Estou plenamente convencido de que tudo não passa de invencionice de professores mal (ou mau?) intencionados em relação aos excelentes alunos que eles teriam se dessem aulas corretamente (os alunos não são apenas o resultado inerme do meio, mas o produto de suas aulas).
Enfim, sem mais considerações de baixa filosofia, vamos direto para:
As melhores frases dos piores alunos
*O metro é a décima milionésima parte de um quarto do meridiano terrestre e para o cálculo dar certo arredondaram a Terra! *
*O cérebro humano tem dois lados, um para vigiar o outro.*
*O cérebro tem uma capacidade tão grande que hoje em dia, praticamente, toda a gente tem um.*
*O nosso sangue divide-se em glóbulos brancos, glóbulos vermelhos e até verdes! *
*Nas olimpíadas a competição é tanta que só cinco atletas chegam entre os dez primeiros.*
*O piloto que atravessa a barreira do som nem percebe, porque não ouve mais nada.*
*O teste do carbono 14 permite-nos saber se antigamente alguém morreu.*
*Pedofilia é o nome que se dá ao estudo dos pêlos.*
*O pai de D. Pedro II era D. Pedro I, e de D. Pedro I era D. Pedro 0*
*Nos aviões, os passageiros da primeira classe sofrem menos acidentes que os da classe económica.*
*O índice de fecundidade deve ser igual a 2 para garantir a reprodução das espécies, pois precisa-se de um macho e uma fêmea para fazer o bebé. Podem até ser 3 ou 4, mas chegam 2.*
*O homossexualismo, ao contrário do que todos imaginam, não é uma doença, mas ninguém quer tê-la. *
*Em 2020 a caixa de previdência já não tem dinheiro para pagar aos reformados, graças à quantidade de velhos que não querem morrer.*
*O verme conhecido como solitária é um molusco que mora no interior, mas que está muito sozinho.*
*Cada vez mais as pessoas querem conhecer a sua família através da árvore ginecológica.*
*O hipopótamo comanda o sistema digestivo e o hipotálamo é um bicho muito perigoso.*
*A Terra vira-se nela mesma, e esse difícil movimento chama-se arrotação.*
*Lenini e Stalone eram grandes figuras do comunismo na Rússia.*
*Uma tonelada pesa pelo menos 100Kg de chumbo.*
*Quando os egípcios viam a morte a chegar, disfarçavam-se de múmia.*
*Uma linha reta deixa de ser reta quando encontra uma curva.*
*O aço é um metal muito mais resistente do que a madeira.*
*O porco é assim chamado porque é nojento.*
*A fundação do Titanic serve para mostrar a agressividade dos ice-bergs.*
*Para fazer uma divisão basta multiplicar subtraindo.*
*A água tem uma cor inodora.*
*O telescópio é um tubo que nos permite ver televisão de muito longe.*
*A idade da pedra começa com a invenção do Bronze.*
*O sul foi posto debaixo do norte por ser mais cômodo.*
*Os rios podem escolher desembocar no mar ou na montanha.*
*A luta greco-romana causou a guerra entre esses dois países.*
*Os escravos dos romanos eram fabricados em África, mas não eram de boa qualidade.*
*O tabaco é uma planta carnívora que se alimenta de pulmões.*
*Na Idade Média os tratores eram puxados por bois, pois não tinham gasolina.*
*A baleia é um peixe mamífero encontrado em abundância nos nossos rios.*
*Quando dois átomos se encontram, vai dar uma grande merda. *
*Princípio de Arquimedes: qualquer corpo mergulhado na água, sai completamente molhado. *
*Pergunta: Em quantas partes se divide a cabeça? Resposta: Depende da força da cacetada. *
*Ecologia é o estudo dos ecos, isto é, da ida e vinda dos sons.*
*As constelações servem para clareficar a noite.*
*Ao princípio os índios eram muito atrasados mas com o tempo foram-se sifilizando.*
*A História divide-se em 4: Antiga, Média, Momentânea e Futura, a mais estudada hoje*
*A Bigamia era uma espécie de carroça dos gladiadores, puchada por dois cavalos.*
*As aves teem na boca um dente chamado bico.*
*A Terra é um dos planetas mais conhecidos e habitados do mundo.*
*A Latitude é um circo que passa por o Equador, dos zero aos 90º *
*Caudal de um rio, é quando um rio vai andando e deixa um bocadinho para trás!!!*
[Pano rápido...]
quarta-feira, 17 de fevereiro de 2010
1673) Desaquecimento global: mais noticias
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
By Jonathan Petre
Mail online, 14th February 2010
* Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
* There has been no global warming since 1995
* Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
Data: Professor Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be'
The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.
Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.
The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.
Discussing the interview, the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.
Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.
That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.
According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’.
Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.
But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.
Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.
‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’
He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.
He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.
And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.
Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.
But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.
Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.
‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’
Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.
Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.
Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.
But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.
He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.
He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.
By Jonathan Petre
Mail online, 14th February 2010
* Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
* There has been no global warming since 1995
* Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
Data: Professor Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be'
The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.
Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.
The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.
Discussing the interview, the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.
Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.
That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.
According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’.
Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.
But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.
Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.
‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’
He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.
He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.
And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.
Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.
But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.
Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.
‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’
Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.
Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.
Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.
But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.
He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.
He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.
1672) Itamaraty do B: apenas corrigindo um deslize historico...
O artigo abaixo transcrito, condenatório do que poderia ser considerado um "Soviet" dentro do Itamaraty, contém um pequeno deslize histórico, que me permito corrigir apenas para melhor compreensão dos leitores.
Nele, o ex-chanceler Lampreia afirma que:
"A Casa de Rio Branco - fundada por Dom João VI em 1808 - tem uma folha de duzentos anos de serviços prestados ao país sob a forma da definição perpétua e pacífica do território nacional, de bom convívio com nossos dez vizinhos e de múltiplas batalhas em defesa do interesse nacional nos mais variados planos."
Obviamente que o chanceler anterior conhece a história do Itamaraty (que aliás só passa a ser chamado assim já bem entrada a República), e deve ter escrito a frase acima, na verdade apenas a parte que se refere à "Casa de Rio Branco", numa espécie de homenagem a nossas tradições bi-seculares (ou quase).
Mas cabem dois pequenos reparos.
1) O termo Casa de Rio Branco é quase sinônimo de Itamaraty, assim que só poderia ser utilizado a partir da morte desse chanceler da República, não valendo para o período anterior.
2) Não é exato que essa "Casa", que nem sempre existiu sob essa forma, tenha sido fundada por Dom João VI em 1808, por diversos motivos.
(a) Portugal já exibia, desde meados do século 18 pelo menos, uma Secretaria de Estado dos Negócios Estrangeiros e da Guerra, ou seja, combinando assuntos diplomáticos e militares, como aliás era costume nessa época. O outro ministério militar era obviamente o da Marinha, que existia de forma independente desde algum tempo. Essa Secretaria de Estado continuou sob essa forma durante toda a fase final da permanência dos Braganças no trono português em Lisboa, até dali ser alijada pelas tropas de Napoleão. O que ocorreu foi o simples transplante desse ministério, com toda a administração portuguesa e seus milhares de servidores, nobres, criados e outros aspones, para o Brasil, no final de 1807, como é sabido. Chegando ao Rio, os dois serviços, sempre sob a condução de Linhares, se instalam numa casa, e continuam a funcionar durante todo o resto do período colonial, na fase de Reino Unido, na Regência, e no começo do primeiro Reinado, sendo o primeiro chanceler do Brasil independente José Bonifácio de Andrade e Silva, que já o era sob a regência do príncipe D. Pedro (aliás, junto com os Negócios do Reino, ou seja, Ministério da Justiça ou do Interior). Apenas em 1823, se tomam as providências para "desentranhar" os dois serviços, a Guerra e os Negócios Estrangeiros.
(b) D. João VI não pode ter criado qualquer Casa, nesta ou em qualquer forma, posto que D. João VI não "existia" em 1808. Ele era apenas o Príncipe Regente, D. João. Se ele por acaso tivesse morrido antes do falecimento de sua mãe, D. Maria, a Louca, ele não teria sido D. João VI, o que só vem a ser em 1816, quando falece aquela maluca e ele toma posse como Rei de Portugal, do Brasil e de Algarves. Se não tivesse sido assim, talvez algum outro homônimo, posteriormente, tivesse sido o D. João VI que eventualmente não teria sido.
(c) Dificilmente se pode falar da criação de um Serviço das relações exteriores do Brasil, em 1808, posto que se tratava de Portugal, obviamente. Portanto, este só surge em 1822, mas se trata de uma instituição pré-existente, uma herança bendita, se ouso, dizer, do período portugues, um dos mais velhos Estados do mundo, com uma diplomacia bastante competente, para o tamanho do pais, sua desimportância militar e econômica (a despeito do Brasil e suas riquezas) e seu analfabetismo disseminado (talvez até em certos nobres...).
Feitas estas ressalvas, vamos ler a justa indignação do chanceler Lampreia contra o Soviet que pretendem implantar no Itamaraty. Aliás, ainda não vi nota do MRE sobre isso. Talvez estejam pensando em como responder...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida (17.02.2010)
OPINIÃO
Imaginação voluntarista
LUIZ FELIPE LAMPREIA
O Globo, 11/02/2010
Informam os jornais que o Partido dos Trabalhadores decidiu incluir em seu programa a criação de um "conselho de política externa" paralelamente ao Ministério das Relações Exteriores. A proposta sugere que o referido conselho seja integrado por representantes de ONGs, sindicatos e movimentos sociais.
A ideia é preocupante por várias razões. Em primeiro lugar, porque visa a colocar o Itamaraty sob a tutela de alguns segmentos da sociedade brasileira, que têm suas próprias credenciais, sem dúvida, mas não podem arrogar-se o direito de serem os únicos porta-vozes legítimos da nação. A Casa de Rio Branco - fundada por Dom João VI em 1808 - tem uma folha de duzentos anos de serviços prestados ao país sob a forma da definição perpétua e pacífica do território nacional, de bom convívio com nossos dez vizinhos e de múltiplas batalhas em defesa do interesse nacional nos mais variados planos. É reconhecida em todo o mundo por ser conduzida por profissionais de alto gabarito e integridade. Levantar dúvidas sobre sua competência como instituição ou sua dedicação ao Brasil é uma postura espúria.
Em segundo lugar, a proposta é facciosa porque afirma que só no atual governo o Itamaraty procurou ouvir e dialogar com representações categorizadas da sociedade civil. No governo do presidente Fernando Henrique Cardoso, de quem tive a honra de ser por seis anos o ministro das Relações Exteriores, este exercício foi constante. Cito alguns exemplos.
Em maio de 1996, em Belo Horizonte, reuni-me com representantes de todas as principais organizações sindicais para discutir a posição brasileira na Alca. Com os representantes do setor produtivo nacional, tivemos diálogo regular no Conselho Empresarial, que buscava examinar os interesses econômicos do país nas negociações da OMC e da integração regional. Com representantes das ONGs ambientais, tivemos amplas e frequentes reuniões antes e depois da Conferência de Kyoto, sobre o Protocolo que resultou daquela conferência, na qual a delegação brasileira chefiada pelo ministro José Israel Vargas teve atuação marcante. Falei inúmeras vezes em universidades, escrevi muitos artigos na imprensa de prestação de contas à opinião pública. Dialoguei constantemente com representantes de diversas denominações religiosas. Por fim , mantive em mais de uma ocasião um diálogo aberto e respeitoso com o professor Marco Aurélio Garcia, na própria sede do Itamaraty ou fora dela. Todas estas afirmações são factuais e comprováveis, não resultam da imaginação ou de propósito ideológico.
O aventado "conselho" - que pretende implantar um novo modelo radicalmente mais aberto na representação da sociedade brasileira - é apenas mais um passo na busca de desconstrução do passado que, na área da política externa, como em diversas outras, tem caracterizado o presente governo.
Em terceiro lugar, esta é também uma tentativa de abalar as próprias colunas do Estado forte, ao qual tantas loas são tecidas por aqueles que agora o exaltam como um requisito do progresso do Brasil.
Existe um consenso universal de que relações exteriores e defesa são os dois campos em que há competência básica do Estado. Subordinar políticas públicas, como a externa, a um comitê de posições apriorísticas e pouco representativo do conjunto da nação resultará inevitavelmente em debilitar o Estado, tolhendo-o de uma das mais essenciais atribuições da soberania: representar o país na cena internacional.
Resta torcer para que a inoportuna ideia deste "conselho de política externa" permaneça no rol das fantasias que nunca se concretizam por que resultam apenas da imaginação voluntarista de alguns e, como dizia Fernando Pessoa, "não têm relação com o que há na vida".
LUIZ FELIPE LAMPREIA foi ministro das Relações Exteriores do governo Fernando Henrique Cardoso(1995-2001).
Nele, o ex-chanceler Lampreia afirma que:
"A Casa de Rio Branco - fundada por Dom João VI em 1808 - tem uma folha de duzentos anos de serviços prestados ao país sob a forma da definição perpétua e pacífica do território nacional, de bom convívio com nossos dez vizinhos e de múltiplas batalhas em defesa do interesse nacional nos mais variados planos."
Obviamente que o chanceler anterior conhece a história do Itamaraty (que aliás só passa a ser chamado assim já bem entrada a República), e deve ter escrito a frase acima, na verdade apenas a parte que se refere à "Casa de Rio Branco", numa espécie de homenagem a nossas tradições bi-seculares (ou quase).
Mas cabem dois pequenos reparos.
1) O termo Casa de Rio Branco é quase sinônimo de Itamaraty, assim que só poderia ser utilizado a partir da morte desse chanceler da República, não valendo para o período anterior.
2) Não é exato que essa "Casa", que nem sempre existiu sob essa forma, tenha sido fundada por Dom João VI em 1808, por diversos motivos.
(a) Portugal já exibia, desde meados do século 18 pelo menos, uma Secretaria de Estado dos Negócios Estrangeiros e da Guerra, ou seja, combinando assuntos diplomáticos e militares, como aliás era costume nessa época. O outro ministério militar era obviamente o da Marinha, que existia de forma independente desde algum tempo. Essa Secretaria de Estado continuou sob essa forma durante toda a fase final da permanência dos Braganças no trono português em Lisboa, até dali ser alijada pelas tropas de Napoleão. O que ocorreu foi o simples transplante desse ministério, com toda a administração portuguesa e seus milhares de servidores, nobres, criados e outros aspones, para o Brasil, no final de 1807, como é sabido. Chegando ao Rio, os dois serviços, sempre sob a condução de Linhares, se instalam numa casa, e continuam a funcionar durante todo o resto do período colonial, na fase de Reino Unido, na Regência, e no começo do primeiro Reinado, sendo o primeiro chanceler do Brasil independente José Bonifácio de Andrade e Silva, que já o era sob a regência do príncipe D. Pedro (aliás, junto com os Negócios do Reino, ou seja, Ministério da Justiça ou do Interior). Apenas em 1823, se tomam as providências para "desentranhar" os dois serviços, a Guerra e os Negócios Estrangeiros.
(b) D. João VI não pode ter criado qualquer Casa, nesta ou em qualquer forma, posto que D. João VI não "existia" em 1808. Ele era apenas o Príncipe Regente, D. João. Se ele por acaso tivesse morrido antes do falecimento de sua mãe, D. Maria, a Louca, ele não teria sido D. João VI, o que só vem a ser em 1816, quando falece aquela maluca e ele toma posse como Rei de Portugal, do Brasil e de Algarves. Se não tivesse sido assim, talvez algum outro homônimo, posteriormente, tivesse sido o D. João VI que eventualmente não teria sido.
(c) Dificilmente se pode falar da criação de um Serviço das relações exteriores do Brasil, em 1808, posto que se tratava de Portugal, obviamente. Portanto, este só surge em 1822, mas se trata de uma instituição pré-existente, uma herança bendita, se ouso, dizer, do período portugues, um dos mais velhos Estados do mundo, com uma diplomacia bastante competente, para o tamanho do pais, sua desimportância militar e econômica (a despeito do Brasil e suas riquezas) e seu analfabetismo disseminado (talvez até em certos nobres...).
Feitas estas ressalvas, vamos ler a justa indignação do chanceler Lampreia contra o Soviet que pretendem implantar no Itamaraty. Aliás, ainda não vi nota do MRE sobre isso. Talvez estejam pensando em como responder...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida (17.02.2010)
OPINIÃO
Imaginação voluntarista
LUIZ FELIPE LAMPREIA
O Globo, 11/02/2010
Informam os jornais que o Partido dos Trabalhadores decidiu incluir em seu programa a criação de um "conselho de política externa" paralelamente ao Ministério das Relações Exteriores. A proposta sugere que o referido conselho seja integrado por representantes de ONGs, sindicatos e movimentos sociais.
A ideia é preocupante por várias razões. Em primeiro lugar, porque visa a colocar o Itamaraty sob a tutela de alguns segmentos da sociedade brasileira, que têm suas próprias credenciais, sem dúvida, mas não podem arrogar-se o direito de serem os únicos porta-vozes legítimos da nação. A Casa de Rio Branco - fundada por Dom João VI em 1808 - tem uma folha de duzentos anos de serviços prestados ao país sob a forma da definição perpétua e pacífica do território nacional, de bom convívio com nossos dez vizinhos e de múltiplas batalhas em defesa do interesse nacional nos mais variados planos. É reconhecida em todo o mundo por ser conduzida por profissionais de alto gabarito e integridade. Levantar dúvidas sobre sua competência como instituição ou sua dedicação ao Brasil é uma postura espúria.
Em segundo lugar, a proposta é facciosa porque afirma que só no atual governo o Itamaraty procurou ouvir e dialogar com representações categorizadas da sociedade civil. No governo do presidente Fernando Henrique Cardoso, de quem tive a honra de ser por seis anos o ministro das Relações Exteriores, este exercício foi constante. Cito alguns exemplos.
Em maio de 1996, em Belo Horizonte, reuni-me com representantes de todas as principais organizações sindicais para discutir a posição brasileira na Alca. Com os representantes do setor produtivo nacional, tivemos diálogo regular no Conselho Empresarial, que buscava examinar os interesses econômicos do país nas negociações da OMC e da integração regional. Com representantes das ONGs ambientais, tivemos amplas e frequentes reuniões antes e depois da Conferência de Kyoto, sobre o Protocolo que resultou daquela conferência, na qual a delegação brasileira chefiada pelo ministro José Israel Vargas teve atuação marcante. Falei inúmeras vezes em universidades, escrevi muitos artigos na imprensa de prestação de contas à opinião pública. Dialoguei constantemente com representantes de diversas denominações religiosas. Por fim , mantive em mais de uma ocasião um diálogo aberto e respeitoso com o professor Marco Aurélio Garcia, na própria sede do Itamaraty ou fora dela. Todas estas afirmações são factuais e comprováveis, não resultam da imaginação ou de propósito ideológico.
O aventado "conselho" - que pretende implantar um novo modelo radicalmente mais aberto na representação da sociedade brasileira - é apenas mais um passo na busca de desconstrução do passado que, na área da política externa, como em diversas outras, tem caracterizado o presente governo.
Em terceiro lugar, esta é também uma tentativa de abalar as próprias colunas do Estado forte, ao qual tantas loas são tecidas por aqueles que agora o exaltam como um requisito do progresso do Brasil.
Existe um consenso universal de que relações exteriores e defesa são os dois campos em que há competência básica do Estado. Subordinar políticas públicas, como a externa, a um comitê de posições apriorísticas e pouco representativo do conjunto da nação resultará inevitavelmente em debilitar o Estado, tolhendo-o de uma das mais essenciais atribuições da soberania: representar o país na cena internacional.
Resta torcer para que a inoportuna ideia deste "conselho de política externa" permaneça no rol das fantasias que nunca se concretizam por que resultam apenas da imaginação voluntarista de alguns e, como dizia Fernando Pessoa, "não têm relação com o que há na vida".
LUIZ FELIPE LAMPREIA foi ministro das Relações Exteriores do governo Fernando Henrique Cardoso(1995-2001).
1671) Livro: Seminário sobre Relações Econômicas Internacionais
Instituto de Pesquisa de Relações Internacionais:
Seminário sobre Relações Econômicas Internacionais
(Brasília: Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão, 2009, 288 p.; ISBN: 978-85-7631-163-8)
Um seminário realizado no Rio de Janeiro em 2008 resultou neste livro, que condensa relatórios e programas de trabalho sobre as atividades de pesquisa em relações econômicas internacionais nas principais universidades brasileiras e em alguns institutos de pesquisa ou de economia aplicada.
O resultado é algo desigual, talvez pela ausência de parâmetros rígidos na preparação dos informes. Ele também mostra como ainda é incipiente essas atividades num país que cresceu em importância no cenário mundial, mas que ainda carece de centros de pesquisa dignos desse nome.
Ao mapear o que já se fez na pesquisa econômica, o seminário ofereceu, justamente, uma oportunidade para que os departamentos de economia e os centros de estudo em relações internacionais possam coordenar entre si linhas de pesquisa complementares e cooperativas que em muito fariam avançar o estado da arte da produção acadêmica brasileira nessas áreas.
Minha opinião sincera é a de que muito ainda resta por fazer para que as universidades brasileiras em geral, e os cursos de economia e de ciências humanas em particular, ofereçam programas relevantes nas áreas de relações econômicas internacionais.
Com perdão dos participantes e dos produtores de pesquisas originais nessa área, nossa produção continua pobre e acanhada.
Cabe esperar que melhore...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida (17.02.2010)
1670) Exchange over Hugo Chavez - In Defence of Marxism
Bem, sendo em defesa do marxismo, e o autor um marxista interessado na revolução socialista na Venezuela, creio que não poderia mesmo haver qualquer acordo entre os dois.
Em todo caso, vale o exchange: Alan Woods vs Demetrio MAgnoli
Main Brazilian bourgeois paper attacks Hugo Chavez and Alan Woods
Written by In Defence of Marxism Wednesday, 10 February 2010
A highly influential – and right-wing Brazilian bourgeois commentator wrote an article for O Estado de Sao Paulo attacking Chavez from the right, tracing his evolution from his early days to his latest turn to the left. In doing so the author names the editor of Marxist.com, Alan Woods as one of the main influences responsible for Chavez’s move to the Left. Here we publish the original article and a reply from Alan Woods.
Alan Woods meeting Chavez in 2008.Alan Woods meeting Chavez in 2008.On Thursday 4th February an article was published in the leading bourgeois newspaper in Brazil O Estado de Sao Paulo. The writer is considered one of the 100 most influential people of Brazil, adviser to former presidents, international lecturer, etc. He is obviously a right winger who hates Chavez and is worried about the growing influence of Marxism in the Bolivarian Movement.
The article names the editor of Marxist.com, Alan Woods as one of the main influences responsible for Chavez’s move to the Left, and Alan has sent a reply to O Estado de Sao Paulo, which is a shortened version of the piece we publish below.
The Third Chavez
By Demétrio Magnoli
Karl Marx created the 1st International, Friedrich Engels participated in the founding of the 2nd, Lenin established the 3rd, Leon Trotsky founded the 4th and Hugo Chávez has just raised the banner of the 5th. "I take responsibility before the world, I think it is time to rally the 5th International and dare to make the call," he said in a speech lasting five hours, at the opening session of the extraordinary congress of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) to the applause of 772 delegates in red shirts.
The congress was held in November. Then Chavez imposed energy rationing in the country, devalued the currency and introduced a dual exchange rate, nationalized a supermarket chain, suspended cable TV broadcasts and unleashed a bloody crackdown on student protests. The Chavista International will see the light of day at a world conference in Caracas in April, and the Venezuelan parliamentary elections are scheduled for September. But the future of the man who wants to succeed Marx, Lenin and Trotsky will be shaped by an event completely outside his influence: the Brazilian presidential election of October.
Chavez is living his third incarnation, which is also the last. The first Chavez emerged after the failed coup of 1992, in the guise of nationalist and anti-American warlord mesmerized by the image of an imaginary Simón Bolívar. Under the influence of Argentine sociologist Norberto Ceresole, that original Chavismo flirted with anti-Semitism and dreamed of the establishment of an authoritarian, fascist-style state, which would reunify Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador in a restored Great Colombia.
A second Chávez could be discerned in outline in the spring of the first term in 1999, after the break with Ceresole, when the Leader drew close to Heinz Dieterich, a German Professor of Sociology in Mexico who came out of obscurity to formulate the concept of "socialism of the 21st century." Chavismo reinvented itself and acquired left-wing collaborators, formed an alliance with Cuba and engaged in the project of building a state capitalism that was presented as a long transition towards a kind of socialism untainted by the Soviet legacy.
Brandishing a copy of The State and Revolution by Lenin, the Chavez of the extraordinary congress of the PSUV announced his conversion to the programme of the destruction of the "bourgeois state" and the building of a "revolutionary state." This third Chavez was already implied in 2004, when the Leader got to know the British Trotskyist Alan Woods, and was fully manifest by the time of his defeat in the referendum of December 2007, shortly after the break with Dieterich. The PSUV is a result of Chavismo of the third period, as is also the proclamation of the 5th International.
The word palimpsest comes from the Greek words palin (again) and psao (to scratch or wipe out). A palimpsest is a manuscript rewritten on several times, the superposition of successive layers of text, in which the ancient layers do not disappear completely and maintain a complex relationship with the later writing. To the horror of the sophisticated Woods, Chavismo is a palimpsest of a doctrine that represents a bizarre mixture of the Bolivarian Patria Grande, a strategic alliance with Iran, the barbaric impulses of Leaderism and a difficult learning of the language of Marxism. The most recent text, however, takes precedence over the old and indicates the direction in which the "Bolivarian revolution" is moving. Chavez reacts to the crisis caused by his own regime, tightening the screws of the dictatorship and launching wildly on a campaign of expropriation.
Chavismo is a revolutionary regime, not a traditional populist government or a mere “Caudillo” phenomenon. The PSUV has, on paper, 7 million members, of which 2.5 million participated in the election of delegates to the extraordinary congress. The decline of Chavez, aggravated by the ongoing economic crisis, lends support to the predictions of his electoral defeat in September, but revolutionary regimes are not thrown out of power by votes. "I will not allow my leadership to be challenged, because I am the people, dammit!" the warlord of Caracas roared weeks ago. This man will not allow the people to contradict him at the polls. The inexorable decline of Chavismo will be bitter, dramatic, perhaps bloody. But its duration will depend essentially on the direction of the foreign policy of the new Brazilian government.
Several times Brazil spread a net under Chavez. Lula and Amorim protected the Venezuelan when he closed RCTV, when he was defeated in the constitutional referendum, during the Colombian hostage crisis, and the controversy over U.S. bases, and in the failed adventure of the return of Zelaya in Honduras. On behalf of the interests of Chavismo, the Brazilian president has wasted the opportunity of strategic cooperation with Barack Obama.
In the course of stabilization of the "Bolivarian revolution", Brazil regionally isolated the Venezuelan opposition, helping to consolidate the regime of Chavez. Now begins another cycle: the dismantling of the political and social bases of Chavismo. In the new scenario, Brazil becomes essential: only the South American power has the means and influence to carry for at least a few kilometres the coffin of this irascible Leader.
The government majority in the Senate approved Venezuela's entry into Mercosur, under the cynical argument that democracy in the neighbouring country would be better preserved by the virtual abolition of the democratic clauses of Mercosur. In meetings of the OAS, Brazilian diplomacy manoeuvres to avoid a clear condemnation of the Chavista offensive against the students and press freedom. In Caracas, a technical mission sent by the Brazilian government articulates a plan to rescue the Venezuelan electricity grid from collapse. The statement of support by Chavez for Lula's re-election was greeted with scorn by the revolutionary Chávistas. Today, even Woods must be secretly praying for the triumph of Dilma Rousseff.
---
Reply of Alan Woods - For the attention of Demétrio Magnoli
Dear Sir,
In your article of 4th February, you present an apocalyptic picture of President Chavez, who you say has experienced “three incarnations”. By this, you presumably mean that his views have evolved in recent years – to the left. That is a fact, but whether you see this change as good or bad will depend on your political standpoint and the interests you defend.
From the content of your article, I conclude that you stand on the right politically and are trying to defend the status quo, whereas as a Marxist I stand for socialist revolution. It is therefore quite natural that our attitudes towards Chávez will be radically opposed. Now there is nothing wrong in defending opposite points of view, but let us at least base ourselves on fact, not fiction.
You write: “original Chavismo flirted with anti-Semitism and dreamed of the establishment of an authoritarian, fascist-style state”. There is no basis whatever for making such assertions. One of his first actions Chávez took after winning the 1998 elections by a landslide was to hold a referendum on the Constitution, which remains the most democratic Constitution in the world. This is hardly the action of someone who wishes to establish a fascist-style state.
During the past decade Chávez has won more elections and other popular consultations than any other political leader in the world. Nor can it be argued that these elections and referenda were rigged. In no other country have elections been subjected to closer international scrutiny than in Venezuela. Yet nobody has been able to produce the slightest evidence that the elections were rigged.
What about the “democratic” opposition, for which you show such tender sympathy? In 2002 the Venezuelan oligarchy overthrew the democratically elected government in a coup, which was immediately recognized by Washington. Had the opposition succeeded, Venezuela would have ended up like Chile.
This is not the place to deal with the false notions of Heinz Dieterich, which you mention. I have dealt at length with that subject in my book Reformism or Revolution, which has recently been published in Brazil. It is sufficient to say that the basic mistake of Dieterich and other reformists is to assume that it is possible, to achieve socialism without expropriating the land, the banks and the major industries. This idea (which is shared by some people in Brazil) is a recipe for disaster.
You write that the “third Chavez was already implied in 2004, when the Leader got to know the British Trotskyist Alan Woods, and was fully manifest by the time of his defeat in the referendum of December 2007, shortly after the break with Dieterich. The PSUV is a result of Chavismo of the third period, as is also the proclamation of the 5th International.”
I am gratified with this statement, but in all honesty, I believe that you greatly overestimate my influence over the President, who has a mind of his own and is accustomed to making his own decisions. My own views on the revolutionary process can be summed up as follows: It is not possible to make half a revolution. Either the Revolution will take the economic power out of the hands of the landlords, bankers and capitalists, or it will fail. Either the Revolution will defeat the oligarchy, or the oligarchy will destroy the Revolution.
I have stated these views many times in Venezuela and they are well known to many people, including Hugo Chavez. But I have never presumed to tell anybody what to think. On the basis of experience, the working people of Venezuela can decide for themselves who is right and who is wrong, and they are doing so. The reformist wing, which represents the influence of the bourgeoisie within the Bolivarian Movement, is losing support, while the audience for revolutionary Marxist ideas is growing. You naturally see this as a bad thing, while I see it as extremely positive.
You contradict yourself when you write: “Chavismo is a revolutionary regime, not a traditional populist government or a mere ‘Caudillo’ phenomenon”. But three-quarters of your article is precisely intended to present Chavez as a mere Caudillo, an authoritarian, if not an outright fascist. You talk about Chavez “tightening the screws of the dictatorship and launching wildly on a campaign of expropriation”, about “destroying the bourgeois state” and so on. This is enough to make the hair of respectable Brazilian bourgeois stand on end. But I believe that many Brazilian workers and peasants will see things differently.
You complain about the measures taken against RCTV, the ultra-right TV station that actively prepared the coup in April 2002. I am not well acquainted with the laws concerning the mass media in Brazil, but I can say this. In my own country (which is generally regarded as having a long democratic tradition), if any TV station actively supported sedition, including advocating the assassination of the head of state, it would have its license immediately withdrawn and those responsible would find themselves in prison.
You eagerly anticipate “the inexorable decline of Chavismo”, which you claim, “will be bitter, dramatic, perhaps bloody”. Yes, for years all the reactionaries in North and South America have been hoping for this. But at every stage their hopes have been frustrated by the movement of the workers and peasants of Venezuela.
Can it be that this time the hopes of the imperialists will be justified? It is impossible to say. The Venezuelan Revolution, like all revolutions, is a struggle of living forces. It can be influenced by many factors, such as the present worldwide economic crisis, the exhaustion of the masses after over a decade of struggle, the immense pressure of imperialism, and last but not least, the mistakes of the leadership.
You say that the duration of Chavismo “will depend essentially on the direction of the foreign policy of the new Brazilian government”. What is the meaning of this cryptic and mysterious statement? You criticize the Lula government for not joining in the attacks against the Venezuelan Revolution. You say: “On behalf of the interests of Chavismo, the Brazilian president has wasted the opportunity of strategic cooperation with Barack Obama.” [my emphasis, AW]
The hatred of the imperialists for Hugo Chavez has nothing to do with his alleged “authoritarianism” (since when has Washington been afraid of authoritarian regimes?). It is because he has courageously stood up to them and denied the big transnational companies the right to continue their uncontrolled plunder of Venezuela’s oil. For generations US imperialism has exercised a brutal stranglehold over the mighty continent of Latin America, exploiting its people, draining its resources, interfering in its internal affairs, overthrowing democratically elected governments and installing dictatorships.
The Brazilian bourgeois are content to play the role of the local office-boys of imperialism, the local agents of the big American transnationals. They hate Hugo Chavez for the same reason as their masters in Washington. But when the workers and peasants of Brazil see what is happening in Venezuela, they will say: thank God somebody is prepared to stand up to these bloodsuckers! And they will add: when are we going to do something similar in Brazil?
Brazil, with its huge population and vast resources, is destined to play a key role in shaping the future of Latin America. The people of this great country must decide what kind of government they want and what kind of system they wish to live under. The massive vote for Lula showed that the Brazilian people want a fundamental change – just like the people of Venezuela.
I firmly believe that the future for Brazil, for Latin America and the whole world, can only be socialism – not the bureaucratic caricature of Stalinism, but a healthy and vibrant socialist democracy, when the land, the banks and the major industries are in the hands of the state, and the state is in the hands of the working people.
It is the great merit of the Bolivarian Revolution that it showed the people of Latin America that it is possible for the masses to bring about change through a great and powerful movement from below. The workers have shown that it is possible to take over the factories and run them under workers’ control.
It is the great merit of Hugo Chavez that he was prepared to tell the whole world that capitalism is a rotten and corrupt system that cannot serve the interests of humanity; that it cannot be reformed, but must be overthrown; and that the only alternative before humanity is socialism or barbarism. I understand, Senhor Magnoli, that this message is not at all to your liking. But that does not mean it is not true.
Finally, you say that “even Woods must be secretly praying for the triumph of Dilma Rousseff.” It is a very long time since I have prayed for anything, whether secretly or in public, but it goes without saying that I will support the candidate of the PT against the right wing bourgeois parties, just as it goes without saying that I will support the PSUV in Venezuela against the counterrevolutionary opposition.
But just as in Venezuela I will fight for the PSUV to carry out a genuinely socialist programme, so in Brazil I expect the candidate of the PT, elected by the votes of the workers and peasants, to carry out a policy in the interests of those who elected her, not those of US imperialism and the Brazilian capitalists. And there is nothing secret about that.
Yours faithfully,
Alan Woods, London, 8th February, 2010
Em todo caso, vale o exchange: Alan Woods vs Demetrio MAgnoli
Main Brazilian bourgeois paper attacks Hugo Chavez and Alan Woods
Written by In Defence of Marxism Wednesday, 10 February 2010
A highly influential – and right-wing Brazilian bourgeois commentator wrote an article for O Estado de Sao Paulo attacking Chavez from the right, tracing his evolution from his early days to his latest turn to the left. In doing so the author names the editor of Marxist.com, Alan Woods as one of the main influences responsible for Chavez’s move to the Left. Here we publish the original article and a reply from Alan Woods.
Alan Woods meeting Chavez in 2008.Alan Woods meeting Chavez in 2008.On Thursday 4th February an article was published in the leading bourgeois newspaper in Brazil O Estado de Sao Paulo. The writer is considered one of the 100 most influential people of Brazil, adviser to former presidents, international lecturer, etc. He is obviously a right winger who hates Chavez and is worried about the growing influence of Marxism in the Bolivarian Movement.
The article names the editor of Marxist.com, Alan Woods as one of the main influences responsible for Chavez’s move to the Left, and Alan has sent a reply to O Estado de Sao Paulo, which is a shortened version of the piece we publish below.
The Third Chavez
By Demétrio Magnoli
Karl Marx created the 1st International, Friedrich Engels participated in the founding of the 2nd, Lenin established the 3rd, Leon Trotsky founded the 4th and Hugo Chávez has just raised the banner of the 5th. "I take responsibility before the world, I think it is time to rally the 5th International and dare to make the call," he said in a speech lasting five hours, at the opening session of the extraordinary congress of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) to the applause of 772 delegates in red shirts.
The congress was held in November. Then Chavez imposed energy rationing in the country, devalued the currency and introduced a dual exchange rate, nationalized a supermarket chain, suspended cable TV broadcasts and unleashed a bloody crackdown on student protests. The Chavista International will see the light of day at a world conference in Caracas in April, and the Venezuelan parliamentary elections are scheduled for September. But the future of the man who wants to succeed Marx, Lenin and Trotsky will be shaped by an event completely outside his influence: the Brazilian presidential election of October.
Chavez is living his third incarnation, which is also the last. The first Chavez emerged after the failed coup of 1992, in the guise of nationalist and anti-American warlord mesmerized by the image of an imaginary Simón Bolívar. Under the influence of Argentine sociologist Norberto Ceresole, that original Chavismo flirted with anti-Semitism and dreamed of the establishment of an authoritarian, fascist-style state, which would reunify Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador in a restored Great Colombia.
A second Chávez could be discerned in outline in the spring of the first term in 1999, after the break with Ceresole, when the Leader drew close to Heinz Dieterich, a German Professor of Sociology in Mexico who came out of obscurity to formulate the concept of "socialism of the 21st century." Chavismo reinvented itself and acquired left-wing collaborators, formed an alliance with Cuba and engaged in the project of building a state capitalism that was presented as a long transition towards a kind of socialism untainted by the Soviet legacy.
Brandishing a copy of The State and Revolution by Lenin, the Chavez of the extraordinary congress of the PSUV announced his conversion to the programme of the destruction of the "bourgeois state" and the building of a "revolutionary state." This third Chavez was already implied in 2004, when the Leader got to know the British Trotskyist Alan Woods, and was fully manifest by the time of his defeat in the referendum of December 2007, shortly after the break with Dieterich. The PSUV is a result of Chavismo of the third period, as is also the proclamation of the 5th International.
The word palimpsest comes from the Greek words palin (again) and psao (to scratch or wipe out). A palimpsest is a manuscript rewritten on several times, the superposition of successive layers of text, in which the ancient layers do not disappear completely and maintain a complex relationship with the later writing. To the horror of the sophisticated Woods, Chavismo is a palimpsest of a doctrine that represents a bizarre mixture of the Bolivarian Patria Grande, a strategic alliance with Iran, the barbaric impulses of Leaderism and a difficult learning of the language of Marxism. The most recent text, however, takes precedence over the old and indicates the direction in which the "Bolivarian revolution" is moving. Chavez reacts to the crisis caused by his own regime, tightening the screws of the dictatorship and launching wildly on a campaign of expropriation.
Chavismo is a revolutionary regime, not a traditional populist government or a mere “Caudillo” phenomenon. The PSUV has, on paper, 7 million members, of which 2.5 million participated in the election of delegates to the extraordinary congress. The decline of Chavez, aggravated by the ongoing economic crisis, lends support to the predictions of his electoral defeat in September, but revolutionary regimes are not thrown out of power by votes. "I will not allow my leadership to be challenged, because I am the people, dammit!" the warlord of Caracas roared weeks ago. This man will not allow the people to contradict him at the polls. The inexorable decline of Chavismo will be bitter, dramatic, perhaps bloody. But its duration will depend essentially on the direction of the foreign policy of the new Brazilian government.
Several times Brazil spread a net under Chavez. Lula and Amorim protected the Venezuelan when he closed RCTV, when he was defeated in the constitutional referendum, during the Colombian hostage crisis, and the controversy over U.S. bases, and in the failed adventure of the return of Zelaya in Honduras. On behalf of the interests of Chavismo, the Brazilian president has wasted the opportunity of strategic cooperation with Barack Obama.
In the course of stabilization of the "Bolivarian revolution", Brazil regionally isolated the Venezuelan opposition, helping to consolidate the regime of Chavez. Now begins another cycle: the dismantling of the political and social bases of Chavismo. In the new scenario, Brazil becomes essential: only the South American power has the means and influence to carry for at least a few kilometres the coffin of this irascible Leader.
The government majority in the Senate approved Venezuela's entry into Mercosur, under the cynical argument that democracy in the neighbouring country would be better preserved by the virtual abolition of the democratic clauses of Mercosur. In meetings of the OAS, Brazilian diplomacy manoeuvres to avoid a clear condemnation of the Chavista offensive against the students and press freedom. In Caracas, a technical mission sent by the Brazilian government articulates a plan to rescue the Venezuelan electricity grid from collapse. The statement of support by Chavez for Lula's re-election was greeted with scorn by the revolutionary Chávistas. Today, even Woods must be secretly praying for the triumph of Dilma Rousseff.
---
Reply of Alan Woods - For the attention of Demétrio Magnoli
Dear Sir,
In your article of 4th February, you present an apocalyptic picture of President Chavez, who you say has experienced “three incarnations”. By this, you presumably mean that his views have evolved in recent years – to the left. That is a fact, but whether you see this change as good or bad will depend on your political standpoint and the interests you defend.
From the content of your article, I conclude that you stand on the right politically and are trying to defend the status quo, whereas as a Marxist I stand for socialist revolution. It is therefore quite natural that our attitudes towards Chávez will be radically opposed. Now there is nothing wrong in defending opposite points of view, but let us at least base ourselves on fact, not fiction.
You write: “original Chavismo flirted with anti-Semitism and dreamed of the establishment of an authoritarian, fascist-style state”. There is no basis whatever for making such assertions. One of his first actions Chávez took after winning the 1998 elections by a landslide was to hold a referendum on the Constitution, which remains the most democratic Constitution in the world. This is hardly the action of someone who wishes to establish a fascist-style state.
During the past decade Chávez has won more elections and other popular consultations than any other political leader in the world. Nor can it be argued that these elections and referenda were rigged. In no other country have elections been subjected to closer international scrutiny than in Venezuela. Yet nobody has been able to produce the slightest evidence that the elections were rigged.
What about the “democratic” opposition, for which you show such tender sympathy? In 2002 the Venezuelan oligarchy overthrew the democratically elected government in a coup, which was immediately recognized by Washington. Had the opposition succeeded, Venezuela would have ended up like Chile.
This is not the place to deal with the false notions of Heinz Dieterich, which you mention. I have dealt at length with that subject in my book Reformism or Revolution, which has recently been published in Brazil. It is sufficient to say that the basic mistake of Dieterich and other reformists is to assume that it is possible, to achieve socialism without expropriating the land, the banks and the major industries. This idea (which is shared by some people in Brazil) is a recipe for disaster.
You write that the “third Chavez was already implied in 2004, when the Leader got to know the British Trotskyist Alan Woods, and was fully manifest by the time of his defeat in the referendum of December 2007, shortly after the break with Dieterich. The PSUV is a result of Chavismo of the third period, as is also the proclamation of the 5th International.”
I am gratified with this statement, but in all honesty, I believe that you greatly overestimate my influence over the President, who has a mind of his own and is accustomed to making his own decisions. My own views on the revolutionary process can be summed up as follows: It is not possible to make half a revolution. Either the Revolution will take the economic power out of the hands of the landlords, bankers and capitalists, or it will fail. Either the Revolution will defeat the oligarchy, or the oligarchy will destroy the Revolution.
I have stated these views many times in Venezuela and they are well known to many people, including Hugo Chavez. But I have never presumed to tell anybody what to think. On the basis of experience, the working people of Venezuela can decide for themselves who is right and who is wrong, and they are doing so. The reformist wing, which represents the influence of the bourgeoisie within the Bolivarian Movement, is losing support, while the audience for revolutionary Marxist ideas is growing. You naturally see this as a bad thing, while I see it as extremely positive.
You contradict yourself when you write: “Chavismo is a revolutionary regime, not a traditional populist government or a mere ‘Caudillo’ phenomenon”. But three-quarters of your article is precisely intended to present Chavez as a mere Caudillo, an authoritarian, if not an outright fascist. You talk about Chavez “tightening the screws of the dictatorship and launching wildly on a campaign of expropriation”, about “destroying the bourgeois state” and so on. This is enough to make the hair of respectable Brazilian bourgeois stand on end. But I believe that many Brazilian workers and peasants will see things differently.
You complain about the measures taken against RCTV, the ultra-right TV station that actively prepared the coup in April 2002. I am not well acquainted with the laws concerning the mass media in Brazil, but I can say this. In my own country (which is generally regarded as having a long democratic tradition), if any TV station actively supported sedition, including advocating the assassination of the head of state, it would have its license immediately withdrawn and those responsible would find themselves in prison.
You eagerly anticipate “the inexorable decline of Chavismo”, which you claim, “will be bitter, dramatic, perhaps bloody”. Yes, for years all the reactionaries in North and South America have been hoping for this. But at every stage their hopes have been frustrated by the movement of the workers and peasants of Venezuela.
Can it be that this time the hopes of the imperialists will be justified? It is impossible to say. The Venezuelan Revolution, like all revolutions, is a struggle of living forces. It can be influenced by many factors, such as the present worldwide economic crisis, the exhaustion of the masses after over a decade of struggle, the immense pressure of imperialism, and last but not least, the mistakes of the leadership.
You say that the duration of Chavismo “will depend essentially on the direction of the foreign policy of the new Brazilian government”. What is the meaning of this cryptic and mysterious statement? You criticize the Lula government for not joining in the attacks against the Venezuelan Revolution. You say: “On behalf of the interests of Chavismo, the Brazilian president has wasted the opportunity of strategic cooperation with Barack Obama.” [my emphasis, AW]
The hatred of the imperialists for Hugo Chavez has nothing to do with his alleged “authoritarianism” (since when has Washington been afraid of authoritarian regimes?). It is because he has courageously stood up to them and denied the big transnational companies the right to continue their uncontrolled plunder of Venezuela’s oil. For generations US imperialism has exercised a brutal stranglehold over the mighty continent of Latin America, exploiting its people, draining its resources, interfering in its internal affairs, overthrowing democratically elected governments and installing dictatorships.
The Brazilian bourgeois are content to play the role of the local office-boys of imperialism, the local agents of the big American transnationals. They hate Hugo Chavez for the same reason as their masters in Washington. But when the workers and peasants of Brazil see what is happening in Venezuela, they will say: thank God somebody is prepared to stand up to these bloodsuckers! And they will add: when are we going to do something similar in Brazil?
Brazil, with its huge population and vast resources, is destined to play a key role in shaping the future of Latin America. The people of this great country must decide what kind of government they want and what kind of system they wish to live under. The massive vote for Lula showed that the Brazilian people want a fundamental change – just like the people of Venezuela.
I firmly believe that the future for Brazil, for Latin America and the whole world, can only be socialism – not the bureaucratic caricature of Stalinism, but a healthy and vibrant socialist democracy, when the land, the banks and the major industries are in the hands of the state, and the state is in the hands of the working people.
It is the great merit of the Bolivarian Revolution that it showed the people of Latin America that it is possible for the masses to bring about change through a great and powerful movement from below. The workers have shown that it is possible to take over the factories and run them under workers’ control.
It is the great merit of Hugo Chavez that he was prepared to tell the whole world that capitalism is a rotten and corrupt system that cannot serve the interests of humanity; that it cannot be reformed, but must be overthrown; and that the only alternative before humanity is socialism or barbarism. I understand, Senhor Magnoli, that this message is not at all to your liking. But that does not mean it is not true.
Finally, you say that “even Woods must be secretly praying for the triumph of Dilma Rousseff.” It is a very long time since I have prayed for anything, whether secretly or in public, but it goes without saying that I will support the candidate of the PT against the right wing bourgeois parties, just as it goes without saying that I will support the PSUV in Venezuela against the counterrevolutionary opposition.
But just as in Venezuela I will fight for the PSUV to carry out a genuinely socialist programme, so in Brazil I expect the candidate of the PT, elected by the votes of the workers and peasants, to carry out a policy in the interests of those who elected her, not those of US imperialism and the Brazilian capitalists. And there is nothing secret about that.
Yours faithfully,
Alan Woods, London, 8th February, 2010
1669) Iran-direitos humanos: a visao do Brasil
Bem, nao encontrei a visão do Brasil nos comunicados à imprensa do MRE.
Por isso transcrevo alguns trechos do discurso do Brasil no Conselho de DH em Genebra, através da matéria de um conhecido crítico.
GOVERNO LULA FINGE CRITICAR O IRÃ, MAS, NA PRÁTICA, CONSOLIDA O SEU PAPEL DE PRINCIPAL ALIADO DE UMA TIRANIA TERRORISTA
Reinaldo Azevedo, 16/02/10
Se, por qualquer razão, você chegou à conclusão de que o governo Lula resolveu mudar um tantinho o seu discurso em relação ao Irã porque expressou ontem na ONU a sua preocupação com os direitos humanos no país, saiba que você está errado ou foi induzido a erro. Ao contrário: na prática, o alinhamento do Itamaraty com Teerã está hoje ainda mais sólido. O discurso da embaixadora Maria Nazareth Farani Azevedo, representante do Brasil nas Nações Unidas, foi pífio e, ousaria dizer, um pouco cínico, à altura de seu chefe, Celso Amorim.
Ah, sim, sim, claro: o Brasil expressou a sua preocupação com a situação das mulheres e das crianças, pediu tolerância com as minorias religiosas e com aqueles que dissentem do governo etc e tal. E ficou por aí. Achando que já era agressividade demais, reconheceu os avanços sociais no país. Não, senhores! O Brasil NÃO CONDENOU O IRÃ. Se houve um tom mais agressivo, não foi dirigido à tirania iraniana, mas ao governo dos EUA: afirmou que o Brasil não aceitará (!!!) uma solução “unilateral” para a crise. Não aceitará??? É mesmo??? Vai fazer o quê? Marco Aurélio Garcia meteria uma faca em seus dentes recém-colocados e atacaria a Quarta Frota em represália? Quem sabe as TVs a cabo?…
O Brasil expressou preocupação, recomendou cuidado, mais ou menos como fazemos os país quando os filhos adolescentes vão sair de casa: “Está levando uma blusa?” Bem, eles nunca estão, fazem cara de tédio, pegam um agasalho a contragosto e vão largá-lo na casa de algum amigo. Assim fez o Brasil. O Irã parece só um país um tanto teimoso… O Brasil, à diferença dos países europeus, não quer investigação de nenhuma denúncia, nada!!!
O governo do Irã reagiu às críticas recebidas na ONU - não às do Brasil, que aquilo nem crítica foi. Acusou o Ocidente de usar a questão dos direitos humanos para enfraquecê-lo e disse que o país é um dos mais democráticos da região. É a velha história de resumir a democracia ao processo eleitoral - que, de resto, foi fraudado por lá. A “democracia” iraniana censura a imprensa, prende opositores, mata-os nas ruas, enforca-os depois de farsas judiciais clamorosas, em que o acusado não tem direito de defesa. Para Amorim, está quase bom.
Hillary Clinton não lê este blog, claro, mas disse ontem o que se escreveu há alguns dias: o regime iraniano tem lá a tal liderança espiritual dos aiatolás, mas já é um ditadura militar, conduzida pela Guarda Revolucionária, que consolidou no país o clepto-islamismo. Trata-se de uma formidável máquina de corrupção e de repressão. O aiatolá Ali Khamnei poderia muito pouco hoje contra Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ainda que quisesse. E Ahmadinejad pode muito - ao menos enquanto for “o” homem da Guarda Revolucionária na Presidência. Foi ela que armou a fraude eleitoral, admitida até pelo Conselho da Revolução.
EUA e Inglaterra censuraram duramente o Irã. Nas ruas de Genebra, manifestantes pediam a libertação de prisioneiros, condenavam as execuções, protestavam contra a repressão às mulheres, às minorias… Lá dentro, cega para as violações dos direitos humanos, surda para os protestos da oposição do país, muda para dizer uma palavra mais dura, Dona Maria Nazareth fazia o seu discurso pífio, alinhado com uma tirania.
Foi a coisa mais estúpida do dia, mas esteve longe de ser a mais patética. Faltava Celso Amorim dar a sua contribuição em pessoa. E ele o fez.
Em reunião com representantes da União Européia, pediu, calculem!, a volta de Manuel Zelaya a Honduras. Até aí, isso é com o chapeludo. Anistiado, ele já está. Mas o Megalonanico quer também que ele “participe” da vida política do país. Santo Deus!!! Imaginem Amorim como chanceler de uma potência como os EUA… Iria depor e entronizar presidentes todos os dias!!! Os tanques soviéticos do Pacto de Varsóvia seriam Amorim perto de Amorim… Custa a este senhorzinho deixar que hondurenhos, que vivem num regime democrático, decidam seu próprio destino?
Não, ele ainda não mostra disposição de reconhecer o novo governo, não! Quer esperar, sabem? Já quanto ao Irã , nem dúvidas nem hesitações: é preciso negociar com aquele governo pacífico.
Nessa miséria toda, uma coisa há de bastante positivo: começa a cair a ficha da Casa Branca em relação ao Brasil e sua política externa, sempre vista como bastante distinta daquela posta em prática por Hugo Chávez. Os EUA e o mundo começam a ver que a retórica do Itamaraty pode até ser mais esperta. Mas a essência é a mesma. E qualquer pessoa sensata acabaria concluindo que, seguindo nesse rumo, o Brasil poderia ser mais pernóstico à segurança regional e global do que, obviamente, a quase irrelevante (na comparação com o Bananão) Venezuela.
Lula é hoje um dos grandes aliados de um governo que prende e mata os opositores, que financia o terrorismo internacional e que ameaça o mundo com um conflito nuclear.
Por quê? Continuamos sem saber. Só para secretar antiamericanismo vigarista e se comportar como líder regional? Seria tolo demais! Jamais desistam desta pergunta: que laços secretos unem o governo Lula à tirania do Irã?
Quem sabe um dia se abra também esse arquivo e se tenha uma Comissão da Verdade.
Por isso transcrevo alguns trechos do discurso do Brasil no Conselho de DH em Genebra, através da matéria de um conhecido crítico.
GOVERNO LULA FINGE CRITICAR O IRÃ, MAS, NA PRÁTICA, CONSOLIDA O SEU PAPEL DE PRINCIPAL ALIADO DE UMA TIRANIA TERRORISTA
Reinaldo Azevedo, 16/02/10
Se, por qualquer razão, você chegou à conclusão de que o governo Lula resolveu mudar um tantinho o seu discurso em relação ao Irã porque expressou ontem na ONU a sua preocupação com os direitos humanos no país, saiba que você está errado ou foi induzido a erro. Ao contrário: na prática, o alinhamento do Itamaraty com Teerã está hoje ainda mais sólido. O discurso da embaixadora Maria Nazareth Farani Azevedo, representante do Brasil nas Nações Unidas, foi pífio e, ousaria dizer, um pouco cínico, à altura de seu chefe, Celso Amorim.
Ah, sim, sim, claro: o Brasil expressou a sua preocupação com a situação das mulheres e das crianças, pediu tolerância com as minorias religiosas e com aqueles que dissentem do governo etc e tal. E ficou por aí. Achando que já era agressividade demais, reconheceu os avanços sociais no país. Não, senhores! O Brasil NÃO CONDENOU O IRÃ. Se houve um tom mais agressivo, não foi dirigido à tirania iraniana, mas ao governo dos EUA: afirmou que o Brasil não aceitará (!!!) uma solução “unilateral” para a crise. Não aceitará??? É mesmo??? Vai fazer o quê? Marco Aurélio Garcia meteria uma faca em seus dentes recém-colocados e atacaria a Quarta Frota em represália? Quem sabe as TVs a cabo?…
O Brasil expressou preocupação, recomendou cuidado, mais ou menos como fazemos os país quando os filhos adolescentes vão sair de casa: “Está levando uma blusa?” Bem, eles nunca estão, fazem cara de tédio, pegam um agasalho a contragosto e vão largá-lo na casa de algum amigo. Assim fez o Brasil. O Irã parece só um país um tanto teimoso… O Brasil, à diferença dos países europeus, não quer investigação de nenhuma denúncia, nada!!!
O governo do Irã reagiu às críticas recebidas na ONU - não às do Brasil, que aquilo nem crítica foi. Acusou o Ocidente de usar a questão dos direitos humanos para enfraquecê-lo e disse que o país é um dos mais democráticos da região. É a velha história de resumir a democracia ao processo eleitoral - que, de resto, foi fraudado por lá. A “democracia” iraniana censura a imprensa, prende opositores, mata-os nas ruas, enforca-os depois de farsas judiciais clamorosas, em que o acusado não tem direito de defesa. Para Amorim, está quase bom.
Hillary Clinton não lê este blog, claro, mas disse ontem o que se escreveu há alguns dias: o regime iraniano tem lá a tal liderança espiritual dos aiatolás, mas já é um ditadura militar, conduzida pela Guarda Revolucionária, que consolidou no país o clepto-islamismo. Trata-se de uma formidável máquina de corrupção e de repressão. O aiatolá Ali Khamnei poderia muito pouco hoje contra Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ainda que quisesse. E Ahmadinejad pode muito - ao menos enquanto for “o” homem da Guarda Revolucionária na Presidência. Foi ela que armou a fraude eleitoral, admitida até pelo Conselho da Revolução.
EUA e Inglaterra censuraram duramente o Irã. Nas ruas de Genebra, manifestantes pediam a libertação de prisioneiros, condenavam as execuções, protestavam contra a repressão às mulheres, às minorias… Lá dentro, cega para as violações dos direitos humanos, surda para os protestos da oposição do país, muda para dizer uma palavra mais dura, Dona Maria Nazareth fazia o seu discurso pífio, alinhado com uma tirania.
Foi a coisa mais estúpida do dia, mas esteve longe de ser a mais patética. Faltava Celso Amorim dar a sua contribuição em pessoa. E ele o fez.
Em reunião com representantes da União Européia, pediu, calculem!, a volta de Manuel Zelaya a Honduras. Até aí, isso é com o chapeludo. Anistiado, ele já está. Mas o Megalonanico quer também que ele “participe” da vida política do país. Santo Deus!!! Imaginem Amorim como chanceler de uma potência como os EUA… Iria depor e entronizar presidentes todos os dias!!! Os tanques soviéticos do Pacto de Varsóvia seriam Amorim perto de Amorim… Custa a este senhorzinho deixar que hondurenhos, que vivem num regime democrático, decidam seu próprio destino?
Não, ele ainda não mostra disposição de reconhecer o novo governo, não! Quer esperar, sabem? Já quanto ao Irã , nem dúvidas nem hesitações: é preciso negociar com aquele governo pacífico.
Nessa miséria toda, uma coisa há de bastante positivo: começa a cair a ficha da Casa Branca em relação ao Brasil e sua política externa, sempre vista como bastante distinta daquela posta em prática por Hugo Chávez. Os EUA e o mundo começam a ver que a retórica do Itamaraty pode até ser mais esperta. Mas a essência é a mesma. E qualquer pessoa sensata acabaria concluindo que, seguindo nesse rumo, o Brasil poderia ser mais pernóstico à segurança regional e global do que, obviamente, a quase irrelevante (na comparação com o Bananão) Venezuela.
Lula é hoje um dos grandes aliados de um governo que prende e mata os opositores, que financia o terrorismo internacional e que ameaça o mundo com um conflito nuclear.
Por quê? Continuamos sem saber. Só para secretar antiamericanismo vigarista e se comportar como líder regional? Seria tolo demais! Jamais desistam desta pergunta: que laços secretos unem o governo Lula à tirania do Irã?
Quem sabe um dia se abra também esse arquivo e se tenha uma Comissão da Verdade.
1668) Iran-direitos humanos: a visao dos paises ocidentais
West Criticizes Iran Rights Record At UN Council Meeting
By Golnaz Esfandiari
Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, February 15, 2010
The United States criticized the violent crackdown on postelection protests last summer.
Western countries expressed concern today at the UN Human Rights Council over the violent methods employed by Iran against protests over the country's disputed presidential election.
The countries, including Britain and France, also called for an international probe into the violence that followed the election in June 2009.
French Ambassador Jean Baptiste Mattei said during the meeting in Geneva that the human rights situation has worsened in the Islamic republic since the election, in which President Mahmud Ahmadinejad was named the winner in the first round just hours after polls closed.
"The situation has seriously deteriorated over the past eight months. The authorities are waging a bloody repression against their own people, who are peacefully claiming their rights," Mattei said.
The United States condemned the "unjust" repression of "innocent Iranian citizens" that was seen after opposition supporters protested the outcome of the election.
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner called on Iran to lift restrictions on free speech, end the reported torture of political prisoners, and stop "show trials" of dissidents.
"We're deeply concerned also about status of detainees in Iran, including foreign nationals, American citizens, and lack of due process accorded them," Posner said. "In addition of last year's improper show trials there are credible reports of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment."
Call For UN Investigation
The announcement of Ahmadinejad as the winner led to mass protests in Tehran and other Iranian cities, as the president and other top officials rejected accusations that the election result was engineered through massive fraud.
The ensuing and continuing crackdown against the opposition has resulted in the arrest of more than 2,000 activists and human rights defenders, a number of whom have faced trial. Two people have been executed after being found guilty in connection with the unrest, although at least one was arrested before the election.
Germany said today it was deeply concerned about the way the Islamic republic treated those who took part in the protests that followed the election.
Britain voiced similar concerns. Britain's ambassador in Geneva, Peter Gooderham, recommended that Iran invite UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to "investigate the postelection violence and independently assess the human rights situation."
Senior diplomat Seyed Hossein Rezvani, a member of the Iranian delegation, told reporters that an international investigation was "totally out of the question," since the country's own judicial system was capable of examining allegations of wrongdoing.
But he claimed Iran had issued an open invitation to all of the UN's independent investigators to visit the country.
Deadly Prison Closed
Other members of the Iranian delegation defended the country's human rights records and accused Western countries of a double standard. One attendee described the June vote as an epic poem of democracy.
The head of the delegation, Mohammad Javad Larijani, said Iran "has taken a genuine and long-term approach to safeguarding human rights."
As an example, Larijani noted the closure of the Kahrizak detention center, where at least three postelection detainees are known to have died after being tortured.
"The minute that we discovered that there was some wrongdoing over there [in Kahrizak], it was closed in less than 24 hours," Larijani said. "Please compare that with Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib prisons. Whether they were closed in such a rapid procedure, or not?"
Religious Persecution
Aside from the postelection crackdown, a number of countries expressed concern over death sentences handed down to juvenile offenders and political prisoners in Iran. Canada called on Iran to stop issuing such sentences.
Discrimination and pressure on religious minorities, including the Baha'is and Sufis in Iran, was also criticized today by Western countries, including the United States.
Iran reacted by saying that all recognized minorities in the Islamic republic enjoy the same rights. Larijani said no Baha'i in Iran has been prosecuted because of his or her faith.
"Baha'is [who] are pursued in Iran through legal structure are those who are indulged in cult type of activity -- cult type of activity is against all the basic human rights of the people," Larijani said.
The UN representative of the Baha'i International Community, Diane Ala'i, however, told RFE/RL's Radio Farda that the Iranian delegation's claims about the Baha'is were untrue. "Baha'is have no rights in Iran and they get persecuted only because of their religion," she said.
Several countries, including Cuba and Venezuela, defended Iran's human rights record. Brazil's representative said Iran's presence in Geneva demonstrates its commitment to human rights, and Russia's representative praised Iran for its fight against illiteracy.
"Iran's intention to develop a national strategic action plan in the area of human rights deserves support, as well as does the development of the question of creating in Iran a national human rights organ," the Russian envoy said. "We note the progress Iran has made in fighting illiteracy."
'Human Rights Tragedy'
Today's three-hour debate before the Geneva-based council was eagerly anticipated by human rights groups who have strongly criticized rights abuses in the Islamic republic, particularly the execution of minors, mistreatment of postelection detainees, and the jailing of journalists.
On February 12 Iranian Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi called on the world to help before it is too late. "If this situation continues in Iran, I must warn that the day will come when the young Iranian people will no longer be able to endure government violence. They will reach the end of their rope," Ebadi said, warning of a "human rights tragedy" in Iran.
The UN Rights Council is due to issue its report of today's session on February 17. Media watchdog Reporters Without Borders has called for the Iranian government to be censured "for its serious human rights violations."
But Larry Cox, the executive director of Amnesty International in the United States, told RFE/RL on February 11 that he didn't expect much from today's session.
"The hopes are that because precisely of what's been happening in the last months and even in the last days, that if ever there's a moment when governments should find the ability to ask hard questions -- this should be it," Cox said.
"But I am afraid that I will be, as I often am, disappointed in the performance at the council."
RFE/RL correspondent Nikola Krastev contributed to this report from New York
By Golnaz Esfandiari
Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, February 15, 2010
The United States criticized the violent crackdown on postelection protests last summer.
Western countries expressed concern today at the UN Human Rights Council over the violent methods employed by Iran against protests over the country's disputed presidential election.
The countries, including Britain and France, also called for an international probe into the violence that followed the election in June 2009.
French Ambassador Jean Baptiste Mattei said during the meeting in Geneva that the human rights situation has worsened in the Islamic republic since the election, in which President Mahmud Ahmadinejad was named the winner in the first round just hours after polls closed.
"The situation has seriously deteriorated over the past eight months. The authorities are waging a bloody repression against their own people, who are peacefully claiming their rights," Mattei said.
The United States condemned the "unjust" repression of "innocent Iranian citizens" that was seen after opposition supporters protested the outcome of the election.
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner called on Iran to lift restrictions on free speech, end the reported torture of political prisoners, and stop "show trials" of dissidents.
"We're deeply concerned also about status of detainees in Iran, including foreign nationals, American citizens, and lack of due process accorded them," Posner said. "In addition of last year's improper show trials there are credible reports of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment."
Call For UN Investigation
The announcement of Ahmadinejad as the winner led to mass protests in Tehran and other Iranian cities, as the president and other top officials rejected accusations that the election result was engineered through massive fraud.
The ensuing and continuing crackdown against the opposition has resulted in the arrest of more than 2,000 activists and human rights defenders, a number of whom have faced trial. Two people have been executed after being found guilty in connection with the unrest, although at least one was arrested before the election.
Germany said today it was deeply concerned about the way the Islamic republic treated those who took part in the protests that followed the election.
Britain voiced similar concerns. Britain's ambassador in Geneva, Peter Gooderham, recommended that Iran invite UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to "investigate the postelection violence and independently assess the human rights situation."
Senior diplomat Seyed Hossein Rezvani, a member of the Iranian delegation, told reporters that an international investigation was "totally out of the question," since the country's own judicial system was capable of examining allegations of wrongdoing.
But he claimed Iran had issued an open invitation to all of the UN's independent investigators to visit the country.
Deadly Prison Closed
Other members of the Iranian delegation defended the country's human rights records and accused Western countries of a double standard. One attendee described the June vote as an epic poem of democracy.
The head of the delegation, Mohammad Javad Larijani, said Iran "has taken a genuine and long-term approach to safeguarding human rights."
As an example, Larijani noted the closure of the Kahrizak detention center, where at least three postelection detainees are known to have died after being tortured.
"The minute that we discovered that there was some wrongdoing over there [in Kahrizak], it was closed in less than 24 hours," Larijani said. "Please compare that with Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib prisons. Whether they were closed in such a rapid procedure, or not?"
Religious Persecution
Aside from the postelection crackdown, a number of countries expressed concern over death sentences handed down to juvenile offenders and political prisoners in Iran. Canada called on Iran to stop issuing such sentences.
Discrimination and pressure on religious minorities, including the Baha'is and Sufis in Iran, was also criticized today by Western countries, including the United States.
Iran reacted by saying that all recognized minorities in the Islamic republic enjoy the same rights. Larijani said no Baha'i in Iran has been prosecuted because of his or her faith.
"Baha'is [who] are pursued in Iran through legal structure are those who are indulged in cult type of activity -- cult type of activity is against all the basic human rights of the people," Larijani said.
The UN representative of the Baha'i International Community, Diane Ala'i, however, told RFE/RL's Radio Farda that the Iranian delegation's claims about the Baha'is were untrue. "Baha'is have no rights in Iran and they get persecuted only because of their religion," she said.
Several countries, including Cuba and Venezuela, defended Iran's human rights record. Brazil's representative said Iran's presence in Geneva demonstrates its commitment to human rights, and Russia's representative praised Iran for its fight against illiteracy.
"Iran's intention to develop a national strategic action plan in the area of human rights deserves support, as well as does the development of the question of creating in Iran a national human rights organ," the Russian envoy said. "We note the progress Iran has made in fighting illiteracy."
'Human Rights Tragedy'
Today's three-hour debate before the Geneva-based council was eagerly anticipated by human rights groups who have strongly criticized rights abuses in the Islamic republic, particularly the execution of minors, mistreatment of postelection detainees, and the jailing of journalists.
On February 12 Iranian Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi called on the world to help before it is too late. "If this situation continues in Iran, I must warn that the day will come when the young Iranian people will no longer be able to endure government violence. They will reach the end of their rope," Ebadi said, warning of a "human rights tragedy" in Iran.
The UN Rights Council is due to issue its report of today's session on February 17. Media watchdog Reporters Without Borders has called for the Iranian government to be censured "for its serious human rights violations."
But Larry Cox, the executive director of Amnesty International in the United States, told RFE/RL on February 11 that he didn't expect much from today's session.
"The hopes are that because precisely of what's been happening in the last months and even in the last days, that if ever there's a moment when governments should find the ability to ask hard questions -- this should be it," Cox said.
"But I am afraid that I will be, as I often am, disappointed in the performance at the council."
RFE/RL correspondent Nikola Krastev contributed to this report from New York
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...
-
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,...
-
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... -
O destino do Brasil? Uma tartarug a? Paulo Roberto de Almeida Nota sobre os desafios políticos ao desenvolvimento do Brasil Esse “destino” é...
-
Itamaraty 'Memórias', do embaixador Marcos Azambuja, é uma aula de diplomacia Embaixador foi um grande contador de histórias, ...
-
Quando a desgraça é bem-vinda… Leio, tardiamente, nas notícias do dia, que o segundo chanceler virtual do bolsolavismo diplomático (2019-202...