Cooperacao entre ditaduras nos anos 1970: Brasil-Argentina (OESP)

DIREITOS HUMANOS

ONU registrou ação do País contra refugiados

O Estado de S.Paulo, 4 de novembro de 2012

Em cinco anos, o regime militar expulsou, com ajuda do Itamaraty, mais de mil argentinos, uruguaios e chilenos

No auge da repressão no Cone Sul, o Itamaraty e militares brasileiros devolveram opositores buscados pelos regimes nos países vizinhos, rejeitaram dezenas de pedidos da ONU para dar asilo a famílias ameaçadas e ainda forçaram a entidade a enviar esses refugiados para outros países.

Em cinco anos, o regime brasileiro expulsou mais de mil argentinos, uruguaios e chilenos, sempre com cooperação da diplomacia nacional. As informações fazem parte de centenas de telegramas, relatórios e cartas que estão guardadas nos arquivos da ONU em Genebra e que o Estado consultou com exclusividade. Elas constituem uma evidência de que a Operação Condor atuava, numa ação conjunta dos governos, contra os grupos de esquerda.

No total, 3.300 latino-americanos chegaram ao Brasil entre 1977 e 1982 em busca de asilo político, fugindo da perseguição em seus países. Mas o status de refugiado seria dado a apenas 1.380 e todos, sem exceção, seriam transferidos pela ONU a locais "seguros" a pedido do governo brasileiro. Quase 90% eram argentinos ou uruguaios.

Em vários telegramas trocados entre seus escritórios no Rio, em Buenos Aires e na sede, em Genebra, o Alto Comissariado da ONU para Refugiados (Acnur) alerta para a recusa do Itamaraty e do governo brasileiro em aceitar que os opositores permanecessem no País. "O governo continua a recusar dar asilo ou qualquer outro visto de residência permanente a nossos refugiados no Brasil", queixava-se em 25 de junho de 1979 Rolf Jenny, vice- representante regional do Acnur em Buenos Aires.

Pelo direito internacional, devolver a ditaduras pessoas perseguidas é considerado crime contra a humanidade. "O Brasil não aplica na prática a lei de asilo nacional para a esquerda ou não europeus", informava a ONU. Segundo o telegrama de 25 de junho, Jenny confirmava que a entidade operava em "posição extraoficial" no País, por exigência do próprio regime militar brasileiro e num acordo com o Itamaraty. Além do sigilo em suas atividades, outra condição imposta pelo regime era que a ONU "fizesse todo o possível" para dar destino aos refugiados - retirá-los do Brasil.

Em troca, o governo garantiria seis meses para esses refugiados permanecerem na condição de "pessoas em trânsito". Mais do que isso, os documentos revelam que o Itamaraty alertava que não haveria garantias de segurança. Para justificar sua recusa, o governo explicava à ONU que o Brasil "não era mais um país de imigração e que uma integração de refugiados era difícil". O argumento se repete em vários comunicados internos e reuniões entre diplomatas brasileiros e missões da ONU que por anos tentaram convencer o Brasil a mudar de posição.

Invasão. Já em 1984, num encontro entre a ONU e o então diretor do Departamento de Organismos Internacionais do Itamaraty, Marcos Azambuja, o diplomata voltaria a explicar que, diante da "circunstância econômica do País, o aumento do desemprego e o alto número de pessoas já ilegais no Brasil", o governo não considera adequado permitir estadia definitiva de refugiados diante de uma possível invasão".

A ONU não comprou o argumento -nem em 1984 nem na década de 1970. Para fazer desmoronar a explicação dada pelo Itamaraty, a entidade destacava como os portugueses que fugiam de Angola no processo de descolonização eram aceitos como imigrantes no País. "Deve ser notado, entretanto, que nos últimos anos dezenas de milhares de portugueses chegaram e é difícil admitir que não haja a possibilidade para outras poucas centenas de refugiados", alertaria a entidade em um telegrama de 1978.

Se nas salas do Itamaraty os diplomatas tentavam apresentar suas posições, documentos da entidade revelam que, nos bastidores, o Brasil ajudou de forma ativa na perseguição de refugiados de países vizinhos até o fim da década de 1970 e chegou a fechar acordos para ajudar militares argentinos a perseguir opositores ao regime de Buenos Aires que tivessem cruzado a fronteira para o Brasil.

Num telegrama de dia 28 de março de 1979, a ONU conta como dois refugiados argentinos alertaram que haviam sido perseguidos no Brasil ao tentar pedir asilo. Um deles havia reconhecido um dos agentes da inteligência argentina que os seguia. O representante do regime de Buenos Aires era o mesmo que esse militante havia encontrado meses antes numa prisão argentina.

"É óbvio que nossa colônia de refugiados em trânsito no Brasil está mais do que preocupada sobre os eventos", indicou a ONU. No mesmo telegrama, o Acnur relata como foi buscar de forma emergencial a ajuda da embaixada da Holanda no Brasil para aceitar dois argentinos, Horácio de la Paz e Laura de Carli, como refugiados em Amsterdã. Mas o depoimento desses argentinos ia além. Segundo a ONU, eles "foram informados de vários argentinos que foram sequestrados no Brasil e devolvidos a seu país de origem".

Colaboração. Há outro relato de um refugiado argentino colhido pela ONU, mais um sinal da colaboração oferecida pelo Brasil aos militares argentinos. Jaime Ori, membro do conselho superior do Movimento Peronista Montonero, relataria que foi informado na prisão, ainda em seu país, sobre a "colaboração direta das autoridades brasileiras no sequestro de argentinos refugiados em território brasileiro". "Pude ver pastas com documentos e fotos facilitadas por autoridades militares brasileiras aos militares do 2.º Corpo do Exército, em Rosario", contou Ori à ONU.

Solidão virtuosa - Marcelo de Paiva Abreu

Solidão virtuosa

Marcelo de Paiva Abreu*

O Estado de São Paulo, segunda-feira, 29.10.2012

Difícil encontrar alguém que não tenha sido surpreendido pelas recentes decisões do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF). Surpresa para os que estavam seguros de sua impunidade ou da impunidade de seus amigos. E, de outro lado, para os saudosos do STF da Terceira República, que terão tido orgulho do desempenho recente da Suprema Corte. Especialmente tendo em conta que as decisões alcançadas desmentiram a ideia de que ministros indicados por governos petistas tenderiam a demonstrar leniência com os réus envolvidos no "mensalão".

Houve fenômeno simétrico do que se registra nos EUA. Lá, indicações de juízes conservadores para a Corte Suprema por presidentes republicanos têm sido marcadas, em diversos casos, pelo abrandamento das posturas conservadoras dos indicados. Aqui, o que se viu é que diversos ministros indicados pelos presidentes Lula e Dilma demonstraram notável independência quando se tratou de julgar políticos do PT. Nunca a inamovibilidade dos magistrados pareceu tão essencial à defesa da democracia.

A pergunta que se coloca é se poderíamos esperar surpresa similar da parte dos demais Poderes da República. Por mais que se deseje que a postura de independência do STF influencie diretamente o Legislativo e o Executivo e, ao tornar mais arriscado o desafio às leis, dissuada práticas corruptas, são em princípio modestas as esperanças de que o salto qualitativo do STF seja imitado. Entretanto, o julgamento poderá afetar a coesão dos atuais partidos.

Tomando como marco de referência as experiências internacionais, em particular a britânica, fica claro que o começo do fim da corrupção sistemática - quando "a política corrompia a economia" pela via parlamentar - tem que ver com desenvolvimentos políticos que resultaram em ampliação de colégios eleitorais. A partir da década de 1830, o progressivo avanço das organizações sindicais e de partidos políticos que representavam os trabalhadores resultou em pressões que redundaram na neutralização da corrupção no âmago do sistema político, no quadro de um processo de amplas reformas com grande repercussão econômica.

A tragédia do PT, e em alguma medida do Brasil, é que exatamente as forças políticas que poderiam exercer papel preponderante para debelar a corrupção sistemática se envolveram em práticas corruptas que faziam parte da tradição brasileira.

Que impacto permanente terão as condenações da Ação Penal 470 sobre os partidos políticos? Constatado o "mensalão" em 2005, ao PT colocava-se clara opção. De um lado, autocrítica, expurgo dos corruptos e proposta de regeneração, em linha com a compungida reação inicial de Lula. De outro, a escolha que infelizmente prosperou: defesa intransigente das irregularidades detectadas, agasalhando-as com pretenso manto de legitimação partidária, na crença provável de que um STF com juízes majoritariamente indicados por governos petistas permitiria que tais crimes escapassem à justiça. Opção que agora se revela desastrada do ponto de vista estratégico e alimenta posições antidemocráticas de questionamento de decisões do STF.

É em parte melancólico, em parte revoltante, que esteja agora sendo esboçada a defesa de réus condenados pelo STF caracterizando-os como eventuais presos políticos. O ex-presidente Lula, em meio ao engajamento nas campanhas municipais, embora ainda não tenha endossado a tentativa de resgate de José Dirceu da condição de preso comum, tem demonstrado muita relutância em tomar distância em relação ao "mar de lama" partidário.

Será que uma vitória petista nas eleições municipais paulistanas poderá suprir argamassa suficiente para remendar a integridade partidária comprometida pelo "mensalão" condenado? Seria requerida de setores "autênticos" monumental capitulação à Realpolitik ancorada no mais rasteiro fisiologismo: "Afinal, é assim que se faz política no Brasil". E, para piorar as coisas, os "autênticos" têm ideias sobre a economia ainda mais arrevesadas do que os cultores do realismo fisiológico. A manutenção da unidade partidária do PT a qualquer custo poderá gerar uma aglomeração partidária semelhante ao PMDB, apenas com traços sindicalistas.

A menos de dois anos das próximas eleições presidenciais, não são animadores os prognósticos quanto à eleição de presidente que tenha compromisso com o controle da corrupção sistemática, idealmente como parte de estratégia que faça sentido do ponto de vista político e econômico.

O PT, ou suas facções organizadas em partido ou não, estará imerso nas dificuldades de enfrentar as tensões associadas à necessária autocrítica e combinar posições razoáveis quanto à corrupção e a um projeto estratégico que faça sentido. Com base na história recente, não há indícios de que o PSB, nova força política a ser levada em conta, tenha particular repugnância a arranjos fisiológicos, embora, em meio a um deserto de ideias, possa até ser capaz de formular projeto estratégico coerente. O PSDB, mirrado e inapetente, parece ainda dividido sobre o que de fato pretende.

Vamos ter de esperar mais tempo para comemorar que o Executivo ou o Legislativo seguiram o bom exemplo do Supremo.

*Doutor em Economia pela Universidade de Cambridge, é professor titular no Departamento de Economia da PUC-Rio.

Ayn Rand: a deusa do conservadorismo americano, 2

Globalist Perspective > Global PoliticsAyn Rand: The Siren of U.S. Conservatism (Part II)   By Brent Ranalli | Saturday, November 03, 2012   Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate for the U.S. presidency, may not view himself as an acolyte of Ayn Rand. But his adulation of the wealthiest Americans as job creators and his contempt for those who earn too little to pay income taxes is certainly Randian in nature. Brent Ranalli examines Rand's influence on the economic and political thinking inside today's Republican Party.

n its purest form, Ayn Rand's philosophy is startlingly radical and of dubious moral value, and in any case makes apparently impossible demands on human nature. (Part I of this article is here.) An observer of Republican politics would have to conclude that the 2012 campaign season has been the season of Ayn Rand. Yet Rand has enjoyed a wide following. Who looks up to Rand, and what have they absorbed from her writing? How is Rand's influence felt in today's political culture? Rand's first hard-core disciples, her inner circle in what was called, with irony, the "Collective," were overwhelmingly Jews of Eastern European heritage, like herself, who hailed from Canada and the United States. They were secular Jews but unassimilated — people who didn't quite "fit in" in their communities. It would appear that in Rand's circle they found a place to belong, one that affirmed their undoubtedly great intelligence and permitted them a feeling of superiority. It was by all accounts an oppressive environment, and some have compared it to a mini-Stalinist society, complete with periodic purges. Members of the Collective strove for super-human individualism on the basis of cold rationality. They managed to produce a stifling conformity (since there is only one most rational answer to any question) in matters great and small — politics, dress, musical and artistic taste. Rand's influence on the wider world of American politics was first felt in the fledgling libertarian movement. Rand herself refused any association with the libertarians, and called them plagiarists and worse. But her writings helped galvanize the movement. Over the decades, as the libertarians have grown in stature and influence within the conservative "big tent," Randian ideas have become more mainstream. Individual Rand devotees have occasionally achieved positions of power and been able to shape policy. The most prominent of these was Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006. As the libertarians have grown in stature and influence within the conservative "big tent," Randian ideas have become more mainstream. Greenspan was among the few early disciples who remained on good terms with Rand to the end of her life. As many commentators have noted, Greenspan's policy career provides a cautionary tale about putting Rand's ideas into practice. Greenspan wrote articles for Rand's publications espousing an ideology of extreme deregulation, looking forward to a world in which even building codes were abolished. Such requirements simply set low expectations, he thought. "If building codes set minimum standards of construction," Greenspan wrote in an essay he contributed to Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, "a builder does not get very much competitive advantage by exceeding those standards and, accordingly, he tends to meet only the minimum." Why not take away all codes and let builders figure out for themselves how safe they need to make their buildings? When he was in a position of power inside the Beltway, Greenspan was able to conduct the experiment on a supreme scale: he presided over and lent support to a systematic dismantling of financial regulations designed to provide minimum protection to creditors. And he got his answer: when minimum standards are taken away, you get chaos, disaster. For deregulation does not mean eliminating standards, it means lowering them. When the minimum consumer protection expected of a builder or a banker is zero, he does not get very much competitive advantage by exceeding those standards. Accordingly, he tends to meet only the minimum — zero — and the consumer suffers the consequences. The conventional journalistic account of the Greenspan story ends in 2008 with his acknowledging to Congress that he recognized a "flaw" in the economic ideology that had guided him for decades. The Randian policy program of extreme deregulation was dead, it seemed — refuted by events and repudiated by its great architect. Sales of Rand's books have skyrocketed since the financial crisis. Atlas Shrugged sold more copies in 2011 than it did in 1957. But that is not how the story ends. Greenspan hasbacktracked from his statement on numerous occasions and reaffirmed his Randian convictions. And in the culture at large, proponents of extreme anti-regulatory ideology are still heard. Indeed, the Republican Party is leaning ever more heavily in the direction of Rand-influenced libertarianism. Reductions in regulation and taxation, always front and center in the Party's platform, are increasingly discussed not merely as purported means to economic prosperity but as moral imperatives. At the same time, the incoming president of the Cato Institute, the libertarians' flagship think tank, has declared an intention to adhere even more strictly to a Randian orthodoxy. Sales of Rand's books have skyrocketed since the financial crisis. According to the Ayn Rand Institute,Atlas Shrugged sold more copies in 2011 than it did when it was a best seller in 1957. While some see the economic crisis as proof of the bankruptcy of Randian policies, other see the government's struggle to response to the crisis as a replay of the slow societal meltdown depicted in Atlas Shrugged. They are convinced that we are on a path marked out prophetically by Rand. The Republicans' Randian moment An observer of Republican politics familiar with Rand's ideas would have to conclude that the 2012 campaign season has been the season of Ayn Rand. The selection of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney's running mate is the most obvious signpost. For political reasons, Ryan has tried to distance himself from Rand. But his affinity is well known. He has addressed crowds at organizations dedicated to promoting Rand's thinking. In a 2005 speech at the Atlas Society, then-Congressman Ryan described the profound influence Rand has had on his thinking. He has distributed Rand's writings to his staff. It is hardly necessary that the rest of us share Rand's paranoia. No one needs to be burdened with the idea that a health care bill is the moral equivalent of a pogrom. The Randian mood of the Romney campaign, though, consists of far more than Ryan's private views. It is pervasive, in discussions of taxes and regulations as moral issues. Perhaps most glaringly, it has been visible in Romney's comments about the 47% of American who don't earn enough to pay federal income tax. Ayn Rand taught that "ideas matter." Given that we are living in a peculiarly Randian Republican moment, a good way to analyze some of the current presidential campaign propaganda is to strip it down to its Randian essentials.   Exhibit 1: Preoccupation with the notion of "socialism" The current obsession of conservative pundits in the United States with the threat of "socialism" and "communism" is, on its surface, difficult to fathom. A recent political ad by Thomas Peterffy, the billionaire founder of a stock brokerage, has brought the message to viewers in major television markets, conjuring up images of the dark days of totalitarian communism in Peterffy's native Hungary. But the Soviet empire is long gone, and international Marxism is a dead letter. U.S. socialist political parties are even more marginal than the Greens. The Democratic Party is a centrist party by international standards. Why, in the 21st century, the hysteria about socialism? The answer lies, at least in part, in Rand's ideological paranoia about Soviet communism. Rand's younger sister Nora, who grew up in Russia, when finally reunited with Rand in New York in later years could not shake the fear that Rand's chauffeur and cook were U.S. government spies. Rand too — understandably, given the trauma of her adolescent years — had similarly magnified ideas of the menace of communism. In her black-and-white way, she equated Soviet tyranny and collectivist ideology with each other and with governmental activity of every sort. She saw the threat of international communism in every shadow, and resisted it with every fiber. Mitt Romney's derision of the 47% of Americans who don't pay federal income tax could have come straight out of Atlas Shrugged. The immorality of nearly every aspect of government was a central theme of Rand's ideology. Rand's system of belief also gave us the notion that there is a perfectly transparent slippery slope from almost any sort of government coercion to Soviet-style despotism, and from almost any sort of government service to helpless dependency. Rand's paranoia was entirely understandable. It is hardly necessary that the rest of us share it. No one needs to be burdened with the idea that a health care bill is the moral equivalent of a pogrom.   Exhibit 2: Worshiping the wealthy Both left and right have been playing at class welfare this election cycle. The way the right is going about it has a peculiarly Randian imprimatur. Consider Mitt Romney's derision of the 47% of Americans who don't earn enough to pay federal income tax. (He ignored the fact this group pays other federal, state, and local taxes, many of which are regressive.) Romney accused these citizens — half of the nation — of lacking in personal responsibility, being dependent on government, and having an entitlement mentality. The speech could have come straight out of Atlas Shrugged. Romney may not be a Rand follower himself, but he has clearly absorbed the talking points, whether consciously or merely from digesting the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. In Rand's literary imagination there were two kinds of people: the productive and the parasites. The productive, an elite minority, create and amass wealth. Meanwhile, the masses of parasites use their numbers and the power of government to extract that wealth. The less well-off are derided for their "victim mentality," while the wealthy elite are seen as the true victims. Rand lived in a simple, polarized world. She exhibited little curiosity about the lives of others, especially those she deemed "degenerate," whether individuals or groups (e.g., Native Americans, Arabs). This lack of curiosity and empathy was her own personal limitation and failing. Seizing on Ayn Rand's simple story of virtue and vice focuses energy on nonexistent threats rather than real, pressing, complex problems. That in the fantasy world of Atlas Shrugged, she should paint the masses with a broad brush as entitlement-minded and lacking in personal responsibility is an acceptable if dubious literary conceit. That a candidate for the U.S. presidency should spout these generalizations as if they applied to the real 47% in all its diversity — students and the elderly, educators and military personnel, the working poor and the middle class, lifelong Republicans and Democrats — is merely inane. As for the wealthy: In the current campaign, we see the Randian moral double standard applied on a class basis by some conservative commentators. The poor are chastised for accepting government assistance, but no stigma attaches to the wealthy who (like Romney at Bain Capital) accept government subsidies. The poor are scolded for not contributing enough in taxes, but Romney's relatively low tax rate (low by middle-class standards, because based on capital gains rather than earned income) is justified and defended.   Exhibit 3: Individualism The central positive message of Rand was individual responsibility and individual initiative. These themes are at the center of the Romney's campaign, and the guiding sentiment behind the adoption of the "We Built This" slogan. Despite the mileage Romney got out of the slogan, one of the great ironies of the campaign has been that there is really not all that much difference between his views and those originally articulated by President Obama. Romney talks about the supportive environment of family, church and community that enables the individual entrepreneur to thrive. Obama spoke of the inspiring teacher, the previous generations of entrepreneurs and workers on whose shoulders we stand. It is only through Randian glasses that Obama's views can be interpreted as "collectivist" and Romney's as radically individualist. That this debate has become a flashpoint in the campaign speaks to the pervasiveness of the Randian perspective. Capitalism, not democracy Ayn Rand is a peculiar figure in the history of American political consciousness. She stood for classic American values like hard work, individual responsibility and free enterprise. Asked what the best sort of political system was, Rand spoke unhesitatingly in favor of American capitalism, not American democracy. But as they passed through the prism of her tortured Russian mind into her romantic novels, they refracted into grotesque caricatures of themselves. Hers is a black-and-white world in which reason, wealth, virtue and free enterprise are pitted against unreason, squalor, mediocrity and collectivism, in an apocalyptic drama painted right across the body of the American public. Asked by an interviewer what she thought the best sort of political system was, Rand pronounced unhesitatingly in favor of the system in her adopted homeland — but her response was not "democracy," it was "capitalism." And she did not stop to correct herself, but elaborated on the notion of capitalism as a political system. The thought of democracy, or of a republic, did not appear to enter her mind. This episode epitomizes the depth of her naiveté about American traditions and values, of being caught up in her own system of political thought, forged by her experience under czarist autocracy and totalitarian communism. The Republican Party is facing an identity crisis. In recent decades, it has been the bastion of the Protestant white male — now, increasingly, a demographically endangered species. To survive, the party must adapt. Seizing on Ayn Rand's simple story of virtue and vice, heroes and villains, "socialism" and radical individualism, is a strategy that must seem particularly tempting. But it is both unwise and dangerous. It divides rather than unites. It focuses energy on nonexistent threats (socialism) rather than real, pressing, complex problems. It demands an adherence to a black-and-white worldview and discourages curiosity about the messiness of reality and the legitimate perspectives of other people. And it is pierced through with a dangerous and anti-democratic Nietzschean quality, a moral double-standard for the "right sort of people" — the wealthy and the self-styled virtuous, the heroes of the Randian drama in their head. Part I of this article is here.

Print this page Facebook Twitter Email updates Find more of The Globalist's coverage on these topics: Economy U.S. politics Also by Brent Ranalli: The Conservative Case for a Proactive Climate Policy The Terrorism Endgame: Lessons from the War on Anarchy (A Two-Part Series) Vulnerable China and the Trade Surplus (A Three-Part Series)

Join the discussion of this article on our Facebook page.

Follow The Globalist on Twitter.

Ayn Rand: a deusa do conservadorismo americano, 1

Primeiro de dois artigos:

Globalist Perspective > Global LeadersAyn Rand: The Siren of U.S. Conservatism (Part I)   By Brent Ranalli The Globalist,  Friday, November 02, 2012   Not long ago, the most important figure to U.S. conservates was Ronald Reagan. Now, almost two-and-a-half decades after the Reagan presidency, American conservatives — including Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan — look beyond Reagan to the even more stringent form of conservatism of novelist Ayn Rand. Brent Ranalli examines Rand's legacy.

ovelist and philosopher Ayn Rand has been dead for 30 years, but her ideas live on. By some counts, Rand's novels are among the most popular and influential of all 20th-century literature. Rand's promise is that people who follow her worldview are bound by no rule other than self-interest and rationality — however those terms are understood. Rand's philosophy, and bastardizations of it, have quietly but profoundly shaped the landscape of U.S. conservativism. Mitt Romney's running mate in the upcoming U.S. presidential election, Paul Ryan, is on record as admiring Rand's thought. Thus, this is a very fitting time to examine what Rand actually taught, what the merits and flaws are in Rand's views, and what effect those teachings have had — and continue to have — on culture, politics, and policy in the United States. Rand was born Alisa Rosenbaum in czarist Russia to a relatively well-off Jewish family that endured deprivations and hardships during World War I and the communist power grab. An unusually intelligent, self-confident and ambitious individual, she managed to extricate herself from her surroundings and come to America to pursue her dream of becoming a writer. She worked for a time in Hollywood, then produced a series of best-selling novels. Her later years were spent codifying a system of philosophy ("objectivism") based on the ideas in her novels. She enjoyed a combination of celebrity (especially at the center of a cadre of devoted disciples, which somewhat insulated her from the larger culture) and notoriety. The essence of Rand's teaching is that altruism is bad and selfishness is a virtue. She thinks that people would be better off if they liberated themselves from social demands to put others ahead of themselves. Furthermore, people should root out any internal inhibitions arising from their own socially trained superego. If they managed to do all that, the way would be paved for a libertarian utopia, such as the one Rand introduces toward the end of her novelAtlas Shrugged. These teachings represent a mixture of valuable insight, some elementary misunderstandings — and a considerable amount of naiveté. Rand's naiveté was the naiveté of a utopian, and it curiously mirrored that of the communists she loathed. Rand's valuable insight is a psychological one. She delves into the inhibitions — a sense of helplessness or unworthiness — that prevent many people from fulfilling their potential. She taught that each individual is responsible for his or her own life regardless of the demands of society. A great many of her readers responded, and continue to respond, to this message in her novels. As her voluminous fan letters attest, Rand has inspired readers to take control of their lives and take responsibility for their own happiness. Rand exemplifies and preaches ambition — dreaming big and taking risks, striving for something extraordinary. She has inspired readers to cast off their inhibitions and dream big as well. Generations of high-tech entrepreneurs, for example, have venerated Rand and conceived their own life projects in Randian terms. For these individuals, Rand unlocked the path to ambition and (sometimes) success. Rand's elementary misunderstandings involve the notion of altruism. Rand was fine with doing nice things for others when it gives us pleasure. What she objects to — the way she uses the term — is altruism understood as social responsibility or obligation. However, there is nothing about ambition and success and taking responsibility for one's own life and happiness — Rand's positive message — that precludes altruism or a sense of social responsibility. Consider social entrepreneurs, the super-altruistic visionaries who create and build organizations to help the poor, and preserve the environment for future generations, and work for peace and justice. These individuals too can be seen as Randian heroes. The founders of the public-spirited enterprises Wikipedia and Craigslist explicitly cite Rand as an influence. The roots of Rand's peculiar views about altruism appear to lie in her early years. Among the very few anecdotes we have from Rand's childhood are tales of her mother perpetrating small cruelties in the name of altruism. Rand thinks people would be better off if they liberated themselves from social demands to put others ahead of themselves. For example, Mrs. Rosenbaum once made her children pack up half their toys for "storage" and then secretly gave them away, explaining later to her outraged daughter that she had too many toys and it was only right that poorer children should enjoy some of them. Later, when Rand was coming of age, she was exposed to the barefaced propaganda of a communist regime that perpetrated crimes on a much larger scale, also in the name of altruism. Is it possible that Rand was never able to clearly distinguish real altruism or social responsibility from a cruel facsimile? She certainly had a tin ear for normal social reciprocity. She entirely neglected and ignored the relatives in Chicago who helped her get on her feet when she came to the United States after she had eaten their food and accepted their money. Over the years, she managed to alienate almost every friend she made. It is also worth noting that Rand never had children, rarely discussed her own childhood, and inhabited a social world and a literary universe almost entirely devoid of children. Parenthood is perhaps the purest expression of altruism — undertaking the awesome responsibility for the life and well-being of another person. Imagining parenthood in Randian terms — taking care of a child one brought into the world only because, or if, or when it gives one pleasure to do so — makes a mockery of human relations. It also gives the lie to this central pillar of Rand's philosophy. She preferred to avoid the subject of the parent-child bond, and may have had only a superficial grasp of it. Rand's naiveté was the naiveté of a utopian, and it curiously mirrored that of the communists she loathed. The communists dreamed of a day when everyone would take care of everyone else (from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs), and the state would then wither away. Rand, for her part, imagined that the pursuit of unadulterated self-interest would create a harmonious society with little need of government. There is nothing about ambition and success that precludes altruism or a sense of social responsibility. What makes Rand's utopia a place where little or no government is required, of course, is not the fact that individuals are self-interested, but that they are virtuous. She evidently believed that the two qualities go hand in hand. But do they? If the first self-proclaimed Randian hero, Rand herself, is the test case, the prognosis is not very good. She preached rationality, but had the most violent temper and excommunicated disciples on a whim or a suspicion. She preached honest dealing, but neglected to pay back a loan from her Chicago relatives and, at times, neglected her rent and utilities payments. She preached complete truthfulness, but she also kept secrets from and lied to her disciples — about her personal history, her marital infidelities, and more. Then again, Rand had a distinctly Nietzschean slant on morality. She was influenced by Nietzsche's notion of the "superman" — the idea that great men and women don't need to follow the same rules as everyone else, or that men and women become great precisely by liberating themselves from the shackles of conventional morality. In her novels, she allowed her heroes all kinds of indulgences — including, in The Fountainhead, raping the heroine. Rand may have imagined that in getting the permission of her own husband and her lover's wife, she had been as truthful as a great person such as herself needed to be about marital infidelity, and the great unwashed masses — including most of her coterie — did not deserve the truth. Some of her disciples took her cue and established a pattern of behaving in notoriously arrogant and undisciplined ways. To this day, she continues to entice readers with the promise of elite status, of having been liberated from the ensnarement of the normal social conventions of a corrupt, "altruistic" society. Her promise is that people who follow her worldview are bound by no rule other than self-interest and rationality — however those terms are understood. As an adolescent, Rant was exposed to the propaganda of a communist regime that perpetrated crimes in the name of altruism. But self-interest and rationality can be interpreted in the most expedient ways to justify the most abominable acts. Rand's real-life Nietzschean hero, after all, was a bona fide sociopath. After a string of armed robberies, William Hickman kidnapped, killed and dismembered a 12-year-old girl. In her notes on his trial in 1928, Rand romanticized him as a strong, courageous individual who cared nothing about what judge or jury or the public thought of him, who sought to "trample society under his feet." The crime was incidental in Rand's mind, and the victim didn't merit a thought. Nor did Hickman's plea of insanity. Her notes on Hickman the courageous antisocial hero formed the basis for characters like Howard Rourke and John Galt in her novels. Part II of this article is here.

Mensalao e Republica (republica?) - RICARDO VÉLEZ RODRÍGUEZ

Já publicado aqui, mas agora em sua versão publicada no OESP.

Mensalão e República

03 de novembro de 2012 | 2h 03

RICARDO VÉLEZ RODRÍGUEZ - O Estado de S.Paulo

Tive uma grata surpresa com o julgamento da Ação Penal 470 pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF). A nossa democracia parece ter reencontrado a vitalidade, que parecia fenecida por causa da crise em que o Poder Executivo, sobranceiro à lei, tentou comprar definitivamente o apoio do Poder Legislativo mediante a prática de corrupção sistemática, ao ensejo do episódio que o denunciante do esquema, o ex-deputado Roberto Jefferson (PTB-RJ), denominou como "mensalão".

O nome pegou, para desespero do ex-presidente Lula da Silva, do ex-ministro José Dirceu et caterva. Foram julgados e condenados, se não todos, pelo menos alguns dos responsáveis mais representativos do sinistro esquema. A História encarregar-se-á de julgar os que escaparam, a começar pelo chefe, que, pelo teor das investigações e dos depoimentos, "sabia de tudo".

É de Oliveira Vianna a previsão de que a redenção das instituições republicanas, no Brasil, viria pela mão do Poder Judiciário. Vítima da "política alimentar" - nome dado pelo sociólogo fluminense ao esquema de clientelismo e corrupção que se apossou da vida pública desde tempos que remontam à derrubada do Império -, a República acordaria da catalepsia em que a privatização patrimonialista do poder pelas oligarquias a fez mergulhar. A independência do Poder Judiciário, segundo Oliveira Vianna, no livro Instituições Políticas Brasileiras (1949), garantiria as liberdades civis; asseguradas estas, o País poderia pensar na conquista das liberdades políticas.

Ora, os pareceres dos juízes do Supremo Tribunal puseram na pauta da política dois princípios fundamentais. Em primeiro lugar, todos devem respeitar, sem exceções, a lei e seu marco arquetípico, a Constituição. Em segundo lugar, os que governam não podem agir utilizando a máquina do Estado em benefício próprio. Dois princípios de ética pública que, meridianos, voltaram a presidir o espaço republicano, a partir dos pareceres dos magistrados da nossa Suprema Corte.

Que a sociedade respirou aliviada com a ação patriótica do STF o deixam claro as opiniões dos leitores na mídia eletrônica e impressa, bem como as espontâneas manifestações de aplauso dos cidadãos quando encontram um dos nossos magistrados, em que pese a cerrada política armada pela petralhada, de denuncismo de "golpe da magistratura e da imprensa".

No esquema do mensalão marcaram encontro dois vícios da política: o tradicional "complexo de clã" e a ausência de espírito público, bases do patrimonialismo. Esses dois vícios, entrelaçados como as caras da mesma moeda, fazem com que os atores políticos ajam única e exclusivamente em benefício próprio e das suas clientelas, privatizando as instituições. Nisso o Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT) e coligados se mostraram eficientes "como nunca antes na História deste país".

A esses dois vícios vieram juntar-se duas tendências da cultura política moderna. A primeira, o jacobinismo (inspirado na filosofia de Rousseau, no século 18), segundo o qual a organização da política, nos Estados, deve pautar-se pelo princípio da unanimidade ao redor da "vontade geral" (identificada com o legislador e imposta por seus seguidores, os "puros"), sendo excluída qualquer oposição. O segundo princípio negativo diz respeito ao "messianismo político" - pensado no início do século 19 por Henri-Claude de Saint-Simon e continuado por seu discípulo Augusto Comte.

Ora, na nossa organização republicana se juntaram, com o correr dos séculos, numa síntese perversa, esses dois princípios, bem como os vícios balizadores do patrimonialismo. O jacobinismo e o messianismo político reforçaram-se, dramaticamente, na contemporaneidade, com a tendência cientificista do marxismo (inspiradora dos ideólogos petistas), que passou a pensar a política em termos de hegemonia partidária, à maneira gramsciana.

Na História republicana terminou se consolidando, à sombra das variáveis mencionadas, um modelo identificado com a prática do despotismo. Castilhismo, getulismo, tecnocratismo autoritário, lulopetismo, eis os resultados desse amálgama nada republicano.

Como dizia Alexis de Tocqueville referindo-se à França de 1850, a face da República viu-se desfigurada pelas práticas despóticas. No Brasil, a res publica virou "coisa nossa", num esquema mafioso de minorias encarapitadas no poder, que fazem o que bem entendem, de costas para a Nação, mal representada num Poder Legislativo que se contempla a si próprio e zela quase que exclusivamente pela manutenção de seus próprios privilégios.

Com uma agravante, atualmente: se nos momentos anteriores havia autoritarismo, este se equilibrava com uma proposta tecnocrática bem-sucedida (como nos momentos getuliano e do ciclo militar) ou com um respeito quase sagrado pelo Tesouro público (como no castilhismo). Restou-nos o assalto desavergonhado aos cofres da Nação, em meio ao mais descarado compadrio sindical.

Ecoam ainda as graves palavras com que um dos ministros do Supremo Tribunal Federal caracterizou, dias atrás, o mal que tomou conta do Brasil. "Formou-se na cúpula do poder, à margem da lei e ao arrepio do Direito, um estranho e pernicioso sodalício, constituído por dirigentes unidos por um comum desígnio, um vínculo associativo estável que buscava eficácia ao objetivo espúrio por eles estabelecido: cometer crimes, qualquer tipo de crime, agindo nos subterrâneos do poder como conspiradores, para, assim, vulnerar, transgredir e lesionar a paz pública".

Gravíssima situação que a nossa Suprema Corte encarou com patriotismo e coragem. Esperamos que essa benfazeja reação seja o início de um saneamento completo das instituições republicanas.

Fascismo economico em construcao na Europa: estatismo frances

Big Brother is back

The Economist, November 1, 2012

THE biggest European merger for years collapsed last month. EADS, the owner of Airbus, and BAE Systems, a defence-and-aerospace group, will not tie the knot. The aim of the merger was to wrest both firms free of state interference. Now Big Brother is back.

Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, is rushing ahead with plans for the German government to take a 15% stake in EADS before the end of the year, buying shares (through KfW, the state bank for reconstruction) that the Daimler car group and some banks want to ditch, thus bringing it level with the French government’s shareholding (see table).

The Germans have been concerned for some time about losing out to France on Airbus work, and have withheld some promised government loans for the latest big Airbus plane. Now, in a bid to strengthen Germany’s hand, Mrs Merkel appears to be taking a leaf out of the French book on industrial policy—opting for strategic stakes in privatised groups.

This startling reversal comes on top of new moves in France to extend the reach of government into troubled manufacturers. Last week, just as Germany was closing in on EADS, the French government guaranteed loans of some €7 billion ($9 billion) to the finance arm of PSA Peugeot Citroën, a carmaker. In return the government gets a seat on the board and guarantees that dividends and share buy-backs will be suspended for several years.

French observers are waiting to see whom the ministry of finance will name as the “independent” director. Critics fear that he or she might be a representative of the APE (the agency for state shareholdings), which reports to the ministries of finance and industry. Peugeot shares fell on the announcement of the financial support, because investors fear the door has been opened to a partial nationalisation.

The APE was formed in 2004 to oversee the jumble of residual state holdings that followed the 1990s privatisation wave (which undid the nationalisations of the early 1980s). In most cases the state held on to some shares. Last year the centre-right government of President Nicolas Sarkozy gave it more powers to manage its stakes: it became the core of a new industrial policy. Arnaud Montebourg, the new Socialist minister of industry, now shares oversight of the APE with his finance counterpart. There are rumours that he will force one of its charges—Thalès—into the arms of Safran, another aerospace group. Safran itself has only recently emerged from a disastrous period after it was created in 2005 by a forced marriage of Snecma (a successful maker of jet engines) and Sagem, a defence-electronics group.

The APE portfolio runs to 58 companies. Its stakes in the top 12 listed firms have a combined value of some €58 billion. These companies include not only privatised utilities such as EDF, France Télécom and GDF SUEZ, but also Air France KLM, EADS, Areva (a nuclear giant) and Renault, another carmaker. GDF SUEZ is an interesting case. The merger in 2007 of GDF, a state-owned gas group, and Suez, a private one, was hailed as a privatisation. But it now looks more like the partial nationalisation of Suez.

The forthcoming annual report of APE, some of which has leaked to Le Figaro, a French newspaper, will show that net profits across the state’s portfolio fell in 2011 from €7.9 billion to €5.8 billion—a drop of 26% on the previous year. The value of the holdings also fell by nearly 13%, while the French stockmarket rose by almost 5%. This lacklustre performance is probably not due to mismanagement. Rather, it is because the big energy stocks such as EDF and GDF Suez have done badly, thanks to weak demand for power in Europe.

There is more to the French government’s industrial influence than its shares in big firms. Last month the government announced the formation of a Banque Publique d’Investissement (BPI). Its main role will be to channel state funds to promising firms by taking small stakes alongside private-equity investors. (The BPI is formed from a merger of the Fonds Stratégique d’Investissement, created by the previous administration to jazz up finance for small and medium businesses, and OSEO, another state financier.)

François Hollande, France’s president, thinks the BPI can jump-start a French version of Germany’s Mittelstand. But the BPI also has a mandate to act generally in the public interest—which could justify bailing out any firm. One of its earliest acts was to invest some $150m in taking a 6% stake in CMA CGM, the world’s third-largest container-shipping line, formed from the merger of a privatised state firm and a private group, held largely by a Turkish family. Buffeted by the weak shipping market, the group is struggling to refinance its debts.

No one is suggesting that Europe’s economic crisis is driving a return to the mega-nationalisations that created the (now defunct) giant state holding companies such as Italy’s IRI or Spain’s INI in the aftermath of the 1930s depression. Indeed, the most beleaguered European governments, in Spain, Greece and Portugal, are desperately trying to privatise state assets to plug the holes in their budgets.

But when even centre-right governments such as Germany’s or the previous French administration start buying up industrial stakes, something is in the air. And comparisons with Barack Obama’s rescue of General Motors are inexact. President Obama’s government took control of car firms in a quick in-and-out operation, like financial Navy SEALs. Europe’s interventions may look less dramatic, but they could last much longer.

Fascismo economico em construcao no Brasil: Correios monopolizam entrega de passaportes

Mantida entrega de passaporte pelos Correios
A exclusividade da atuação dos Correios no serviço de entrega de passaportes no Brasil foi mantida por decisão do Tribunal Regional Federal da 3ª Região. A corte, que atende aos estados de São Paulo e Mato Grosso do Sul, confirmou decisão liminar da 8ª Vara da Justiça Federal em São Paulo.
Segundo os Correios, os consulados e a Embaixada dos EUA já foram informados da disposição da empresa para receber e despachar os passaportes em remessas expressas com pagamento à vista.
Os Correios informam que têm mantido reuniões com os serviços consulares norte-americanos e com a DHL Brasil, empresa até então responsável pela postagem dos passaportes, e que está pronta para “prosseguir com a celebração do contrato para o início das atividades de distribuição”.
Desde a decisão de primeira instância, a Embaixada dos EUA havia alertado sobre uma possível demora na devolução dos passaportes com os vistos. 
Para evitar prejuízos aos cidadãos, o juiz federal Clécio Braschi, titular da 8ª Vara Cível, determinou que os passaportes fossem enviados pelos Correios até o fim do processo.

Fonte: Agência Brasil.