of acres—three times as much food using little additional land.

"Without high-yield agriculture," Borlaug said, "increases in food output would have been realized through drastic expansion of acres under cultivation, losses of pristine land a hundred times greater than all losses to urban and suburban expansion." Environmentalist criticism was doubly puzzling because in almost every developing nation where high-yield agriculture has been introduced, population growth has slowed as education becomes more important to family success than muscle power.

In the late 1980s, when even the World Bank cut funding for developing-world agricultural improvement, Borlaug turned for support to Ryoichi Sasakawa, a maverick Japanese industrialist. Sasakawa funded his high-yield programs in a few African nations and, predictably, the programs succeeded. The final triumph of Borlaug's life came three years ago when the Rockefeller Foundation, in conjunction with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, announced a major expansion of high-yield agriculture throughout Africa. As he approached his 90s, Borlaug "retired" to teaching agronomy at Texas A&M, where he urged students to live in the developing world and serve the poor.

Often it is said America lacks heroes who can provide constructive examples to the young. Here was such a hero. Yet though streets and buildings are named for Norman Borlaug throughout the developing world, most Americans don't even know his name.

Mr. Easterbrook is a contributing editor of the Atlantic and author of the forthcoming "Sonic Boom," due out by Random House in January 2010.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A27

1376) Obama protecionista: nenhuma novidade nisso

Bem, o Wall Street Journal já desconfiava disso, agora tem certeza...

A Protectionist President
Editorial The Wall Street Journal, September 15, 2009

Like Hoover, Obama is abdicating U.S. trade leadership.

President Obama traveled to yesterday to press his case for more financial regulation, but the bigger economic issue of the day concerned other White House policies. To wit, what does it mean for the world economy if America now has its first protectionist President since Herbert Hoover?

The smell of trade war is suddenly in the air. Mr. Obama slapped a 35% tariff on Chinese tires Friday night, and China responded on the weekend by threatening to retaliate against U.S. chickens and auto parts. That followed French President Nicolas Sarkozy's demand on Thursday that Europe impose a carbon tariff on imports from countries that don't follow its cap-and-trade diktats. "We need to impose a carbon tax at [Europe's] border. I will lead that battle," he said.

Mr. Sarkozy was following U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, who has endorsed a carbon tax on imports, and the U.S. House of Representatives, which passed a carbon tariff as part of its cap-and-tax bill. This in turn followed the "Buy American" provisions of the stimulus, which has incensed much of Canada; Congress's bill to ban Mexican trucks from U.S. roads in direct violation of Nafta, prompting Mexico to retaliate against U.S. farm and kitchen goods; and the must-make-cars-in-America provisions of the auto bailouts. Meanwhile, U.S. trade pacts with Colombia, Panama and South Korea languish in Congress.

Through all of this Mr. Obama has either said nothing or objected so feebly that Congress has assumed he doesn't mean it. Despite his pro-forma demurrals, Mr. Obama's actions and nonactions are telling the world that the U.S. is abandoning the global leadership on trade that Presidents of both parties have worked to maintain since the 1930s. His advisers whisper that their man is merely playing a little tactical domestic politics, but he is playing with fire, as the last 80 years of trade history should tell him.

The modern free-trade era began during the Great Depression, after the catastrophe of the Smoot-Hawley tariff of June 1930. Hoover also thought he was shrewdly playing tactical politics by adopting a tariff that the economist Joseph Schumpeter said was the "household remedy" of the Republican Party at the time. But the tariff ignited a beggar-thy-neighbor reaction around the world, and the flow of global goods and services collapsed.

FDR's Secretary of State Cordell Hull recognized the damage, and he began rebuilding a pro-trade consensus with a series of bilateral accords in the 1930s. In the aftermath of World War II, John Maynard Keynes, Harry Dexter White and others on both sides of the Atlantic continued this progress by negotiating the Bretton Woods currency accords and creating the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Like Britain in the 19th century, the U.S. has been the linchpin of this liberal trading order that despite occasional setbacks has moved in the direction of lower tariffs and fewer nontariff barriers. As the world's largest economy, the U.S. has largely kept its market open, using access to U.S. consumers as a lever to open other countries to foreign goods and services. Even as Big Labor broke with this consensus, Bill Clinton continued this bipartisan tradition by supporting Nafta, and prodding Congress to ratify the World Trade Organization and most-favored nation trading status for China.

Following America's lead, countries that were once largely closed economically—especially China and India—have in turn opened up to foreign goods and services. The result has been an explosion in world trade, especially since the 1980s, as the nearby chart makes clear. This boom has coincided with rising incomes in countries connected by trade and the free flow of capital, especially in the developing world but also in America. While some U.S. jobs have vanished, new industries have emerged, and the U.S. has maintained its lead in manufacturing productivity.
***

This 80-year history of free-trade progress is now under threat from the global recession and Mr. Obama's abdication of U.S. leadership. Labor's antitrade views now dominate in the Democratic Congress and liberal think tanks. As ominous, protectionism is increasingly justified by Democratic economists on political grounds.

Paul Krugman, the chief economist for House Democrats, has endorsed a carbon tariff. And Clyde Prestowitz, who insisted in the 1980s that Japanese mercantilism would rule the world, went so far as to argue in the Financial Times last week that imposing tariffs on China would strike a blow for free trade. As economic logic, this compares to the argument that the way to reduce government health-care spending is to pass a new trillion-dollar entitlement.

President Bush and his trade negotiator Robert Zoellick also claimed that the protectionism of their 2001 steel tariffs would lead to more free-trade support, but the move merely exposed U.S. hypocrisy and undermined global trade talks. The reality is that without the U.S. leading by example, the world trading order is likely to deteriorate into every country for itself. This is especially dangerous amid a global recession in which world merchandise trade volume fell by roughly 33% from the second quarter of 2008 to June 2009. Reviving trade flows is crucial to restoring global growth.

Mr. Obama may not intend to start a trade war, but then Hoover didn't set out to pick one either. His political abdication is what made it possible, however, and trade passions once unleashed can be impossible to control. On his present course, President Obama is giving the world every reason to conclude he is a protectionist.

1375) Sindicalismo diplomatico: aderindo ao corporatismo brasileiro...

Os diplomatas já tinham constituído, 15 anos atrás, sua associação de classe, ou de casta, reservada apenas e exclusivamente aos diplomatas. Agora, todas as categorias de servidores do Estado no Serviço Exterior brasileiro se dotam de seu sindicato.
Vamos acompanhar o processo.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

SindItamaraty - Sindicato do Serviço Exterior Brasileiro
Nesta segunda-feira, dia 14 de setembro, foi oficializada a criação do SindItamaraty para representar os interesses dos servidores que compõem o Quadro Permanente do Ministério das Relações Exteriores.

Além de cerca de 150 servidores, o evento, que teve uma duração de 2h, também contou com a presença do Senador Cristovam Buarque (PDT-DF) e de outras autoridades. A mesa foi composta por representantes de todas as carreiras do MRE e contou com a importante participação do Embaixador Denis de Sousa Pinto, Diretor do Departamento do Serviço Exterior.

Após os discursos, os advogados do GT SINDITAMARATY, Drs. Normando Cavalcanti e Juliano Costa Couto, apresentaram os itens de pauta para deliberação dos presentes: criação do SindItamaraty, aprovação do Estatuto Social e eleição de Diretoria Provisória. Todos eles foram aprovados por unanimidade, o que os legitima para o registro da entidade junto ao Ministério do Trabalho e Emprego – MTE.

A ideia da criação do sindicato foi muito bem recebida pelos presentes e logo no primeiro dia a entidade já conta com 54 adesões.

Visando a troca de informação com os servidores lotados no exterior e com aqueles que não puderam comparecer à cerimônia, em breve, estará disponível um vídeo com os melhores momentos do evento.

Confira abaixo a composição da Diretoria Executiva do sindicato, eleita para um mandato provisório de 1 (um) ano:
AC Alexey van der Broocke – Presidente
PGPE Elizabeth Mattos – Vice-Presidente
Emb. Luiz Brun – Secretário-Geral
OC Betsáida Capilé Tunes – Diretora Financeira

-------

Oficializada a criação do SindItamaraty

Nesta segunda-feira, dia 14 de setembro, foi oficializada a criação do SindItamaraty para representar os interesses dos servidores que compõem o Quadro Permanente do Ministério das Relações Exteriores.

Além de cerca de 150 servidores, o evento, que teve uma duração de 2h, também contou com a presença do Senador Cristovam Buarque (PDT-DF) e de outras autoridades.

Acompanhe a matéria na íntegra no blog do SINDITAMARATY.
http://blogsinditamaraty.wordpress.com/