Temas de relações internacionais, de política externa e de diplomacia brasileira, com ênfase em políticas econômicas, em viagens, livros e cultura em geral. Um quilombo de resistência intelectual em defesa da racionalidade, da inteligência e das liberdades democráticas.
O que é este blog?
Este blog trata basicamente de ideias, se possível inteligentes, para pessoas inteligentes. Ele também se ocupa de ideias aplicadas à política, em especial à política econômica. Ele constitui uma tentativa de manter um pensamento crítico e independente sobre livros, sobre questões culturais em geral, focando numa discussão bem informada sobre temas de relações internacionais e de política externa do Brasil. Para meus livros e ensaios ver o website: www.pralmeida.org. Para a maior parte de meus textos, ver minha página na plataforma Academia.edu, link: https://itamaraty.academia.edu/PauloRobertodeAlmeida.
Algún día, no lejano, se escribirá una gran novela tolstoyana sobre la heroica lucha del pueblo venezolano contra la dictadura de Chávez y Maduro. Y el final será, por supuesto, un final feli
Algún día se escribirá un gran libro sobre la heroica lucha del pueblo venezolano contra la dictadura de Chávez y Maduro, que recuerde los sufrimientos que ha padecido todos estos años sin cesar de resistir, pese a los torturados y a los asesinados, a la catástrofe económica —probablemente la más atroz que recuerde la historia moderna— que ha llevado a un país potencialmente muy rico a la hambruna colectiva y ha obligado a cerca de tres millones de ciudadanos a huir, a pie, a los países vecinos para no perecer por la falta de trabajo, de comida, de medicinas y de esperanza. Menos mal que el martirio de Venezuela parece llegar a su fin, gracias al nuevo ímpetu que han inoculado Juan Guaidó y otros jóvenes dirigentes a la resistencia.
Parece imposible, ¿no es cierto?, que una dictadura rechazada por todo el mundo democrático, la OEA, la Unión Europea, el Grupo de Lima, las Naciones Unidas y, cuando menos, por tres cuartas partes de su población, pueda sobrevivir a esta última arremetida de la libertad con la proclamación, por la Asamblea Nacional de Venezuela (el único organismo más o menos representativo del país), de Juan Guaidó como presidente encargado de convocar nuevas elecciones que devuelvan a la nación la legalidad perdida. Y, sin embargo, el tirano sigue todavía allí. ¿Por qué? Porque las Fuerzas Armadas aún lo protegen y han tendido un escudo protector en torno suyo. Los hemos visto, allí en la televisión, a esos generales y almirantes empastelados de medallas, mientras el ministro de Defensa, general Vladimir Padrino, juraba lealtad al régimen espurio. Lo que explica esta supuesta lealtad no son afinidades ideológicas. Es el miedo. El recurso del que se valió Chávez, y que continuó Maduro con esta cúpula militar para asegurar su complicidad, fue comprarla, entregándole prácticamente el negocio del narcotráfico, de tal manera que buen número de estos oficiales se han hecho ricos y tienen sus fortunas en paraísos fiscales. Pero casi todos ellos están fichados internacionalmente y saben que, cuando caiga el régimen, irán a la cárcel. Las promesas de amnistía que les ha hecho llegar Guaidó no los tranquilizan, porque sospechan que no valen fuera del territorio venezolano, y sus sucias operaciones están perseguidas y serán penadas por tribunales internacionales a lo largo y ancho del planeta.
Es indispensable que los países e instituciones internacionales multipliquen la presión contra Maduro
¿Pero por qué no se rebelan, entonces, contra la tiranía de Maduro esos jóvenes oficiales —tenientes, capitanes— y soldados a los que golpea la atroz crisis económica igual que al resto de la población venezolana? Por una razón también muy simple. Por la vigilancia estricta e implacable que ejercen sobre las Fuerzas Armadas de Venezuela los técnicos y profesionales de Cuba, a quienes el comandante Chávez entregó prácticamente el control de la seguridad militar y civil del régimen que implantó. Se trata de algo sin precedentes; un país renuncia a su soberanía y entrega a otro el control total de sus Fuerzas Armadas y policiales. Y los comunistas, como ha sido comprobado hasta la saciedad, arruinan la economía, destruyen las instituciones representativas, regimentan y aplastan la cultura, pero han llevado la censura y la represión de toda forma de insumisión y rebeldía a poco menos que la perfección artística. No olvidemos que todas las instituciones militares venezolanas han sido sometidas a purgas sistemáticas y que hay varios cientos de oficiales expulsados o encarcelados por no ser considerados “seguros” para la dictadura.
Sin embargo, la URSS se desplomó como un castillo de naipes, y también sus satélites centroeuropeos se desmoronaron y hoy día son verdaderos baluartes contra aquel régimen que había prometido bajar el paraíso a la tierra y más bien creó las peores satrapías que conoce la historia. El régimen de Maduro se ufana de la protección que le prestan dictaduras como la rusa, la china, la turca, y la solidaridad de otras tiranías latinoamericanas como Cuba, Nicaragua o Bolivia. Vaya compañeros de viaje, para quienes vale el famoso refrán: “Mira con quién andas y te diré quien eres”. En el caso de Rusia y de China, ambos países han hecho préstamos tan extravagantes a la dictadura de Maduro —que sólo sirvieron para agravar la corruptela reinante— que temen, con muchísima razón, que jamás podrán cobrarlos. Lo tienen bien merecido: querían asegurarse fuentes de materias primas fortaleciendo económicamente a una tiranía corrupta y lo más probable es que terminen siendo también parte de sus víctimas. La fiera que va a morir se defiende con uñas y dientes y no hay duda que el régimen, ahora que se siente acorralado y presiente su fin, puede causar mucho dolor y derramar todavía más sangre inocente. Por eso es indispensable que los países e instituciones democráticas internacionales multipliquen la presión contra el Gobierno de Maduro, extendiendo los reconocimientos a la presidencia de Juan Guaidó y a la Asamblea Nacional, y logrando el aislamiento y la orfandad del régimen a fin de precipitar su caída antes de que haga más daño del que ha causado a la desdichada Venezuela.
El secretario general de la OEA, Luis Almagro, lo ha dicho con claridad: “No hay nada que negociar con Maduro”. Todos los intentos de diálogo se han visto frustrados porque la dictadura pretendía utilizar las negociaciones sólo para ganar tiempo, sin hacer la menor concesión, y conspirando sin tregua, gracias a la ayuda que le prestaban gentes ingenuas o maquiavélicas, para sembrar la discordia entre las fuerzas de oposición. Las cosas han ido ya demasiado lejos y la primera prioridad es ahora acabar cuanto antes con la dictadura de Maduro a fin de que se convoquen elecciones libres y los venezolanos puedan por fin dedicarse a la reconstrucción de su país.
Los intentos de diálogo se han visto frustrados porque la dictadura pretendía utilizar la negociación para ganar tiempo
La movilización del mundo democrático, empezando por los países occidentales, ha sido algo sin precedentes. Yo no recuerdo haber visto nada parecido en los muchos años que tengo. Al mismo tiempo que diversos gobiernos, empezando por los Estados Unidos y Canadá y los principales países europeos, reconocían a Guaidó como presidente, la Unión Europea, la OEA, las Naciones Unidas y todos los países democráticos latinoamericanos, con excepción de Uruguay y México (algo previsible), rompían con la dictadura y se movilizaban a fin de apresurar la caída del régimen sanguinario de Maduro. No hay que olvidar, en estos momentos en que por fin se ve una luz al final de este largo camino, que nada de esto hubiera sido posible sin el sacrificio del pueblo de Venezuela, que, si en un primer momento se rindió a los cantos de sirena de Chávez, luego reaccionó con ejemplar valentía y ha mantenido todos estos años su resistencia, sin dejarse amilanar por la ferocidad de la represión.
Gracias Julio Borges, María Corina Machado, Leopoldo López, Lilian Tintori, Henrique Capriles, Antonio Ledezma, Juan Guaidó y los miles de miles de mujeres y hombres que los siguieron todos estos años demostrando en las calles, y en los calabozos y en el exilio, que América Latina ya no es, como en el pasado, tierra de sátrapas y de ladrones, y que un pueblo que ama la libertad no puede ser indefinidamente encadenado. Algún día, no lejano, un retoño de uno de esos grandes escritores que ha dado ya Venezuela a nuestra lengua escribirá esa gran novela tolstoyana sobre lo que ocurrió y está ocurriendo allá. Y el final será, por supuesto, un final feliz.
Eric Hobsbawm: the Marxist intellectual who altered history
Richard J Evans’s biography portrays a man who enthralled readers but remained controversial to the end
by Kathleen Burk
Eric Hobsbawm was an international phenomenon of his time. A leading proponent of the new “social history”, he also upended the modern historical century with his proposal for the “long 19th century” (1789-1914) as a new period, and his focus on themes, not chronology, thus throwing the “British political tradition overboard”. Hobsbawm, who died in 2012 aged 95, was a leader of, and the last significant member of, a group of Communist historians who were a dominant historical force for several decades. Indeed, he became an icon for leftists everywhere, a public intellectual, as popular in Brazil as in Britain. But most important to Hobsbawm himself was his deep and enduring loyalty to Marxist ideas, the Communist party and the Soviet Union. Even after 1956, when news of Stalin’s slaying of millions through starvation or the purges leaked out, he refused to condemn the Soviet dictator and publicly justified these deaths.
In short, Hobsbawm was a complicated man. As such he is a suitable subject for a wide-ranging and deep biography which Richard J Evans, an eminent historian of Germany, has delivered on the basis of full access to his subject’s huge private archive, a number of interviews, and material from another 17 archives.
A self-described “Marxist intellectual”, Hobsbawm decided to become a historian to make a living. He read phenomenally in several languages and fired off ideas like a sparkler, but he was not by instinct an empirical historian. As he put it: “I would like most to describe myself as a kind of guerrilla historian, who doesn’t so much march directly towards his goal behind the artillery fire of the archives, as attack it from the flanking bushes with the Kalashnikov of ideas.” He wrote more than 30 books which sold millions, but was equally well known for his voluminous number of essays, newspaper articles, lectures and interviews.
Hobsbawm was born in 1917 in Alexandria, a symbol of the cosmopolitan nature of his background and future. His father was from Whitechapel in London’s East End, making Hobsbawm a British subject, whilst his mother was from Vienna. Both were Jews, but Hobsbawm refused to don the mantle of an observant Jew until his funeral, when, at his request, the Kaddish was said. The family was not well off and sometimes changed residence or country. This did not bother him overmuch; what cracked his life was the loss of his parents. He was an orphan at 14, and the lack of a family ate at him. When he was sent to Berlin in 1931 to live with his aunt and uncle, a substitute was found in the Communist party. As a party member, he revelled in the camaraderie and fellowship. More importantly, he found a philosophy, Marxism, and a cause, bringing the communists to power.
Hobsbawm wrote that he came to history through Marxism rather than the other way around
In 1933, his father’s unemployed brother decided to return to Britain with his family, taking Hobsbawm and his sister Nancy with them. In October 1936, when he arrived at King’s College, Cambridge after winning a scholarship, he found to his disappointment that the students were largely non-political and certainly not leftwing. However, there was the Socialist Club, dominated by communists, and he joined and would remain a member until he died.
Conscripted into the Royal Engineers in 1940, he soon came to the attention of MI5, the domestic intelligence service, which had been sent reports on the new recruit by one of his senior officers. Access to these reports is put to good use by Evans, who provides the answers to questions Hobsbawm later asked himself, such as why he never became an officer and why it was so difficult to find an academic job. He finally found a permanent home in Birkbeck College, London, which then as now is devoted to teaching mature part-time students with classes held from 6pm-9pm. This left him with the days free for research and writing, of which he took full advantage. A brake was put on his productivity only when he became a father. “I am now married and with two tiny children . . . and the degree to which this diminishes productivity is quite astonishing,” he wrote to a fellow historian. “I dream of solid Victorian comforts when husbands didn’t have to take turns with wives in feeding infants in the middle of the night, etc.”
Still his productivity remained impressive, but it takes more than that to make an important writer. Hobsbawm’s significance goes beyond the structure of his books. In his writings on European history, he covered the whole range of the continent’s civilisation, from politics to the economy, and social and cultural life. He also placed Europe within a broader global context. The absence of chronology might have been disturbing to non-academic readers, but he wrote with verve, flashing insights, arresting ideas and clear prose. As he set out in one of his most popular books, The Age of Revolution, the economy — or the mode of production — determined everything else. In this manner, he brought a Marxist interpretation to a wide readership, but without labelling it Marxist and thereby losing some readers. It could make a reader feel that she or he was part of a new way of looking at history, and this caught up many who bought and read book after book of his.
For the profession, part of his importance was his involvement in forging a new type of history — social history, the history of society in its widest ambit. In his big thematic books, Age of Revolution, Age of Capital and Age of Empire, covering “the long 19th century”, he paid less attention to politics and more to the economy and society. But interspersed with these was a series of books on the “losers” rather than the winners of history, Primitive Rebels, Labouring Men, Bandits and Captain Swing. These books opened a whole new area, approach and focus, and helped lead to social history being considered not only the best, but, according to some, the only type of history anyone should bother writing.
Evans pays attention to this, but even more to Hobsbawm the individual, to his modes of thought, his inner life, his personality and his interactions with others. His concern is to explain, rather than accuse or defend. Hobsbawm wrote that he came to history through Marxism rather than the other way around. His main interest lay in Europe, with Latin America a close second, and he ignored China, was dismissive of the US, and wholly uninterested in Africa.
On a personal level, Hobsbawm could be warm, loyal, generous and kind. But he was also arrogant. He “never liked being bested in matters of knowledge”, he could be a “cranky, irritable man”, he did not suffer fools gladly, he was contemptuous of political correctness and he did not mince his words. Most of all, he was a public intellectual of rare ability and range — in his ideas, his writings and his audience. He made a huge impact on millions of people around the world, and it is this that Evans, in this honest and riveting biography, makes clear.
Jornal “Folha de São Paulo”, Caderno Mercado, 02/02/2019
Marcos Sawaya Jank (*)
Busca por comida criou império militar, comercial e gerador de migrações
O Brexit, processo que levou o Reino Unido a sair da União Europeia, transformou-se numa decisão caótica e autodestrutiva para os ingleses. O Reino Unido se isola sem saber para onde vai. Movimentos anti-integração e anti-imigração ganham força nos EUA e na Europa. Medidas protecionistas tendem a reduzir ou a “administrar” o comércio internacional, os órgãos e acordos multilaterais estão sendo repensados, surgem guerras comerciais, tecnológicas e, agora, perseguições pontuais a empresas estrangeiras. Em suma, o mundo parece querer frear o processo de globalização.
Mas a história é feita de ciclos que vão e vem, de forma pendular. Curiosamente a mesma nação que hoje não sabe o que fazer com o Brexit, conseguiu, há 200 anos, tomar medidas radicais que formataram o mundo moderno, produzindo o primeiro movimento de globalização em escala mundial.
Esse é o tema de“The Hungry Empire: How Britain’s Quest for Food Shaped the Modern World”(O Império esfomeado: como a busca dos britânicos por alimentos formatou o mundo moderno), escrito pela professora Lizzie Collingham em 2017.
A obra defende a tese de que a força motriz do poderoso Império Britânico no século 19 foi a busca por comida, que se traduziu em um império militar, comercial e gerador de grandes migrações.
Na Revolução Industrial, a Grã-Bretanha tornou-se uma fervorosa defensora do livre-comércio, apoiada nas teses de Adam Smith e David Ricardo. De um lado, a abertura da importação de cereais e o cercamento das propriedades privadas (enclosures) forçou os camponeses a deixar o campo para trabalhar nas manufaturas. Do outro, os territórios britânicos se expandiram na África, na Índia e na Oceania, e a sua influência militar e econômica chegou à China e à América do Sul.
As estradas de ferro e os navios a vapor aumentaram exponencialmente o fluxo de pessoas e mercadorias. Canadá, Austrália, Nova Zelândia, Índia e Argentina são exemplos de países que passaram a exportar elevados volumes de cereais e/ou carnes para a Grã-Bretanha, criando o primeiro grande movimento de interdependência agroalimentar entre os cinco continentes, especializando países e remodelando os hábitos alimentares.
O livro defende que a migração maciça tinha essencialmente a ver com “colocar comida na mesa”. Por volta de 1850, cerca de um quarto da população da Irlanda (2 milhões de pessoas) morreu ou migrou por causa da contaminação da batata por um fungo. Não é diferente do que ocorre hoje com migrantes de países destroçados por guerras e fome, só que agora em direção ao Velho Mundo.
A Grã-Bretanha montou um império marítimo que a permitiu exportar não só a população agrícola mas todo o setor agrícola, que foi produzir em outros partes do império e além dele. À época, mais que deter a posse de territórios, o termo “império” tinha a ver com domínio dos mares e do comércio.
O Brasil foi um dos primeiros países que se beneficiaram desse movimento de globalização do Reino Unido. O “decreto de abertura dos portos às nações amigas”, assinado por d. João 6º, em 1808, libertou-nos de Portugal como comprador único de nossos produtos.
Infelizmente o protecionismo renasceu com força no período entreguerras do século 20. Na década de 1920 o Reino Unido restringiu seu comércio às nações do Commonwealth britânico, destruindo riqueza em países como a Argentina, que se tornara uma das 12 nações mais ricas do planeta exportando trigo e carne.
As bases da expansão do império britânico no século 19 e a freada brusca nos anos 1920 deveriam nos servir de lição um século depois, quando uma nova onda protecionista se faz presente no próprio Reino Unido e em outras geografias do planeta.
(*) Marcos Sawaya Jank é especialista em questões globais do agronegócio. Escreve aos sábados, a cada duas semanas.
Dear colleagues interested in Global and International Relations History,
We are glad to announce the foundation ofLabmundi-IRI, Center for Global and International Relations History at the Institute of IR/University of Sao Paulo(USP), Brazil, in association with Labmundi-FFLCH, the Center for Brazilian and World Systems Studies at the History Department/USP.
Looking into how people and human groups historically relate to each other across different types of boundaries, Labmundi-IRI seeks to overcome the limits of diplomatic history, exploring the ways by which states and societies develop economic, political, social and cultural relations over time. Labmundi-IRI is also focused on strengthening methodological debates on the importance for global and IR historians to work and master a complex combination of scales – combination that, over time and through space, builds relationships on different levels, such as the local, the national, the international, and the transnational.
As launching event, Labmundi-IRI’s team invites you to a special lecture by Professor Alex Lichtenstein (Indiana University), editor of theAmerican Historical Review. Entitled“The American Historical Review and the Global South”, Prof. Lichtenstein’s lecture will discuss AHR development and actual trends, and the preoccupation of AHR editorial board to allow for greater geographical diversification in terms of articles published and contributors to the journal.
Institute of International Relations, University of São Paulo, Brazil (IRI-USP)
Alex Lichtenstein
Alex Lichtenstein is the Editor for the American Historical Review and Professor of History at Indiana University, where he teaches US and South African history. Alex has been a visiting scholar at theÉcole des Hautes Etudes(Paris), Humboldt University (Berlin), University of Genoa, University of Belgrade, University of the Western Cape, Nanking University (Tianjin), and University of Cape Town. He is the author ofTwice the Work of Free Labor,Margaret Bourke-White and the Dawn of Apartheid(with Rick Halpern), andMarked, Unmarked, Remembered: A Geography of American Memory(with Andrew Lichtenstein).