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.

domingo, 1 de novembro de 2020

Entre Biden e Trump, a América Latina fica na expectativa - Frederic Puglie (The Washington Times)

 Frederic Puglie é um jornalista americano que cobre a América Latina para o Washington Times, um jornal de direita americano. Ele sempre me telefona para pedir minha opinião sobre os temas de política externa, o que eu não me recuso a dar, embora ele selecione cuidadosamente apenas uma frase ou duas de uma conversa bem mais abrangente.

Eis a última matéria, cobrindo vários países latino-americanos.

Paulo Roberto de Almeida


 


 

'Heartfelt' views: Latin America watches, weighs in on U.S. election

Sharp policy shifts could be in the works after election

 

By Frederic Puglie - Special to The Washington Times - Wednesday, October 28, 2020

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/28/latin-america-weighs-trump-biden-election

 

Americans choosing between President Trump and Vice President Joseph R. Biden on Tuesday will also have a say on what’s next for some 650 millions of their neighbors to the South, where the presidential race is a top topic of discussion on screens and around kitchen tables.

Any U.S. presidential election is bound to generate intense interest in Latin America, but leaders and ordinary citizens across Central and South America have tuned into — and sought to shape — the 2020 race in ways not previously seen. Issues such as immigration, trade and relations with problem states such as Cuba and Venezuela could take sharp turns next year depending on whether the U.S. is led by Republicans or Democrats.

Some are not just watching from the sidelines.

In a break with normal protocol, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro last week endorsed Mr. Trump for reelection. He said there was no “need to hide [his] heartfelt” views.

In Colombia, critics say some lawmakers have been actively “campaigning” for both Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden as the country’s troubled, U.S.-backed peace deal ending a long leftist insurgency hangs in the balance.

In Argentina, meanwhile, Buenos Aires college student Daniel Sandrea said he was keeping a close eye on the election unfolding on the other side of the hemisphere.

When the Biden fan told friends on social media that he was happy to be challenged on his views, he quickly found himself debating American politics not with his Florida-based relatives but with a fellow Venezuelan emigre living in Chile.

“We are in disagreement,” Mr. Sandrea said with a laugh. “He explained his position, and, well, I explained mine.”

Analysts say such cross-continental attention should come as no surprise. Mr. Trump’s style and record, which have long been catalysts of passion for backers and detractors alike, and a uniquely volatile campaign have made for compelling drama.

“There has never been anything remotely close in the level of attention, interest and concern … as there is with this election,” said Michael Shifter, president of the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington. “It’s just quite striking.”

Mr. Trump’s tough line, his supporters say, has forged an unexpectedly productive diplomacy with key Latin American states, leading the fight against illegal drugs and aggressively confronting leftist regimes in Venezuela and Cuba. As for Mr. Biden, he served as a point man to Central America as vice president and helped shepherd through a $750 million aid package for the region in 2015.

Mr. Biden’s campaign platform calls for a $4 billion aid package to struggling Central American states as a key plank in his immigration agenda.

The election’s impact on policy could be tested quickly no matter who wins the election. The U.S. is scheduled to host to the ninth Summit of the Americas next year. It will be the first time in more than a quarter century that the hemispherewide gathering will be on U.S. soil.

How a second Trump term or a Biden administration would turn out often depends on the idiosyncrasies of individual Latin American nations and leaders.

 

BRAZIL: The ‘other’ Trump

For the “Trump of the Tropics,” a moniker that the conservative maverick Mr. Bolsonaro has long embraced, the outcome of the U.S. election may make a particularly stark difference.

The close ties that the populist leader has sought with the United States contrast sharply with the lukewarm feelings that for decades — under U.S. and Brazilian presidents of all ideological stripes — defined Brasilia’s view of Washington.

The government, and Bolsonaro in particular, try hard to highlight this special relationship,” said Ambassador Paulo Roberto de Almeida, a former head of the IPRI think tank at Brazil’s foreign ministry.

Among other things, this helped Mr. Trump — who “launched a great offensive to guarantee Brazil’s support” — install American Mauricio Claver-Carone as president of the Inter-American Development Bank, a post traditionally held by a Latin American, Mr. de Almeida said.

“Bolsonaro and Trump have this bromance of sorts and have this affinity both ideological and temperamental,” Mr. Shifter said.

Although a pragmatic President Biden might be inclined to let bygones be bygones, it remains to be seen whether that would hold true for Mr. Bolsonaro, he added.

“There are going to be some strains on issues like the environment,” Mr. Shifter said. “To what extent Bolsonaro is prepared to accommodate to that changing agenda, that’s going to be a big question.”

 

MEXICO: An AMLO dilemma

Mr. Bolsonaro and Mr. Trump may be cut from the same cloth in style and substance, but one of the big surprises of Mr. Trump’s first term has been the cordial and productive relationship he forged with leftist Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, a critic in the past of what many see as overbearing U.S. policies.

Almost immediately upon taking office in late 2018, Mr. Lopez Obrador toned down his long-standing anti-Trumprhetoric, committed to ratifying the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement and in July made his first foreign trip to sign the free trade pact alongside his counterpart in the White House.

Mr. Trump has praised Mexico’s efforts to crack down on streams of immigrants from Central America, and the two governments recently struck a deal on a water-sharing accord that threatened to incite tensions between the two countries’ powerful agricultural sectors.

By staying firmly on Mr. Trump’s good side, Mr. Lopez Obrador — widely known by his initials as “AMLO” — defied his base and the persistently negative views that most Mexicans hold of Mr. Trump, said Jose Del Tronco of the Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences in Mexico City.

“Because of [Mr. Trump‘s] positions on immigrants and ‘the wall,’ there is a kind of general expectation in Mexico that the Democrats will win the election,” said Mr. Del Tronco, leading critics to warn that Mr. Lopez Obrador’s accommodating attitude toward Mr. Trump could come back to haunt him.

The real challenge of a Biden administration, though, would be the expected renewed focus on human rights issues, where common ground is easier to find in theory than in practice, Mr. Del Tronco added.

“There would not be a conflict of visions” with Mr. Biden, he said, “[but] the real policies — the public-safety policies, such as the [new] national guard and the military presence in public spaces to fight crime — those could result in conflict.”

 

COLOMBIA: Florida calling

Such a mismatch also could spell trouble for conservative Colombian President Ivan Duque. Mr. Trump has dubbed him a “really good guy,” so he has had little to fear other than an occasional slap on the wrist over Bogota’s inability to rein in coca production.

Once again, that would likely change if Mr. Biden moves into the White House, Mr. Shifter said.

“Broadening the agenda in Mexico and Colombia is going to make AMLO and Duque uncomfortable,” he predicted. “They will not necessarily embrace greater scrutiny on human rights abuses and corruption, which Trump has largely ignored, [and] they like getting a free pass on these issues.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, Mr. Duque’s ruling Democratic Center and the opposition Progressive Movement have been anything but coy about taking sides, said Juan Carlos Ruiz Vasquez of Bogota’s Del Rosario University.

“The Democratic Center is trying to campaign for Trump in Florida,” Mr. Ruiz Vasquez said, “mobilizing Colombians who already have the right to vote.”

Meanwhile, Sen. Gustavo Petro’s endorsement of Mr. Biden is playing in heavy rotation in Florida commercial breaks, he said, though probably not in the way the leader of the Progressive Movement intended.

“[His] statements were used in a Trump campaign ad,” Mr. Ruiz Vasquez marveled.

 

VENEZUELA: Side effects

Few issues move Colombian American voters like the ever-deteriorating meltdown in neighboring Venezuela. Mr. Trumphas tried to capitalize on the concern by repeatedly branding his opponent a “socialist.”

Although the Trump administration’s take-no-prisoners style has been compared at times to Nicolas Maduro’s, Mr. Trump’s hawkish approach to the Venezuelan leader and Mr. Maduro’s allies in Havana have earned him enduring support within the Venezuelan and Cuban diasporas in the U.S.

“We see that President Trump has taken positions of solidarity, and that has also generated a response of solidarity with Trump,” said Milos Alcalay, a former Venezuelan ambassador to the United Nations.

But the Trump administration’s tough sanctions “are more popular in Miami than they are in Caracas,” Mr. Shifter said. Mr. Biden might reduce the saber-rattling, he added, but he is unlikely to prove as dovish as Republicans would have voters believe.

“I don’t think Biden or his team have many illusions that Maduro is anything but a brutal, ruthless dictator,” Mr. Shifter said. “The difference is in style and approach. You’re not going to hear, ‘All options are on the table.’”

Still, even if Mr. Biden proves tough on Mr. Maduro, the possibility of a more accommodating approach to those who have propped up the strongman’s rule would concern him just as much, Mr. Alcalay said.

“It’s not just about the U.S.-Iran, U.S.-China and U.S.-Cuba bilateral relationships,” he said, “but about the negative effect these countries have maintaining the Maduro regime in power — with all its implications.”

 

ARGENTINA: Maps and money

A broader map, meanwhile, may also be on the mind of Cristina Fernandez, Argentina’s leftist vice president who — though nominally second in command to President Alberto Fernandez, no relation — is widely considered the driving force in Buenos Aires policy these days.

During her own presidency from 2007 to 2015, Ms. Fernandez forged close ties with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Mr. Maduro, as well as leftist leaders in Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador and Uruguay, before countries across the continent drove the left from power.

But the triumph of Evo Morales’s Movement for Socialism in Bolivia’s election this month has given Argentina’s left-leaning populist leaders new hope that the tide may be turning once again, said Mariano de Vedia of Buenos Aires‘ La Nacion daily.

“There is, of course, a bet on Trump losing [and on] a Democratic triumph giving the government a direct benefit [that] would help it form a friendlier regional map,” Mr. de Vedia said.

That a Biden administration would roll out the red carpet for the Fernandez government, though, may be little more than wishful thinking, the political commentator said.

“The scene being set is, in truth, hypothetical. There is no evidence they’ll have a better time” with Mr. Biden, Mr. de Vedia said. He noted that Ms. Fernandez endured a “pretty bad” relationship with President Obama, which “failed to yield her any advantage.”

Many in Buenos Aires seem to fail to appreciate that Mr. Trump lent a helping hand in recent talks to renegotiate its sovereign debt with the International Monetary Fund, said Gustavo Cardozo of the Argentine Center for International Studies.

“We needed the help of the White House to be able to make a deal with the IMF …,” Mr. Cardozo said. “Trump has not been opposed to helping Argentina, and that has been very positive.”

There is no guarantee that relations will improve markedly with a Democratic administration in Washington, Mr. Cardozo said, and many parts of the relationship may have to be renegotiated from scratch.

“Nobody knows where [Mr. Biden], if elected, will stand” on this, he said, “so it would mean drawing up these deals from zero.”

 

THE HEMISPHERE: Monroe or multilateralism?

Beyond individual issues and countries, analysts say, the picture is cloudy for how Tuesday’s vote will affect U.S. policy, attention and resources devoted to the region as a whole.

Mr. Trump would be bound to continue a “chairman of the board” approach in hemispheric fora such as the Organization for American States, Inter-American Dialogue President Emeritus Peter Hakim predicted. On issues such as immigration and security, the U.S. has proved more assertive since Mr. Trump took office.

After all, the Trump administration has “declared that the Monroe Doctrine is alive and well, thank you, after it had been really seen as obsolete by previous governments,” Mr. Hakim quipped.

Mr. Biden, on the other hand, might take more of a “first among equals” approach. Mr. Hakim predicted that there would be at least a “change in tone.”

“The notion that the U.S. plays a special role — that it has a certain leadership responsibility for the hemisphere — will diminish,” he said, “[though] it will not disappear.”

 

Copyright © 2020 The Washington Times, LLC.

 

Vitória de Biden colocaria viés ideológico do atual Itamaraty em xeque - Ricardo Della Coletta, Daniel Carvalho (FSP)

 

Vitória de Biden colocaria viés ideológico do atual Itamaraty em xeque

RICARDO DELLA COLETTA E DANIEL CARVALHO


BRASÍLIA, DF (FOLHAPRESS) - Ainda que uma vitória de Joe Biden nas eleições americanas coloque em xeque o forte componente ideológico da política externa do governo Jair Bolsonaro (sem partido), auxiliares do presidente afirmam acreditar que o democrata buscará uma relação pragmática com Brasília devido a interesses comerciais e geopolíticos.

Por outro lado, é provável que o relacionamento entre ambos seja marcado por animosidades e má vontade, o que traria dificuldades para a agenda do líder brasileiro. O cenário foi traçado por conselheiros e aliados do presidente, além de diplomatas, que falaram com a reportagem sob condição de anonimato.

Auxiliares preveem que, para não se indispor com Biden, Bolsonaro seria pressionado a mudar a orientação da política externa, reduzindo a carga ideológica e procurando manter uma agenda com Washington pautada em interesses comerciais.

Sem os EUA, seria mais difícil para o Brasil, por exemplo, embarcar em iniciativas que defendem, em fóruns internacionais, valores conservadores, como o recente apoio à Declaração de Consenso de Genebra, documento político contra o aborto e em defesa da família baseada em casais heterossexuais.

Nas palavras de um diplomata, Bolsonaro pode ter de adotar uma tática de "centrão" na política externa --numa referência à aproximação do presidente com partidos que flutuam ao sabor do momento no Congresso, deixando de lado o discurso contra a chamada velha política em nome da governabilidade.

Um conselheiro próximo a Bolsonaro lembrou da convivência dos ex-presidentes George W. Bush e Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. À época, o petista liderou iniciativas que contrariavam os interesses dos EUA, mas manteve bom relacionamento pessoal com o republicano, que visitou o Brasil em duas ocasiões.

Assessores, porém, ressalvam que qualquer processo de moderação das diretrizes da diplomacia brasileira depende, antes de tudo, de uma decisão do próprio Bolsonaro --e até o momento ele não deu mostras de que pretende se distanciar do trumpismo.

Em discurso no fim de outubro, o chanceler Ernesto Araújo, por sua vez, intensificou a aposta numa agenda radicalizada nos costumes e pela defesa do conservadorismo. "O Brasil hoje fala em liberdade através do mundo. Se isso faz de nós um pária internacional, então que sejamos esse pária", declarou.

Assessores também se preocupam com um flanco que Biden poderia explorar para colocar pressão e até mesmo "dar o troco" pela simbiose do brasileiro com Donald Trump: o meio ambiente.

O temor é que o ex-vice dos EUA seja cobrado pela ala mais progressista do Partido Democrata a mostrar compromisso com a agenda. E Bolsonaro --frequentemente retratado no exterior como um líder de tendências autoritárias que minimiza os incêndios na Amazônia-- pode ser o alvo mais óbvio para tal.

No primeiro debate presidencial nos EUA, Biden, ao se referir à Amazônia, disse que "a floresta tropical no Brasil está sendo destruída". Indicou que atuaria para oferecer recursos ao país para a preservação ambiental e, ao mesmo tempo, sugeriu retaliações econômicas ao Brasil se o desmatamento não diminuir. Bolsonaro classificou a fala como "lamentável".

As diferenças entre eles fazem com que analistas comparem o eventual panorama à eleição do democrata Jimmy Carter em 1976 e a pressão exercida à época sobre o regime militar no Brasil.

Eles destacam ainda que, nesse cenário, o brasileiro se encontraria na incômoda situação de manter relações estremecidas com os principais atores globais. Afinal, Bolsonaro já protagonizou choques com a China, maior parceiro comercial do país, e com líderes como o presidente francês, Emmanuel Macron, e a chanceler da Alemanha, Angela Merkel.

A perspectiva de um futuro relacionamento difícil é reforçada pela própria postura de Bolsonaro nas últimas semanas. Em vez de se distanciar da disputa, recebeu em 20 de outubro uma delegação chefiada pelo Conselheiro de Segurança Nacional dos EUA, Robert O'Brien.

Na ocasião, disse torcer pela vitória de Trump e que, "se for a vontade de Deus", comparecerá "à posse do presidente brevemente reeleito nos EUA". "Não preciso esconder isso, é do coração", afirmou Bolsonaro.

Assessores, no entanto, apostam que o país ficaria fora do foco democrata num primeiro momento. Embora estratégico na América Latina, o Brasil sempre esteve longe das prioridades americanas --Biden deve dar atenção especial à China, à Rússia, à reaproximação com a Europa Ocidental e ao Oriente Médio.


Militares prebendalistas - Ana Clara Costa

 Se for permitido ao militar da ativa aplaudir um governante de plantão, também será permitido vaiá-lo (Ricardo Bergamini).

 

Preados Senhores

 

Sabemos que esses senhores estão no poder, não por ideologia, mas apenas pela boquinha rica, conforme prova na matéria abaixo:

 

DEFESA QUER QUE MILITARES COM CARGO NO GOVERNO POSSAM GANHAR MAIS QUE O TETO

 

AGU já emitiu parecer a favor, mas decisão foi suspensa por conta da pandemia

 

Ana Clara Costa/ÉPOCA

 

11/05/2020

Medida permite que teto seja aplicado isoladamente sobre salários de pensionistas que tenham um segundo cargo público Foto: Marcelo Regua/Agência O Globo

 

Matéria completa clique abaixo

 

https://epoca.globo.com/defesa-quer-que-militares-com-cargo-no-governo-possam-ganhar-mais-que-teto-1-24421797

A humilhação dos generais

Bolsonaro privilegia a atuação da ala ideológica e expõe militares a vexames públicos. Os ataques partem dos filhos do presidente, do guru Olavo de Carvalho e até do ministro Ricardo Salles

Crédito: Claudio Reis/FramePhoto/Folhapress

CONFRONTO Uma disputa interna de poder mostra que o presidente já se prepara para deixar os militares no caminho. O Centrão ocuparia o lugar (Crédito: Claudio Reis/FramePhoto/Folhapress)

Eudes Lima/ISTOÉ

30/10/20

Apoiado pelos militares, o presidente não hesita em expor publicamente seus generais. As humilhações são corriqueiras e sugerem que ele prefere hoje dar mais espaço à ala ideológica. No entanto, a passividade dos militares parece estar com os dias contados. Após sete meses de ostracismo, o general Otávio Rêgo Barros foi demitido do posto de porta-voz da Presidência e deixou o cargo atirando. Barros publicou um artigo para traçar um paralelo entre um general romano e Bolsonaro. O general escreveu: “o poder inebria, corrompe e destrói!”. Mesmo sem citar o nome de Bolsonaro, alertou para o fato do presidente não ser um general romano: “Lembra-te da próxima eleição!”.

A reação do militar encontra apoio entre seus pares e aponta para um governo desarticulado. Rêgo Barros tem uma postura crítica, parecida com a do general Carlos Alberto dos Santos Cruz. Ele foi o primeiro ministro militar a ser demitido, em junho de 2019, após ser ofendido pelo vereador Carlos Bolsonaro e por Olavo de Carvalho. Na ocasião, o guru publicou em rede social: “Controlar a internet, Santos Cruz? Controlar a sua boca, seu merda”. Sobre os ataques aos militares, que continuam acontecendo até hoje, o general disse a ISTOÉ: “É desrespeito geral, por despreparo, inconsequência e bossalidade. Junta todos os desrespeitos e a reunião de 22 de abril e você vai ter um diagnóstico do padrão de liderança no país”, afirmou Santos Cruz.

Outro recente episódio de humilhação foi comandado pelo próprio presidente. O ministro da Saúde, general Eduardo Pazuello, encaminhou negociação pela compra da vacina do Instituto Butantan contra a Covid-19. Enciumado com o protagonismo do governador de São Paulo, João Doria (PSDB), Bolsonaro desautorizou publicamente o ministro, forçando-o a gravar um vídeo em que o ministro diz: “É simples assim, um manda e outro obedece”. Mas Bolsonaro foi além e surpreendeu o ministro com a revogação do Decreto 10.530, no dia 28, editado pelo general para facilitar a privatização das Unidades Básicas de Saúde (UBSs). O desprestígio de Pazuello ficou ainda mais evidente.

Os que conhecem o presidente dizem que ele quer se vingar do tempo em que foi desprezado como militar. O senador Major Olímpio (PSL-SP) diz que ele quer revanche: “Esse tratamento do Bolsonaro com militares é recalque. Ele não conseguiu entrar em uma solenidade nas Agulhas Negras quando era vereador”, disse o Major. O indisciplinado militar, aposentado precocemente aos 33 anos de idade, tem sede de mostrar quem manda agora.

Volta de motocicleta

https://cdn-istoe-ssl.akamaized.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2020/10/2651-generais2-418x235.jpg

“O poder inebria, corrompe e destrói” – General Otávio Rêgo Barros, ex-porta-voz da Presidência (Crédito:Divulgação)

Mas quando Bolsonaro trata do assunto, ele minimiza a gravidade dos ataques contra os militares. Foi o que aconteceu no episódio em que o general Luiz Eduardo Ramos, ministro da Secretaria de Governo, foi chamado de “Maria Fofoca” pelo ministro Ricardo Salles. Ao invés de repreender o ministro do Meio Ambiente, o presidente preferiu levar Ramos para dar uma volta de motocicleta e tomar um lanche. Ramos foi acusado pela ala ideológica de vazar informações sobre a volta de brigadistas do Ibama que combatem os focos de incêndio. O deputado Eduardo Bolsonaro saiu em defesa de Salles: “Força, ministro. O Brasil está contigo e apoiando seu trabalho”, disse no Twitter. A defesa de Ramos, no entanto, veio de fora do governo. Vários deputados e senadores manifestaram apoio ao general. O presidente da Câmara, Rodrigo Maia (PSD-RJ), disse que Salles “resolveu destruir o próprio governo”. Davi Alcolumbre, presidente do Senado, afirmou que “não é saudável que um ministro ofenda publicamente outro integrante do governo”.

Conhecido como apaziguador, o general Walter Souza Braga Netto, ministro-chefe da Casa Civil, interviu para que o ex-ministro da Saúde, Luiz Henrique Mandetta, ficasse no cargo quando houve o embate público entre ele e o presidente sobre o distanciamento social e uso da cloroquina, logo no início da pandemia. O resultado da discussão entre eles levou a um virulento ataque por perfis bolsonaristas nas mídias sociais, organizado pelo “gabinete do ódio”, envolvendo Braga Netto.

O cientista político Ricardo Ismael diz que os militares tornaram-se uma pedra no sapato do presidente. “Os militares foram muito úteis ao presidente, mas Bolsonaro espera que eles não façam política, eles são cumpridores de tarefa”, disse Ismael. Segundo ele o estigma trazido da Ditadura Militar fez dos generais cidadãos pouco respeitados na política. Por isso, ele entende que “o desgaste existe quando os militares são humilhados publicamente”. Para Ismael, no entanto, “dificilmente eles se rebelarão. Na verdade eles querem compor com o poder”. Além dos militares o governo ainda é apoiado pela ala ideológica, pelos conservadores, pelos técnicos e pelo Centrão “que compõem uma coalizão momentânea”. Hoje, o presidente prefere dar força ao grupo ideológico onde estão os seus filhos, o guru Olavo de Carvalho e os ministros Ernesto Araújo e Ricardo Salles

Outro general que já foi alvo de pesados ataques do grupo ideológico foi o vice-presidente, general Hamilton Mourão. Ele chegou a ser chamado de traidor no Twitter por Carlos Bolsonaro. Mourão ficou vários meses no ostracismo do governo, desde 2019, diante dos ataques da área ideológica. Mas hoje conseguiu recuperar sua posição de destaque no governo. Bolsonaro lhe deu a Presidência do Conselho da Amazônia, mas já disse publicamente que ele não será o seu vice em 2022. O flerte com os partidos do Centrão tem dado a dica de onde virá a composição de Bolsonaro na tentativa de reeleição. Militares seguem sendo preteridos em detrimento da área ideológica. Até quando?

https://cdn-istoe-ssl.akamaized.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2020/10/2651-generais3.jpg

india drifts to autocracy, under BJP - Amartya Sen (The Guardian)

 O nacionalismo do BJP, o partido dominante na Índia atual, sob a liderança de Narendra Mody, está retrocedendo na via indiana seguida nos últimos setenta anos, de convivência e integração entre as três maiores correntes culturais do país, a hindu, a muçulmana e a ocidental, escreve Amartya Sen, o prênio Nobel indiano em economia.

Paulo Roberto de Almeida


As India drifts into autocracy, nonviolent protest is the most powerful resistance

The Hindu nationalist regime has cultivated religious animosity – undermining the nation’s secular traditions

Published: The Guarduan, Monday, 26 October 2020
 Follow Amartya Sen
A silent protest against an attack on students at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, by a masked mob in January.

Nothing is as important, the philosopher Immanuel Kant claimed, as the “freedom to make public use of one’s reason on all matters”. Unfortunately, as Kant also noted, the opportunity to argue is often restrained by society – sometimes very severely. A disturbing fact about the world today is that authoritarian tendencies have been strikingly on the increase in many countries – in Asia, in Europe, in Latin America, in Africa and within the United States of America. I fear I have to include my own country, India, in that unfortunate basket.

After India secured independence from British colonial rule, it had for many decades a fine history of being a secular democracy with much personal liberty. People showed their commitment to freedom and their determination to remove authoritarian governance through decisive public action, for example in the general elections in 1977, in which the despotic regulations – dressed as “the emergency” – were firmly rejected by the people. The government obeyed promptly.

However, in recent years the priority of freedom seems to have lost some of its lustre for many people, and the current government gives striking evidence of the inclination to promote a different kind of society. There have also been strong attempts to stifle anti-government protests, which, strangely enough, have often been described by the government as “sedition”, providing grounds for arrest and for locking up opposition leaders. Aside from the despotic tendencies implicit in this approach, there is also a profound confusion of thought here, since a disagreement with the government need not be a rebellion to overthrow the state, or to subvert the nation (on which the diagnosis of “sedition” must depend).

When I was in school in British-ruled colonial India, many of my relations, who were nonviolently agitating for India’s independence (inspired by Mahatma Gandhi and other champions of freedom), were in British Indian jails under what was described as “preventive detention”, allegedly to stop them from doing anything violent. After India’s independence, preventive detention as a form of incarceration was halted; but then it was reintroduced, initially by the Congress government, in a relatively mild form. That was bad enough, but under the Hindutva-oriented BJPgovernment now in office, preventive detention has acquired a hugely bigger role, allowing easy arrests and imprisonment of opposition politicians without trial.

Indeed, from last year, under the provision of a freshly devised Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the state can unilaterally declare someone to be a terrorist, which allows them to arrest this alleged terrorist and place them in incarceration without trial. A number of human rights activists have been designated as terrorists and are in jail already under this arrangement.

When someone is described as being “anti-national”, this can be seen as a big philosophical denunciation anywhere in the world, but in today’s India it may mean nothing more than the person has made some critical remarks about the government in office. The confusion between “anti-government” and “anti-national” is typical of autocratic governance. The courts have sometimes been able to stop such abusive practices, but given the slow movement of the Indian courts, and the differences of opinion within India’s large supreme court, this has not always been an effective remedy. One of the most prominent defenders of human rights in the world, Amnesty International, has been forced to leave India as a result of governmental intervention.

The pursuit of authoritarianism in general is sometimes combined with the persecution of a particular section of the nation – often linked, in India, with caste or religion. The low-caste former “untouchables”, now called Dalits, continue to get the benefits of affirmative action (in terms of employment and education) that were introduced at the time of India’s independence, but they are often very harshly treated. Cases of rape and murder of Dalits by upper-caste men, which have become shockingly common events, are frequently ignored or covered up by the government, unless pressed otherwise by public protests.

The Indian authorities have been particularly severe on the rights of Muslims, even to the extent of restricting some of their citizenship rights. Despite centuries of peaceful co-existence between Hindus and Muslims, there have been striking attempts in recent years by politically extremist Hindu organisations to treat indigenous Muslims somewhat like foreigners and to accuse them of doing harm to the nation. This has been fed by cultivating disaffection and inter-religious animosity through the rapidly increased power of extremist Hindu politics. The fact that the celebrated poet Rabindranath Tagore had a Hindu background was not contradicted by his self-description in Oxford (when giving the Hibbert lectures) that he came from the confluence of three cultural streams, combining Hinduism and Islam, in addition to western influence.

Indian culture is a joint product of people of different religious faiths, and this can be seen in different fields – from music and literature to painting and architecture. Even the very first translation and propagation of Hindu philosophical texts – the Upanishads – for use outside India was done on the active initiative of a Mughal prince, Dara Shikoh, the eldest son of Mumtaz (in whose memory Dara’s father, Emperor Shah Jahan, built the Taj Mahal). Led by the government’s current ideological priorities, many school textbooks in India are being rewritten now to present a thoroughly revisionist history, reducing – or ignoring altogether – the contributions of Muslim people.

Despite the government’s power, armed with the UAPA, to call anyone a terrorist, those accused are typically committed to nonviolent protests in the way that Gandhi had advocated. This applies particularly to newly emerging secular resistance in India, led by student leaders. For instance, Umar Khalid, a Muslim scholar from Jawaharlal Nehru University who has been arrested and imprisoned as an alleged “terrorist” through the use of the UAPA, has eloquently expressed this secular movement’s commitment to peaceful protest: “If they beat us with lathis [sticks], we will hold aloft the Tricolour [the Indian national flag]. If they fire bullets, then we will hold the constitution and raise our hands.”


While the growth of authoritarianism in India demands determined resistance, the world is also facing a pandemic of autocracy at this time, which makes the Indian lapses look less abnormal than they in fact are. The justification for imposing tyranny varies from country to country, such as reducing drug trafficking in the case of the Philippines, curtailing the flow of immigrants in Hungary, suppressing gay lifestyles in Poland, and using the military to control allegedly corrupt behaviour in Brazil. The world needs as many different ways of defending freedom as there are attacks upon it.

Dr Martin Luther King Jr noted in a letter written in 1963 from Birmingham jail: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” He also insisted that all resistance has to be nonviolent. So do the young student leaders of today’s India. If there is a commonality in the distinct manifestations of autocracy, there is also a shared reasoning in the resistance.

Drama na OMC e o futuro do comércio internacional - Trader Letter

The Trader Letter, October 30/10/2020 

Drama at the WTO

It has been a week full of drama and uncertainty as the WTO is down to two candidates for the Director General position. Former Nigerian Finance Minister Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala and South Korean Trade Minister Yoo Myung-hee are the two finalists which means a woman will head the WTO for the first time ever. However, the attempt to arrive at a consensus is proving difficult as most members are backing Okonjo-Iweala while the U.S. has thrown its support behind Myung-hee. 

The stand-off is on as the EU, Japan, China and Canada back Okonjo-Iweala yet the U.S. has taken the extraordinary step of moving away from many of its key allies by going all in for Myung-hee. On Wednesday, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative issued a statement of support for Myung-hee calling her a “bona fide trade expert (with) all the skills necessary to be an effective leader of the organization.”

The statement complains that the WTO is broken and is “badly in need of major reform” and that it “must be led by someone with real, hands-on experience in the field.”

None of this is wrong; in fact, all of it is true. However, the EU and others are digging in their heels and next steps are now being pushed until after the U.S. election as many believe a Joe Biden victory will pave the way for Okonjo-Iweala’s approval. Regardless of who wins, WTO reform is inevitable. 

The future of free trade

A few short years ago, countries around the world were clamoring to put together bilateral and plurilateral trade deals that were called “gold standard” and bragged of how they were the most ambitious in scope ever negotiated. The Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and the Comprehensive Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) are clear examples. 

Fast forward to today and free trade’s future seems less certain. The Canada-EU pact is now three years old yet only half of EU members have fully ratified the pact and Cyprus has become the first country to outright reject it. Meanwhile, some groups are complaining that the deal itself is not living up to expectations

Global trade obviously isn’t going to cease. However, how free and open and by what rules, remain key unknowns, especially after this week — we’ll be watching the US election. We’ll continue to track these issues closely.