Chart 08: Democracy and Human Rights in China (new translation)

Eu já tinha postado, e repostado, o documento dos ativistas democráticos chineses chamado "Carta 08", numa tradução para o inglês publicada na New York Review of Books. Esta nova versão deve apresentar diferenças em relação ao texto anteriormente aqui postado.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Read the manifesto that landed 2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner and Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo in prison
Foreign Policy, October 8, 2010

In December 2008, 303 Chinese activists, including Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo, issued "Charter 08," a petition calling for greater human rights and democratic freedoms in China. An English translation by the Hong Kong-based NGO Human Rights in China is republished here with permission. The translation was first published in China Rights Forum, the organization's quarterly journal.
…………………………………………………

Charter 08

I. Preamble
This year marks 100 years since China’s [first] Constitution, the 60th anniversary of the promulgation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 30th anniversary of the birth of the Democracy Wall, and the 10th year since the Chinese government signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Having experienced a prolonged period of human rights disasters and challenging and tortuous struggles, the awakening Chinese citizens are becoming increasingly aware that freedom, equality, and human rights are universal values shared by all humankind, and that democracy, republicanism, and constitutional government make up the basic institutional framework of modern politics. A “modernization” bereft of these universal values and this basic political framework is a disastrous process that deprives people of their rights, rots away their humanity, and destroys their dignity. Where is China headed in the 21st century? Will it continue with this “modernization” under authoritarian rule, or will it endorse universal values, join the mainstream civilization, and build a democratic form of government? This is an unavoidable decision.

The tremendous historic changes of the mid-19th century exposed the decay of the traditional Chinese autocratic system and set the stage for the greatest transformation China had seen in several thousand years. The Self-Strengthening Movement [1861–1895] sought improvements in China’s technical capability by acquiring manufacturing techniques, scientific knowledge, and military technologies from the West; China’s defeat in the first Sino-Japanese War [1894–1895] once again exposed the obsolescence of its system; the Hundred Days’ Reform [1898] touched upon the area of institutional innovation, but ended in failure due to cruel suppression by the die-hard faction [at the Qing court]. The Xinhai Revolution [1911], on the surface, buried the imperial system that had lasted for more than 2,000 years and established Asia’s first republic. But, because of the particular historical circumstances of internal and external troubles, the republican system of government was short lived, and autocracy made a comeback.

The failure of technical imitation and institutional renewal prompted deep reflection among our countrymen on the root cause of China’s cultural sickness, and the ensuing May Fourth [1919] and New Culture Movements [1915–1921] under the banner of “science and democracy.” But the course of China’s political democratization was forcibly cut short due to frequent civil wars and foreign invasion. The process of a constitutional government began again after China’s victory in the War of Resistance against Japan [1937–1945], but the outcome of the civil war between the Nationalists and the Communists plunged China into the abyss of modern-day totalitarianism. The “New China” established in 1949 is a “people’s republic” in name, but in reality it is a “party domain.” The ruling party monopolizes all the political, economic, and social resources. It has created a string of human rights disasters, such as the Anti-Rightist Campaign, the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, June Fourth, and the suppression of unofficial religious activities and the rights defense movement, causing tens of millions of deaths, and exacting a disastrous price from both the people and the country.

The “Reform and Opening Up” of the late 20th century extricated China from the pervasive poverty and absolute totalitarianism of the Mao Zedong era, and substantially increased private wealth and the standard of living of the common people. Individual economic freedom and social privileges were partially restored, a civil society began to grow, and calls for human rights and political freedom among the people increased by the day. Those in power, while implementing economic reforms aimed at marketization and privatization, also began to shift from a position of rejecting human rights to one of gradually recognizing them. In 1997 and 1998, the Chinese government signed two important international human rights treaties.2 In 2004, the National People’s Congress amended the Constitution to add that “[the State] respects and guarantees human rights.” And this year, the government has promised to formulate and implement a “National Human Rights Action Plan.” But so far, this political progress has largely remained on paper: there are laws, but there is no rule of law; there is a constitution, but no constitutional government; this is still the political reality that is obvious to all. The ruling elite continues to insist on its authoritarian grip on power, rejecting political reform. This has caused official corruption, difficulty in establishing rule of law, the absence of of human rights, moral bankruptcy, social polarization, abnormal economic development, destruction of both the natural and cultural environment, no institutionalized protection of citizens’ rights to freedom, property, and the pursuit of happiness, the constant accumulation of all kinds of social conflicts, and the continuous surge of resentment. In particular, the intensification of antagonism between the government and the people, and the dramatic increase in mass incidents, indicate a catastrophic loss of control in the making, suggesting that the backwardness of the current system has reached a point where change must occur.

II. Our Fundamental Concepts
At this historical juncture that will decide the future destiny of China, it is necessary to reflect on the modernization process of the past hundred and some years and reaffirm the following concepts:

Freedom: Freedom is at the core of universal values. The rights of speech, publication, belief, assembly, association, movement, to strike, and to march and demonstrate are all the concrete expressions of freedom. Where freedom does not flourish, there is no modern civilization to speak of.

Human Rights: Human rights are not bestowed by a state; they are inherent rights enjoyed by every person. Guaranteeing human rights is both the most important objective of a government and the foundation of the legitimacy of its public authority; it is also the intrinsic requirement of the policy of “putting people first.” China’s successive political disasters have all been closely related to the disregard for human rights by the ruling establishment. People are the mainstay of a nation; a nation serves its people; government exists for the people.

Equality: The integrity, dignity, and freedom of every individual, regardless of social status, occupation, gender, economic circumstances, ethnicity, skin color, religion, or political belief, are equal. The principles of equality before the law for each and every person and equality in social, economic, cultural, and political rights of all citizens must be implemented.

Republicanism: Republicanism is “joint governing by all, peaceful coexistence,” that is, the separation of powers for checks and balances and the balance of interests; that is, a community comprising many diverse interests, different social groups, and a plurality of cultures and faiths, seeking to peacefully handle public affairs on the basis of equal participation, fair competition, and joint discussion.

Democracy: The most fundamental meaning is that sovereignty resides in the people and the government elected by the people. Democracy has the following basic characteristics:(1) The legitimacy of political power comes from the people; the source of political power is the people. (2) Political control is exercised through choices made by the people. (3) Citizens enjoy the genuine right to vote; officials in key positions at all levels of government must be the product of elections at regular intervals. (4) Respect the decisions of the majority while protecting the basic human rights of the minority. In a word, democracy is the modern public instrument for creating a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

Constitutionalism: Constitutionalism is the principle of guaranteeing basic freedoms and rights of citizens as defined by the constitution through legal provisions and the rule of law, restricting and defining the boundaries of government power and conduct, and providing appropriate institutional capability to carry this out. In China, the era of imperial power is long gone, never to return; in the world at large, the authoritarian system is on the wane; citizens ought to become the true masters of their states. The fundamental way out for China lies only in dispelling the subservient notion of reliance on “enlightened rulers” and “upright officials,” promoting public consciousness of rights as fundamental and participation as a duty, and putting into practice freedom, engaging in democracy, and respecting the law.

III. Our Basic Positions
Thus, in the spirit of responsible and constructive citizens, we put forth the following specific positions regarding various aspects of state administration, citizens’ rights and interests, and social development:

1. Constitutional Amendment: Based on the aforementioned values and concepts, amend the Constitution, deleting clauses in the current Constitution that are not in conformity with the principle that sovereignty resides in the people, so that the Constitution can truly become a document that guarantees human rights and allows for the exercise of public power, and become the enforceable supreme law that no individual, group, or party can violate, establishing the foundation of the legal authority for democratizing China.

2. Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances: Construct a modern government that separates powers and maintains checks and balances among them, that guarantees the separation of legislative, judicial, and executive powers. Establish the principle of statutory administration and responsible government to prevent excessive expansion of executive power; government should be responsible to taxpayers; establish the system of separation of powers and checks and balances between the central and local governments; the central power must be clearly defined and mandated by the Constitution, and
the localities must exercise full autonomy.

3. Legislative Democracy: Legislative bodies at all levels should be created through direct elections; maintain the principle of fairness and justice in making law; and implement legislative democracy.

4. Judicial Independence: The judiciary should transcend partisanship, be free from any interference, exercise judicial independence, and guarantee judicial fairness; it should establish a constitutional court and a system to investigate violations of the Constitution, and uphold the authority of the Constitution. Abolish as soon as possible the Party’s Committees of Political and Legislative Affairs at all levels that seriously endanger the country’s rule of law. Prevent private use of public instruments.

5. Public Use of Public Instruments: Bring the armed forces under state control. Military personnel should render loyalty to the Constitution and to the country. Political party organizations should withdraw from the armed forces; raise the professional standards of the armed forces. All public employees including the police should maintain political neutrality. Abolish discrimination in hiring of public employees based on party affiliation; there should be equality in hiring regardless of party affiliation.

6. Human Rights Guarantees: Guarantee human rights in earnest; protect human dignity. Set up a Commission on Human Rights, responsible to the highest organ of popular will, to prevent government abuse of public authority and violations of human rights, and, especially, to guarantee the personal freedom of citizens. No one shall suffer illegal arrest, detention, subpoena, interrogation, or punishment. Abolish the Reeducation-Through-Labor system.

7. Election of Public Officials: Fully implement the system of democratic elections to realize equal voting rights based on “one person, one vote.” Systematically and gradually implement direct elections of administrative heads at all levels. Regular elections based on free competition and citizen participation in elections for legal public office are inalienable basic human rights.

8. Urban-Rural Equality: Abolish the current urban-rural two-tier household registration system to realize the constitutional right of equality before the law for all citizens and guarantee the citizens’ right to move freely.

9. Freedom of Association: Guarantee citizens’ right to freedom of association. Change the current system of registration upon approval for community groups to a system of record-keeping. Lift the ban on political parties. Regulate party activities according to the Constitution and law; abolish the privilege of one-party monopoly on power; establish the principles of freedom of activities of political parties and fair competition for political parties; normalize and legally regulate party politics.

10. Freedom of Assembly: Freedoms to peacefully assemble, march, demonstrate, and express [opinions] are citizens’ fundamental freedoms stipulated by the Constitution; they should not be subject to illegal interference and unconstitutional restrictions by the ruling party and the government.

11. Freedom of Expression: Realize the freedom of speech, freedom to publish, and academic freedom; guarantee the citizens’ right to know and right to supervise [public institutions]. Enact a “News Law” and a “Publishing Law,” lift the ban on reporting, repeal the “crime of inciting subversion of state power” clause in the current Criminal Law, and put an end to punishing speech as a crime.

12. Freedom of Religion: Guarantee freedom of religion and freedom of belief, and implement separation of religion and state so that activities involving religion and faith are not subjected to government interference. Examine and repeal administrative statutes, administrative rules, and local statutes that restrict or deprive citizens of religious freedom; ban management of religious activities by administrative legislation. Abolish the system that requires that religious groups (and including places of worship) obtain prior approval of their legal status in order to register, and replace it with a system of record-keeping that requires no scrutiny.

13. Civic Education: Abolish political education and political examinations that are heavy on ideology and serve the one-party rule. Popularize civic education based on universal values and civil rights, establish civic consciousness, and advocate civic virtues that serve society.

14. Property Protection: Establish and protect private property rights, and implement a system based on a free and open market economy; guarantee entrepreneurial freedom, and eliminate administrative monopolies; set up a Committee for the Management of State-Owned Property, responsible to the highest organ of popular will; launch reform of property rights in a legal and orderly fashion, and clarify the ownership of property rights and those responsible; launch a new land movement, advance land privatization, and guarantee in earnest the land property rights of citizens, particularly the farmers.

15. Fiscal Reform: Democratize public finances and guarantee taxpayers’ rights. Set up the structure and operational mechanism of a public finance system with clearly defined authority and responsibilities, and establish a rational and effective system of decentralized financial authority among various levels of government; carry out a major reform of the tax system, so as to reduce tax rates, simplify the tax system, and equalize the tax burden. Administrative departments may not increase taxes or create new taxes at will without sanction by society obtained through a public elective process and resolution by organs of popular will. Pass property rights reform to diversify and introduce competition mechanisms into the market; lower the threshold for entry into the financial field and create conditions for the development of privately-owned financial enterprises, and fully energize the financial system.

16. Social Security: Establish a social security system that covers all citizens and provides them with basic security in education, medical care, care for the elderly, and employment.

17. Environmental Protection: Protect the ecological environment, promote sustainable development, and take responsibility for future generations and all humanity; clarify and impose the appropriate responsibilities that state and government officials at all levels must take to this end; promote participation and oversight by civil society groups in environmental protection.

18. Federal Republic: Take part in maintaining regional peace and development with an attitude of equality and fairness, and create an image of a responsible great power. Protect the free systems of Hong Kong and Macau .On the premise of freedom and democracy, seek a reconciliation plan for the mainland and Taiwan through equal negotiations and cooperative interaction. Wisely explore possible paths and institutional blueprints for the common prosperity of all ethnic groups, and establish the Federal Republic of China under the framework of a democractic and constitutional government.

19. Transitional Justice: Restore the reputation of and give state compensation to individuals, as well as their families, who suffered political persecution during past political movements; release all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience; release all people convicted for their beliefs; establish a Commission for Truth Investigation to find the truth of historical events, determine responsibility, and uphold justice; seek social reconciliation on this foundation.

IV. Conclusion
China, as a great nation of the world, one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, and a member of the Human Rights Council, ought to make its own contribution to peace for humankind and progress in human rights. Regrettably, however, of all the great nations of the world today, China alone still clings to an authoritarian way of life and has, as a result, created an unbroken nchain of human rights disasters and social crises, held back the development of the Chinese people, and hindered the progress of human civilization. This situation must change! We cannot put off political democratization reforms any longer. Therefore, in the civic spirit of daring to take action, we are issuing Charter 08. We hope that all Chinese citizens who share this sense of crisis, responsibility, and mission, whether officials or common people and regardless of social background, will put aside our differences to seek common ground and come to take an active part in this citizens’ movement, to promote the great transformation of Chinese society together, so that we can soon establish a free, democratic, and constitutional nation, fulfilling the aspirations and dreams that our countrymen have been pursuing tirelessly for more than a hundred years.

Obama calls for the release of Chinese activist

Já que a CNN não pode dar a notícia, aqui na China, eu me substituo a ela...

Breaking News Alert:
Obama calls on China to free Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo
The Washington Post, October 8, 2010 11:35:29 AM
-------------------------

President Obama, who was awarded last year's Nobel Peace Prize, called on China to release this year's winner, Liu Xiaobo, who is serving an 11-year prison sentence.

"Last year, I noted that so many others who have received the award had sacrificed so much more than I. That list now includes Mr. Liu, who has sacrificed his freedom for his beliefs. By granting the prize to Mr. Liu, the Nobel Committee has chosen someone who has been an eloquent and courageous spokesman for the advance of universal values through peaceful and non-violent means, including his support for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law," Obama said.

"We call on the Chinese government to release Mr. Liu as soon as possible," he said.

Dissidentes NAO; Ativistas SIM: usar palavras corretas no caso chines

Os ativistas que lutam por direitos humanos em regimes autoritários são normalmente considerados como "dissidentes" pela imprensa internacional.
Ora, isso é absolutamente inapropriado.
Eles são inteiramente "concordantes" com os mais importantes instrumentos internacionais em favor da democracia e dos direitos humanos, a começar pela Declaração Universal de 1948.
Quem são os verdadeiros dissidentes são os governos, que assinaram esses instrumentos e não os cumprem, tornando-se assim refratários a seu conteúdo.

Enfim, apenas para lembrar alguns desses ativistas, destaco aqui a parte final da matéria sobre a Carta 08 da New York Review of Books, que trouxe ao mundo esse importante documento, que visa, apenas e tão somente, fazer com que a China não mais seja dissidente dos principais instrumentos internacionais em matéria de direitos humanos.
Ver o post integral neste link.

POSTSCRIPT
The planning and drafting of Charter 08 began in the late spring of 2008, but Chinese authorities were apparently unaware of it or unconcerned by it until several days before it was announced on December 10. On December 6, Wen Kejian, a writer who signed the charter, was detained in the city of Hangzhou in eastern China and questioned for about an hour. Police told Wen that Charter 08 was "different" from earlier dissident statements, and "a fairly grave matter." They said there would be a coordinated investigation in all cities and provinces to "root out the organizers," and they advised Wen to remove his name from the charter. Wen declined, telling the authorities that he saw the charter as a fundamental turning point in history.

Meanwhile, on December 8, in Shenzhen in the far south of China, police called on Zhao Dagong, a writer and signer of the charter, for a "chat." They told Zhao that the central authorities were concerned about the charter and asked if he was the organizer in the Shenzhen area.

Later on December 8, at 11 PM in Beijing, about twenty police entered the home of Zhang Zuhua, one of the charter's main drafters. A few of the police took Zhang with them to the local police station while the rest stayed and, as Zhang's wife watched, searched the home and confiscated books, notebooks, Zhang's passport, all four of the family's computers, and all of their cash and credit cards. (Later Zhang learned that his family's bank accounts, including those of both his and his wife's parents, had been emptied.) Meanwhile, at the police station, Zhang was detained for twelve hours, where he was questioned in detail about Charter 08 and the group Chinese Human Rights Defenders in which he is active.

It was also late on December 8 that another of the charter's signers, the literary critic and prominent dissident Liu Xiaobo, was taken away by police. His telephone in Beijing went unanswered, as did e-mail and Skype messages sent to him. As of the present writing, he's believed to be in police custody, although the details of his detention are not known.

On the morning of December 9, Beijing lawyer Pu Zhiqiang was called in for a police "chat," and in the evening the physicist and philosopher Jiang Qisheng was called in as well. Both had signed the charter and were friends of the drafters. On December 10—the day the charter was formally announced—the Hangzhou police returned to the home of Wen Kejian, the writer they had questioned four days earlier. This time they were more threatening. They told Wen he would face severe punishment if he wrote about the charter or about Liu Xiaobo's detention. "Do you want three years in prison?" they asked. "Or four?"

On December 11 the journalist Gao Yu and the writer Liu Di, both well-known in Beijing, were interrogated about their signing of the Charter. The rights lawyer, Teng Biao, was approached by the police but declined, on principle, to meet with them. On December 12 and 13 there were reports of interrogations in many provinces—Shaanxi, Hunan, Zhejiang, Fujian, Guangdong, and others—of people who had seen the charter on the Internet, found that they agreed with it, and signed. With these people the police focused on two questions: "How did you get involved?" and "What do you know about the drafters and organizers?"

The Chinese authorities seem unaware of the irony of their actions. Their efforts to quash Charter 08 only serve to underscore China's failure to uphold the very principles that the charter advances. The charter calls for "free expression" but the regime says, by its actions, that it has once again denied such expression. The charter calls for freedom to form groups, but the nationwide police actions that have accompanied the charter's release have specifically aimed at blocking the formation of a group. The charter says "we should end the practice of viewing words as crimes," and the regime says (literally, to Wen Kejian) "we can send you to prison for these words." The charter calls for the rule of law and the regime sends police in the middle of the night to act outside the law; the charter says "police should serve as nonpartisans," and here the police are plainly partisan.

Charter 08 is signed only by citizens of the People's Republic of China who are living inside China. But Chinese living outside China are signing a letter of strong support for the charter. The eminent historian Yu Ying-shih, the astrophysicist Fang Lizhi, writers Ha Jin and Zheng Yi, and more than 160 others have so far signed.

On December 12, the Dalai Lama issued his own letter in support of the charter, writing that "a harmonious society can only come into being when there is trust among the people, freedom from fear, freedom of expression, rule of law, justice, and equality." He called on the Chinese government to release prisoners "who have been detained for exercising their freedom of expression."

—Perry Link, December 18, 2008

Big Brother vs CNN: seria patetico, se nao fosse ridiculo...

Todo mundo, ou quase, sabe que o Comitê Nobel atribui o prêmio 2010 da Paz ao ativista chinês pelos direitos humanos e pela democracia Liu Xiaobo.
Na China, ainda falta avisar alguns milhões, talvez algumas centenas de milhões.
Claro, todo mundo conectado de alguma forma com o mundo já sabe, menos os milhões de chineses que não dispõem de meios de informação independentes do governo.
Este, de modo absolutamente patético, está tentando impedir os chineses comuns de tomar conhecimento dessa notícia. Os meios oficiais fazem silêncio absoluto sobre o assunto.

Mas o Big Brother chinês também atua de modo absolutamente ridículo ao tentar impedir o acesso a essa informação objetiva pelos canais independentes, estrangeiros.
A CNN, por exemplo, acaba de ficar mais de 2 minutos fora do ar, por causa disso mesmo.
Entretanto, os burocratas e os censores do Great China Firewall foram particularmente vagarosos, e distraídos, neste caso: eles cortaram o sinal depois que a "âncora" da CNN já tinha começado a dar a notícia, inclusive de que o governo chinês estava bloqueando a infor.... (tela apagada).

Dois minutos depois, ou quase, a CNN retoma, desta vez anunciando a renúncia do Conselheiro de Segurança Nacional do presidente Obama, general Jones. Enfim a vida continua.

Esses censores precisam ser mais eficientes, não podem dormir no ponto, afinal de contas eles são pagos para isso.
Já foram mais eficientes de outras vezes...

No dia 1 de junho, por exemplo, eu estava assistindo a um especial na CNN sobre os 30 anos do início das emissões, a partir de Atlanta, daquela rede que se pretendia mundial e que era chamada depreciativamente de "Chicken Noodles Network".
A CNN fazia então um retrospecto das grandes reportagens de seus 30 anos desde 1980, focando a partir de seus arquivos os eventos mundiais de maior impacto no período: desastre da Space Shuttle, guerra Irã-Iraque, catástrofes, tragédias, de repente, isso mesmo: tela preta, chuvisco, ausência de sinal, por alguns segundos, 20 ou 30, depois retomada: invasão do Kwait pelo exército de Saddam Hussein, primeira guerra do golfo, etc, etc, etc.
Curioso, escrevi para correspondentes no Brasil e em outros países, para saber o que eu (e alguns milhões de residentes na China conectados na CNN) tinha perdido: justamente o que eu tinha deduzido imediatamente: o massacre da praça Tian An-Men, ironicamente chamada de Paz Celestial. Sim, também teve a queda do muro de Berlim, enfim, essas coisas incômodas do ponto de vista do Big Brother.

Se alguém perguntar, digamos o próprio escritório da CNN em Beijing, o governo chinês dirá, com a cara mais hipócrita do mundo, que foi um "problema técnico", alguma dificuldade qualquer com a transmissão do sinal, mas que a interrupção tinha sido prontamente resolvida por seus "técnicos".

Acredito que esses técnicos tenham de aumentar o tempo da decalagem entre o sinal da CNN e sua retransmissão na China, digamos para mais de um minuto, para dar tempo de cortar o sinal antes que a notícia entre nos aparelhos, como ocorreu agora, quando pelo menos ficamos sabendo que um chinês havia ganho o Premio Nobel da Paz, e que esse chinês estava preso, por ser um "dissiden..." (...).
Ou eles estavam dormindo, ou comendo miojo, pois se atrasaram vergonhosamente.
Não se pode ser um Big Brother eficiente dessa maneira; desse modo, alguém vai ter de escrever uma nova versão de "1984", criando a figura de um Big Brother trapalhão, distraído, lento, atrasado, ineficiente...

Enfim, acho tudo isso ridículo, pois só contribui para a causa que o governo do Big Brother quer evitar, mas acredito que a burrice seja própria das ditaduras...

Finalmente, sou contra essa caracterização de Liu Xiaobo como "dissidente".
Dissidente do que? De nada, obviamente.
Quem é dissidente é o governo chinês: da democracia, dos direitos humanos, dos princípios mais elementares da transparência e do livre acesso à informação...

Paulo Roberto de Almeida
(Shanghai, 8 de Outubro de 2010)

PS: A cena patética, ou ridícula, se repete: assim que os "titulares" da notícia foram novamente anunciados na CNN, as 23hs locais, inclusive de que o governo chinês tinha ficado bravo com a atribuição do Prêmio Nobel da Paz a Liu Xiabo, o sinal voltou a ser cortado. Assim será pelos próximos dias, cada vez que a matéria for abordada pela CNN (e pela BBC e outros canais, que vou continuar tentando).
Enfim, recomendo muito café e estimulantes aos rapazes do Great Firewal: eles vão ter de trabalhar muito nos próximos dias, e sobretudo ficar mais atentos, do contrário vão acabar tomando uma "censura" do censor-mor...

Confusao mental: comportamento cambial erratico do governo...

Bem, falar em governo é um pouco exagerado, neste caso, pois não existe, a rigor, uma política cambial do governo (supondo-se que exista governo, claro).
Existe uma política cambial do Banco Central (com objetivos muito bem definidos, ainda que não explícitos) e existe, ao que parece, uma outra política cambial, esta sim confusa, errática e contraditória, da Fazenda, que parece barata tonta no tiroteio, para usar uma imagem conhecida.
Uma política não bate com a outra, mas a única questão relevante aqui é: a política cambial da Fazenda bate com alguma coisa? Duvido, sinceramente, pois não existe discurso coerente, e sequer existe discurso, apenas frases desconexas, confusas, contraditórias, tropeços verbais no meio da escuridão, gaguejamentos borrachos de quem deveria andar sóbrio (sobretudo numa matéria séria como essa).
Enfim, sem ser especialista, como o citado na matéria abaixo, do sempre competente jornalista do CB, Antonio Machado (nome de poeta espanhol), ouso dizer que o real vai continuar a se valorizar, e que a política cambial (se existe) vai continuar confusa e errática.
O que não se diz, em parte alguma, é o enorme custo fiscal dessa compra sôfrega de dólares, aparentemente até por esse fantasma inacreditável chamado (ao que parece) "Fundo Soberano do Brasil".
Aqui se trata de uma mistificação completa: o Brasil não possui NENHUM dos requerimentos estruturais para ter um Fundo Soberano, que são superávits orçamentários (ou seja, folga fiscal) e superávit em transações correntes. Nada, nadica de pitiribas. E como se constitui esse tal de Fundo que não é fundo? Simplesmente com recursos orçamentários -- ao ARREPIO da LEI, diga-se de passagem -- que depois são usados e abusados pelo governo sem controle parlamentar e sem estar no orçamento. Ou seja, uma fraude completa.
Bem, deixo vocês com o artigo em questão/
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Câmbio atormentado
Antonio Machado - Brasil S/A
Correio Braziliense, 8.10.2010

Afinal, questiona o especialista em mercado cambial Sidnei Moura Nehme, o que pretende o governo: apreciar ou depreciar o real? A questão parece improcedente, pelo menos depois que o ministro Guido Mantega disse que há uma guerra cambial no mundo, tema até então evitado pelos governos em geral, e que o Brasil não ficaria impassível. O Banco Central lhe dá razão, já que há meses passa o rodo no mercado cambial, enxugando os dólares que entram no país.

Por tudo isso é que Nehme explica que “essa, talvez, seja a questão inicial que os gestores de política monetária, cambial e fiscal do país devem procurar responder e, pelo que se observa”, acrescenta, a pergunta continua sem resposta. Sua certeza sobre a incoerência das ações do governo no câmbio sai da análise dos números apurados pelo Banco Central sobre o fluxo de divisas. São dados públicos.

O problema é que poucos como Nehme, economista e sócio-diretor da corretora NGO, se aplicam a estudá-los. A maioria se satisfaz com o que dizem os manuais de economia, segundo os quais a toda oferta restrita corresponde um aumento de preço. Se o BC enxuga os fluxos líquidos de dólares, o preço em relação ao real deveria aumentar.

Mas o BC faz mais: absorve toda a oferta e mais um pouco, isto é, dólares ainda indisponíveis no país. E o que acontece? O real vem ganhando gradativamente valor sobre o dólar, contrariando a lei da oferta e da procura. É a teoria que não se aplica ao país ou haveria algo mais? A resposta está nos dados tabulados pelo BC.

A eles: do início do ano até setembro, o saldo entre os ingressos e saídas de divisas foi positivo em US$ 17,121 bilhões. No mesmo período, o BC retirou do mercado à vista, por meio de leilões, US$ 29,362 bilhões. Comprou a mais que as entradas US$ 12,241 bilhões.

De onde veio esse “excedente”? Das linhas de crédito no exterior dos bancos brasileiros. A operação é rentável, já que a diferença entre os juros internos (10,75% no overnight) e nos EUA, Europa e Japão, da ordem de zero, pende a favor do aplicador estrangeiro.

Se, além disso, o real valorizar-se entre o ato de entrega dos dólares ao BC e o arremate do crédito externo, obtém-se um retorno irrealizável, a curto prazo, em qualquer outro mercado no mundo.

A história é assim: o dólar cai em todo o mundo porque interessa aos EUA para sair da crise, sobretudo em sua queda de braço com o governo chinês, irredutível aos apelos para apreciar o renminbi. E aqui também cai por razões que nada têm a ver com as diretrizes do governo Obama, mas com as do governo Lula, como Nehme reflete.

Bicicleta dólar-real
Essa bicicleta dólar-real só se equilibra pela certeza de que o BC comprará qualquer excedente de divisas que zanzar pelo mercado. E por que o BC faz isso? Nehme, cujos textos costumavam ser lidos na Fazenda — e talvez ainda sejam — responde. “As compras do BC correspondem a um tipo sutil de interferência [no mercado cambial] habilmente mascarada pelo argumento de que a causa é o fluxo, já que poucos vão conferir os números”, diz. “O objetivo é apreciar o real para que funcione como antídoto a pressões inflacionárias.”

Álibi contra inflação
É para pensar. Repita-se: se não fica dólar dando sopa por aí, a taxa cambial, no mínimo, deveria ficar estável. Com o aumento da tributação sobre os fluxos para aplicações financeiras, parece que o câmbio pode reagir. A ver. Mas nem isso deveria ser necessário.

“Não há porque se falar em impacto do fluxo cambial na derrocada do preço do real, já que foi absolutamente neutralizado pelo BC ao adquiri-lo na totalidade”, reforça o especialista. A combinação de política monetária com política cambial, ele explica, desqualifica o sistema de câmbio flutuante e estimula os bancos a constituir as chamadas posições “vendidas” (apostas na apreciação do real).

BC e Fazenda divergem
E aí vem a Fazenda e dobra a alíquota do IOF, amplia o prazo de provisão do Tesouro para pagar dívida pública externa a vencer e prepara o Fundo Soberano do Brasil para “compras ilimitadas”, nas palavras de Mantega, que também sugeriu ao BC reintroduzir o tal “swap cambial reverso”, equivalente à compra futura de dólar.

Tudo isso é para abater o real. Mas só servirá para intensificar a força do real, como se constatou no passado. “Se não conseguimos nem definir o que queremos, como temos pretensão de nos reunir com o G-20 para debater o assunto?”, provoca Nehme. Com juros em desalinho, poupança interna no osso e mercado de derivativos sem amarras, já seria muito se o governo sanasse suas contradições.

Farol para os aflitos
A pressão de entrada dos dólares existe não só por incoerência de objetivos da política econômica. O problema é global. Agrava-se no Brasil pelo conflito entre a meta legal de inflação, nas cercanias de 4,5% de variação anual, e a sua sequela sobre o preço do dólar.

Sem o cenário de guerra cambial, prioridade na agenda de todos os governos, daria até para aguentar. O overnight a 11%, contra zero nas economias avançadas em crise, no entanto, funciona como farol para todos os que têm dólar na mão, e estão avisados pelo Federal Reserve sobre a iminência de um choque cambial, cujo nome técnico, quantitative easing, ou afrouxamento monetário, não disfarça a intenção. O país precisa proteger-se. Ou tranca transitoriamente o mercado cambial ou corta juros. Ambos juntos poderão ser um risco.

Mario Vargas Llosa sobre o tal de "neoliberalismo"

Já escrevi bastante sobre essa bobagem essencialmente acadêmica -- mas exercitada plenamente por militantes políticos profundamente ignorantes, eu até ousaria dizer completamente idiotas, se não tivesse me comprometido a não mais chamar alguém de idiota (embora alguns mereçam) -- que consiste em acusar alguém ou alguma posição econômica ou política de "neoliberal".
Trata-se, numa expressão benigna, de um reducionismo atroz, no limite uma idiotice completa (perdão, perdão).
Em economia, existem liberais, como existem intervencionistas, ponto. Num caso se pretende a liberdade dos mercados, no outro se pretende a mão visível, e forte, do Estado. São fatos, não são minha opinião.
Em política, existem liberais e existem autoritários, ou mesmo totalitários. Os primeiros defendem um regime amplamente democrático, com total liberdade de expressão e de organização política, com algumas salvaguardas contra aqueles que pretenderiam destruir a democracia (sim, existem, como sabemos). Os segundos gostam de Estados centralizados, partidos únicos (ou quase), liderança da "vanguarda" (autodesignada, cela va de soi) e aquele desejo intenso de "reformar a sociedade", para torná-la mais "justa", mais "igualitária", mais conforme os desejos da "maioria". Enfim, tudo se resume num projeto de "engenharia social": os liberais não admitem essa perspectiva, e acham que os homens devem ser livres, simplesmente. Os autoritários, sim, têm essa vontade obsessiva de reorganizar a sociedade, mesmo contra a vontade dos... liberais, claro.
Bem, chega de papo.
Gostaria apenas de transcrever aqui um texto de Mario Vargas Llosa sobre o neoliberalismo, que fui "roubar" no blog do meu amigo e colega de ideias liberais Orlando Tambosi, que fez o trabalho de tradução (e que fica com todos os copyrights e moral rights pelo esforço). (Neste link.)
Quem quiser ler meus textos sobre neoliberalismo, pode buscar no meu site, na série sobre as "Falácias Acadêmicas".
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Mario Vargas Llosa sobre o "neoliberalismo"
Creio que o termo “neoliberalismo” não tem conteúdo semântico. É uma fórmula fundamentalmente denigritória, utilizada como etiqueta para caricaturar o liberalismo e fazê-lo responsável por todas as calamidades humanas. Uma das grandes vitórias das ideologias totalitárias, todas derrotadas na prática, é que nos deixaram uma sequela ideológica que se traduz em preconceitos e em certos lugares-comuns ideológicos, profundamente arraigados apesar dos desmentidos da realidade.
A ninguém se chama “neoliberal” para definir um sistema de pensamento, de valores, de convicções políticas. Não, neoliberal é algo automaticamente associado a explorador, defensor de instituições anacrônicas, injustas; neoliberal é quem tem uma visão fundamentalista do mercado, alguém que, em última instância, defende o sistema de exploração, de abuso, de expropriação do trabalho.
Há que se rechaçar a própria noção de neoliberal, já que carece de significação e, mais que uma idéia, é uma espécie de imprecação. Tem gente que é liberal e gente que não o é. Mas eu não conheci jamais um “neoliberal”. Assisto a congressos e seminários sobre o liberalismo e nunca ouvi alguém dizer: “Eu sou um neoliberal”. Cada vez que ouvimos a palavra “neoliberal” temos que nos preocupar, porque por trás dessas palavras há preconceitos profundos e ódio ao que o liberalismo representa. E isto, sim, existe, está aí, em muitos casos é um ódio consciente, em outros é instintivo.
Curiosamente, o liberalismo, que para muitos representa algo conservador, anacrônico, algo que já não expressa a realidade, é capaz de provocar hostilidades, manifestações de extraordinária ferocidade. Creio que essas são sequelas das ideologias totalitárias que ainda contaminam profundamente o discurso político do nosso tempo.
Não há neoliberais, há liberais. E os liberais são um espectro bastante amplo, de matizes muito diferentes e, às vezes, distanciados e contrapostos. Algo que é perfeitamente lógico se se pensa que o liberalismo não é uma ideologia, não tem esse caráter fechado de religião, dogmático, que tem as ideologias. É um corpo de ideias, uma doutrina em que se parte de certas convicções básicas que têm a ver especificamente com a liberdade, a idéia de que a liberdade é o valor mais prezado desde o ponto de vista individual e social, e que a presença e operacionalidade da liberdade, entendida de maneira unívoca como totalidade no campo político, no campo econômico, no campo cultural, no campo individual, é o que mais contribui para afastar a violência, para estabelecer a coexistência social e trazer prosperidade. Essas são ideias muito elementares, que são o denominador comum dos liberais.
A partir daí, o que há são diferenças, enormes diferenças. Mas, basicamente, a partir de algumas convicções democráticas e algumas convicções de que a liberdade, tanto no campo político quanto no campo econômico, conjugados, traz progresso, desenvolvimento, civilização: não a sociedade perfeita; o liberalismo não parte da idéia de uma sociedade perfeita, posto que as sociedades são sempre imperfeitas, mas são aperfeiçoáveis, e que para uma sociedade se aperfeiçoar é necessário fundar a Carta da liberdade, permitir a crítica, a diversidade, dentro de uma coexistência só garantida pela lei.

Manifesto pela Democracia na China: a Carta 08

Este é o motivo pelo qual o dissidente -- sou contra essa palavra, pois quem é dissidente é o governo chinês, dissidente da democracia e dos direitos humanos -- Liu Xiaobo foi contemplado com o Prêmio Nobel da Paz 2010, e também o mesmo motivo pelo qual o governo chinês o condenou a 11 anos de prisão: um manifesto em favor da democracia.
Provavelmente a pressão de governos ocidentais (sim, ocidentais, dos quais o Brasil não fará parte, pelo menos não agora) vai aumentar, e dentro de um ano (estou chutando, claro) o governo chinês vai expulsar o dissidente chinês para o Ocidente (sim, para o Ocidente).
Também ouso chutar que não haverá nenhuma nota do governo brasileiro a esse respeito. Seria até capaz de apostar, se isso não parecesse provocação demais.
Mas, deixo vocês com o que já escrevi tempos atrás, muito tempo atrás...
A História sempre retorna, como pretenderiam alguns...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

China: movimento Carta 08 pede democracia e reformas profundas
Sunday, August 30, 2009

O presente post sobre o movimento Carta 2008 na China foi por mim recolhido nas páginas da The New York Review of Books, e publicada em outro blog meu, dedicado a textos diversos, em 29 de dezembro de 2008 (neste link), assim que tomei conhecimento da divulgação do texto.

Efetuei (na época) a seguinte introdução ao texto:
O precedente mais imediato desta iniciativa, abaixo transcrita, situa-se exatamente um século atrás, quando estudantes começaram manifestações pacíficas para modernizar o então sistema imperial, acabar com a autocracia e criar um moderno sistema parlamentar na China.
O resultado foi a revolução republicana de Sun-Yat Sen, em 1911, que acabou com a monarquia e tentou instalar um regime republicano parlamentar.
Não foi possivel estabilizar um regime democrático, inclusive porque a China vivia submetida ao regime de concessões em favor das principais potências imperiais européias, EUA inclusive, a partir dos tratados desiguais de 1844 (que terminaram apenas um século depois, em plena Segunda Guerra) que concederam Hong-Kong para a GB por um século e impuseram o sistema de extra-territorialidade em favor dos estrangeiros, que inclusive dispunham de zonas exclusivas em várias cidades e portos.
A China, já humilhada pelo Japão em 1895, mergulhou, a partir dos anos 1920, num quadro de guerras intermitentes entre generais e chefes regionais, o que impeliu o Japão a invadi-la e submetê-la, a partir da Mandchuria, em 1931.
O resto foi história, de guerra ou de totalitarismo, inclusive o massacre de Nanquim, perpetrado pelos japoneses, em 1937-1938, e a guerra civil depois da derrota do Japão, em 1945, que culminou com a vitória dos comunistas em 1949, e a fuga dos nacionalistas para Taiwan.
Talvez a Carta 08 consiga seus objetivos, dentro de mais uma geração, provavelmente, quando a prosperidade for suficiente para que o Partido Comunista admita uma liberalização ampliada...
A China NUNCA conheceu democracia, jamais... (como a Russia, aliás...).
-------------
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

China's Charter 08
The New York Review of Books, Volume 56, Number 1 · January 15, 2009
Translated from the Chinese by Perry Link

The document below, signed by more than two thousand Chinese citizens, was conceived and written in conscious admiration of the founding of Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia, where, in January 1977, more than two hundred Czech and Slovak intellectuals formed a loose, informal, and open association of people...united by the will to strive individually and collectively for respect for human and civil rights in our country and throughout the world.

The Chinese document calls not for ameliorative reform of the current political system but for an end to some of its essential features, including one-party rule, and their replacement with a system based on human rights and democracy.

The prominent citizens who have signed the document are from both outside and inside the government, and include not only well-known dissidents and intellectuals, but also middle-level officials and rural leaders. They chose December 10, the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as the day on which to express their political ideas and to outline their vision of a constitutional, democratic China. They want Charter 08 to serve as a blueprint for fundamental political change in China in the years to come. The signers of the document will form an informal group, open-ended in size but united by a determination to promote democratization and protection of human rights in China and beyond.

Following the text is a postscript describing some of the regime's recent reactions to it.
—Perry Link

I. FOREWORD
A hundred years have passed since the writing of China's first constitution. 2008 also marks the sixtieth anniversary of the promulgation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the thirtieth anniversary of the appearance of the Democracy Wall in Beijing, and the tenth of China's signing of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We are approaching the twentieth anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen massacre of pro-democracy student protesters. The Chinese people, who have endured human rights disasters and uncountable struggles across these same years, now include many who see clearly that freedom, equality, and human rights are universal values of humankind and that democracy and constitutional government are the fundamental framework for protecting these values.

By departing from these values, the Chinese government's approach to "modernization" has proven disastrous. It has stripped people of their rights, destroyed their dignity, and corrupted normal human intercourse. So we ask: Where is China headed in the twenty-first century? Will it continue with "modernization" under authoritarian rule, or will it embrace universal human values, join the mainstream of civilized nations, and build a democratic system? There can be no avoiding these questions.

The shock of the Western impact upon China in the nineteenth century laid bare a decadent authoritarian system and marked the beginning of what is often called "the greatest changes in thousands of years" for China. A "self-strengthening movement" followed, but this aimed simply at appropriating the technology to build gunboats and other Western material objects. China's humiliating naval defeat at the hands of Japan in 1895 only confirmed the obsolescence of China's system of government. The first attempts at modern political change came with the ill-fated summer of reforms in 1898, but these were cruelly crushed by ultraconservatives at China's imperial court. With the revolution of 1911, which inaugurated Asia's first republic, the authoritarian imperial system that had lasted for centuries was finally supposed to have been laid to rest. But social conflict inside our country and external pressures were to prevent it; China fell into a patchwork of warlord fiefdoms and the new republic became a fleeting dream.

The failure of both "self- strengthening" and political renovation caused many of our forebears to reflect deeply on whether a "cultural illness" was afflicting our country. This mood gave rise, during the May Fourth Movement of the late 1910s, to the championing of "science and democracy." Yet that effort, too, foundered as warlord chaos persisted and the Japanese invasion [beginning in Manchuria in 1931] brought national crisis.

Victory over Japan in 1945 offered one more chance for China to move toward modern government, but the Communist defeat of the Nationalists in the civil war thrust the nation into the abyss of totalitarianism. The "new China" that emerged in 1949 proclaimed that "the people are sovereign" but in fact set up a system in which "the Party is all-powerful." The Communist Party of China seized control of all organs of the state and all political, economic, and social resources, and, using these, has produced a long trail of human rights disasters, including, among many others, the Anti-Rightist Campaign (1957), the Great Leap Forward (1958–1960), the Cultural Revolution (1966–1969), the June Fourth [Tiananmen Square] Massacre (1989), and the current repression of all unauthorized religions and the suppression of the weiquan rights movement [a movement that aims to defend citizens' rights promulgated in the Chinese Constitution and to fight for human rights recognized by international conventions that the Chinese government has signed]. During all this, the Chinese people have paid a gargantuan price. Tens of millions have lost their lives, and several generations have seen their freedom, their happiness, and their human dignity cruelly trampled.

During the last two decades of the twentieth century the government policy of "Reform and Opening" gave the Chinese people relief from the pervasive poverty and totalitarianism of the Mao Zedong era, and brought substantial increases in the wealth and living standards of many Chinese as well as a partial restoration of economic freedom and economic rights. Civil society began to grow, and popular calls for more rights and more political freedom have grown apace. As the ruling elite itself moved toward private ownership and the market economy, it began to shift from an outright rejection of "rights" to a partial acknowledgment of them.

In 1998 the Chinese government signed two important international human rights conventions; in 2004 it amended its constitution to include the phrase "respect and protect human rights"; and this year, 2008, it has promised to promote a "national human rights action plan." Unfortunately most of this political progress has extended no further than the paper on which it is written. The political reality, which is plain for anyone to see, is that China has many laws but no rule of law; it has a constitution but no constitutional government. The ruling elite continues to cling to its authoritarian power and fights off any move toward political change.

The stultifying results are endemic official corruption, an undermining of the rule of law, weak human rights, decay in public ethics, crony capitalism, growing inequality between the wealthy and the poor, pillage of the natural environment as well as of the human and historical environments, and the exacerbation of a long list of social conflicts, especially, in recent times, a sharpening animosity between officials and ordinary people.

As these conflicts and crises grow ever more intense, and as the ruling elite continues with impunity to crush and to strip away the rights of citizens to freedom, to property, and to the pursuit of happiness, we see the powerless in our society—the vulnerable groups, the people who have been suppressed and monitored, who have suffered cruelty and even torture, and who have had no adequate avenues for their protests, no courts to hear their pleas—becoming more militant and raising the possibility of a violent conflict of disastrous proportions. The decline of the current system has reached the point where change is no longer optional.

II. OUR FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
This is a historic moment for China, and our future hangs in the balance. In reviewing the political modernization process of the past hundred years or more, we reiterate and endorse basic universal values as follows:

Freedom. Freedom is at the core of universal human values. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom in where to live, and the freedoms to strike, to demonstrate, and to protest, among others, are the forms that freedom takes. Without freedom, China will always remain far from civilized ideals.

Human rights. Human rights are not bestowed by a state. Every person is born with inherent rights to dignity and freedom. The government exists for the protection of the human rights of its citizens. The exercise of state power must be authorized by the people. The succession of political disasters in China's recent history is a direct consequence of the ruling regime's disregard for human rights.

Equality. The integrity, dignity, and freedom of every person—regardless of social station, occupation, sex, economic condition, ethnicity, skin color, religion, or political belief—are the same as those of any other. Principles of equality before the law and equality of social, economic, cultural, civil, and political rights must be upheld.

Republicanism. Republicanism, which holds that power should be balanced among different branches of government and competing interests should be served, resembles the traditional Chinese political ideal of "fairness in all under heaven." It allows different interest groups and social assemblies, and people with a variety of cultures and beliefs, to exercise democratic self-government and to deliberate in order to reach peaceful resolution of public questions on a basis of equal access to government and free and fair competition.

Democracy. The most fundamental principles of democracy are that the people are sovereign and the people select their government. Democracy has these characteristics: (1) Political power begins with the people and the legitimacy of a regime derives from the people. (2) Political power is exercised through choices that the people make. (3) The holders of major official posts in government at all levels are determined through periodic competitive elections. (4) While honoring the will of the majority, the fundamental dignity, freedom, and human rights of minorities are protected. In short, democracy is a modern means for achieving government truly "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Constitutional rule. Constitutional rule is rule through a legal system and legal regulations to implement principles that are spelled out in a constitution. It means protecting the freedom and the rights of citizens, limiting and defining the scope of legitimate government power, and providing the administrative apparatus necessary to serve these ends.

III. WHAT WE ADVOCATE
Authoritarianism is in general decline throughout the world; in China, too, the era of emperors and overlords is on the way out. The time is arriving everywhere for citizens to be masters of states. For China the path that leads out of our current predicament is to divest ourselves of the authoritarian notion of reliance on an "enlightened overlord" or an "honest official" and to turn instead toward a system of liberties, democracy, and the rule of law, and toward fostering the consciousness of modern citizens who see rights as fundamental and participation as a duty. Accordingly, and in a spirit of this duty as responsible and constructive citizens, we offer the following recommendations on national governance, citizens' rights, and social development:

1. A New Constitution. We should recast our present constitution, rescinding its provisions that contradict the principle that sovereignty resides with the people and turning it into a document that genuinely guarantees human rights, authorizes the exercise of public power, and serves as the legal underpinning of China's democratization. The constitution must be the highest law in the land, beyond violation by any individual, group, or political party.

2. Separation of Powers. We should construct a modern government in which the separation of legislative, judicial, and executive power is guaranteed. We need an Administrative Law that defines the scope of government responsibility and prevents abuse of administrative power. Government should be responsible to taxpayers. Division of power between provincial governments and the central government should adhere to the principle that central powers are only those specifically granted by the constitution and all other powers belong to the local governments.

3. Legislative Democracy. Members of legislative bodies at all levels should be chosen by direct election, and legislative democracy should observe just and impartial principles.

4. An Independent Judiciary. The rule of law must be above the interests of any particular political party and judges must be independent. We need to establish a constitutional supreme court and institute procedures for constitutional review. As soon as possible, we should abolish all of the Committees on Political and Legal Affairs that now allow Communist Party officials at every level to decide politically sensitive cases in advance and out of court. We should strictly forbid the use of public offices for private purposes.

5. Public Control of Public Servants. The military should be made answerable to the national government, not to a political party, and should be made more professional. Military personnel should swear allegiance to the constitution and remain nonpartisan. Political party organizations must be prohibited in the military. All public officials including police should serve as nonpartisans, and the current practice of favoring one political party in the hiring of public servants must end.

6. Guarantee of Human Rights. There must be strict guarantees of human rights and respect for human dignity. There should be a Human Rights Committee, responsible to the highest legislative body, that will prevent the government from abusing public power in violation of human rights. A democratic and constitutional China especially must guarantee the personal freedom of citizens. No one should suffer illegal arrest, detention, arraignment, interrogation, or punishment. The system of "Reeducation through Labor" must be abolished.

7. Election of Public Officials. There should be a comprehensive system of democratic elections based on "one person, one vote." The direct election of administrative heads at the levels of county, city, province, and nation should be systematically implemented. The rights to hold periodic free elections and to participate in them as a citizen are inalienable.

8. Rural–Urban Equality. The two-tier household registry system must be abolished. This system favors urban residents and harms rural residents. We should establish instead a system that gives every citizen the same constitutional rights and the same freedom to choose where to live.

9. Freedom to Form Groups. The right of citizens to form groups must be guaranteed. The current system for registering nongovernment groups, which requires a group to be "approved," should be replaced by a system in which a group simply registers itself. The formation of political parties should be governed by the constitution and the laws, which means that we must abolish the special privilege of one party to monopolize power and must guarantee principles of free and fair competition among political parties.

10. Freedom to Assemble. The constitution provides that peaceful assembly, demonstration, protest, and freedom of expression are fundamental rights of a citizen. The ruling party and the government must not be permitted to subject these to illegal interference or unconstitutional obstruction.

11. Freedom of Expression. We should make freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and academic freedom universal, thereby guaranteeing that citizens can be informed and can exercise their right of political supervision. These freedoms should be upheld by a Press Law that abolishes political restrictions on the press. The provision in the current Criminal Law that refers to "the crime of incitement to subvert state power" must be abolished. We should end the practice of viewing words as crimes.

12. Freedom of Religion. We must guarantee freedom of religion and belief, and institute a separation of religion and state. There must be no governmental interference in peaceful religious activities. We should abolish any laws, regulations, or local rules that limit or suppress the religious freedom of citizens. We should abolish the current system that requires religious groups (and their places of worship) to get official approval in advance and substitute for it a system in which registry is optional and, for those who choose to register, automatic.

13. Civic Education. In our schools we should abolish political curriculums and examinations that are designed to indoctrinate students in state ideology and to instill support for the rule of one party. We should replace them with civic education that advances universal values and citizens' rights, fosters civic consciousness, and promotes civic virtues that serve society.

14. Protection of Private Property. We should establish and protect the right to private property and promote an economic system of free and fair markets. We should do away with government monopolies in commerce and industry and guarantee the freedom to start new enterprises. We should establish a Committee on State-Owned Property, reporting to the national legislature, that will monitor the transfer of state-owned enterprises to private ownership in a fair, competitive, and orderly manner. We should institute a land reform that promotes private ownership of land, guarantees the right to buy and sell land, and allows the true value of private property to be adequately reflected in the market.

15. Financial and Tax Reform. We should establish a democratically regulated and accountable system of public finance that ensures the protection of taxpayer rights and that operates through legal procedures. We need a system by which public revenues that belong to a certain level of government—central, provincial, county or local—are controlled at that level. We need major tax reform that will abolish any unfair taxes, simplify the tax system, and spread the tax burden fairly. Government officials should not be able to raise taxes, or institute new ones, without public deliberation and the approval of a democratic assembly. We should reform the ownership system in order to encourage competition among a wider variety of market participants.

16. Social Security. We should establish a fair and adequate social security system that covers all citizens and ensures basic access to education, health care, retirement security, and employment.

17. Protection of the Environment. We need to protect the natural environment and to promote development in a way that is sustainable and responsible to our descendants and to the rest of humanity. This means insisting that the state and its officials at all levels not only do what they must do to achieve these goals, but also accept the supervision and participation of nongovernmental organizations.

18. A Federated Republic. A democratic China should seek to act as a responsible major power contributing toward peace and development in the Asian Pacific region by approaching others in a spirit of equality and fairness. In Hong Kong and Macao, we should support the freedoms that already exist. With respect to Taiwan, we should declare our commitment to the principles of freedom and democracy and then, negotiating as equals and ready to compromise, seek a formula for peaceful unification. We should approach disputes in the national-minority areas of China with an open mind, seeking ways to find a workable framework within which all ethnic and religious groups can flourish. We should aim ultimately at a federation of democratic communities of China.

19. Truth in Reconciliation. We should restore the reputations of all people, including their family members, who suffered political stigma in the political campaigns of the past or who have been labeled as criminals because of their thought, speech, or faith. The state should pay reparations to these people. All political prisoners and prisoners of conscience must be released. There should be a Truth Investigation Commission charged with finding the facts about past injustices and atrocities, determining responsibility for them, upholding justice, and, on these bases, seeking social reconciliation.

China, as a major nation of the world, as one of five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, and as a member of the UN Council on Human Rights, should be contributing to peace for humankind and progress toward human rights. Unfortunately, we stand today as the only country among the major nations that remains mired in authoritarian politics. Our political system continues to produce human rights disasters and social crises, thereby not only constricting China's own development but also limiting the progress of all of human civilization. This must change, truly it must. The democratization of Chinese politics can be put off no longer.

Accordingly, we dare to put civic spirit into practice by announcing Charter 08. We hope that our fellow citizens who feel a similar sense of crisis, responsibility, and mission, whether they are inside the government or not, and regardless of their social status, will set aside small differences to embrace the broad goals of this citizens' movement. Together we can work for major changes in Chinese society and for the rapid establishment of a free, democratic, and constitutional country. We can bring to reality the goals and ideals that our people have incessantly been seeking for more than a hundred years, and can bring a brilliant new chapter to Chinese civilization.

—Translated from the Chinese by Perry Link

POSTSCRIPT
The planning and drafting of Charter 08 began in the late spring of 2008, but Chinese authorities were apparently unaware of it or unconcerned by it until several days before it was announced on December 10. On December 6, Wen Kejian, a writer who signed the charter, was detained in the city of Hangzhou in eastern China and questioned for about an hour. Police told Wen that Charter 08 was "different" from earlier dissident statements, and "a fairly grave matter." They said there would be a coordinated investigation in all cities and provinces to "root out the organizers," and they advised Wen to remove his name from the charter. Wen declined, telling the authorities that he saw the charter as a fundamental turning point in history.

Meanwhile, on December 8, in Shenzhen in the far south of China, police called on Zhao Dagong, a writer and signer of the charter, for a "chat." They told Zhao that the central authorities were concerned about the charter and asked if he was the organizer in the Shenzhen area.

Later on December 8, at 11 PM in Beijing, about twenty police entered the home of Zhang Zuhua, one of the charter's main drafters. A few of the police took Zhang with them to the local police station while the rest stayed and, as Zhang's wife watched, searched the home and confiscated books, notebooks, Zhang's passport, all four of the family's computers, and all of their cash and credit cards. (Later Zhang learned that his family's bank accounts, including those of both his and his wife's parents, had been emptied.) Meanwhile, at the police station, Zhang was detained for twelve hours, where he was questioned in detail about Charter 08 and the group Chinese Human Rights Defenders in which he is active.

It was also late on December 8 that another of the charter's signers, the literary critic and prominent dissident Liu Xiaobo, was taken away by police. His telephone in Beijing went unanswered, as did e-mail and Skype messages sent to him. As of the present writing, he's believed to be in police custody, although the details of his detention are not known.

On the morning of December 9, Beijing lawyer Pu Zhiqiang was called in for a police "chat," and in the evening the physicist and philosopher Jiang Qisheng was called in as well. Both had signed the charter and were friends of the drafters. On December 10—the day the charter was formally announced—the Hangzhou police returned to the home of Wen Kejian, the writer they had questioned four days earlier. This time they were more threatening. They told Wen he would face severe punishment if he wrote about the charter or about Liu Xiaobo's detention. "Do you want three years in prison?" they asked. "Or four?"

On December 11 the journalist Gao Yu and the writer Liu Di, both well-known in Beijing, were interrogated about their signing of the Charter. The rights lawyer, Teng Biao, was approached by the police but declined, on principle, to meet with them. On December 12 and 13 there were reports of interrogations in many provinces—Shaanxi, Hunan, Zhejiang, Fujian, Guangdong, and others—of people who had seen the charter on the Internet, found that they agreed with it, and signed. With these people the police focused on two questions: "How did you get involved?" and "What do you know about the drafters and organizers?"

The Chinese authorities seem unaware of the irony of their actions. Their efforts to quash Charter 08 only serve to underscore China's failure to uphold the very principles that the charter advances. The charter calls for "free expression" but the regime says, by its actions, that it has once again denied such expression. The charter calls for freedom to form groups, but the nationwide police actions that have accompanied the charter's release have specifically aimed at blocking the formation of a group. The charter says "we should end the practice of viewing words as crimes," and the regime says (literally, to Wen Kejian) "we can send you to prison for these words." The charter calls for the rule of law and the regime sends police in the middle of the night to act outside the law; the charter says "police should serve as nonpartisans," and here the police are plainly partisan.

Charter 08 is signed only by citizens of the People's Republic of China who are living inside China. But Chinese living outside China are signing a letter of strong support for the charter. The eminent historian Yu Ying-shih, the astrophysicist Fang Lizhi, writers Ha Jin and Zheng Yi, and more than 160 others have so far signed.

On December 12, the Dalai Lama issued his own letter in support of the charter, writing that "a harmonious society can only come into being when there is trust among the people, freedom from fear, freedom of expression, rule of law, justice, and equality." He called on the Chinese government to release prisoners "who have been detained for exercising their freedom of expression."

—Perry Link, December 18, 2008

Posted by Paulo R. de Almeida @ Segunda-feira, Dezembro 29, 2008

Falando em Premio Nobel: o da Paz premia, na verdade, a liberdade politica e a democracia

Não vou falar do novo laureado com o Prêmio Nobel da Paz, pois todos já puderam ler as matérias de imprensa que trouxeram o óbvio: advogado de direitos humanos, condenado a 11 anos de prisão simplesmente por defender os direitos humanos na China e por ter sido um dos principais redatores do manifesto democrático, conhecido como "Carta 08", que retira o seu nome do exemplo precedente dos tchecos dissidentes (do regime comunista) que em 1977 haviam redigido uma "Carta 77" (assinada, entre outros, pelo ex-presidente, à época um simples escritor, Vaclav Havel).

Pois bem, eu não conheço suficientemente o "nobelizado" chinês, mas acho que foi um grande gesto do comitê Nobel, pois isso reforça a democracia num dos estados mais orwellianos que existem no planeta, talvez o único verdadeiramente orwelliano num continente (e num mundo) que se democratiza gradualmente. Existem, claro, muitas ditaduras, várias abjetas e vagabundas, em países pouco desenvolvidos (algumas até perto de nós), mas a China é o grande exemplo, talvez o único, de uma "ditadura científica", weberiana, se ouso dizer, o mais possível próxima do cenário traçado por Goerge Orwell em seu romance distópico 1984.

Não conheço o advogado, mas presto minhas homenagens à sua coragem e constância, e a melhor forma de fazê-lo não é falar sobre ele, mas sobre sua "obra prima", se ouso dizer: a Carta 08.

Eu tomei conhecimento desse manifesto democrático desde que a informação sobre ele se fez pública no Ocidente (palavra meio fora de moda mas ainda significativa da distiancia democrática entre o Ocidente capitalista e liberal e o despotismo asiático, como diriam Marx e Wittfogel).
Não apenas tomei conhecimento, como me empenhei em divulgar seu conteúdo, em um blog que possuo sobre a China (e que obviamente não é acessável pelos chineses "normais", aliás não é acessável por ninguém que esteja na China e que não possua um "provedor virtual", dada a grande barreira censória existente nesse país).

Vou reproduzir a íntegra do Manifesto novamente, que pode ser lido de imediato neste link:

Chart 08 in China: a manifesto for liberty and democracy
Shanghai Express, Dec 25, 2009
Having posted the text of the Chart 08 in one of my blogs a year ago (see this link), I renew the post, by putting the whole text here available. Just to refresh the memoir. China's Charter 08
The New York Review of Books, Volume 56, ... (link)

E tem também esta nota que postei quando o advogado em questão, agora Prêmio Nobel, foi condenada a 11 anos de prisão, apenas por organizar a assinatura de um manifesto democrático:

Politica repression in China: Chart 08 advocate is sentenced
Shanghai Express, Dec 25, 2009
Alas, it's far too characteristic of this Chinese government that still fears its own people.

To read the Chart 08, go to this link.

Shanghai Express, um blog sobre "coisas" asiáticas (e outras menos asiáticas).

Salario minimo provoca desemprego: simples assim

Todos sabem -- bem, pelo menos suponho que pessoas bem informadas, ou pelo menos sensatas, sabem, ou deveriam saber -- que o salário mínimo provoca desemprego.
Poucas pessoas aceitam essa evidência evidente, se me permitem a redundância, mas ela é necessária.
Volto a dizer, com todas as letras claras:
SE NÃO EXISTISSE SALÁRIO MÍNIMO NO BRASIL, O DESEMPREGO TAMBÉM SERIA MÍNIMO, PRATICAMENTE INEXISTENTE.

Não gostou do que leu, não gostou do que escrevi?
Pois saiba que é a mais clara verdade da economia, em qualquer época e lugar. Cada vez que legisladores bem intencionados procuraram "proteger" os "pobres dos trabalhadores", promulgando leis de salário mínimo, eles acabaram provocando mais perdas do que ganhos para essa mesma classe trabalhadora, a forçar muitos trabalhadores para fora de seus empregos, em empresas que simplesmente não podiam pagar o salário mínimo (mas que poderiam empregar dezenas de trabalhadores a um salário mutuamente acordado entre o trabalhador e o patrão).
Isso é tão evidente que eu não preciso elaborar a respeito, mas tem gente que não aceita essa realidade, preferindo ficar com ilusões políticas.
Pois antes de transcrever um artigo de um colega colaborador no Ordem Livre a esse respeito, vou fazer uma outra afirmação ousada, que muitos não aceitarão, mas faço de qualquer forma:
SINDICATOS DE TRABALHADORES SÃO MÁQUINAS DE PROVOCAR DESEMPREGO.

Não vou elaborar a respeito neste momento, mas as razões são mais ou menos as mesmas que valem para o salário mínimo: ao tentar proteger os "empregados" -- que são os seus membros sindicalizados -- os sindicatos acabam provocando o desemprego de milhares de outros, que não tem a mínima chance de conseguir trabalho nas condições "generosas" que os sindicatos estipulam e forçam pela via legal.
Enfim, voltarei ao tema, mas fiquem certos de duas coisas:
SINDICATOS E SALÁRIO MÍNIMO SAO MÁQUINAS DE PROVOCAR DESEMPREGO.

Agora, o artigo que vocês podem ler.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Salário mínimo e demagogia, um casamento perverso
João Luiz Mauad
Ordem Livre, 7 de Outubro de 2010

No calor da campanha eleitoral, propostas demagógicas costumam saltar da boca dos candidatos como chafarizes. O presidenciável José Serra, por exemplo, na tentativa de superar as parvoíces e frivolidades das promessas petistas, anunciou há poucas semanas sua intenção de aumentar o salário mínimo para 600 reais. Para ele, quanto maior o piso salarial, mais benefícios terão os menos assistidos.

Nada poderia ser mais equivocado.

Para começar, alguns resultados da PNAD/2009, publicada pelo IBGE. Segundo aquele instituto, a taxa de desemprego média, em 2009, ficou na faixa de 8,3%. Em nível de instrução, a maior taxa apurada foi a dos brasileiros com ensino médio incompleto — 15,4%. Já a taxa de desocupação entre os jovens de 18 a 24 anos atingiu 16,6%, exatamente o dobro da média nacional. Alguns apontaram como causa para tais índices a crise econômica, outros a falta de qualificação, mas o cerne do problema está bem claro: a verdade, nua e crua, como veremos adiante, é que o salário mínimo legal prejudica justamente aqueles a quem supostamente deveria beneficiar.

E isso não ocorre somente no Brasil. Vejamos um exemplo bem ilustrativo, vindo da África do Sul. No último dia 27 de setembro, o New York Times, jornal de tendência assumidamente progressista, publicou a seguinte matéria:

Newcastle, África do Sul – Como parte de um esforço nacional dirigido contra os fabricantes de roupas que violam a lei de salário mínimo, o Xerife chegou à fábrica para lacrar-lhe as portas. Porém, algumas mulheres que ali trabalhavam – supostas beneficiárias da ação governamental – se insurgiram. “Por quê, por quê?” gritava Nokuthula Masango, 25 anos, enquanto as autoridades carregavam rolos de tecidos coloridos... Ela ganha somente $36 por semana, $21 a menos que o salário mínimo legal, mas precisa desse salário magro para ajudar a alimentar uma grande família, que inclui 5 irmãos desempregados e seus filhos.

Nakuthula certamente não sabe quase nada de economia, mas, como parte diretamente interessada, sabia perfeitamente que toda aquela ação policial lhe era prejudicial, embora as autoridades talvez pretendessem justamente o contrário.

Malgrado possa não saber traduzir isso em palavras, ela sabe perfeitamente que, em toda transação econômica voluntária, as duas partes se beneficiam, na medida em que cada uma estará entregando à outra algo que julga menos valioso do que a respectiva contrapartida. Se não fosse assim, a transação não se concretizaria.

Se eu compro um par de sapatos, é porque valorizo o produto mais do que o dinheiro que entreguei por ele. Para o comerciante, a situação é exatamente inversa. Esse princípio também se aplica às relações trabalhistas. Para o patrão, tem mais valor o trabalho desenvolvido pelo empregado do que o salário em dinheiro que paga. Para o trabalhador, o dinheiro recebido no contracheque é mais valioso do que o tempo e o esforço dedicados àquela ocupação.

Imaginemos, para fins de raciocínio, que um trabalhador e um empregador tenham ajustado um contrato de trabalho em que o salário combinado foi de $500. Vale lembrar que, se a relação é voluntária, as duas partes estão se beneficiando dela. Agora, vamos supor que, no meio do caminho, os políticos, cumprindo promessas de campanha, tenham arbitrado o salário mínimo em $600. Certamente, o ajuste deixou de ser vantajoso para o patrão, já que a relação "custo/benefício" foi alterada, mesmo que em razão de fatores estranhos à vontade das partes (os juristas chamam essa interferência do governo de "fato do príncipe"). Aquele contrato será, então, eventual e infelizmente, rompido, com prejuízo para ambos. Como os indivíduos que recebem os menores salários são os menos preparados e os mais jovens, esses dois grupos são, normalmente, os mais prejudicados pela demagogia dos políticos.

Se a pobreza pudesse ser erradicada por decreto, como pensam alguns políticos em Brasília, nas África do Sul e muitos outros lugares mundo afora, há muito tempo ela já teria sido eliminada da face da terra. Como, no mundo real, as coisas não funcionam como as ideias torpes dos demagogos sugerem, vamos tentar explicar a única maneira conhecida para incrementar o valor do trabalho.

Todos concordam que uma escavadeira, operada por um só homem, é capaz de remover volumes de terra muito maiores do que dez indivíduos equipados com uma pá. Da mesma forma, um digitador bem treinado, munido de um moderno computador e editores de texto sofisticados será muito mais eficiente do que um outro, sem treinamento algum, à frente de uma antiga máquina de escrever. O dimensionamento dos níveis de rendimento do trabalho resulta numa medida que os economistas chamam de "produtividade" (por exemplo: no primeiro caso, teríamos o quociente "metro cúbico por homem/hora" para medi-la, e, no segundo, "laudas — ou caracteres — por homem/hora").

Sabemos também, por dedução lógica, que, quanto mais produtivo é um indivíduo, mais empregadores se esforçarão para mantê-lo em seus quadros, e que a maneira usual de conseguir isso é pagando-lhe melhores salários. Assim, se a maioria dos trabalhadores ganha mais que o mínimo legal, não é porque os empresários são benevolentes, mas porque a concorrência os obriga a isso. Como qualquer outro preço numa economia livre, os salários também são determinados pela lei da oferta e da demanda.

Ora, se a demanda por trabalho, como de resto por qualquer outro fator de produção, é baseada na produtividade, ou, como ensinou Murray Rothbard, "no montante de rendimento esperado pela produção de um trabalhador, de uma libra de cimento ou de um acre de terra", quanto mais eficiente for uma economia em seu conjunto, maior será a demanda agregada por mão-de-obra e, consequentemente, maior será a remuneração do trabalho.

Se, por exemplo, os trabalhadores americanos são, na média, muito mais bem pagos que os brasileiros, isto decorre da existência de uma absurda diferença de produtividade entre eles e não porque os empresários brasileiros são sovinas ou egoístas.

Em alguma medida, o que torna um cidadão mais produtivo são as suas qualidades pessoais: habilidade, destreza, educação, informação, treinamento, etc.. Porém, o incremento da produtividade de um indivíduo vem também dos bens de capital postos à sua disposição — maquinaria, ferramentas e equipamentos em geral. Quanto maior e melhor for o investimento em bens de capital, maior será a produtividade do trabalho e, consequentemente, maiores os níveis salariais. Por conseguinte, se o salário pago a um trabalhador nos EUA é muito maior que o sucedâneo aqui, isso deriva do fato de o primeiro estar muito mais bem equipado (capital físico) e preparado (capital humano).

É importante salientar, no entanto, que o fato de os salários pagos nos EUA serem muito superiores aos nossos não faz com que o custo do trabalho por lá seja automaticamente superior ao daqui, como muitos podem estar imaginando, pois o que conta, voltamos a enfatizar, não é o preço nominal pago, mas a produtividade marginal do trabalho. Assim, se um operário norte americano recebe dez vezes a remuneração percebida por um colega brasileiro, mas a produtividade daquele é dez vezes maior que a deste, uma coisa está compensando a outra e o custo efetivo dos dois é equivalente.

O segredo para melhorar os salários dos trabalhadores, portanto, está em não permitir que governos demagogos e assistencialistas confisquem, através de pesados impostos, o capital e as rendas das empresas, cujos lucros significam maiores investimentos em capital físico (ferramentas, equipamentos, máquinas, etc.). Além disso, recomendam-se investimentos maciços em educação de qualidade, a fim de incrementar o capital humano. Simples assim!

Prêmio Nobel de literatura, de 1901 a 2009: os autores...

E já que estamos falando de nobelizados da literatura, um pouco de informação pode vir a calhar...

Laureados com o prêmio Nobel de literatura de 1901 a 2009

* 2009 Herta Müller
* 2008 JMG Le Clézio
* 2007 Doris Lessing
* 2006 Orhan Pamuk
* 2005 Harold Pinter
* 2004 Elfriede Jelinek
* 2003 J. M. Coetzee
* 2002 Imre Kertész
* 2001 V. S. Naipaul
* 2000 Gao Xingjian
* 1999 Günter Grass
* 1998 José Saramago
* 1997 Dario Fo
* 1996 Wislawa Szymborska
* 1995 Seamus Heaney
* 1994 Kenzaburo Oe
* 1993 Toni Morrison
* 1992 Derek Walcott
* 1991 Nadine Gordimer
* 1990 Octavio Paz
* 1989 Camilo José Cela
* 1988 Naguib Mahfouz
* 1987 Joseph Brodsky
* 1986 Wole Soyinka
* 1985 Claude Simon
* 1984 Jaroslav Seifert
* 1983 William Golding
* 1982 Gabriel García Márquez
* 1981 Elias Canetti
* 1980 Czeslaw Milosz
* 1979 Odysseus Elytis
* 1978 Isaac Bashevis Singer
* 1977 Vicente Aleixandre
* 1976 Saul Bellow
* 1975 Eugenio Montale
* 1974 Eyvind Johnson, Harry Martinson
* 1973 Patrick White
* 1972 Heinrich Böll
* 1971 Pablo Neruda
* 1970 Alexandr Solzhenitsyn
* 1969 Samuel Beckett
* 1968 Yasunari Kawabata
* 1967 Miguel Angel Asturias
* 1966 Shmuel Agnon, Nelly Sachs
* 1965 Mikhail Sholokhov
* 1964 Jean-Paul Sartre
* 1963 Giorgos Seferis
* 1962 John Steinbeck
* 1961 Ivo Andric
* 1960 Saint-John Perse
* 1959 Salvatore Quasimodo
* 1958 Boris Pasternak
* 1957 Albert Camus
* 1956 Juan Ramón Jiménez
* 1955 Halldór Laxness
* 1954 Ernest Hemingway
* 1953 Winston Churchill
* 1952 François Mauriac
* 1951 Pär Lagerkvist
* 1950 Bertrand Russell
* 1949 William Faulkner
* 1948 T.S. Eliot
* 1947 André Gide
* 1946 Hermann Hesse
* 1945 Gabriela Mistral
* 1944 Johannes V. Jensen
* 1943 -
* 1942 -
* 1941 -
* 1940 -
* 1939 Frans Eemil Sillanpää
* 1938 Pearl Buck
* 1937 Roger Martin du Gard
* 1936 Eugene O'Neill
* 1935 -
* 1934 Luigi Pirandello
* 1933 Ivan Bunin
* 1932 John Galsworthy
* 1931 Erik Axel Karlfeldt
* 1930 Sinclair Lewis
* 1929 Thomas Mann
* 1928 Sigrid Undset
* 1927 Henri Bergson
* 1926 Grazia Deledda
* 1925 George Bernard Shaw
* 1924 Wladyslaw Reymont
* 1923 William Butler Yeats
* 1922 Jacinto Benavente
* 1921 Anatole France
* 1920 Knut Hamsun
* 1919 Carl Spitteler
* 1918 -
* 1917 Karl Gjellerup, Henrik Pontoppidan
* 1916 Verner von Heidenstam
* 1915 Romain Rolland
* 1914 -
* 1913 Rabindranath Tagore
* 1912 Gerhart Hauptmann
* 1911 Maurice Maeterlinck
* 1910 Paul Heyse
* 1909 Selma Lagerlöf
* 1908 Rudolf Eucken
* 1907 Rudyard Kipling
* 1906 Giosuè Carducci
* 1905 Henryk Sienkiewicz
* 1904 Frédéric Mistral, José Echegaray
* 1903 Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson
* 1902 Theodor Mommsen
* 1901 Sully Prudhomme

Mario Vargas Llosa e o ocaso do ditador: Chavez diminui de tamanho

Em lugar de falar do Prêmio Nobel -- que para mim não significa absolutamente nada, pois o que me interessa, de fato, é o conteúdo e a forma dos seus livros, entre os quais aprecio particularmente Pantaleón y las Visitadoras -- prefiro falar do escritor político.
E, aproveitando essas conjunturas eleitorais, em que dois candidatos a ditadores são derrotados -- mesmo tendo conquistado um número significativo de votos -- vamos publicar o mais recente artigo político de Vargas Llosa, o escritor em permanente campanha contra os ditadores, de qualquer espécie.
Estou seguro de que já escreveu sobre o outro também, mas por enquanto fiquemos com o coronel em seu ocaso ditatorial...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Venezuela: La derrota de Chávez
Mario Vargas Llosa
El País, 8 Octubre 2010

A pesar de la grotesca manipulación del voto, las elecciones del pasado domingo en Venezuela han supuesto un serio revés al comandante bolivariano. Pero la oposición no debe cantar victoria.

La derrota de Chávez en las elecciones parlamentarias del domingo 26 de septiembre es mucho más significativa de lo que indican las cifras electorales, pues, al mismo tiempo que muestra la creciente impopularidad del caudillo venezolano y su régimen, saca a la luz pública la grotesca manipulación del voto popular amañada preventivamente por el chavismo para convertir en victoria lo que esperaba sería una recusación rotunda de su política y sus pretensiones.

La ha sido y sin atenuantes. El comandante Chávez presentó la consulta como un plebiscito en el que el pueblo de Venezuela debía legitimar torrencialmente a su “socialismo del siglo XXI” y su jefe de campaña, Aristóbulo Istúriz, profetizó con arrogancia: “Podemos perder ganando si no obtenemos los dos tercios de la Asamblea Nacional”. Pues bien, el resultado menos fraudulento de las elecciones, el voto por los 12 representantes al Parlamento Latinoamericano, dio a las fuerzas reunidas de la oposición una mayoría de cerca de 400.000 votos.

Esta diferencia se reduce en el voto para la Asamblea Nacional a 242.553 -resultados oficiales: 5.642.553 contra 5.399.574-, porque allí, la ingeniería electoralista de Chávez, con la complicidad de sus parlamentarios y del Poder Electoral, había enmendado la ley para dar una elefantiásica representación a las circunscripciones rurales, donde tenía fuerte arraigo, y encogerla en las urbanas donde la oposición era mayoritaria. Se ha calculado que con esta disparatada desproporción el régimen necesitaba apenas 30.000 votos para obtener un diputado en tanto que la Mesa de Unidad Democrática requería 140.000. Eso explica que la oposición, habiendo obtenido un 52% del voto, cuente sólo con 65 diputados, y el chavismo con 98 pese a alcanzar sólo el 48%. Esos son los milagros matemáticos que produce el socialismo del siglo XXI. No es extraño que, para comunicar estos datos, el Consejo Nacional Electoral tardara ocho horas más de lo previsto y que Chávez, siempre tan lenguaraz, enmudeciera cerca de veinticuatro horas antes de salir a dar la cara a la prensa. Esta vez no se atrevió a decir, como en diciembre de 2007, cuando el pueblo venezolano rechazó su reforma constitucional, que se trataba de “una victoria de mierda”. Más bien agradeció, con aspavientos que desmentía su cara avinagrada, al “pueblo revolucionario” la “victoria” que le otorgó.

Un aspecto interesante de la consulta es que los Estados más castigados por el caudillo (por haber elegido en el pasado a gobernadores y alcaldes hostiles al régimen) retaceándoles el presupuesto, cancelando programas sociales y defenestrando -a veces encarcelando- a sus autoridades, en vez de dejarse intimidar, han redoblado su oposición. Así ha ocurrido en Miranda, Táchira y Zulia, y en la propia Caracas: en el Distrito Capital la oposición derrotó al oficialismo por primera vez en 12 años en votos emitidos.

Con los 65 diputados en la Asamblea Nacional, la oposición tendrá la fuerza necesaria para frenar las reformas constitucionales que Chávez preparaba -se necesitan para ello dos tercios de los diputados- a fin de acelerar la estatización y el dirigismo de la economía, acabar con las empresas privadas y la prensa y la televisión independientes, cerrar los limitados espacios críticos que aún quedan en los ámbitos político, sindical, social y cultural. El avance del régimen hacia un modelo cubano, de dictadura marxista leninista integral, tendrá muchos más escollos para materializarse ahora que el propio pueblo venezolano ha comprobado que, con la civilizada y simple acción de depositar un voto en un ánfora, se podía infligir una seria advertencia a un gobierno en cuyo prontuario figura haber convertido a Venezuela en el país con la más alta inflación de América Latina, el de más alto índice de criminalidad, uno de los más corruptos e ineficientes del planeta y donde el desplome de los niveles de vida de los sectores de clase media y popular es más rápido. Este año Venezuela será el único país de América Latina con crecimiento negativo.

Las fuerzas de la oposición a Chávez no deben cantar victoria ni confiarse por este excelente resultado. Ni volver a cometer errores como el del año 2005, cuando, por abstenerse de participar en el proceso electoral, regalaron a Chávez una Asamblea Nacional servil y autómata (La Casa de las Focas) que todos estos años no ha sido más que una dócil sirvienta de los desafueros constitucionales y legales del Comandante. Es imprescindible que la unión de los partidos, movimientos y personas de la oposición que es La Mesa de Unidad Democrática se mantenga y se afiance, porque de esta manera seguirá ganando adeptos y sumando a sus filas a los venezolanos que, abrumados o atemorizados por las represalias del régimen, se abstuvieron de participar en esta contienda. A muchos de estos abstencionistas escépticos, la victoria electoral de la resistencia tiene que haberlos sacudido y demostrado que todavía hay razones para la esperanza. Cuando lo que está en juego es la libertad de un pueblo, el riesgo de que el oscurantismo de una dictadura totalitaria se abata sobre él y viva quién sabe por cuántos años -los cubanos la padecen hace más de medio siglo- las pequeñas rivalidades de doctrina, de matiz o personales, deben desaparecer a fin de no debilitar la primera de las prioridades: resistir el proyecto autoritario de un caudillo demagogo que ha sumido ya a Venezuela en la miseria, la violencia y el caos y podría seguir hundiéndola en formas todavía más infames de desvarío ideológico.

Se reprocha a la oposición venezolana carecer de líderes, no tener al frente a figuras carismáticas que arrebaten a las masas. Pero, cómo, ¿todavía hay que creer en los caudillos? ¿No han sido ellos, esos horripilantes payasos con las manos manchadas de sangre, embelecos inflados de vanidad por el servilismo y la adulación que los rodea, la razón de los peores desastres de América Latina y del mundo? La existencia de un caudillo carismático supone siempre la abdicación de la voluntad, del libre albedrío, del espíritu creador y la racionalidad de todo un pueblo ante un individuo al que se reconoce como ser superior, mejor dotado para decidir lo que es bueno y lo que es malo para todo un país en materia económica, política, cultural, social, científica, etcétera. ¿Eso queremos? ¿Que venga un nuevo Chávez a librarnos de Chávez?

Yo discrepo. Estoy convencido de que América Latina sólo será verdaderamente democrática, sin reversión posible, cuando la inmensa mayoría de latinoamericanos esté vacunada para siempre contra la idea irracional, primitiva, reñida con la cultura de la libertad, de que sólo un superhombre puede gobernar eficazmente y con acierto a esas mediocridades que somos el resto de los seres humanos, esos rebaños que necesitan buenos pastores que los conduzcan por el camino debido. Los venezolanos lo creyeron así cuando apareció el Comandante de marras, con su voz tonitronante y sus desplantes bolivarianos y sus monólogos farragosos, y votaron por él de manera masiva, descreyendo de la democracia. Así les ha ido. Lo han pagado carísimo. Ahora han aprendido la lección y una de las buenas cosas que vienen haciendo, mientras con gallardía se enfrentan a la semi dictadura que padecen, es haber renunciado a los caudillos. Ahora tienen dirigentes que merecen respeto, no adoración religiosa, pues trabajan en equipo, buscan consensos y toman acuerdos a través del diálogo y la persuasión, es decir, comienzan a practicar ya esa cultura democrática que volverá a ser la de la tierra de Bolívar cuando el comandante Chávez no sea sino una más de esas figuras borrosas de una tradición de vergüenza y atraso.

Los meses y años que tiene Venezuela por delante no serán fáciles. El régimen ha avanzado demasiado en la construcción de unas estructuras dictatoriales y mucha gente medra ya de ellas como para que Chávez, acatando la voluntad popular, rectifique su política y esté dispuesto a retirarse del poder si así lo mandan las urnas. El peligro mayor es que, después de esta golpiza pacífica que acaba de recibir, se embravezca y quiera conseguir, mediante ucases y matonerías represivas, lo que no ha podido conseguir a través de las ánforas. E instale la censura, la liquidación de la prensa no alineada con el régimen, la abolición de toda forma de oposición política y la estatización generalizada de la economía. No le será fácil, desde luego. Ya ha perdido ese estado de gracia del caudillo mesiánico de que gozó algunos años y ahora no sólo él, también el pueblo venezolano sabe que es falible y vulnerable. Se avecina un período tenso, en el que, una vez más, como hace dos siglos, se decidirá en tierra venezolana el futuro de la libertad en toda la América Latina.

George Friedman: the strategist behind Stratfor, and his new book...

The Next Decade
George Friedman
Stratfor - Global Intelligence

Dear Reader:
Let me begin with a confession: I've written another book. This must surely violate some federal law, given that I published my last book less than two years ago.

The new book is called The Next Decade. Titles notwithstanding, this book is very different from its predecessor, The Next 100 Years. The last book was about a century, a time frame in which all things are impersonal. A decade is the opposite, because it is filled with individual decisions and uncertainty. It not only requires a very different type of forecasting, it requires the opposite sensibility. In a century, leadership counts for little. In a decade, it counts for a great deal.

The book is framed by two concepts. The first is the idea that the United States is an unintended empire of vast power, deeply interlocked with the affairs of most of the world. It is not a question of whether Americans want this empire; it is impossible to let go. The question is what to do with it. Like a child you did not expect and may not have welcomed, it is still your responsibility.

The second concept is what I call the Machiavellian Presidency. I consider three presidents exemplary: Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and Reagan. Each possessed a deep moral core. Each fully understood the uses of power, lying and violating the Constitution and human rights to achieve the respective moral necessities of the abolition of slavery, the destruction of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and the destruction of the Soviet Union. When we recall that Roosevelt allied with Stalin to defeat Hitler, we capture the Machiavellian President.

The United States has stumbled into empire. It now faces the crisis of Rome that the empire will annihilate the republic. I argue that of all the institutions of our Constitution, it is the president who can preserve the republic while managing the empire. I also argue that the greatest threat to the republic is living in denial about what the United States has become. The issue, then, is how to manage the unintended and unwanted in the next decade.

Brazil in the Council on Foreign Relations - Joao Augusto de Castro Neves

Brazil's Evolutionary Election
Interviewee: João Augusto de Castro Neves, Political Analyst, CAC Political Consultancy
Interviewer: Roya Wolverson, Staff Writer, CFR.org
Council on Foreign Relations, October 4, 2010

Brazil's October 3 presidential election gave no decisive answer as to who will lead the world's fourth largest democracy in 2011. A potentially complicated runoff election is scheduled for October 31. Brazilian political analyst João Augusto de Castro Neves says Workers' Party candidate and presidential favorite Dilma Rousseff--who garnered 46.9 percent of the vote--is still likely to prevail, despite a potential deal between her two rivals to pool votes behind remaining candidate Jose Serra of the Social Democratic Party--who received 32.6 percent of the vote. Financial markets' non-reaction to the country's election reflects growing international confidence in Brazil's maturing democracy and economic progress, says de Castro Neves. But the next president will still need to create better economic policies that avoid traditional emergency economic plans and instead tackle the country's new "risks of living with abundance," he says. On the diplomatic front, either candidate would likely ease away from close relations with authoritarian regimes like Iran and Cuba, since these initiatives were the result of President Lula da Silva's "hyperactive presidential diplomacy," he says.

There is speculation that front-running Workers' Party candidate Dilma Rousseff might be challenged by a deal between her close competitor Jose Serra and the Green Party Candidate, Marina Silva. How will that play out in the runoff on October 31?
A look at Brazil's recent history shows that even when there's a runoff, usually the one that was first place is still the favorite.It was a surprise that Rousseff didn't win in the first round, but she's still the favorite, [considering President] Lula de Silva's popularity plays in her favor. The "transfer of votes" idea is very uncertain in Brazil. Even if the Green Party's Silva declares that she'll support Serra, that doesn't meant that all 19 percent of voters will go and vote for Serra.
During the past few presidential elections, we were talking about undoing everything that the predecessor did in terms of policies. We're passed that now, which means our democracy is maturing.

Why did Silva make a bigger-than-expected gain in the election?
First, opinion polls in Brazil tend to inflate the numbers of the official candidate, so some say they didn't pick up on Marina Silva's numbers. There's basically a mistake in the methodology of opinion polls in Brazil, but there is also a lot of dissatisfaction with the bipartisan politics in Brazil between the Workers' Party (PT) and the Social Democratic Party (PSDB). The Green Party actually came as a third choice, [as] a protest vote and an ideological vote with Marina. It's a party that tends to be much less tainted by scandals than PT and PSDB.
The Green Party in Brazil is not traditionally very strong except in a few cities such as Rio de Janeiro. Marina's achievement in this election confirms that the Green Party is becoming a real national party. But I wouldn't go as far as saying that this is a trend, that the Green Party will be a third force in Brazilian politics. It's too soon to tell.

Brazil's stock market, bonds, and currency all remained strong leading up to the vote, unlike during the volatile 2002 presidential election when Lula prevailed. Are Brazil's growth prospects now that set in stone?
There are economic challenges, but things are not so unstable in Brazil today as they were years ago. Today, there are a few imperatives that every candidate has to face in Brazil, the first imperative being economic stability. The real plan that was established in the 1990s--which stabilized the economy through monetary policy, fiscal policy, and exchange rate policy--is now respected by every political force in the country. There's also the social imperative: cash transfer programs for poverty alleviation. There isn't a single major political party in Brazil that would challenge these two imperatives. During the past few presidential elections, we were talking about undoing everything that the predecessor did in terms of policies. We're passed that now, which means our democracy is maturing, but there are still a lot of challenges ahead, especially welfare reform [and] tax reform.

What kind of policies can we expect from a new government in tempering the strength of the Brazilian real against the U.S. dollar, which harms Brazil's export industry?
Interest rates in Brazil are so high, and have been so historically, to fight inflation. Brazil is seen as a good place to put your money, because as the economy stabilizes and they have high interest rates, people think, "Let's send our dollars there." Petrobras, the state-owned enterprise, is also planning to invest billions of dollars to explore the country's newly discovered oil reserves, which have been attracting a lot of capital. The challenge is trying to lower interest rates and stabilize the flow of capital in and outside the country. But it's a new moment in Brazilian politics, and the environment of abundance creates risks of politicians being more lax. Brazil is not used to having good economic indicators, so we have to learn how to deal with the risks of living with abundance. We've always dealt with the opposite problem: not having enough money to invest, [which] led to trying to cut down expenditures and fix the economy in an emergency manner. But there isn't a historic example for politicians to follow. Rousseff is not facing directly this problem. Her [policies would be] business as usual. With Serra, on the other hand, some economists close to him are saying, "We have to curb public expenditure, reduce government wages, increase public investments on infrastructure."

Do you expect the next government to carry on Lula's close ties to authoritarian leaders such as Cuba's Fidel Castro, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, despite the strain on U.S. relations?
The only thing that Brazil wants from the United States is to be recognized not only as an important regional player, but an important global player.
Whether Serra or Rousseff wins, I expect the rhetoric to deflate a little, because a lot of this more assertive foreign policy in Brazil has to do with Lula's popularity and international charisma. Lula's hyperactive presidential diplomacy played a really important part in Brazil's controversial stances on the Iranian nuclear program, Cuba, Honduras' coup d'etat. Neither Rousseff nor Serra have Lula's popularity or charisma, so the foreign ministry--which is traditionally very risk-averse--will probably have more autonomy to adjust foreign policy to be more secure. If Rousseff wins, there wouldn't be a radical shift, since that would be recognizing that what Lula did was wrong or was a mistake. If Serra wins, you would expect a clearer shift.
In relation to the United States, it's always been a history of unmatched expectations or frustrations on both sides. Latin America and Brazil are not seen by the U.S. State Department as priorities. Even the fact that, when [Secretary of State] Hillary Clinton or the State Department refers to Brazil, it's usually as part of a greater Latin American project, and not in terms of Brazil as an emerging country or as bilateral relations the way the U.S. is with China, Russia, and India. But the policy agenda of Brazil is very different from the rest of Latin America. We're seeing a turning point in the United States about how to deal with Brazil. Should we deal with Brazil as just one more country in Latin America, under the Latin America agenda umbrella? Or should we deal with Brazil as an emerging power, like we deal with India, China, etc.? I believe the latter, but it's a transition. The United States doesn't have much to offer Brazil right now, and I don't think Brazil wants a lot from the United States. It's good for Brazil to have the United States looking elsewhere, looking at the Middle East, looking at other places, and leaving Brazil to do its own thing. The only thing that Brazil wants from the United States is to be recognized not only as an important regional player, but an important global player. That explains Brazil's stances in cases such as Honduras, Brazil's mission with the UN in Haiti, its adventures in the Middle East, [and] in Iran.

Pausa para a piada da semana...Centro de Atendimento Virtual da Receita para o petista...

Quem não conhece o Vanguarda Popular, o maior centro do pensamento marxista-leninista-maoista do Brasil (possivelmente do mundo também), eu recomendo uma visita ao seu portal, neste link.

Receita Federal lança novo Centro de Atendimento Virtual ao Petista
Escrito por Emmanuel Goldstein
Vanguarda Popular, 6.10.2010

A Receita Federal lançou um novo Centro de Atendimento Virtual ao Petista (e-CAP), que pode ser acessado por qualquer militante do PT de casa ou do diretório, pela Internet. O serviço reúne todas as informações que a Receita possui sobre qualquer otário pagador de impostos cidadão brasileiro.

Com o novo atendimento, será possível acessar/violar/devassar vários sigilos fiscais de inimigos políticos ao mesmo tempo.

“O novo sistema e-CAP vai contribuir para a democratização dos meios de intimidação, permitindo que os sigilos fiscais sejam violados de forma mais rápida e sem deixar vestígios. O e-CAP é fundamental para a implantação do socialismo petista”, declarou o Ministro da Insegurança da Informação do Governo Lula.

Classicos revisitados: A Revolucao dos Bichos, George Orwell

Esse "conto" estava na minha lista para reescrevê-lo, no seguimento de empreendimentos semelhantes que já fiz com o Manifesto de 1848, O Principe de Maquiavel e alguns outros exercícios do gênero.
Alguém se encarregou de retomar o texto, destacando os trechos que tem a ver com sua leitura atualizada. Vale a consulta.

A revolução dos Bichos - George Orwell
Este livro teria sido escrito, inicialmente, para evidenciar a injustiça entre os donos e os escravos. Mas pode ser visto, também, de outra forma: os revolucionários que reagem contra o poder e acabam se tornando exatamente igual àqueles contra quem lutaram, enquanto seus 'companheiros' se tornam seus escravos. Comparem os trechos marcados em vermelho para comparar com o atual governo PTista. Jurema Cappelletti

A REVOLUÇÃO DOS BICHOS
George Orwell

APRESENTAÇÃO
George Orwell foi um libertário. "A Revolução dos Bichos", em suas metáforas, revela uma aversão a toda espécie de autoritarismo, seja ele familiar, comunitário, estatal, capitalista ou comunista. A obra é de uma genial atualidade. Apesar de tudo o que alguns poucos homens já fizeram e lutaram, ainda estamos e vivemos sob os que insistem em dominar aquém da ética e além da lei. Sejamos diligentes, a luta continua. Um dia conseguiremos distinguir a diferença entre porcos e homens.

Neste link.