Consulta ao Analytics de Academia.edu em 22/05/2024
quarta-feira, 22 de maio de 2024
terça-feira, 21 de maio de 2024
Vargas Llosa sobre o provável avanço da extrema direita nas eleições comunitárias europeias - The Independent Institute
Tudo parece indicar que sim...
Is Europe Headed Towards the Extreme Right?
The Independent Institute, Tuesday, May 14, 2024
While it is certain that the far right (by which I mean the nationalist, protectionist, Eurosceptic right) will make headway in the elections to the Strasbourg-based European parliament that will take place in early June in 27 countries, it is far less likely that they will exercise the influence that the media and some of their rivals think—or claim they believe.
In the 705-member parliament (which will be adding fifteen new seats this time), control is firmly in the hands of a loose entente among three forces: the traditional right (European People’s Party), the traditional socialists (Alliance of Socialists and Democrats) and the so-called centrists (Renew Europe). In all likelihood, these three groups will continue to represent, together, more than the sum of any political bloc in which the far right might seek to play a major role. Even if the far right gains between 30 and 50 new seats, as some polls predict, it is extremely unlikely to displace the three blocs that tend to vote together when push comes to shove.
This matters because, apart from passing legislation and scrutinizing the European authorities, whoever dominates the European Parliament plays a role in shaping foreign policy, including trade policy, across the union. They will have a say in appointing the officials that make up that bureaucratic labyrinth that we call the European institutions, including the executive branch, the Brussels-based European Commission.
Of the four major countries of the European Union, the far right is only ahead in France. In Germany, the union’s most significant player, the Christian Democrats, is ahead, and the far right, in second place until recently, is now losing ground to the Social Democrats and may come in third. In Italy, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s party is ahead. Although she shares some views with the far right, her tenure so far does not indicate that she belongs in that group outright (it would be more accurate to say that she has one foot in the center-right and the other on the left side of the far right if such a thing exists). Italy’s more clearly defined far-right representative in the European Parliament is running fourth or fifth, depending on the poll. And in Spain, the hard right is running a distant third to the center-right conservatives and the socialists.
The two hardcore right-wing alliances in the European Parliament are the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) and Identity and Democracy (I&D). But the first of these alliances is a mix of parties that have ideological differences and don’t even agree on how Eurosceptic they are (Meloni’s party and Spain’s nationalist right are much less Eurosceptic than, say, Germany’s hard right or the hard-right French party that is a member of that alliance, and Meloni is a far cry from Germany’s far-right on several other issues). In fact, various members of the ECR want, after this election, to form some pact or entente with the traditional center-right, the single largest group in the European Parliament, in order to prevent the marginalization of the socialists. I&D would not be a part of such an entente—nor would they accept even if invited.
An understanding between the ECR and the center-right is not entirely out of the question (the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, from Germany’s center-right Christian Democratic Union, has flirted with the idea), but that would force the ECR to make many compromises and tone down its “far-right” positions. More importantly, such an entente would still need a third partner to add up to a majority of votes in parliament.
The only realistic possibility would be the centrist alliance, which would moderate the far-right’s positions even more! In any case, the odds of the centrists joining forces with ECR are not great. That would mean, for instance, Emmanuel Macron’s party dancing with the new party of Éric Zemmour, a ferocious critic of the French president.
Even if the prospects of the far right playing a dominant role in the next European parliament are slim, one thing should worry those who believe in an open, liberal-democratic, globalized Europe where the free circulation of goods, services, capital, and ideas is a substantive value. If the three traditional blocs—the center-right, the center, and the center-left—that currently have the upper hand manage, despite a reduced representation after the June elections, to keep the far right from translating their probable gains into significantly greater political power in Europe, the latter’s voters will become frustrated and perhaps more militant in various countries. And the far-right parties might be able to make their anti-systemic discourse relevant beyond those voters to an increasing number of Europeans who mistrust Brussels and Strasbourg, are fed up with politicians, and are hurting economically.
A nova Guerra Fria chega à Inteligência Artificial: EUA e China em posição de combate - GZero
Na Guerra Fria geopolítica e na guerra entre companhias americanas também:
Is it time for US AI companies to leave China?
Microsoft has asked 700-800 of its China-based employees working on cloud computing and artificial intelligence to leave the country, extending them offers of employment in different countries including the US. While these employees will have the option to stay put, the move signals Microsoft’s awareness that it may not be tenable to be a US company working on AI within China for much longer.
Last week, American and Chinese officials met to discuss artificial intelligence policy in Geneva, Switzerland. White House National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson said US officials “raised concerns over the misuse of AI” by China (without giving specifics), which pushed back against American “restrictions and pressure” on their use of the technology. In the past two years, the Biden administration has imposed strict export controls limiting the flow of semiconductors to China and its allies, hampering its ability to train and run AI models and applications.
Increasingly, companies are caught in the middle of these tensions — especially those like Microsoft and Amazon interested in serving both economies and tapping into China’s talent pool. The White House is also considering a new rule that would require licenses to sell cloud services to Chinese customers, a move that could further hinder Microsoft’s revenue in the country — and lodge the US government between China and the American firms they need to scale up AI capabilities.
===========
Google and OpenAI’s competition heats up
Both Google and OpenAI held big AI-focused events last week to remind the world why they should each be leaders in artificial intelligence.
Google’s announcement was wide-ranging. At its I/O developer conference, the company basically said that it’ll infuse AI into all of its products — yes, even its namesake search engine. If you’ve Googled anything lately, you might have noticed that Gemini, Google’s large language model, has started popping up and suggesting the answers to your questions. Google smells the threat of competition not only from ChatGPT and other chatbots that can serve as your personal assistant but also from AI-powered search engines like Perplexity, which we tested in February. It also announced Veo, a generative video model like OpenAI’s Sora, and Project Astra, a voice-assisted agent.
Meanwhile, OpenAI had a much more focused announcement. The ChatGPT maker said it’s rolling out a new version of its large language model, GPT-4o, and powering its ChatGPT app with it. The new model will act more like a voice-powered assistant than a chatbot — perhaps obviating the need for Alexa or Siri in the process if it’s successful. That said, how often are you using Alexa and Siri these days?
The future of AI, the company thinks, is multimodal — meaning models can process text, images, video, and sound quickly and seamlessly and spit out answers back at the users.
Most importantly, OpenAI said that this new ChatGPT app (on smartphones and desktops) will be free of charge — meaning millions of people who aren’t used to paying for ChatGPT’s premium service will now have access to its top model — though rate limits will apply. Maybe OpenAI realizes it needs to hook users on its products before the AI hype wave recedes — or Google leapfrogs into the consumer niche.
GZero, May 21, 2024
A destruição maciça perpetrada por Putin em sua guerra de agressão contra a Ucrânia - CDS
Não sei se Lula, seu governo, ou a diplomacia brasileira tomam conhecimento ou se interessam por esse tipo de destruição gratuita, assassina, terrorista:
Humanitarian+general:
According to information provided by the Situation Center of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, Russian forces shelled 13 regions of Ukraine over the past day. A total of 115 towns and villages and 150 infrastructure objects were attacked with various types of weapons. The number of casualties is being updated/clarified.
On the night of May 21, Russian forces attacked Ukraine with 29 attack UAVs of the "Shahed-131/136" type, 28 of them were shot down.
During the night of May 20-21 in Kharkiv, the occupiers attacked one of the favorite leisure spots of local residents. Four people were injured.
The enemy struck Kharkiv throughout the night. Debris from enemy "Shahed" drones was found at four locations. According to the State Emergency Service, 5 people were injured as a result of the Russian "Shahed" attack. At 7:05 AM, the Russians launched a missile strike on a transport infrastructure facility, injuring a 53-year-old civilian man. As a result of the shelling, 25 trucks and buses and 3 cars were damaged.
On May 21, Russian forces launched drone strikes on a police vehicle evacuating people from the Vovchansk community. The law enforcement officer suffered a concussion.
On Tuesday, May 21 Russian forces dropped explosives from a drone on the village of Antonivka in Kherson Oblast, resulting in injuries to three women.
On May 21, Russian forces targeted the Shumenskyi neighborhood in Kherson. An apartment building was hit, injuring three people, including a 15-year-old boy.
Russian forces launched a missile strike on Konotop in Sumy Oblast, damaging industrial infrastructure. The consequences of the Russian attack are being clarified.
The Russian occupation authorities have declared thousands of apartments and houses in the occupied territories of Ukraine as "ownerless property" and intend to confiscate them for the benefit of the state. According to calculations by "Novaia Gazeta Europa," over three years, the occupation administrations have identified 13.3 thousand "ownerless" real estate objects, half of which were identified in less than the full year of 2024.
According to Petro Andryushchenko, an advisor to the Mayor of Mariupol, up to 80,000 Russians have arrived and are currently residing in Mariupol, which is temporarily occupied by the Russian army. Russia's aggression has led to one of the largest humanitarian catastrophes in Mariupol. The city is nearly 90% destroyed due to shelling. The occupiers are also demolishing damaged buildings to conceal the evidence of their crimes. During the blockade and occupation, Russian forces destroyed 50% of the city's high-rise buildings—934 buildings in total, of which 465 have already been demolished. Over 52,000 apartments of Mariupol residents have been destroyed.
Centre for Defence Strategies (CDS) is a Ukrainian security think tank. We operate since 2020.
"Ninguém está acima da lei", diz o procurador do TPI, emitindo decisão de processo contra Netanyahu e líderes do Hamas
Na verdade, alguns permanecem à margem da lei, como as grandes potências e potências menores como Israel, mas também grupos terroristas. Mas a condenação MORAL é necessária.
Alguns poucos aliados dos criminosos, à direita e à esquerda, tentam ignorar a seriedade do trabalho do TPI contra indivíduos que cometem crimes de guerra e contra a humanidade. Entre eles se encontra, infelizmente, o presidente do Brasil, Lula, por razões que sinceramente desconheço.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
“Nobody is above the law.”
CNN Meanwhile in America, May 21, 2024
This is how Karim Khan, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, on Monday explained his application for arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his defense minister and several top Hamas leaders.
The ICC’s decision to accuse Netanyahu, Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar and others of war crimes and crimes against humanity created global shockwaves – and caused uproar in the internal politics of Israel and its close ally, the United States.
It is unlikely that anyone named will go on trial anytime soon. Neither Israel nor the United States recognizes the jurisdiction of the ICC, although the court says Gaza falls within its writ after Palestinian leaders formally agreed to be bound by the court’s founding principles in 2015. There is also no clear way to extricate Sinwar from Gaza to face justice.
Hamas' October 7 attacks in Israel killed 1,200 people and took around 240 hostage. Israel’s subsequent campaign in Gaza has killed tens of thousands of people and spread hunger across the enclave, as it tries to eradicate the terror group. Supporters of Khan's move on Monday would argue that the victims on both sides – many of them civilians – deserve some kind of justice. But the great power politics that have long hampered the ICC are already threatening to make its latest attempt to take action as impossible to implement as its previous arrest warrants against Russian President Vladimir Putin over his invasion of Ukraine.
The United States has long opposed the ICC because of the possibility that it could prosecute Americans. Like Russia and China, it does not recognize the jurisdiction of the court, blunting its effectiveness. Yet again, we saw the contradictions exposed when the US bemoans Israel’s failure to do more to protect civilians – but balks at serious attempts to make those responsible pay a legal price.
US President Joe Biden called Khan’s request for arrest warrants “outrageous” and said “whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no equivalence — none between Israel and Hamas.” Republicans are already warning of sanctions against the court. “The ICC has no authority over Israel or the United States, and today’s baseless and illegitimate decision should face global condemnation,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said. “International bureaucrats cannot be allowed to use lawfare to usurp the authority of democratic nations that maintain the rule of law.”
Biden has been at odds with Netanyahu recently over the prime minister’s unwillingness to take US advice to roll back his plan for an even bigger incursion into the southern Gaza city of Rafah. While his defense of Israel on Monday might ease some of the criticism to his right, the politics of Monday’s developments are horrible for the president. Every time Biden defends Netanyahu, he gets in trouble again with the progressive and younger voters who are irate about the terrible civilian toll in Gaza and whose indifference to Biden threatens his hopes in November’s election.
And the US’ defense of what many see as Israel's disproportionate response to the horror of Hamas' original terrorist crime will only increase cynicism, even among its friends, the next time Washington raises human rights and the global rule of law.
segunda-feira, 20 de maio de 2024
José Guilherme Merquior sobre a poesia de Alberto da Costa e Silva - Elixir do Apocalipse (1983)
José Guilherme Merquior
| Alberto da Costa e Silva não é poeta bissexto. Pelo contrário: até que vem versejando mais que antes, e não faz muito tempo nos deu esse admirável As Linhas da Mão, um dos mais puros vôos líricos da década passada. Mas é um poeta do intensivo; e neste magro livrinho, A roupa no estendal, o muro, os pombos, a própria ausência da numeração das páginas parece sublinhar a natureza nada copiosa desse verso feito de limpidez e contenção. Lirismo sempre em surdina, alheio a toda oratória e, na verdade, a todo efeito retórico. Há uma “ars poetica” do verso oratório, muito eficaz em d’Aubigné, Hugo, ou, entre nós, Castro Alves, Menotti del Picchia ou Affonso Romano de Sant’Anna; apenas não é esta a família poética dos textos de Alberto da Costa e Silva. Neles, nada se salvas de tropos, nem música (por mais bela) externa; nenhum jogo pelo jogo. A linhagem albertina não se prendeu ao idioma neoparnasiano de 45, nem à neovanguarda seguinte. Como Octavio Mora ou Marly de Oliveira, trata-se de um poeta nem antimoderno, nem experimental ? mas muito menos “literário” que esses dois. “Jardim imaginário com sapos reais dentro dele” ? essa miniestética de Marianne Moore, epigrafando A roupa no estendal..., situa acuradamente o espírito antiornamental da poesia de Alberto.
debulha-se como uma fava: caem de dentro dela os dias, até o mais antigo, em que ouvimos o seu nome pela vez primeira. Ela nos põe o, focinho, sendo um cão, nos joelhos e está cheia de sarna, de infância e de medo. Abandona-me o que vejo Existe o rio. |
How Jimmy Carter Changed American Foreign Policy: An Enduring—and Misunderstood—Legacy - Stuart E. Eizenstat Foreign Affairs
On September 17, 1978, U.S. President Jimmy Carter faced a momentous crisis. For nearly two weeks, he had been holed up at Camp David with Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, trying to hammer out a historic peace deal. Although the hard-liner Begin had proven intransigent on many issues, Carter had made enormous progress by going around him and negotiating directly with Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan, Defense Minister Ezer Weizman, and Legal Adviser Aharon Barak. On the 13th day, however, Begin drew the line. He announced he could compromise no further and was leaving. The talks on which Carter had staked his presidency would all be for naught.
But then, Carter made a personal gesture. Knowing that Begin had eight grandchildren and was exceptionally devoted to them, Carter signed photographs of the three leaders, which he addressed to each grandchild by name, and then personally carried them over to Begin’s cabin, where Begin was preparing to depart. As Begin read the names of his grandchildren, his lips quivered and his eyes watered and he put down his bags. Later that same day, he reached a breakthrough agreement with Sadat on what became the framework for the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty six months later.
In the years after Carter left office, in early 1981, the consensus in Washington was often that his foreign policy had been a failure. Carter began his term warning that he would not succumb to an “inordinate fear of communism,” which many critics took as a sign of weakness. It was also on his watch that the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the ensuing U.S. hostage crisis unfolded. Moreover, Carter’s frequent mixing of soft and hard power made his approach to the world difficult to define and easy to misunderstand. And his accomplishments were quickly obscured by his decisive loss to Ronald Reagan in the 1980 presidential election.
But as that final day at Camp David makes clear, during his one term in office, Carter left an enduring and positive foreign policy legacy that few presidents who have served two can match. Carter, who has been in hospice for over a year, should take great satisfaction in his track record. He was a liberal internationalist and a peacemaker who shunned the use of military force in favor of diplomacy, an approach that would continue for decades after he left office and for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. He advocated for free trade and believed that U.S. foreign policy should reflect the country’s best values. And although he was prepared to take a hawkish line on key Cold War policies, he was proud of the fact that no American died in combat during his time in office.
OUTGUNNING MOSCOW
By the time Carter entered the White House in 1977, the Cold War was deeply entrenched. The Soviet Union was aggressively expanding in Africa through various proxy armies in Angola, Ethiopia, Namibia, and the Horn of Africa. It was also building up its nuclear arsenal, further suppressing internal dissent, making it harder for Soviet Jews to emigrate, and exerting absolute control over the communist Eastern bloc. Meanwhile, pro-American, anticommunist dictators flourished throughout Latin America, as well as in parts of Asia and Africa, having been supported by the Nixon and Ford administrations. And the Middle East, still in the aftermath of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, was a tinderbox.
At the same time, the military and economic power of the United States and its allies was waning. U.S. defense spending had declined in real terms since the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam four years earlier. NATO members had not invested in their military capabilities. And the United States’ international economic leadership was challenged by a declining dollar and an impasse at the Tokyo Round of international trade negotiations.
Carter had campaigned in 1976 as a foreign policy liberal. He pledged to freeze the number of atomic missiles and warheads, reduce defense spending by $5 billion to $7 billion annually, and withdraw all U.S. ground troops and nuclear weapons from South Korea. He promised to make human rights central to his foreign policy, in contrast to the realpolitik favored by his predecessors, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, and Henry Kissinger, who served both of them as secretary of state.
But once he took office, Carter realized that, given the Soviet Union’s rapid military and nuclear buildup, the United States needed more hard power, too, and took steps to augment it. He was often caught between the advice of his hawkish national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and his dovish secretary of state, Cyrus Vance. Instead of cutting defense spending, he raised it, reversing the post-Vietnam reductions and seeking to rebuild the U.S. military; in real terms, he increased defense spending by about 12 percent over his four-year term. In fact, most of the major weapons systems deployed by the Reagan administration had actually been approved by Carter: the stealth bomber, the MX mobile missile, and modern cruise missiles among them. A 2017 Pentagon study concluded that “the Reagan revolution in defense spending began during the later years of the Carter administration.”
When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, Carter took an even more hawkish turn. He called the conflict “the most serious threat to peace since the Second World War,” and even his critics applauded his tough stance. He embargoed grain to the Soviet Union, announced a U.S. boycott of the Olympics in Moscow, imposed economic sanctions on the Soviet Union, and reinstituted the draft. Moreover, he asserted that the United States would use force to ensure that oil flowed freely through the Persian Gulf—a concept that would come to be known as the Carter Doctrine and which remains a tenet of U.S. foreign policy today.
Carter also ramped up pressure on the Soviet Union by persuading reluctant European allies, especially German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, to agree to host intermediate nuclear weapons on their soil to counter the Soviet mobile missiles. Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev later said that this move helped convince him of the need to disarm. Reagan often gets credit for SALT II, the landmark nuclear arms reduction treaty with Moscow that he implemented, but it was Carter who negotiated it.
Carter also challenged the Soviets by cultivating relations with China. Nixon and Kissinger initiated the historic thaw between the United States and China in 1972, but it was Carter who then normalized relations with the People’s Republic—at the time an enemy of the Soviet Union—by granting it full diplomatic recognition in 1979. And although this step required ending formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, Carter also created a new relationship with the island under the Taiwan Relations Act, which established the astute concept of “strategic ambiguity,” by which the United States maintains the capability to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion without explicitly promising to do so. The law remains the basis for U.S. policy toward China and Taiwan today.
HUMAN RIGHTS CRUSADER
Although Carter could get tough when needed, the centerpiece of his foreign policy was human rights, as he had promised in his campaign. He profoundly transformed the United States’ relationship with Latin America. He negotiated the Panama Canal Treaty in 1977, which transferred the canal to eventual Panamanian control—rectifying a long-standing grievance for many Latin Americans—and fought the hardest congressional battle of his presidency to get the Senate to ratify the deal. He cut military assistance to dictators, such as Jorge Rafael Videla in Argentina, Ernesto Geisel in Brazil, and Augusto Pinochet in Chile. And he threatened to withhold aid to countries, including Guatemala and Uruguay, if they did not release thousands of political prisoners. In 1977, at the initiative of Congress and with Carter’s enthusiastic backing, the U.S. State Department issued its first annual worldwide Human Rights Report, a public assessment of the state of human rights in nearly 200 countries that has continued under every presidential administration since.
Carter’s human rights policy struck a blow to the Soviet Union. He publicly supported Soviet dissidents such as Andrei Sakharov, championed the emigration of Soviet Jews, and took up the cause of Soviet Jewish refuseniks such as Natan Sharansky. Soviet diplomat Anatoly Dobrynin, who served as Moscow’s ambassador to the United States from 1962 to 1986, conceded that Carter’s human rights policies “helped end the Cold War” because they “played a significant role in the long and difficult process of liberalization inside the Soviet Union.”
The crown jewels of Carter’s foreign policy were the Camp David accords and the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty that followed in 1979, one of the greatest personal diplomatic achievements by any U.S. president before or since. As a deeply religious Baptist, Carter prioritized the Middle East because he wanted to bring peace to the Holy Land. And as a Cold War realist, he correctly saw the region as a key battleground for influence with the Soviet Union. Plunging headlong into the fiendishly complicated Middle East peace process, he took one of the biggest gambles of his presidency. After the Egyptians and Israelis failed to reach a peace agreement on their own, he invited—over the objections of his advisers—Sadat and Begin to the presidential retreat at Camp David. Over 13 excruciating days, Carter personally wrote more than 20 drafts of a peace agreement, mostly by shuttling between the Egyptian and Israeli teams because the relationship between Sadat and Begin was so poisonous. In the end, it took him to the last hours—and the tribute to Begin’s grandchildren—to bring around Begin, who believed that Israel should extend from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.
As historic as they were, however, the Camp David accords were a nonbinding framework that was meant to be converted within three months to a legally binding treaty. When six months passed without an agreement, Carter took another risk for peace—again against the advice of his advisers—by going to the region to personally negotiate the treaty, now shuttling between Israel and Egypt with his own draft agreements. At the 11th hour, he reached a deal with Begin in the presidential suite of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem that ended 40 years of conflict between the two countries. It laid the foundations for a bilateral peace that endures today—even amid the terrible fighting that has engulfed the region since October 2023.
THE IRANIAN BLIND SPOT
No fair assessment of Carter’s foreign policy legacy can avoid his dealings with Iran. In the space of a few weeks in early 1979, the Islamic Revolution transformed Iran from a decades-long ally to a self-proclaimed enemy. Later that same year, radical Iranian students breached the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took more than 50 Americans hostage for 444 debilitating days. Carter made many mistakes leading up to the crisis. His administration’s focus on the peace process between Egypt and Israel left Iran in a blind spot. The president had called Iran under Shah Mohammad Reza an “island of stability” in a toast to the Iranian leader on New Year’s Eve 1977, just a year before he was forced to leave the country. In failing to predict the Islamic Revolution, the U.S. intelligence community saddled Carter with the worst intelligence failure in modern American history. The CIA had failed to notice that the shah had lost support from all segments of society and did not know that he had incurable cancer. Just six weeks before the shah fled, the agency told the president that Iran was not primed for a revolution.
Some critics, including Kissinger, believe that Carter’s human rights policy undermined the shah. But Carter never publicly criticized the shah’s human rights record, despite massive violations by Iran’s intelligence service, and only privately advised him to reach out to moderate elements in Iranian society. Instead, Carter assured the shah that the United States would support a military crackdown to quell the growing unrest, sent General Robert Huyser to back the shah’s last prime minister over Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and authorized covert action to undermine Khomeini’s regime. Nonetheless, despite American missteps, it was the shah, and not Carter, who lost Iran. It is no fairer to blame Carter for the collapse of Iran’s pro-Western government than to blame President Dwight Eisenhower for losing Cuba to Fidel Castro.
When it came to getting the U.S. hostages back, Carter ultimately chose diplomacy over hard power. He put the safety of the hostages first by rejecting advice Brzezinski and I gave to mine or blockade the harbors of Kharg Island, from where most of Iran’s oil was exported. In the end, Carter negotiated their release but only after he lost the election. There is also now evidence that William Casey, Reagan’s campaign manager and eventually his CIA director, played a hand in slowing the release of the hostages. In 2023, Texas Lieutenant Governor Ben Barnes told The New York Times that Casey conveyed to Iran—through a proxy—that it would get a better deal from a Reagan administration if they kept the hostages until after the U.S. presidential election. When I asked James Baker, who became Reagan's chief of staff and then his treasury secretary, about Casey’s involvement in the Iran hostage crisis, he told me, “There’s nothing I wouldn’t believe about Casey.” Baker also admitted that Casey stole Carter’s presidential debate book, which I had prepared. Casey, who died in 1987, denied the accusation. Whatever the case, the delay in a hostage deal probably cost Carter the presidency.
THE LAST PEACEMAKER
Following his defeat, Carter created the Carter Center, a nonprofit that carries out many of the unfinished initiatives of his presidency, such as promoting peace and fighting disease. Under his leadership, the center monitored over 115 elections, hosted dialogues between Israelis and Palestinians, and contributed to the near eradication of Guinea worm, a parasitic disease. In 1986, there were 3.5 million cases of Guinea worm worldwide; by 2023, there were 14. In their own retirement, President George W. Bush and President Bill Clinton have both emulated the Carter Center’s model. Working with Habitat for Humanity, Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter also helped over 4,000 families in 14 countries move into safe, affordable housing.
Had Carter been reelected, he would have fought to ratify the SALT II nuclear arms treaty. (The agreement was never ratified, though both the Soviet Union and the Reagan administration honored the deal.) He also would have pressed for more comprehensive nuclear arms agreements with the Soviet Union, as Reagan did. Most important, he would have pushed for an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. The Camp David accords and the subsequent Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty stipulated that Israel would grant “full autonomy” to the Palestinians, but the implementation of that article would have required another agreement, which his administration had already begun. Unfortunately, Reagan did not want to use the political capital Carter was willing to expend to secure greater Palestinian rights, which might have led to a Palestinian state and a more peaceful Middle East.
Even with his missteps in Iran, Carter’s foreign policy made a lasting positive mark on the world. Traces of Carter’s approach can be seen in the Biden administration today: the combination of hard and soft power, the focus on human rights and democracy, the courage to stand up to aggression from Moscow, and the continued commitment to strategic ambiguity with China. And of course, several presidents since Carter have tried to pull off a Middle East peace deal that matches Camp David’s success. It may in part be the failure of later administrations to accomplish such a feat that accounts for the terrible conflict the region finds itself in today. More than ever, the Middle East desperately needs the brave, deft diplomacy Carter was able to deliver.
CORRECTION APPENDED (MAY 20, 2024)
An earlier version of this article misstated James Baker’s role in the Reagan administration. He served as chief of staff and treasury secretary under Reagan, not as secretary of state—a post he later held under President George H. W. Bush.
III Simpósio Pombalino Internacional - Universidade de Alagoas, 3-5/06/2024
A Cátedra Marquês de Pombal convida a todo(a)s para participar do III Simpósio Pombalino Internacional, que decorrerá entre os dias 3 e 5 de junho, de forma presencial, no Auditório da Reitoria da UFS. O tema deste ano é Paradoxos do Iluminismo.
III Simpósio Pombalino InternacionalUniversidade de Alagoas
3-5/06/2024
Autor de Marquês de Pombal - Paradoxo do Iluminismo, uma das obras mais influentes sobre a matéria publicada nas últimas décadas, Kenneth Maxwell, professor aposentado da Universidade de Harvard, Professor Visitante em várias universidades anglófonas e lusófonas e membro honorário da Cátedra Marquês de Pombal (Camões, I.P./UFS), é um historiador britânico especialista em História Ibérica e no estudo das relações entre Brasil e Portugal no século XVIII, sendo um dos mais importantes brasilianistas da atualidade. O III Simpósio Pombalino Internacional, reconhecendo a sua importância, decidiu homenageá-lo de duas maneiras: primeiro, organizando um evento em referente à sua obra, e em seguida concedendo um título de Doutor Honoris Causa da Universidade Federal de Sergipe. O evento contará com a participação de pesquisadores de várias universidades do país, além da equipe da UFS, sempre presente desde a organização da primeira edição do evento.
As inscrições são gratuitas e devem ser feitas através do SIGAA UFS (https://www.sigaa.ufs.br/sigaa/public/extensao/paginaListaPeriodosInscricoesAtividadesPublico.jsf)
Seguem anexos os cards de divulgação e a programação do evento.
Atenciosamente,
Luiz Eduardo Oliveira
Petrobras: Sucesso e fracasso - André Gustavo Stumpf (Correio Braziliense)
Petrobras: Sucesso e fracasso
Agora, o presidente Lula demonstra sua inclinação a repetir as políticas de seus dois primeiros governos e o de sua sucessora do Planalto. A Petrobras está segurando o preço dos combustíveis para aliviar a inflação e, ao mesmo tempo, favorecer seus candidatos na eleição de novembro.
André Gustavo Stumpf
Correio Braziliense, 20/05/2024
A Petrobras, empresa brasileira de petróleo, impressiona pelo seu tamanho, imenso valor (mais de US$250 bilhões), importância na economia brasileira e enorme capacidade de ser vítima da ação dos políticos. Seu sucesso é seu fracasso. No governo Lula 2, foi descoberto o fabuloso pré-sal que vai da costa do Espírito Santo até a de São Paulo com cerca de 15 bilhões de barris de petróleo. A descoberta permitiu que o Brasil assumisse a posição de importante exportador de petróleo. As necessidades do mercado interno foram atendidas, mas com o preço internacional.
No governo Dilma, a Petrobras foi para o centro do debate político por motivo inglório. Foi descoberto o rentável esquema de corrupção na petroleira. Diretores admitiram receber fortunas para beneficiar empresas que redistribuíam parte dos lucros para o Partido dos Trabalhadores. Em 2006, a Petrobras pagou 360 milhões de dólares por 50% da refinaria de Pasadena, no Texas. Em 2008, a petroleira brasileira e a empresa belga de petróleo se desentenderam e uma decisão judicial obrigou a Petrobras a comprar a parte de sua sócia. A aquisição da refinaria de Pasadena acabou custando 1,18 bilhão de dólares à Petrobras, mais de 27 vezes o que a Astra teve de desembolsar. Foi o começo da história cabulosa.
A Operação Lava-Jato da Polícia Federal, a partir de março de 2014, apurou um esquema de lavagem de dinheiro suspeito de movimentar mais de R$ 10 bilhões montante que, atualizado, alcança mais de R$ 20 bilhões. Até abril de 2014, a operação envolveu 46 pessoas indiciadas pelos crimes de formação de organização criminosa, crimes contra o sistema financeiro nacional, falsidade ideológica, lavagem de dinheiro e 30 foram presas, entre elas o doleiro Alberto Youssef e o ex-diretor da Petrobras, Paulo Roberto Costa. Pedro Barusco disse que o esquema de pagamento de propinas na Petrobras começou em 1997.
Em 14 de novembro de 2014, foram presos os presidentes e diretores de grandes empresas do Brasil, como OAS, Iesa Óleo e Gás, Camargo Corrêa, UTC Engenharia e Construtora Queiroz Galvão. A força-tarefa da Lava-Jato identificou R$ 10 bilhões em propinas, recuperou R$ 870 milhões, bloqueou outros R$ 2,4 bilhões e prendeu 105 envolvidos no escândalo. Em novembro de 2015, a PF estimou que o prejuízo da Petrobras com corrupção chega a R$ 42 bilhões, mas somente R$ 6 bilhões foram divulgados oficialmente pela empresa. A estimativa tem como base laudo da perícia criminal baseado em tabelas que mostram os pagamentos indevidos envolvendo 27 empresas apontadas como integrantes do cartel na Petrobras.
O governo Temer, que sucedeu o de Dilma Rousseff, tratou a empresa como ente privado. Saneou as dívidas, proporcionou ótimos dividendos para os acionistas. A mesma fórmula foi repetida no governo Bolsonaro. Agora, o presidente Lula demonstra sua inclinação a repetir as políticas de seus dois primeiros governos e o de sua sucessora do Planalto. A Petrobras está segurando o preço dos combustíveis para aliviar a inflação e, ao mesmo tempo, favorecer seus candidatos na eleição de novembro. Ele entende que o lucro da empresa deve ser investido em projetos sociais que gerem empregos. O mais conhecido deles é o sonho da indústria naval, que foi tentado várias vezes e virou pesadelo na forma de prejuízos monumentais.
O presidente Lula tem exibido sua face analógica e a dificuldade em se situar no novo cenário globalizado e informatizado. Os novos negócios e os recentes caminhos do comércio internacional modificaram as referências no mundo moderno. Mas os dirigentes do PT ainda não perceberam. O chefe do governo custou a entender que ele precisaria definir uma pessoa para atuar em nome do governo federal no Rio Grande do Sul. Demorou muito. Escolheu o ministro Paulo Pimenta, que se tornou um evidente candidato ao governo daquele estado. Fez o anúncio em comício na cidade de São Leopoldo. O assembleísmo do PT ditou o rumo dos acontecimentos. Politizou o problema.
A substituição de Jean Paul Prates na presidência da Petrobras está dentro da moldura da política petista, que pretende botar a mão nos lucros da empresa. Magda Chambriard, que dirigiu a Agência Nacional do Petróleo durante o governo Dilma, foi funcionária da Petrobras por mais de 20 anos. Conhece bem o assunto e sabe das intenções do presidente Lula. Os presidentes da Petrobras não costumam ficar muito tempo no cargo. Eles estão sempre no meio de interesses multimilionários e da vontade política do partido que está no poder. A substituição na presidência da Petrobras é apenas mais um capítulo na luta entre acionistas privados e o governo federal. O perigo é que os dois terminem perdendo dinheiro e o cidadão brasileiro pague o prejuízo ao final.
Assinar:
Comentários (Atom)
Postagem em destaque
Livro Marxismo e Socialismo finalmente disponível - Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Meu mais recente livro – que não tem nada a ver com o governo atual ou com sua diplomacia esquizofrênica, já vou logo avisando – ficou final...
-
Uma preparação de longo curso e uma vida nômade Paulo Roberto de Almeida A carreira diplomática tem atraído número crescente de jovens, em ...
-
FAQ do Candidato a Diplomata por Renato Domith Godinho TEMAS: Concurso do Instituto Rio Branco, Itamaraty, Carreira Diplomática, MRE, Diplom...
-
Mercado Comum da Guerra? O Mercosul deveria ser, em princípio, uma zona de livre comércio e também uma zona de paz, entre seus próprios memb...
-
Países de Maior Acesso aos textos PRA em Academia.edu (apenas os superiores a 100 acessos) Compilação Paulo Roberto de Almeida (15/12/2025) ...
-
Reproduzo novamente uma postagem minha de 2020, quando foi publicado o livro de Dennys Xavier sobre Thomas Sowell quarta-feira, 4 de março... -
Itamaraty 'Memórias', do embaixador Marcos Azambuja, é uma aula de diplomacia Embaixador foi um grande contador de histórias, ...
-
O destino do Brasil? Uma tartarug a? Paulo Roberto de Almeida Nota sobre os desafios políticos ao desenvolvimento do Brasil Esse “destino” é...
-
Liberando um artigo que passou um ano no limbo: Mercosul e União Europeia: a longa marcha da cooperação à associação Recebo, em 19/12/2025,...
-
Quando a desgraça é bem-vinda… Leio, tardiamente, nas notícias do dia, que o segundo chanceler virtual do bolsolavismo diplomático (2019-202...