1750) Obama Nuclear Policy

Obama's Nuclear Posture Review will set tone for U.S. weapons policy
By Mary Beth Sheridan and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 5, 2010; 1:30 PM

President Obama's top national security advisers within days will present him with an agonizing choice on how to guide U.S. nuclear weapons policy for the rest of his presidency.

Does he substantially advance his bold pledge to seek a world free of nuclear weapons by declaring that the "sole purpose" of the U.S. arsenal is to deter other nations from using them? Or does he embrace a more modest option, supported by some senior military officials, that deterrence is the "primary purpose"?

The difference may seem semantic, but such words, which will be contained in a document known as the Nuclear Posture Review, have deep meanings and could dramatically shift nuclear policy in the United States and around the world. The first option would scale back the arsenal's war-fighting role, potentially leading to a smaller U.S. stockpile and taking weapons off alert. The second option would be less of a change, holding out the nuclear threat but still permitting a reduction in weapons. The president was briefed on the document this week and requested additional intermediate options, officials say.

Senior administration officials have already indicated the review is likely to roll back some Bush policies, such as threatening the use of nuclear weapons to preempt or respond to chemical or biological attacks. The review will also point to new ways to cut the Pentagon's stockpile of roughly 5,000 active nuclear warheads, they say.

But, officials say, after lengthy debate, Obama's aides have rejected some of the boldest ideas on the table, such as forswearing the option to use nuclear arms first in a conflict, or dropping one leg of the "triad" of bombers, submarines and land-based missiles that carry the deadly weapons.

Obama's decision on the sensitive issue of U.S. "declaratory policy," U.S. officials and outside experts say, will help determine whether the document is regarded as a far-reaching shift from the Bush administration's version released in 2001. Lower-level officials trying to craft the language engaged in fierce discussions about how far and fast the administration could alter course without alarming allies.

The Nuclear Posture Review is done at the start of each administration, and influences budgets, treaties and weapons deployments and retirements for five to 10 years. Expectations for this one have been raised because of Obama's pledge last year to "put an end to Cold War thinking" and move toward global disarmament -- a vision that helped win him a Nobel Peace Prize.

The review, more than a month overdue, reflects the tension in seeking to advance the president's sweeping agenda without unnerving allies who depend on the U.S. nuclear "umbrella." The Pentagon is also wary of losing options in a world with emerging nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran, officials say.

Until recently, Obama generally has not intervened in the Pentagon-led process, which also involves officials from the State Department, the Energy Department and other agencies. That has raised concerns among arms-control advocates that the final product will be a cautious bureaucratic compromise.

"This NPR will be sort of the bell toll," said Stephen Young of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "It will signal the direction. Will the president try to push that agenda?"

U.S. diplomats hope the final document will establish the Obama administration's credibility before a nuclear security summit in April and a crucial meeting in May on the fraying global nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That treaty is at the heart of Obama's strategy to combat the most urgent threat today: the spread of nuclear weapons to unstable states and to terrorists. The last such session in 2005 ended in failure, with many countries accusing the Bush administration of trying to scotch their nuclear programs while maintaining one of the world's most massive stockpiles.

"The United States can't go around and ask others to give up their nuclear weapons while we maintain a list of official purposes for our nuclear weapons" that necessitates a large arsenal, said Jan Lodal, a senior Defense Department official in the Clinton administration.

The review comes as the U.S. military's precision-guided, conventional weapons have gained such accuracy that they can handle many threats assigned to nuclear weapons in the past.

But U.S. allies are divided about Obama's vision. New governments in Germany and Japan have embraced it, but some nations are more skeptical. "A country like ours, with a very special experience with its own history, we are maybe more cautious than some other countries," said Petr Kolar, the Czech ambassador, referring to past Soviet domination.

Kolar said big policy changes -- like promising not to use nuclear weapons first in a crisis -- could embolden other nuclear-armed powers. "My personal perspective is . . . we shouldn't actually lose the instruments we so far have," he said. "What's the change that would be gained by that?"

Another European ambassador said the nuclear review broke ground in even contemplating such a pledge. But he said it was unlikely while NATO was engaged in a major study of its strategy, due out this fall.

Pentagon officials worry that allies like Japan or Turkey could decide to develop their own nuclear weapons if they believed U.S. protection wasn't assured. Skeptics -- both Democrats and Republicans -- also question whether pledges to limit the U.S. nuclear role would have the impact claimed by proponents , since foes probably wouldn't believe such assertions. "We're better off when we communicate that all options are on the table," said Thomas Mahnken, a senior Defense Department official in the Bush administration. "As a practical matter, they are."

More than two dozen Democrats, led by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee, have pressed Obama to adopt language saying the "sole" or "only" purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons is deterrence. It would not prevent the U.S. government from using a weapon first but would de-emphasize that option in planning.

The Bush administration's 2001 Nuclear Posture Review pledged to reduce the Cold War role of nuclear weapons. But it discussed planning to build new types of "bunker-buster" warheads. It also proposed developing the U.S. nuclear stockpile based not on potential enemies' actual threat but their future capability to carry out nuclear, chemical or biological attacks.

As part of his "declaratory policy," Obama will have to consider whether to break with the Bush and Clinton administrations' studied ambiguity about whether the United States would use nuclear weapons to respond to chemical or biological attacks planned by non-nuclear countries.

The president is expected to adopt that change, but with an important caveat, officials said. The new policy would drop that threat only for countries in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and thus not working on their own bomb.

The immediate effect of such a policy would be limited, since the potential aggressors that most concern the United States are nuclear powers or accused treaty violators like Iran. But the move could encourage other countries to stick to the rules of that pact, officials said.

"It would be a significant pulling back of the reach of the nuclear sword," said Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists.

One senior official said the review will "point to dramatic reductions in the stockpile" in coming years.

In particular, the review will push for beefing up America's deteriorating weapons complex and nuclear labs so that the Pentagon can be more certain of its weapons' effectiveness, officials said. That shift will allow the Defense Department to get rid of some of the roughly 2,000 nuclear warheads it keeps as backups, in addition to its nearly 3,000 deployed weapons, officials said. There are also more than 4,000 older, inactive warheads in the queue for dismantlement.

It is not yet clear whether such reductions would be part of a formal treaty with Russia, one official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

1749) Brazil and Iran at the UNSC - Matias Spektor

How to Read Brazil's Stance on Iran
Matias Spektor, Visiting Fellow
First Take, Council of Foreign Relations, March 4, 2010

The obstacles to U.S. efforts to tighten UN sanctions against Iran were apparent in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's March 3 meetings in Brasilia. President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said, "It is not prudent to push Iran against the wall," and Foreign Minister Celso Amorim called sanctions potentially "counterproductive."
While Brazil is not a permanent member of the UN Security Council and cannot veto resolutions, as a holder of a temporary seat, it can either facilitate or complicate consensus. Equally important, Brazil will play a role in ensuring that sanctions, if passed, get implemented successfully due to its activism inside the UN, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and in various informal groups.
There are three major factors behind Brazil's posture on Iran today. First, in the eyes of Brazilians, sanctions may well be a prelude to intervention. Amorim in the past few days has warned that the last time the Security Council voted on the basis of inconclusive evidence, the world ended up with a major illegitimate intervention in Iraq that undermined the principle of collective security.
Second, Brazil believes sanctions will only toughen the Iranian stance. Pressure and isolation, the argument has it, will create a major incentive for Tehran to seek a deterrent. Brazil is well acquainted with the rationale: in the face of U.S. opposition to its own civilian nuclear program back in the 1970s, Brazil set up secret nuclear activities that eventually succeeded in developing indigenous enrichment capacity. It took Brazil over a decade after that to sign up to the Nulcear Nonproliferation Treaty. As a high-ranking official in Brasilia recently said, "When Brazil looks at Iran it doesn't only see Iran, it sees Brazil too."
Third, Brazil sees debates over Iran's nuclear program as an opportunity to make a broader argument about the nonproliferation regime. In Brazilian eyes, the regime has become a politically driven tool in the hands of the United States to selectively "lay down the law" on weaker states. Why, Brazil argues, the fuss over Iran when Israel remains in a state of nuclear denial? And why does a member of the NPT like Iran get punished for allegedly seeking civilian enrichment technology, when India, which has chosen to remain outside the regime and challenge it overtly, gets a big reward from Washington instead? Furthermore, why expect compliance with Western preferences in the NPT if the major nuclear powers have been unable to honor their part of the deal and move decisively toward disarmament?
But while Brazil may try to blunt the sharper edges of what its officials see as U.S. hegemony, it will not undercut broader U.S. nonproliferation interests. On the contrary, it may well help advance them in consequential ways, such as helping build support in the developing world for a more efficient and legitimate regime.
And Brazil's attitude shouldn't be seen as a bout of anti-Americanism either. As a major beneficiary of collective security as we know it since 1945, Brazil is not a challenger of the American worldview. But as an emerging country with a long history of frailty and dependence, it seeks protection and hedging against great-power use of international norms to impose their will on weaker nations.
What can we expect then? Brazil's attitude is to wait for hard proof of a weapons programs underway in Iran--from a Brazilian perspective, existing evidence is not sufficient. If such fears were to be confirmed, though, there is no doubt that Brazil would move fast to condemn Iran.
Also, and significantly, officials in Brasilia on March 3 signaled their voting behavior in the Security Council is far from preordained. The door is open to negotiation, and it would be a mistake for Washington to dismiss Brazil's support at this stage.

1748) Estatisticas da semana, apenas registrando...

...sem tirar conclusões:
(http://www.sitemeter.com/)

Diplomatizzando

-- Site Summary ---
Visits
Total ....................... 12,147
Average per Day ................ 392
Average Visit Length .......... 2:08
This Week .................... 2,746

Page Views
Total ....................... 18,078
Average per Day ................ 562
Average per Visit .............. 1.4
This Week .................... 3,932


--- Visits this Week ---
Day
Hour 2/26 2/27 2/28 3/1 3/2 3/3 3/4 Total
---- ----- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -------
1 15 16 20 16 18 20 10 115
2 12 12 14 8 8 9 16 79
3 10 3 9 14 4 4 1 45
4 2 8 4 8 5 5 4 36
5 1 6 5 2 4 0 0 18
6 2 1 1 3 0 1 3 11
7 4 2 4 0 0 4 3 17
8 2 2 2 3 1 3 2 15
9 12 3 2 4 10 5 6 42
10 13 14 6 23 12 12 20 100
11 20 7 10 23 24 23 17 124
12 27 11 24 27 27 26 39 181
13 22 19 13 23 29 32 19 157
14 23 16 24 16 13 19 15 126
15 16 15 20 17 26 21 26 141
16 23 13 11 28 27 31 37 170
17 31 18 16 37 41 22 28 193
18 21 18 20 15 28 29 31 162
19 29 22 25 33 30 30 26 195
20 25 15 25 28 18 25 32 168
21 16 28 19 17 32 32 28 172
22 17 23 26 25 32 30 28 181
23 22 13 19 32 24 26 23 159
24 17 16 20 17 27 29 13 139
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -------
382 301 339 419 440 438 427 2,746


--- Page Views this Week ---
Day
Hour 2/26 2/27 2/28 3/1 3/2 3/3 3/4 Total
---- ----- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -------
1 20 24 42 28 27 26 20 187
2 21 21 22 17 9 13 21 124
3 16 6 17 24 11 8 13 95
4 6 10 6 10 11 7 10 60
5 3 12 9 5 5 0 0 34
6 2 1 1 7 0 2 4 17
7 9 2 12 2 0 6 6 37
8 3 2 5 3 1 5 2 21
9 16 3 4 9 12 9 7 60
10 17 21 7 30 16 14 25 130
11 28 7 14 26 29 27 23 154
12 32 30 31 29 38 27 44 231
13 31 28 19 31 38 39 24 210
14 30 21 32 24 22 20 32 181
15 26 19 28 23 34 35 30 195
16 36 23 17 36 34 48 54 248
17 56 19 25 52 66 28 39 285
18 31 45 45 21 38 42 46 268
19 42 38 34 40 40 51 42 287
20 30 22 29 34 26 50 49 240
21 19 33 21 22 47 44 40 226
22 21 26 34 32 40 40 33 226
23 31 18 20 50 33 51 29 232
24 24 18 24 20 41 39 18 184
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -------
550 449 498 575 618 631 611 3,932

1747) Homens inteligentes traem menos...(e são liberais e ateus...)

Também acho que Darwin concordaria com isto; bem, seria contra um dos seus princípios, que é o de disseminar a espécie dos mais capazes (mas também concordo com Stephen Jay Gould em que a evolução, atualmente, é essencialmente cultural e guiada conscientemente pela espécie humana, talvez alguns nem tão concientes quanto seria desejável...).
Também concordo com isto aqui:
De acordo com o estudo, o ateísmo e o liberalismo político também são características de homens mais inteligentes.
No que me concerne, porém, eu não sou ateu; sou apenas irreligioso...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida (5.03.2010)

Recebido pela internet: acredite se quiser...
Homens que traem as esposas e namoradas tendem a ter QI mais baixo e ser menos inteligentes, segundo um estudo publicado na revista especializada Social Psychology Quarterly.
De acordo com o autor do estudo, o especialista em psicologia evolutiva da London School of Economics, Satoshi Kanazawa, "homens inteligentes estão mais propensos a valorizar a exclusividade sexual do que homens menos inteligentes"

Kanazawa analisou duas grandes pesquisas americanas a National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health e a General Social Surveys, que mediam atitudes sociais e QI de milhares de adolescentes e adultos.
Ao cruzar os dados das duas pesquisas, o autor concluiu que as pessoas que acreditam na importância da fidelidade sexual para uma relação demonstraram QI mais alto.

De acordo com o estudo, o ateísmo e o liberalismo político também são características de homens mais inteligentes.

Evolução
Kanazawa foi mais longe e disse que outra conclusão do estudo é que o comportamento "fiel" do homem mais inteligente seria um sinal da evolução da espécie.
Sua teoria é baseada no conceito de que, ao longo da história evolucionária, os homens sempre foram "relativamente polígamos", e que isso está mudando.
Para Kanazawa, assumir uma relação de exclusividade sexual teria se tornado então uma "novidade evolucionária" e pessoas mais inteligentes estariam mais inclinadas a adotar novas práticas em termos evolucionários - ou seja, a se tornar "mais evoluídas".
Para o autor, isso se deve ao fato de pessoas mais inteligentes serem mais "abertas" a novas ideias e questionarem mais os dogmas.
Mas segundo Kanazawa, a exclusividade sexual não significa maior QI entre as mulheres, já que elas sempre foram relativamente monogâmicas e isso não representaria uma evolução.

===========

(Parbleu: a monogamia não é uma evolução?! Onde vamos parar?...)

1746) Le Bresil, a 11 euros...

Hoje uma livraria francesa me ofereceu um livro meu, em condições muito facilitadas. Quase me vi tentado a comprar:

Une histoire du Brésil. Pour comprendre le Brésil contemporain
Fiche produit:
Une histoire du Brésil. Pour comprendre le Brésil contempora..
Paulo-Roberto de Almeida

Le Brésil a fêté en 2000 ses cinq premiers siècles d'existence...

* Livraison gratuite
* Sur commande
11,59 euros
(5% remise)

Le Brésil a fêté en 2000 ses cinq premiers siècles d'existence.
Il arrive à une certaine maturité économique : la puissance et la diversification de son industrie et la compétitivité de son agribusiness, en sont des signes manifestes.
La stabilité démocratique a été confirmée par l'éviction d'un président, en 1992, en conformité avec les règles constitutionnelles.
Le pays rencontre néanmoins des problèmes sociaux dont les origines plongent, pour certains, leurs racines dans le passé colonial et esclavagiste.
Ce livre présente l'itinéraire de 500 ans de formation et d'évolution de la société brésilienne.
Le contexte régional ainsi que la politique internationale du Brésil sont aussi mis en évidence dans ce texte fluide et vif, signé par deux des spécialistes connus de l'histoire et de la diplomatie brésiliennes.
Caractéristiques Une histoire du Brésil. Pour comprendre le Brésil contemporain

* ISBN : 2-7475-1453-6
* Collection : Horizons Amériques Latines
* Format : Broché
* Auteur : Paulo-Roberto de Almeida
* Editeur : L'Harmattan
* Etat : Neuf
* Date de parution : 2002-07-22
* Langue : Français

1745) O Estado brasileiro é o principal fora-da-lei...

Isso eu já sabia, tanto que comecei uma série, que parou por falta de tempo, mas que pretendo retomar, como indico ao final.
Quando se fala de Estado, na verdade, se está falando de governo, e de homens no governo, ou que são muito ignorantes (e não dispõem de assessoria adequada), ou agem de má-fé (o que é mais provável), na base do "se colar, colou": ou seja, "vamos fazer o que queremos, e se ninguém chiar ou protestar, a coisa passa..."
Por essa e ourtas o STF está abarrotado de casos contra o governo, ou contra o Estado, como preferirem.
Vejamos esta matéria da revista Exame:

DE CADA 100 LEIS, 41 SÃO INCONSTITUCIONAIS
Márcio Chaer
Revista Exame, 22/10/2004

Estudo mostra que, de cada 100 leis que chegam ao Supremo, 41 são inconstitucionais

(Extrato da matéria)
EXAME Desrespeitar a Constituição Federal virou moda no Brasil. Prefeitos, deputados, governadores, o Congresso e até o presidente da República -- todos têm seu quinhão de culpa nesse terreno. Eis as conclusões de um levantamento feito por EXAME para avaliar o índice de inconstitucionalidade das leis brasileiras. São números de assombrar. De cada 100 leis analisadas pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), nada menos que 41 são consideradas inconstitucionais. Na Alemanha, apenas três entre 100 leis analisadas pela Corte Constitucional desrespeitam a Constituição.

Por que tantas leis inconstitucionais são criadas? Parte da explicação está na má-fé de alguns governantes. Ives Gandra Martins Filho, ministro do Tribunal Superior do Trabalho, lembra que o governo edita leis mesmo quando sabe que elas são inconstitucionais -- hábito recorrente no campo tributário. Como apenas uma pequena parte das pessoas procura a Justiça e as demais continuam arrecadando, o governo ganha. "Até que o Supremo julgue a Ação de Inconstitucionalidade que beneficie a todos, o governo já terminou", diz. "O esqueleto fica para a gestão seguinte."

Outra explicação para um volume tão elevado de leis inconstitucionais é a ignorância em relação ao que pode ser feito sem ferir a norma jurídica. "Há uma enorme incompetência de quem tem o dever de conhecer a Constituição", diz o secretário-geral da ONG Transparência Brasil, Cláudio Weber Abramo. "Não há atenuantes para a enorme freqüência com que os erros acontecem." O maior de todos os problemas, no entanto, é ela, a própria Constituição Federal. Com 250 artigos que regulam quase todos os aspectos da vida nacional, a Carta brasileira é enorme segundo qualquer parâmetro. Cumpri-la à risca é um desafio e tanto, mesmo para governantes honestos, bem-intencionados e competentes. Além de detalhista, analítico e prolixo, o texto contém artigos que se confrontam com outros, de tal sorte que obedecer a um deles implica necessariamente afrontar o outro. Para complicar, a Constituição está sempre mudando. Desde 1988, já foram aprovadas 44 reformas na Carta -- média de uma mudança a cada quatro meses. "Com uma Constituição dessas, são muito grandes as chances de existir conflitos", diz Gandra Martins Filho. "Se ela se limitasse a definir princípios gerais, como a Carta americana, efetivamente haveria maior liberdade de ação do legislador", afirma.

Um Brasil inconstitucional
De cada 100 leis analisadas pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal, 41 ferem a Constituição. Foram considerados inconstitucionais pela Justiça:
82% das leis municipais criadas no estado de São Paulo
77% das leis municipais criadas no estado de Minas Gerais
56% dos atos dos Tribunais em todo o país
51% das leis feitas pelos estados brasileiros
19% das leis saídas do Congresso e da Presidência

Fonte: Consultor Jurídico

==========

Falando em meus trabalhos sobre a questão, eles estão incompletos, mas pretendo retomar:

1829. “Autobiografia de um fora-da-lei: uma história do Estado brasileiro”, Brasília, 27 outubro 2007, 4 p. Esquema do ensaio histórico-político sobre o Estado brasileiro, narrado na primeira pessoa, em 58 capítulos. A ser desenvolvido gradualmente, de preferência um capítulo por semana, para Via Política.

1826. “Autobiografia de um fora-da-lei, 1: uma história do Estado brasileiro”, Brasília, 19 outubro 2007, 3 p. Revisão: 27.10.07. Introdução, sob forma de “prefácio”, a um ensaio histórico-político, que pode tornar-se um livro verdadeiro, sobre o Estado brasileiro, narrado na primeira pessoa. Via Política (29.10.2007). Espaço Acadêmico (ano 7, nr. 78; novembro 2007).

1831. “Autobiografia de um fora-da-lei, 2 (uma história do Estado brasileiro); Uma questão de método: como o Estado pode escrever sua própria biografia?”, Brasília, 27 outubro 2007, 4 p. Segundo capítulo do ensaio histórico-político sobre o Estado brasileiro, sobre a natureza do discurso e a identidade de quem escreve. Via Política (4.11.2007).

À suivre (cobrem-me...)

1744) Terrorismo islamico: onde estao os lideres religiosos???

Eu me pergunto o que os líderes religiosos teriam a dizer de pessoas ou movimentos que, após atacar inocentes ou funcionários públicos e militares em diferentes locais, ainda concebem a ideia viciosa de acabar de matar os feridos e o pessoal dos serviços médicos no próprio hospital de atendimento de feridos.
Eu nunca leio, ouço, constato líderes religiosos condenando, em nome do Islã, esse tipo de ataque particularmente covarde...

Bombings kill 30 in Iraq
3.03.2010

Top story: A triple suicide bombing hit the Iraqi city of Baquba today, killing at least 30 people and raising tensions ahead of this weekend's elections. Two bombings hit government buildings this morning, then a third bomber rode in a ambulance to the city hospital where he blew himself up as wounded began to arrive, causing most of the casualties. No group has claimed responsibility but it is reminiscent of attacks by al Qaeda in Iraq.