De Gutenberg e Lutero a Zuckerberg e Putin - James Hohmann

How Zuckerberg’s Facebook is like Gutenberg’s printing press

A statue of Martin Luther holding his translation of the New Testament into German sits in front of the city hall in Wittenberg, Germany. (Hendrik Schmidt/AFP/Getty Images) BY JAMES HOHMANN, with Breanne Deppisch and Joanie Greve |

THE BIG IDEA:

PALO ALTO, Calif.—When historian Niall Ferguson moved from Harvard to Stanford two years ago, he was struck by Silicon Valley’s indifference to history. The hubris he saw reminded him of what he encountered on Wall Street as he researched a book about the history of banking during the years before the financial crisis. He became convinced the technology sector was careening toward its own crisis and decided to write about it.

The crisis has finally arrived, thanks to Cambridge Analytica, conveniently timed to coincide with the publication of Ferguson’s new book on the history of social networks, from the Freemasons to Facebook. “The Square and the Tower” is a cautionary tale that challenges the conventional wisdom that growing interconnectedness is inherently good for society. “Our networked world is fundamentally vulnerable, and two-factor authentication won’t save us,” Ferguson said at the Hoover Institution, where he is a senior fellow.

Since President Trump’s victory, much has been written about parallels between the present and the rise of authoritarian leaders in the 1930s. Ferguson thinks that’s lazy analysis. For most of the 20th century, communications systems were amenable to central control. This was a fluke of the Industrial Revolution, which produced telegraphs and then telephones. These technologies had an architecture that allowed whoever controlled the hub to dominate the spokes, which led to more hierarchical power structures.

To understand the current era, Ferguson believes we need to look more at what happened after Johannes Gutenberg developed the printing press. Like the Web, the use of these presses was difficult to centrally control. “At the beginning of the Reformation 501 years ago, Martin Luther thought naively that if everybody could read the Bible in the vernacular, they’d have a direct relationship with God, it would create ‘the priesthood of all believers’ and everything would be awesome,” said Ferguson.

“We’ve said the same things about the Internet,” he added. “We think that's obviously a good idea. Except it's not obviously a good idea, any more than it was in the 16th century. Because what the Europeans had was not ‘the priesthood of all believers.’ They had 130 years of escalating religious conflict, culminating in the Thirty Years War – one of the most destructive conflicts ever.”

The more he studies that period, the more echoes Ferguson sees in the 21st century. “What one can see in the 16th and 17th centuries is polarization, fake news-type stories, the world getting smaller and therefore contagion is capable of spreading much faster,” Ferguson said. “These big shifts in network structure led to revolutions against hierarchical institutions.”

Ferguson points to recent studies showing that fake news can spread faster and farther than real news when it’s especially sensational. “The crazy stuff is more likely to go viral because we're kind of interested in crazy stuff, but this is not surprising historically,” he said. “The idea that witches live amongst us and should be burned went as viral as anything that Martin Luther said ... Indeed, it turned out that witch burning was more likely to happen in places where there were more printing presses.”

In a sobering 90-minute conversation, the author said he’s driven to sleeplessness when he thinks about how some of the dynamics on social media will play out in the future. “I'm much more worried than a non-historian by what I see because history tells me that the polarization process keeps going, and it doesn't just stop at verbal violence because at a certain point that's not satisfying,” said Ferguson.

Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg meets with a group of entrepreneurs in St. Louis last November. (Jeff Roberson/AP)

Enter Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg is worth around $64 billion as a 33-year-old because of his brilliance at creating an addictive social network that capitalized on the human desire for connection. The site was already embattled for allowing the Kremlin to use its platform to sow domestic discord. The Russians were literally buying political ads to target American voters with rubles. Now Zuckerberg is under growing scrutiny for the firm’s failure to safeguard data in the wake of damning whistleblower revelations about Cambridge Analytica, a voter profiling firm which harvested the personal information of as many as 50 million users and earned $6 million from President Trump’s 2016 campaign.

The Federal Trade Commission is investigating whether Facebook broke the law or violated a 2011 settlement agreement. A bipartisan chorus in Congress is demanding that Zuckerberg testify under oath. His lobbyists are negotiating the details of an appearance. Recognizing the political risk, Facebook executives have even begun saying publicly that they’re receptive to being more heavily regulated.

“I don’t think they have thought deeply at all about the historical significance of their predicament, and I blame Mark Zuckerberg for dropping out of Harvard before he took any of my classes,” Ferguson quipped. “If he had taken my course in western civilization, he'd know that he's become a strange amalgam of John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and William Randolph Hearst all at once. When you look back on the experience of these figures, what's the common characteristic? They went through a phase of deep unpopularity.”

Niall Ferguson speaks Monday at the Hoover Institution on Stanford's campus. (Rod Searcey/For The Hoover Institution)

Ferguson, who like Carnegie is a native of Scotland, believes that the American government must move aggressively to rein in the power of companies like Facebook. “If we don't act, the next phase of the process will be even uglier than the current Cambridge Analytica phase -- which is the tip of the iceberg,” he said. “Think of how many other people have downloaded the data. The window was open for years.”

He believes Facebook should be treated under the law more like a content publisher than a technology company. Amending the Telecommunications Act of 1996 could increase their liability and make them more accountable for damaging information trafficked on their platforms. “It is an untenable state of affairs that a few private companies know more about the citizens of a country than the citizens themselves, much less the government,” said Ferguson. “And it is untenable that the companies concerned are … so easily instrumentalized by hostile foreign governments that as many people saw Russian-originated content in 2016 as voted in the presidential election. Regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, you cannot possibly think this is okay.”

Despite all the attention paid to the ongoing Russia probes, Ferguson thinks media coverage of the midterms needs to emphasize how vulnerable the Internet remains to manipulation by the forces of darkness. “It's as if people who work professionally in politics just want to pretend that it's still pre-2008, whereas the entire system of politics has completely changed,” he said. “Facebook advertising is the most powerful tool in politics. I don't think we're doing nearly enough to avoid another legitimacy crisis around this.”

Good Globalism and Bad Globalism - Ryan McMaken (Mises)

É a diferença que eu estipulo entre globalização micro (indivíduos) e globalização macro (politicas de governos)

Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

The Difference Between Good Globalism and Bad Globalism

Ryan McMaken

Miss Daily, March 28, 2018

https://mises.org/wire/difference-between-good-globalism-and-bad-globalism

"Globalism" and "globalization," are terms that suffer from a lack of any precise definition. The terms are used freely by a wide variety of commentators to mean both good and bad things — many of which are opposites of each other. Sometimes globalism means lowering trade barriers. Other times it means aggressive foreign policy through international organizations like NATO. Other times it means supporting a global bureaucracy like the United Nations. 

This lack of precision was recently featured in The New York Times with Bret Stephens's column "In Praise of Globalists." Stephens however, also fails to make any serious attempt at defining globalism. He feigns an attempt to define globalism, but in the end, it turns out the column is just a means of making fun of Trump voters and rubes who don't subscribe to Stephens's allegedly cosmopolitan views. 

Stephens tells us that globalists want to "make the world a better place," thus implying that non-globalists don't.  We're informed that globalists value military alliances and free trade. But given that Stephen's isn't willing to define these terms or tell us how these institutions are used to make the world "a better place," we're still left wondering if globalism is a good thing. When international alliances are used to justify the dropping of bombs on civilians or turning Iraq into a basket-case and safe haven for al Qaeda, is that making the world a better place? When the EU uses "free trade" agreements as a means to crush entrepreneurs under the weight of a thousand taxes and regulations, is that making the world a better place? 

Globalism: Conflating both Pro-Market and Anti-Market Forces

Unfortunately, this is nothing new. Globalism has long been a heavily abused term that includes everything from lowering taxes to waging elective wars. For critics on the right, globalism must be suspect because so many center-left politicians are regarded as "globalists."  Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama are all regarded as dyed-in-the-wool globalists who also advocate for greater government control of markets. 

Simultaneously, "globalists" have also long been attacked by anti-capitalists. They see globalism as working hand-in-hand with "neoliberals" who are impoverishing the world by pushing for the spread of market forces, free trade, and support for less government intervention in daily life. 

These critics of so-called neoliberalism therefore attack organizations widely perceived to be "globalist" like the World Bank, the IMF, and the World Trade Organization. Unfortunately, though, the critics attack these organizations for the wrong reasons. These globalist organizations deserve to be criticized, but not because they push some aspects of economic liberalization that are actually good. They should be criticized because they primarily act as political organizations that enhance the ability of some powerful states to intimidate and politically manipulate other, less powerful states. 

This merging of free trade, military interventionism, and bureaucratic politicking under one umbrella of "globalism" ends up confusing the issue of globalism almost beyond repair. 

But there is still hope for the term. 

Historically, Globalism Is the Ideology of Peace and Freedom

Historically, it is important to remember that globalism is intimately connected to liberalism, the ideology of freedom and free trade. 

It is not a coincidence that one of the nineteenth century's most effective proponents of liberalism was Richard Cobden, who fought tirelessly against both trade barriers and against aggressive foreign policy. Cobden can be credited with waging an effective ideological war against the mercantilism of his day which was characterized by nationalist ideas in which both economic success and military security were zero sum games that required highly interventionist government institutions. 

Cobden's program, instead, was one of peace and free trade, which was then rightly regarded as a program of internationalism. Thomas Woords notes: 

Although Cobden's program would doubtless be stigmatized in our day as "isolationism," free economic intercourse and cultural exchange with the world can hardly be described as isolation. In his day, in fact, Cobden was appropriately dubbed the "International Man." And that, indeed, is what he was. Peace, free trade, and nonintervention — these ideas, Cobden believed, were not simply the ideological commitments of one particular party, but rather the necessary ingredients for the progress and flourishing of civilization.

We might say Richard Cobden was one of the first true European globalists. Cobden was further supported by the great French free-trader and anti-socialist Frédéric Bastiat who relentlessly called for the free flow of of goods while denouncing efforts by government institutions to "mold mankind" or impose regimentation on the population. 

Thus, the liberals of the nineteenth century who supported greater freedom of movement in both workers and goods, and non-interventionist foreign policy, might be perplexed were they to see what passes for "globalism" today. 

We are often told, even by pro-market globalists, that we need international organizations like the WTO to "ensure" that free trade prevails. This has always been a less-than-convincing claim. As Carmen Dorobăț has shown, there is not any actual evidence that the WTO really lowers trade barriers. Freedom in trade has grown more outside the WTO framework than within it.  All that is necessary to reap the benefits of free trade is to unilaterally remove barriers to trade. 

The European Commission meanwhile might facilitate trade within its trade bloc, but it acts as an enormous impediment to truly free and global trade. 

Even worse is the foreign policy of the new globalists who support an endless number of wars and military interventions on "humanitarian" grounds. Enormous military bureaucracies like NATO, amazingly, are considered to be "globalist" organizations as well. 

Political Globalism vs. Economic Globalism 

If we wish to end this confusion, though, we need to separate political globalism from economic globalism. 

When we do this, we find that economic globalism is a force for enormous good in the world, but political globalism is primarily a tool for increasing the power of states. 

As to economic globalism, we can see that again and again that the free flow of goods and services, unimpeded by states, improves international relations and increases standards of living.  Where governments have increasingly joined the "globalized" economy, extreme poverty declines while health and well being increases.  Latin American states that have embraced trade and freer economies, for example, have experienced growth. Those states that stick to the regimented economies of old continue to stagnate.  These benefits, however, can be — and have been — achieved by decentralized, unilateral moves toward free trade and deregulated economies. No international bureaucracy is necessary.

This is economic globalization: opening up the benefits of global trade, entrepreneurship, and investment to a larger and larger share of humanity. 

Meanwhile, political globalization is an impediment to these benefits: Political globalists at the World Health Organization, for example, spend their days releasing reports on how people shouldn't eat meat and how we might regulate such behavior in the future. Political globalists hatch new schemes to drive up the cost of living for poor people in the name of preventing climate change. Meanwhile, the World Bank issues edicts on how to "modernize" economies by increasing tax revenues — and thus state power — while imposing new regulations. 

It's essential to make these distinctions. Economic globalism brings wealth. Political globalism brings poverty. 

Economic globalism is about getting government out the way. It's about laissez-faire, being hands, off, and promoting the freedom to innovate, trade, and associate freely with others. 

Political globalism, on the other hand, is about control, rules, central planning, and coercion. 

Some careless observers may lump all this together and declare "globalism" to be a wonderful thing. But when we pay a little more attention to the details, things aren't quite so clear. 

Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is the editor of Mises Wire and The Austrian. Send him your article submissions, but read article guidelines first. Ryan has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado, and was the economist for the Colorado Division of Housing from 2009 to 2014. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.

A construção da ditadura na Venezuela - Luiz Marcelo Berger

Desde quando teve início o governo, então legalmente eleito, do coronel Chávez, eu farejei de longe onde isso ia dar, inclusive porque, conhecendo a história, detectei traços fascistas, até hitleristas, no messiânico líder "bolivariano". Denunciei isso desde cedo, neste blog, mas, voltado mais para temas econômicos, meu trabalho mais elaborado foi este aqui, denunciando a farsa do "socialismo do século XXI":
“Falácias acadêmicas, 9: o mito do socialismo do século 21”, Brasília, 24 maio 2009, 17 p. Espaço Acadêmico (vol. 9, n. 97, junho 2009, p. 12-24; http://periodicos.uem.br/ojs/index.php/EspacoAcademico/article/view/7184/4136). 
Um outro, escrito até antes, foi este aqui:
“Socialismo do século XXI?: apenas para os incautos...”; blog Diplomatizzando (link: http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2014/02/socialismo-para-os-incautos-paulo.html). 
Abaixo transcrevo o excelente artigo de Marcelo Berger sobre a grande fraude do século XXI, que entendo já se tornou indefensável mesmo para os mais renitentes esquerdistas brasileiros, que se mantêm vergonhosamente em silêncio sobre a extensão da catástrofe.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Marcelo Berger

43 min · 

OS CANÁRIOS DO BRASIL
Luiz Marcelo Berger

No final dos anos 90, Hugo Chavez assumiu o controle da Venezuela. Na época, sua permanência no poder não fora contestada como deveria pelos eleitores que ainda tinham possibilidade de impedir a ascensão do futuro ditador do Orinoco. Aos poucos, com extrema habilidade e escudado nos mais sórdidos ensinamentos da escola comunista cubana, com vasta experiência em ditaduras implacáveis, Chavez foi alterando o pais institucionalmente de forma lenta e irreversível.

Estruturas de estado foram erodidas. Nomeações e expurgos espúrios se tornaram rotina. Pessoas de bem foram silenciadas ou eliminadas. Ao mesmo tempo, centenas de milhares de apoiadores do futuro ditador de forma oportunista foram cooptadas e aceitaram sua oferta de beijo da morte. Milícias foram formadas. Seguidores fanáticos foram entregando suas almas em troca de privilégios na estrutura estatal, regados naquele tempo com os recursos fartos do petróleo a cem dólares o barril.

Muitos aceitaram passivamente o cenário que se desenhava, na certeza que a recompensa imediata não representava nenhum risco, nem para o pais, quanto menos para entes queridos. Estavam mortalmente errados. A mudança foi gradual e paulatina. Mas não passou desapercebida por alguns poucos venezuelanos que antevendo que seu pais estava entrando na espiral neocomunista, travestida com tempero caribenho e bolivariano, imediatamente começaram a fazer as malas para deixar o pais, sentindo o prenuncio da catástrofe que finalmente iria engolir o pais em futuro não muito distante. Foram proféticos.

O cenário de horror, cujos primórdios agora estão perdidos em registros históricos facilmente manipuláveis, revela-se bastante familiar aos eventos que vem ocorrendo em um determinado pais ao sul do equador. As semelhanças são evidentes, especialmente em relação à corrosão moral das instituições pela corrupção, não por acaso, o estágio inicial da inexorável derrocada final se nada for feito para impedir que assim aconteça.

Enganam-se aqueles que afirmam que o movimento de abandono da Venezuela começou em 2017, com hordas de refugiados chegando em Roraima ou indo para a Colômbia em fuga desesperada. Teve inicio muito antes, ainda no alvorecer dos anos 2000, quando ainda havia oportunidade de se realizar uma mudança planejada de vida em tempo. Hoje não é mais possível. Hoje, venezuelanos cruzam a fronteira com a roupa do corpo em busca de abrigo, segurança, comida e remédios, resultado esperado e previsível após anos de implantação do mesmo neocomunismo assassino que dilacerou todos os países por onde passou. Sem nenhuma exceção. A Venezuela foi apenas mais um a sucumbir, embora longe de ser o último.
Agora se junta à lista negra de morte e destruição que inclui a ex-União Soviética, todos os países da ex-cortina de ferro, China, Vietnã, Camboja, Coréia do Norte e, claro, Cuba, a favela rediviva da ditadura castrense, talvez o retrato mais fiel e duradouro desse vírus mortal conhecido por socialismo.

Em todos esses países o processo seguiu sempre a mesma cartilha e começou sempre pela destruição dos valores morais universais inerentes a qualquer ser humano: Deus, família, liberdade são imediatamente substituídos respectivamente pelo Estado, partido e pela libertinagem. Não existe mais a pessoa. Ela agora faz parte de um coletivo ou minoria. O espirito divino presente em cada um é substituído pela religião estatal, cujos interlocutores são os comissários do partido totalitário. O respeito ao individuo, sua vida, liberdade e propriedade, é substituído pela paz dos cemitérios, pois somente nestes todos podem ser igualados à força, uma vez que cada ser humano é único e insubstituível. Quando o neocomunismo penetra organicamente as instituições o colapso passa a ser apenas uma questão de tempo, pois a terra do consenso pelas leis é substituída pela terra dos lobos onde apenas prevalece a força das armas.

Os acólitos do partido único, repletos de ressentimento e ódio pelos seus conterrâneos, recepcionam de bom grado os novos tempos, pois somente dentro da ditadura do partido único conseguem algum holofote na escuridão de sua própria incompetência e mediocridade. Não por acaso, a primeira e mais importante vitima dos comissários totalitários é justamente o livre mercado, pois este é a expressão suprema da cooperação voluntária pela excelência. Todos podem entrar em sair quando querem de uma sociedade aberta e livre, algo incompreensível para a horda de fanáticos do partido único, entidade supra-humana com poder de vida e morte sobre seus súditos.

Na sociedade aberta, onde a busca do conhecimento e da excelência pelo mérito prevalecem, os medíocres e mornos não tem nenhuma chance, visto que não são capazes de oferecer valor aos seus conterrâneos. Apenas sabem extrair riquezas, como parasitas sociais que são. Por esta única razão, regimes totalitários precisam de um estado burocrático gigantesco, pois somente assim os medíocres podem ter sua existência reconhecida, pagos a peso de ouro com os recursos extraídos daqueles que efetivamente criam riqueza. Claro que este estado insustentável de coisas não pode durar para sempre. Que o digam Cuba e Venezuela. Aliás, qualquer outro pais que segue a mesma cartilha sempre tem o mesmo fim, exatamente como a história registrou incontáveis vezes.

Muitos inocentes úteis somente percebem a gravidade da situação quando já é tarde demais. Estes, iludidos ingenuamente pelas promessas do messias totalitário tornam-se os primeiros a serem abatidos. Alguns poucos pressentem a desgraça que se avizinha, assim como os canários nas minas de carvão, e soam o alarme com antecedência. No limite, fogem enquanto podem, pois percebem que o vírus assassino se alastra como rastilho de pólvora na sociedade, tornando sua destruição inevitável.

Já viu este filme antes? Este cenário distópico parece familiar? Pois é exatamente isso que foi decidido pelos ministros em Brasília, ao instituir o “princípio Lula”. Foi celebrada uma missa negra em homenagem ao apóstata e seus seguidores, cujo evangelho está sendo pregado em todo o país, nas ruas, escolas, universidades, tribunais, tevês, rádios, jornais, revistas. Ao fim e ao cabo, a decisão tomada tornou-se um ode aos canalhas do país. “Uni-vos, pois sua blasfêmia restará impune”. No seu último e derradeiro capitulo, o pais saberá logo mais qual o caminho que pretende trilhar: suprema redenção ou supremo desastre.

CurtirMostrar mais reações

ComentarCompartilhar

Hungary: from ‘semi-authoritarian order to fully authoritarian’?

Hungary slipping from ‘semi-authoritarian order to fully authoritarian’?

Democracy Digest, 

March 26, 2018

https://www.demdigest.org/hungary-slipping-semi-authoritarian-order-fully-authoritarian/?utm_source=Democracy+Digest+RSS+Mailer&utm_campaign=f82be3f6bb-Democracy+Digest+Newsletter+E-mail&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_513d53b18e-f82be3f6bb-119600745

In Budapest 1, a parliamentary district at the heart of the Hungarian capital, most voters will not support the party of Viktor Orban, the country’s far-right prime minister, in a general election on April 8. Yet as things stand, Mr. Orban’s party, Fidesz, will hold on to the seat — and its huge majority in Parliament. That speaks as much to the relative strength of Mr. Orban’s base as it does to his gerrymandering and his allies’ takeover of most private news outlets, the New York Times reports:

But it’s also because Hungary’s gaggle of small left-liberal opposition parties, who collectively form a majority in seats like this one, refuse to join forces behind a unity candidate. …But though the opposition’s disunity is a major reason for their recent failures, their main obstacles remain the ones created by Mr. Orban himself. Most contentiously, Fidesz rewrote the map of political districts in 2011. 

An analysis by the Political Capital Institute, a think tank [supported by the National Endowment for Democracy], suggested that left-leaning constituencies now contain an average of 5,000 more voters than right-leaning ones — making it harder for left-wing parties to win, the Times adds.

Paul Lendvai’s “fair-minded” new book “is a reminder that the lobbyists’ claims about Orban’s democratic credentials and his goodwill toward the United States are fake news,” notes Charles Gati, a senior research professor of European and Eurasian Studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and the author of “Failed Illusions: Moscow, Washington, Budapest and the 1956 Hungarian Revolt.”

“[F]or political and psychological reasons — he seems eager to create the legal foundation for a new constitution that would effectively turn today’s semi-authoritarian order into a fully authoritarian one,” he writes for the Washington Post:

If he is reelected in April with the super-majority he craves, he could further curtail the judiciary’s independence, further modify electoral law to stifle his remaining opponents’ chances at the polls and further curb freedom of the press. It seems that Orban’s model is Miklos Horthy’s antediluvian regime in interwar Hungary, a soft dictatorship that defied the country’s real and imagined foreign enemies and initially appealed to Hungarian pride. But it left humiliation and destruction in its wake at the end of World War II. If history were to repeat itself, Hungary’s slide from Central Europe to the Balkans would only accelerate.

In east-central Europe, the notion of “illiberal democracy” — a regime in which one party claiming a monopoly on national identity and tradition maintains itself permanently in power — has become part of the political landscape, notes George Weigel, a board member of the National Endowment for Democracy. There, too, one finds open talk of the “Salazar model” — a relatively benign authoritarianism that uses state power to manage politics, the economy, and the culture in order to insulate the people from the riptides of post-modernity, he writes for National Affairs.

Itamaraty cria grupo de trabalho do bicentenário da Independência (DOU, 26/03/2018)

Publicado em: 26/03/2018 | Edição: 58 | Seção: 1... - Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Publicado em: 26/03/2018 | Edição: 58 | Seção: 1 | Página: 162
Órgão: Ministério das Relações Exteriores / Gabinete do Ministro
PORTARIA Nº 270, DE 22 DE MARÇO DE 2018

O MINISTRO DE ESTADO DAS RELAÇÕES EXTERIORES, no uso de suas atribuições legais, resolve:
Art. 1° Fica instituído grupo de trabalho do bicentenário da Independência ("Grupo de Trabalho"), incumbido de propor e organizar atividades comemorativas do bicentenário da Independência do Brasil, vinculado ao Gabinete do Ministro de Estado das Relações Exteriores.
Art. 2° Compete ao Grupo de Trabalho:
I - propor projetos e iniciativas de cunho histórico e acadêmico no âmbito da celebração do bicentenário da Independência;
II - coordenar-se com as demais iniciativas existentes, de órgãos públicos e privados, tendentes aos mesmos objetivos;
III - indicar representantes do Ministério das Relações Exteriores na Comissão Nacional do Bicentenário;
IV - promover a publicação, no âmbito do Ministério das Relações Exteriores e da Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão, de obras e coleções alusivas ao tema objeto desta Portaria;
V - suscitar programas de cooperação internacional relativas ao tema;
VI - colaborar em todas as iniciativas e empreendimentos visando recuperar e preservar a memória do Ministério das Relações Exteriores nos temas pertinentes às suas competências.
Art. 3° O Grupo de Trabalho será composto por representantes das seguintes unidades administrativas do Ministério das Relações Exteriores:
I - Gabinete do Ministro de Estado
II - Secretaria Geral das Relações Exteriores;
III - Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão e seus órgãos subsidiários;
IV - Instituto Rio Branco;
V - Subsecretaria-Geral de Cooperação Internacional, Promoção Comercial e Temas Culturais;
VI - Subsecretaria-Geral do Serviço Exterior;
VII - Secretaria de Planejamento Diplomático.
§ 1º O Grupo de Trabalho será coordenado pelo chefe de Gabinete do Ministro de Estado, que designará os seus representantes e um coordenador adjunto, incumbido de auxiliá-lo na organização das atividades comemorativas do bicentenário da Independência do Brasil.
§ 2º A Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão atuará como secretaria de apoio técnico e administrativo do Grupo de Trabalho do Bicentenário.
§ 3° O coordenador e o coordenador-adjunto poderão convidar servidores, acadêmicos, especialistas e representantes de órgãos e entidades públicas e privadas, quando considerar necessário, para contribuir para o cumprimento do objeto desta Portaria.
§ 4° Os representantes designados para compor o Grupo de Trabalho desempenharão suas atividades sem prejuízo daquelas decorrentes de seus respectivos cargos ou funções, sendo a participação considerada prestação de serviço relevante e não remunerada.
Art. 4º O Grupo de Trabalho não constitui unidade gestora autônoma.
Art. 5° Os casos omissos relacionados com o cumprimento do objeto desta Portaria serão resolvidos pelo coordenador ou pelo coordenador-adjunto.
Art. 6º Esta Portaria entra em vigor na data de sua publicação.
ALOYSIO NUNES FERREIRA