Brexit

Gran revuelo está causando la posibilidad de salida de la Unión Europea planteada por Gran Bretaña. El diario español El País dedica hoy amplio espacio para su consideración, incluyendo colaboraciones de varios prestigiosos periodistas europeos. Acá va un detalle de las mismas:


Título: A vueltas con el ‘brexit’

Subtítulo: Seis periódicos del continente unen fuerzas para aportar argumentos al debate sobre el encaje del Reino Unido en la UE

Autor: Ian Traynor (The Guardian)

Texto: La palabra de la que más se abusa en Bruselas es “reforma”. No hay un dirigente que no pida con urgencia la reforma de la Unión. Lo malo es que todos quieren decir cosas distintas. Un líder alemán reclama reformas y está hablando de apretarse el cinturón. Y si es francés o italiano, querrá decir menos austeridad, más gasto público.

Y David Cameron, que envuelve su campaña para el referéndum en la necesidad de reformar la UE, se refiere a un nuevo acuerdo con Reino Unido; concesiones a su excepcionalismo, que los otros 27 países reconozcan la situación extraordinaria de los británicos en Europa y se adapten a ella.

En los argumentos, hasta ahora se ha puesto más énfasis en la forma que en la sustancia, en las características que podría tener ese acuerdo más que en sus consecuencias [que podrían incluir la eventual salida, el temidoBrexit en su abreviatura en inglés]. Se han centrado en los llamamientos a reabrir los tratados de la UE y cambiar las condiciones de pertenencia de Reino Unido, con un nuevo orden legal para consagrar ese estatus.

Todavía no está claro en qué consistiría el cambio, porque Cameron se ha mostrado deliberadamente vago sobre sus deseos, y prefiere estudiar lo que los demás —en general, cuando habla de los otros 27, quiere decir Angela Merkel— podrían estar dispuestos a ceder.

Su argumento es que es necesario cambiar los tratados por las repercusiones de la crisis del euro, que la eurozona necesita un giro radical hacia una mayor integración política y fiscal para sostener la moneda única. Por supuesto, no es sincero; pretende aprovechar la renegociación para revisar la situación del Reino Unido en Europa.

No va a haber grandes modificaciones de los tratados. Es demasiado difícil. Sería un proceso demasiado lento.

Lo que a Cameron le gustaría conseguir es que la Cámara de los Comunes pueda vetar las leyes de la UE. Pero no lo va a conseguir. Los otros 27 parlamentos exigirían lo mismo. Y entonces la UE correría el riesgo de quedar paralizada. El Gobierno británico quiere que se elimine del tratado la cláusula que establece que el propósito de la UE es avanzar hacia “una unión cada vez más estrecha”, un manifiesto federalista dedicado a los euroescépticos, o al menos que se exima al Reino Unido de cumplirla.

Los dirigentes más pragmáticos, como Donald Tusk, presidente del Consejo Europeo, que será un mediador crucial en las negociaciones, quizá estén dispuestos a llegar hasta ahí, pero tendrán que hacer muchas componendas.

Para Cameron, la inmigración y la libertad de circulación son cuestiones fundamentales, porque el Gobierno británico quiere encontrar una forma de reducir legalmente las prestaciones y los subsidios al alcance de los ciudadanos de la UE en su territorio.

Últimamente, lo que se oye decir a Tusk, Jean-Claude Juncker en la Comisión y otros altos responsables es que la libertad de circulación es sagrada, por supuesto, pero que no debe servir de excusa para aprovecharse de las prestaciones, que no puede haber un “turismo de seguridad social”, como dijo Jyrki Kaitanen, vicepresidente de la Comisión, la semana pasada.

La realidad sigue siendo la misma. Lo que ha cambiado es la política.

Cameron puede conseguir alguna cláusula que le permita negar prestaciones de desempleo a los inmigrantes de la UE y compensaciones para los trabajadores con salarios bajos, por ejemplo en forma de créditos fiscales. No obstante, será un acuerdo difícil de vender. En teoría, todos los ciudadanos de la UE son iguales. Esa situación sería discriminatoria y se puede decir que crearía dos clases de ciudadanos en la Unión, así que habrá resistencia. Además, las concesiones no se harán en un solo sentido, sino que habrá cierta reciprocidad.

El objetivo de Tusk en las negociaciones es lograr un acuerdo global que “reforme” la UE y encaje algunas prioridades de los británicos de una manera que todo el mundo pueda tolerar. Ya está en marcha una negociación de 18 contra uno en Europa, la de la eurozona contra Grecia. Y está yendo mal, cada vez con más posibilidades de acabar en desastre y que Grecia se vaya o, al menos, abandone la moneda única.

Si Cameron se encuentra con una negociación de 27 contra uno, será una mala estrategia con muchas probabilidades de un mal resultado. En Europa no hay prácticamente nadie que lo desee. Saben que la salida del Reino Unido será mucho peor que la de Grecia.


***

Título:  La reserva del frente francés

Subtítulo: François Hollande no parece dispuesto a aceptar cambios en los tratados europeos ni modificar a fondo las normas sobre inmigración

Autor: Philippe Ricard (Le Monde) 

Texto: François Hollande no tardó nada en felicitar a David Cameron al día siguiente de su reelección. Tras su amplia victoria frente al laborista Ed Miliband, el primer ministro británico recibió una invitación para visitar París que se materializó esta semana. Más allá de la simple preocupación, la perspectiva de un referéndum sobre la permanencia o no de Reino Unido en la Unión Europea suscita numerosas reservas en Francia. Solo unas cuantas voces aisladas han hablado en favor del Brexit, como el exministro de Nicolas Sarkozy Laurent Wauquiez desde la derecha y Michel Rocard desde la izquierda. Para el antiguo primer ministro socialista, Reino Unido “es en gran parte el origen” de la “parálisis del sistema de decisión europeo”.

Oficialmente, los dirigentes franceses subrayan su deseo de que Londres continúe en el club europeo, pero no están demasiado dispuestos a multiplicar las concesiones para ayudar a David Cameron. Según ellos, por ejemplo, no piensan aceptar una reforma de los tratados europeos, como reclama Cameron, ni modificar a fondo las normas sobre inmigración en los Veintiocho, el caballo de batalla del partido británico antieuropeísta UKIP. “Se puede mejorar el funcionamiento de la UE, pero no cuestionar los principios fundacionales”, previno Harlem Désir, secretario de Estado francés de Asuntos Europeos, poco después de la reelección de Cameron. “Un solo país no puede poner en tela de juicio la voluntad de los demás de seguir avanzando juntos”.

Vistos desde París, los debates sobre la pertenencia a la UE, incluida una salida en toda regla de Reino Unido tras el referéndum prometido por David Cameron, pueden tener repercusión en la opinión pública francesa: si se hiciera realidad, daría argumentos a los medios soberanistas o a la extrema derecha, con Marine Le Pen que ya exige que Francia abandone la unión monetaria o la suspensión del espacio Schengen de libre circulación de personas.

La preocupación es aún mayor porque David Cameron ha prometido organizar el referéndum en 2017. Un calendario complicado para el Gobierno francés, con elecciones presidenciales y legislativas previstas para ese año.

De aquí a entonces, los dirigentes franceses temen sobre todo una alianza entre David Cameron y Angela Merkel, la canciller alemana, que tiene gran empeño en que Reino Unido permanezca a bordo de la nave europea. La democristiana ha acariciado a menudo, junto con su ministro de Finanzas Wolfgang Schäuble, la idea de una reforma de los tratados europeos para consolidar la unión monetaria. Una insistencia que los británicos no dejan de señalar cuando reclaman el debate para obtener, desde su posición externa al euro, nuevas derogaciones de las normas europeas.

Ante esta doble presión, considerada contradictoria, las autoridades francesas rechazan tanto las demandas británicas como las alemanas: para Francia, la devolución de competencias de Bruselas a los Gobiernos nacionales, propuesta por David Cameron, y la integración reforzada —sobre todo presupuestaria— con la que sueñan los alemanes para consolidar la zona euro son “incompatibles”. “Mejor no alterar el frágil equilibrio actual abriendo la caja de Pandora”, dicen en París.

Una nueva reforma de los tratados europeos tendría todas las posibilidades de suscitar un debate intenso en Francia, e incluso de quedar derrotada si se sometiera a referéndum. Diez años después del no a la Constitución europea, rechazada el 29 de mayo de 2005, François Hollande, entonces primer secretario del Partido Socialista, guarda un amargo recuerdo del fracaso del sí, que él defendió en contra de la opinión de una buena parte de su formación. 

Una mala experiencia que probablemente recordará a David Cameron en los próximos meses.


***

Título: Merkel esconde sus cartas

Subtítulo: La canciller ha avisado de que si Londres dejará la UE mermará su propio peso en el mundo. Pero también el de Alemania en la Unión

Autor: Stefan Kornelius (Süddeutsche Zeitung)

Texto: De un tiempo a esta parte, para el Gobierno alemán se ha convertido en una costumbre que, tarde o temprano, los grandes asuntos de la política europea vayan a parar a la bandeja de entrada de la Cancillería. La crisis del euro, Grecia, Rusia y Ucrania... Berlín atrae los problemas como un imán las limaduras. Esto demuestra el nuevo peso de Alemania en la escultura móvil europea, cosa que no siempre le produce alegría. Así que todas las miradas vuelven a dirigirse a Alemania también ante el referéndum británico. Reino Unido y los restantes países miembros esperan una señal: ¿hasta qué punto está dispuesto Berlín a complacer al primer ministro David Cameron?

En estos momentos de tensión,Angela Merkel, como de costumbre, hace lo que sabe hacer mejor: esperar. Merkel quiere retener a Reino Unido en la UE. Nunca lo ha ocultado. Pertenece al grupo de políticos alemanes anglófilos, y no tanto al de los francófilos. Respeta el sistema político británico.

Muy en particular, para Merkel es importante el peso político de la Unión, que, evidentemente, sería mucho menor si un país tan importante se separase de ella. Merkel se refiere a cómo “los alemanes, los británicos, los franceses o los polacos... pueden hacer valer nuestros intereses en el mundo”. Su mensaje político para Cameron es que, si decide irse, el peso relativo de su país en el mundo se verá aún más mermado. Pero, de manera indirecta, se preocupa igualmente por el equilibro en Europa y por un Reino Unido aliado de Alemania, que también es un importante respaldo para los intereses de esta última en el concierto norte-sur dentro de la UE.

Hasta el 7 de mayo todo esto era teoría, pero ahora va en serio. Oficialmente, Cameron y Merkel todavía no han discutido el problema, y Merkel no moverá un dedo por ser la primera en mostrar sus cartas. Nunca ha entendido cómo en la última legislatura Cameron se dejó arrastrar por los antieuropeístas del partido. El político le inspira admiración como orador, pero como mente táctica no le dedicaría muchos elogios.

Las cosas podrían cambiar si el primer ministro se atiene a las reglas del juego, que todo el mundo sabe que Berlín y Londres negocian desde el otoño pasado. Y esas reglas son cerrar la boca de una vez y entender lo difícil que puede ser llevar a cabo una reforma. Porque, al fin y al cabo, no es Merkel quien, junto con Cameron, fragua el destino de Europa en la intimidad. En este caso son, principalmente, la Comisión y el Parlamento Europeo, que tienen la iniciativa legislativa, y, sobre todo, velan por el grado de integración. El Parlamento es poco partidario de ceder a las exigencias británicas en este asunto, y Merkel no va a echar a perder innecesariamente sus buenas relaciones con la cámara. En el fondo, Berlín parte de la base de que también el primer ministro quiere conseguir que Londres permanezca en la UE. Al mismo tiempo, se pregunta qué precio cree Cameron que debe reclamar. Berlín siempre ha dejado claro que modificar los tratados europeos es demasiado arriesgado.

Por otra parte, desde la crisis del euro, el principal objetivo de Merkel es inmunizar a la unión económica frente a nuevas tormentas monetarias. Y, para ello, es posible que hubiera que cambiar los tratados.

Merkel también intentará trocear los deseos británicos para que sean digeribles y hacer de ello una historia de éxito para toda la UE... cuando por fin sepa cuáles son. En Londres ha declarado que abriga simpatía por ciertos planes de reforma: “Tenemos que ir renovando continuamente la configuración política de Europa al compás de los tiempos”. Más allá de los tópicos, eso significa que Merkel está abierta a reformas en el mercado interior, en la competitividad...

Cabe pensar que el tema central de Cameron —la libre circulación y, ante todo, la emigración económica— será el mayor escollo en las conversaciones. Pero también en este punto Merkel y Cameron han tomado precauciones. El gran discurso de Cameron sobre la libre circulación del pasado otoño recibió el aplauso de Merkel. Ambos están de acuerdo en que no se deberían crear alicientes para los inmigrantes, como por ejemplo el acceso a las prestaciones sociales sin tener un puesto de trabajo estable. Sin embargo, Merkel rechaza las cuotas fijas o incluso una nueva normativa especial solo para Reino Unido.

A Merkel, el radicalismo le produce desasosiego. Para ella la idea del referéndum es una aberración. Jamás se jugaría todo su capital político a una pregunta.


***


Título: Polonia teme un ‘bye-bye’

Subtítulo: Los expertos polacos aseguran que las consecuencias de la salida de Reino Unido las sentirá toda la UE. Y no solo las económicas

Autor: Bartosz Wielinski (Gazeta Wyborcza) 

Texto: ¿Se han vuelto locos los británicos?”. Así reaccionan los polacos a la noticia de que el primer ministro, David Cameron, va a convocar unreferéndum sobre la continuidad de su país en la UE. Los polacos son muy euroentusiastas y, entre los nuevos socios, son los campeones en gastar el dinero de los fondos estructurales. Gracias a ello, a lo largo de los 10 años de pertenencia a la UE, nuestro país se ha vuelto irreconocible. Todavía a principios del siglo XXI, una revista económica líder en Europa acompañaba las informaciones sobre Polonia con la foto de un campesino subido a un carro. Hoy día, los carros son difíciles de encontrar fuera de los museos.

En la escena política polaca, los partidarios de la salida británica no encontrarán aliados. Durante las pasadas elecciones presidenciales, el candidato de Ley y Justicia, Andrzej Duda, ganador de los comicios, declaró en repetidas ocasiones que la política exterior de Polonia debe defender los intereses del país. Pero al mismo tiempo dijo estar a favor de la Unión Europea y de una mayor integración. El debate polaco sobre la dictadura de Bruselas, o la pérdida de la soberanía, se produce de forma esporádica.

Tenemos miedo de que un espíritu maligno se apodere de los británicos y en el referéndum digan bye a la Unión. Nuestra historia está repleta de decisiones desafortunadas que llevaron a cambios dramáticos. Y, según los expertos polacos, las consecuencias de la salida de Reino Unido las sentirá toda la UE. Pero no se trata solo de cuestiones económicas. El club comunitario será más débil sin Reino Unido. Al otro lado de la frontera oriental, Vladímir Putin está diseñando sus próximos movimientos tras la anexión de Crimea y después de haber prendido fuego en el este de Ucrania. El debilitamiento de la UE puede animarle a provocar el siguiente incendio en nuestro vecindario.

Si se produce la marcha de Londres, será de esperar que Escocia, favorable a la UE, declare la independencia. Nosotros observamos con inquietud los cambios que se están produciendo en las fronteras de Europa. Las polacas han sido desplazadas demasiadas veces sin haber consultado la opinión de los polacos, y a su costa.

El debate británico concierne a Polonia. Uno de los principales eslóganes de Cameron y de los chillones británicos antieuropeos es la lucha contra la inmigración que obtiene de forma engañosa los beneficios sociales. Los polacos ya representan en las islas británicas el tercer grupo de extranjeros, tras los irlandeses y los indios. Algunos cálculos hablan de alrededor de medio millón de personas; otros, de 800.000 inmigrantes que podrían haberse establecido tras la adhesión de Polonia a la UE. Disfrutaron por aquel entonces de los privilegios de la libre circulación de personas. En la mayoría de los casos han trabajado duro y fortalecido la economía británica. Los políticos antieuropeos los convierten en timadores y ladrones.

Hace poco, el príncipe Jan Zylinski, el polaco más rico de Reino Unido, no pudo soportar más los ataques del UKIP y desafió públicamente a su jefe, Nigel Farage, que destaca por los ataques más agudos a los polacos, a un duelo con sables en Hyde Park. Todos los medios de comunicación británicos escribieron sobre este suceso, y Zylinski fue invitado, con su sable, al plató de la BBC. Farage, en cambio, se acobardó y no se atrevió siquiera a un duelo de palabras. Perdió ignominiosamente las elecciones de mayo a la Cámara de los Comunes. Ahora Zylinski debería desafiar a Cameron. Tal vez se produzca algún cambio.


***

Título: España no será obstáculo

Subtítulo: En Madrid no se da esa inquina y hartazgo que sí se percibe en otras capitales europeas ante las piruetas de Cameron

Autor: José Ignacio Torreblanca (El País)

Texto: Es difícil pensar en dos países cuyas trayectorias de llegada a la UE puedan ser más opuestas que las que representan España y Reino Unido. En el caso de España, nuestra adhesión a la (entonces) Comunidad Europea supuso la culminación de los anhelos de varias generaciones, históricamente cercenadas de la posibilidad de incorporarse a la corriente de paz, democracia y progreso que se abría al norte de su frontera pirenaica. De ahí el intenso, orgulloso y entusiasta proceso de europeización en el que la sociedad española, sus fuerzas políticas, sus empresarios, sus intelectuales y sus sindicatos se embarcaron, primero en 1978 con la aprobación de la Constitución, y luego a partir de 1986 con la formalización de la adhesión.

En el caso de Reino Unido, la llegada a la UE, en lugar de ofrecer un logro histórico en torno al cual construir un relato de orgullo nacional, significó una doble derrota: primero, la de un imperio que decía adiós a todos sus territorios de ultramar, y segundo, el reconocimiento del fracaso de la tentativa de organizar los asuntos europeos en torno a un modelo rival al puesto en marcha por el Tratado de Roma, el de la asociación europea de libre comercio (EFTA).

Todo ello explica que desde países como España no se entienda fácilmente por qué el deseo de ser miembros de la UE, para nosotros tan simple e intuitivo incluso a pesar de la reciente crisis y la aplicación de duros ajustes y políticas de austeridad, pueda ser motivo de tantas complicaciones para los británicos. Esta incomprensión no implica que España vaya a representar un obstáculo para David Cameron a la hora de negociar un mejor acuerdo con la UE. Al contrario que en otras capitales europeas, donde sí que se percibe algo de inquina y bastante hartazgo ante las piruetas y tacticismos de David Cameron,
España no tiene un especial interés en ponérselo difícil al primer ministro británico. Eso no quiere decir que Cameron vaya a tenerlo fácil. En Madrid, como en otras capitales, habrá cierta flexibilidad a la hora de negociar excepciones con las que acomodar a Reino Unido; en esto los británicos son especialistas y los demás ya están acostumbrados. Pero España no va a aceptar sin más la pretensión británica de forzar a todos sus socios a negociar un tratado que requiera ratificaciones parlamentarias o referendos en los Estados miembros, pues eso supondría abrir la caja de los truenos de la opinión pública que tanto costó cerrar en la década pasada.

España tampoco simpatiza con la idea de retorcer principios fundamentales como la libre circulación de personas hasta que sean irreconocibles. Así pues, en los próximos meses, Cameron intentará convencer a sus socios europeos de que los británicos están dispuestos a irse si no se accede a sus demandas. Mientras, sus socios intentarán convencer a Cameron de que no le pueden dar lo que pide. La cuestión es a quién creerán los votantes británicos: a un Cameron que dirá haber logrado un acuerdo histórico, o a unos líderes europeos que dirán que no le han dado nada importante.


***

Título: Amor a la italiana

Subtítulo: La separación no será indolora, pero no será fácil destruir los lazos entre estos países. Los británicos adoran Italia

Autor: Vittorio Sabadin (La Stampa)

Texto: La última vez que Londres se separó de Europa lo hizo a causa de un litigio con Roma. Enrique VIII quería casarse con Ana Bolena y rompió las relaciones con el Papa, que se oponía a ello. Igual que hoy, había muchos consejeros del rey preocupados, pero la decisión fue afortunada para la Inglaterra del siglo XVI, porque descubrió que en el mundo había otros países más dinámicos con los que comerciar y empezó a sentar las bases de su imperio. En la actualidad, las relaciones con Roma son decididamente mejores. Como dice con una expresión muy inglesa el embajador británico en Italia, Christopher Prentice, “no son solo pan y mantequilla, sino también mermelada”. Hasta hace unos años, a un italiano siempre le recibían en Londres entre risas y guiños al bunga-bunga, pero, desde el Gobierno de Mario Monti, en Downing Street y la City se piensa que los italianos son más serios y dignos de confianza y se tiene la vaga impresión de que, si no eligiesen a sus gobernantes mediante el voto, las cosas podrían hasta mejorar.

Las relaciones comerciales son magníficas y decenas de empresas italianas como Finmeccanica, Eni,Merloni, Calzedonia, Pirelli y Ferrero están ya consolidadas en el Reino Unido. Los británicos nos compran lo que consideran que hacemos bien: ropa, alimentos, coches deportivos, muebles, electrodomésticos y cerveza (sí, incluso cerveza), y colaboran con Italia en los ámbitos de la energía, la defensa y la investigación espacial. Nosotros importamos de ellos fármacos, automóviles, alta tecnología, whisky, servicios financieros, tecnología de energías renovables. Si Gran Bretaña abandona Europa, habrá que revisar todos los parámetros que han hecho posible y mutuamente beneficioso ese intercambio y lo que suceda a partir de ahora dependerá de las nuevas reglas, en particular de los nuevos aranceles aduaneros.

La separación no será indolora. En el Reino Unido viven casi 600.000 italianos, la mitad de ellos en Londres. Si, como se prevé, laBrexit provoca la pérdida de muchos puestos de trabajo (un millón según los optimistas, tres según los pesimistas), decenas de miles tendrán que volver a su país. Los que se queden deberán solicitar un permiso de residencia y de trabajo, y lo mismo ocurrirá con los casi 20.000 británicos que viven en Italia. Londres dejará de ser el destino preferido de los jóvenes con dos titulaciones que buscan trabajo en Caffè Nero para pagarse un máster: tendrán que hacer la cola de los pasaportes y someterse a un procedimiento burocrático similar al que está en vigor en Estados Unidos.

Aun así, no será fácil destruir los lazos entre Italia y Gran Bretaña. El pan y la mantequilla son los negocios, pero la mermelada está hecha de un amor recíproco genuino, iniciado hace siglos con los viajes de Browning, Shelley, Byron y Keats a Roma, donde se alojaban en unos hoteles que ya entonces llevaban nombres como Londres e Angleterre, Brighton y Vittoria. Fueron sus extasiados relatos los que convencieron a todos de que no era posible llegar a ser un auténtico caballero sin haber hecho esa visita. Los británicos, hoy, aman Italia más que los propios italianos: les encantan la comida, la lengua, el entusiasmo, los gestos de la gente, los paisajes de la Toscana, el clima, que hace inevitable sentir una cierta indolencia. Y es un amor correspondido: los italianos adoran Londres, colonizaron los barrios de South Kensington y Chelsea cuando los oligarcas rusos estaban todavía ahorrando sus primeros rublos, de los ingleses han aprendido buenas maneras, siguen considerando al príncipe Carloscomo un modelo de elegancia masculina y agradecen haber podido disfrutar de los Beatles, David Beckam, James Bond y los cotilleos sobre la familia real británica. Aunque la política los separe, Italia y Gran Bretaña no se divorciarán jamás.

***

Título: ¿Qué quiere Cameron de Europa?

Subtítulo: Dos discursos, un artículo y el programa electoral recogen las exigencias del Gobierno británico para mejorar los términos de su relación con la UE de cara al referéndum

Autor: Pablo Guimón (Londres)

Texto: A falta de una formulación más clara de sus peticiones, que no cabe esperar antes de la cumbre europea de finales de junio, para encontrar lo que Cameron busca en su recién iniciada negociación de los términos de la relación de Reino Unido con la UE, hay que acudir a cuatro fuentes: el discurso de Bloomberg en 2013 donde formuló la promesa de celebrar el referéndum; el artículo de Cameron publicado en el Sunday Telegraph el 15 de marzo de 2014; sudiscurso sobre inmigración del 28 de noviembre de ese mismo año, y el programa electoral de los conservadores. De esos textos se pueden extraer los siguientes puntos de su posición negociadora:

* Restringir el acceso al sistema británico de prestaciones sociales a los ciudadanos de otros países miembros de la Unión Europea, para recortar la inmigración intracomunitaria. Esto es, según el programa electoral, un “requerimiento absoluto”. En concreto, exigir que los ciudadanos de otros Estados miembros hayan trabajado cuatro años en Reino Unido antes de que puedan solicitar prestaciones; negar ayudas de búsqueda de empleo a ciudadanos de otros países de la UE, y expulsarlos del país si en seis meses no han encontrado empleo.

* Reducir la regulación europea y devolver más poderes a los Parlamentos nacionales. Entre ellos, el de bloquear legislaciones europeas.

* Crear mecanismos que salvaguarden los intereses de los estados miembros con monedas distintas al euro frente al riesgo de que las decisiones de la eurozona puedan perjudicarlos. Que la integración de la eurozona no vaya en detrimento de la del mercado común.

* Exclusión de Reino Unido del compromiso, recogido en los tratados, de crear una “unión cada vez más estrecha”.

* Que la política de Defensa siga firmemente bajo control nacional británico.

* Negar la libertad de circulación a los ciudadanos de futuros nuevos Estados miembros hasta que sus economías converjan con las de los miembros existentes.

Mientras tanto, en Ucrania...

Con un 80% (ochenta por ciento) de la población por debajo de la línea de pobreza, Ucrania entra en la debacle. "Todo puede suceder" a partir de ahora, diría George Harrison. Por medio del blogero "Saker" llegamos a este breve pero intenso artículo de Michael Hudson (otro conocido de la casa) sobre la situación económica en Ucrania.

Título: Ukraine Labor Dares Operation Vulture

Texto: Ukraine’s collapse since the February 2014 coup has become an umbrella for grabitization. Collateral damage in this free-for-all has been labor. Many workers are simply not getting paid, and what they actually are being paid is often illegally low. Employers are taking whatever money is in their business accounts and squirreling it away – preferably abroad, or at least in foreign currency.

Wage arrears are getting worse, because as Ukraine approaches the eve of defaulting on its €10+ billion London debt, kleptocrats and business owners are jumping ship. They see that foreign lending has dried up and the exchange rate will plunge further. The Rada’s announcement last week that it shifted €8 billion from debt service to spend on a  new military attack on the country’s eastern export region was the last straw for foreign creditors and even for the IMF. Its loans helped support the hryvnia’s exchange rate long enough for bankers, businessmen and others to take whatever money they have and as many euros or dollars as they can before the imminent collapse in June or July.

In this pre-bankruptcy situation, emptying out the store means not paying workers or other bills. Wage arrears are reported to have reached 2 billion hryvnia, owed to over half a million workers. This has led the Federation of Trade Unions of Ukraine to picket against the Cabinet of Ministers on Wednesday (May 27). More demonstrations are scheduled for the next two Wednesdays, June 3 and 10. According to union federation Deputy Head Serhiy Kondratiuk, “the current subsistence wage of UAH 1,218 is 60% less than the level set in Ukrainian law, which is confirmed by the calculations if the Social Policy Ministry.  … the subsistence wage in the country should exceed UAH 3,500 a month, but the government refuses to hold social dialog to revise standards.”

The scenario that is threatened

Emptying out Ukrainian business bank accounts will leave empty shells. With Ukraine’s economy broken, the only buyers with serious money are European and American. Selling to foreigners is thus the only way for managers and owners to get a meaningful return – paid in foreign currency safely in offshore accounts, outside of future Ukrainian clawback fines. Privatization and capital flight go together.

So does short-changing labor. The new buyers will reorganize the assets they buy, declare the old firms bankrupt and erase their wage arrears, along with any other bills that are owed. The restructured companies will claim that bankruptcy has wiped out whatever the former firms (or public enterprises) owed to workers. It is much like what corporate raiders do in the United States to wipe out pension obligations and other debts. They will claim to have to “saved” Ukrainian economy and “made it competitive.”

Operation Vulture

The Pinochet coup in Chile was a dress rehearsal for all this. The U.S.-backed military junta targeted labor leaders, journalists, and potential political leaders, as well as university professors (closing every economics department in Chile except for the Chicago “free market”-based Catholic University). You cannot have a “free market” Chicago-style, after all, without taking such totalitarian steps.

U.S. strategists like to name such ploys after predatory birds: Operation Phoenix in Vietnam, and Operation Condor in Latin America that targeted “lefties,” intellectuals and others. A similar program is underway against Ukraine’s Russian speakers. I don’t know the code word being used, so let’s call it Operation Vulture.

For labor leaders, the problem is not only to collect back wages, but to survive with a future living wage. If they refrain from protesting, they simply won’t get paid. This is why they are organizing a growing neo-Maidan protest explicitly on behalf of wage earners – so that the junta’s Right Sector snipers cannot accuse the demonstrators of being pro-Russian. The unions have protected themselves by seeking support from the UN’s International Labour Organization (ILO), and from the International Trade Union Confederation in Brussels.

The most effective tactic to tackle the corruption that is permitting the non-payment of wages and pensions is to focus on the present regime’s foreign support, especially from the IMF and EU. Using labor’s grievances as an umbrella to demand related reforms could include warnings that any sale of Ukrainian land, raw materials, public utilities or other assets to foreign buyers can be reversed by future, less corrupt governments.

In labor’s favor is the fact that the IMF has violating its Articles of Agreement by lending for military purposes. As soon as its last loan was disbursed, Poroshenko announced that he was stepping up his war against the East. This brings the IMF loan close to being what legal theorists call an Odious Debt: debts to a junta taking power and looting the government’s Treasury and other assets in the public domain, leaving future governments to pay off what has been stolen.

Labor’s fight for a living wage is not only for retroactive shortfalls, but to put in place a recovery plan to protect against the economy being treated like Greece or Latvia, neoliberal style. U.S. strategists have been discussing whether they could dismiss the $3 billion that Ukraine owes Russia this December as an “odious debt”; or, perhaps, classify it as “foreign aid” and hence not collectible in practice. Ironic as it may seem, the Peterson Institute of International Economics, George Soros and other Cold Warriors have provided future Ukrainian governments with a repertory of legal reasons to reconstitute their economy foreign-debt free – leaving the government able to pay wage and pension arrears.

The alternative is for international creditors to win the case for putting foreign bondholders, the IMF and European Union first, and sovereign rights to prevent self-destruction second.

China y el Imperio

Linda nota de John Glaser para el diario inglés The Guardian: ¿quieren los EEUU evitar una confrontación armada con China? Que se despida del Imperio. Fácil, ¿no?

Título: The US and China can avoid a collision course – if the US gives up its empire

Epígrafe: The problem isn’t China’s rise, but rather America’s insistence on maintaining military and economic dominance right in China’s backyard

Texto: To avoid a violent militaristic clash with China, or another cold war rivalry, the United States should pursue a simple solution: give up its empire.

Americans fear that China’s rapid economic growth will slowly translate into a more expansive and assertive foreign policy that will inevitably result in a war with the US. Harvard Professor Graham Allison has found: “in 12 of 16 cases in the past 500 years when a rising power challenged a ruling power, the outcome was war.” Chicago University scholar John Mearsheimer has bluntly argued: “China cannot rise peacefully.”

But the apparently looming conflict between the US and China is not because of China’s rise per se, but rather because the US insists on maintaining military and economic dominance among China’s neighbors. Although Americans like to think of their massive overseas military presence as a benign force that’s inherently stabilizing, Beijing certainly doesn’t see it that way.

According to political scientists Andrew Nathan and Andrew Scobell, Beijing sees America as “the most intrusive outside actor in China’s internal affairs, the guarantor of the status quo in Taiwan, the largest naval presence in the East China and South China seas, [and] the formal or informal military ally of many of China’s neighbors.” (All of which is true.) They think that the US “seeks to curtail China’s political influence and harm China’s interests” with a “militaristic, offense-minded, expansionist, and selfish” foreign policy.

China’s regional ambitions are not uniquely pernicious or aggressive, but they do overlap with America’s ambition to be the dominant power in its own region, and in every region of the world.

Leaving aside caricatured debates about which nation should get to wave the big “Number 1” foam finger, it’s worth asking whether having 50,000 US troops permanently stationed in Japan actually serves US interests and what benefits we derive from keeping almost 30,000 US troops in South Korea and whether Americans will be any safer if the Obama administration manages to reestablish a US military presence in the Philippines to counter China’s maritime territorial claims in the South China Sea.

Many commentators say yes. Robert Kagan argues not only that US hegemony makes us safer and richer, but also that it bestows peace and prosperity on everybody else. If America doesn’t rule, goes his argument, the world becomes less free, less stable and less safe.

But a good chunk of the scholarly literature disputes these claims. “There are good theoretical and empirical reasons”, wrote political scientist Christopher Fettweis in his book Pathologies of Power, “to doubt that US hegemony is the primary cause of the current stability.” The international system, rather than cowering in obedience to American demands for peace, is far more “self-policing”, says Fettweis. A combination of economic development and the destructive power of modern militaries serves as a much more satisfying answer for why states increasingly see war as detrimental to their interests.

International relations theorist Robert Jervis has written that “the pursuit of primacy was what great power politics was all about in the past” but that, in a world of nuclear weapons with “low security threats and great common interests among the developed countries”, primacy does not have the strategic or economic benefits it once had.

Nor does US dominance reap much in the way of tangible rewards for most Americans: international relations theorist Daniel Drezner contends that “the economic benefits from military predominance alone seem, at a minimum, to have been exaggerated”; that “There is little evidence that military primacy yields appreciable geoeconomic gains”; and that, therefore, “an overreliance on military preponderance is badly misguided.”

The struggle for military and economic primacy in Asia is not really about our core national security interests; rather, it’s about preserving status, prestige and America’s neurotic image of itself. Those are pretty dumb reasons to risk war.

There are a host of reasons why the dire predictions of a coming US-China conflict may be wrong, of course. Maybe China’s economy will slow or even suffer crashes. Even if it continues to grow, the US’s economic and military advantage may remain intact for a few more decades, making China’s rise gradual and thus less dangerous.

Moreover, both countries are armed with nuclear weapons. And there’s little reason to think the mutually assured destruction paradigm that characterized the Cold War between the US and the USSR wouldn’t dominate this shift in power as well.

But why take the risk, when maintaining US primacy just isn’t that important to the safety or prosperity of Americans? Knowing that should at least make the idea of giving up empire a little easier.

FIFA 1 – Imperio 0 (por ahora)

Por el momento, los chorros de la FIFA le ganan a los chorros del Imperio: Sepp Blatter volvió a ser elegido nuevamente como cabeza de la Federación Internacional del Fútbol. Chicos, no se engañen ni por un segundo: poquita cosa en esta historia tiene que ver con la corrupción o con la justicia. Decenas de miles de periodistas deportivos de todo el mundo hacen su catarsis pedorra y gastan saliva lastimosamente desde hace cuatro días. Nuestro héroe Diego Armando sigue meando fuera del tarro. Astroboy informa. Volvemos al sitio Moon of Alabama; acá reproducimos su post de hoy:

Título: Imperial NYT: Each FIFA Member One Secret Vote Is "Strange Electoral Math"

Texto: The New York Times was tipped off about last weeks U.S. induced Swiss police raid on FIFA functionaries in Geneva. It seems to hold some grudge against the football association maybe because the U.S. lost its bid for the World Cup 2022 to Qatar.

It is obvious that the U.S. is trying to install its own puppet on top of FIFA. Their candidate is a member of the corrupt family of Jordanian king. It is not that the U.S. is against corruption. How would the situation be today if FIFA, like some huge banks, had given to the Clinton Foundation, Obama's presidential library or "lobbied" some Representatives and Senators?  Corruption is just fine in the U.S. as long as it works in its interest. But FIFA rules make it difficult for the U.S. to get its will.

The reason, says the New York Times, is "the strange electoral math of FIFA".

So what is strange with that math?

The members of FIFA are the national football associations. Each gets one vote. The voting is secret. Imagine that. Every member has an equal vote and can vote as it likes without any real way to pressure it. That's strange? From the NYT piece:

- Mr. Blatter is widely expected to win a fifth term on Friday — in a vote only miles from the luxury hotel where Wednesday’s arrests took place — in part because of FIFA’s electoral math. The FIFA president is elected by a one-vote-per-country poll of its 209 member federations, making the many smaller countries who support Mr. Blatter an effective counterweight to his unpopularity elsewhere, most notably in Europe.

One country one vote is indeed strange math. Imagine the UN would be run this way. How would the U.S. and other Security Council members get their will if every country had a real vote?

There is no proposal in the NYT piece on how to change that strange math. How would the U.S. like to have the votes arranged? Countries ranked by population numbers? China, India, Nigeria, Brazil would certainly love that arrangement. But their votes would likely not go the way the U.S. wants them to go. Countries'  votes ranked by local football popularity or historic football success? Portugal or some other small country might then have the greatest weight. The U.S. vote would rank somewhere at the very end of the list.

No. There is no better way to run FIFA than the way it is run today. A World Cup is a billion dollar business. The money collected by FIFA through TV licenses, advertisement and merchandizing is flowing back to the national soccer federations. They are supposed to use it to support and promote the sport. Unfortunately some corruption is inevitably involved in such a huge and complex business. The world will have to live with that. The alternative is to relinquish control over football to some totally unaccountable, likely U.S. controlled conglomerate. That would be the end of the game.

I suggested that the U.S. assault on FIFA for corruption cases going back to the early 1990s comes now  because FIFA will today vote on a Palestinian proposal to eject Israel for impeding Palestinian football. Taking the 2018 World Cup from Russia is a convenient but secondary target. Israel has conceded that it is guilty of hindering Palestinian football by offering concessions in bid ?to avert vote to oust it from FIFA. But those concessions are likely not enough:

- The source said FIFA president Sepp Blatter welcomed Israel’s proposal but stressed it would need [chairman of the Palestinian Football Association] Rajoub’s consent before removing the vote on banning Israel from FIFA’s slate.

The source said Rajoub acceded, but added another demand – that FIFA ask UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon to issue a decision within three months on whether the five Israeli teams based in West Bank settlements were within Israeli territory.

FIFA regulations stipulate that teams not located within Israeli territory require the Palestinians’ consent to participate in Israeli leagues. Since the UN does not recognize the West Bank as part of Israel, the decision would de facto force Israel’s soccer federation to expel these teams from the league or run the risk of breaking FIFA’s rules.

The Palestinians should stick to this demand. Israel, like apartheid South Africa, should be kicked out of FIFA. There must be no tolerance for racism and occupation in the world's most beloved sport.

Lamentamos informar

Con los ojos arrasados por el llanto lamentamos informar sobre un nuevo suicidio vinculado con el mundo de las finanzas en la ciudad de Nueva York. Se trata esta vez de un joven y exitoso banquero de 29 años, toda una vida de especulación desenfrenada por delante, quien sucumbiera al súbito impulso de tirarse de un piso 24 en el Ocean Luxury Rental Apartment Building de la citada ciudad.  Detalle innecesario y escabroso para los deudos de esta joven promesa de las finanzas, hubo que transportar al nosocomio la cabeza del joven dividida en dos pedazos, al fraccionarse contra un guard-rail en momentos en que impactaba contra el suelo. El luctuoso episodio enluta a una ciudad cuya tradición es tirarse directamente sobre el asfalto, así, sin vueltas, medias tintas o detalles adicionales que otorgan matices macabros a una ya de por sí difícil decisión por parte del interesado. Nuestros saludos a los deudos, a Wall Street y a la ciudad de NYC en su conjunto. Como es costumbre, despedimos los restos de esta joven promesa de las finanzas con el tradicional "Jump you Fuckers" de Gene Burnett (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeG6OIYOOTA). A continuación, la breve noticia de Zero Hedge:

Título: New York Investment Banker Jumps To His Death From Luxury Downtown Building

Texto: Yesterday, New Yorkers walking by the Ocean Luxury Rental apartment building at 1 West St around 10:40am, were greeted with a gruesome sight: a 29-year-old man had just jumped to his death from the 24th floor.

According to initial reports, the man landed on a car that was driving toward the Battery Tunnel at the time. He was pronounced DOA at the scene.

Today, we learn that the tragic incident was merely the latest banker suicide, when according to the NY Post the still unidentified jumper was the latest in a long series of investment bankers who have decided to take their own life.

The 29-year-old man plunged from the 24th floor of the luxury Ocean apartment building at 1?West St. at about 10:40?a.m. and landed on a guardrail near the northbound Battery Park Underpass, narrowly missing a black SUV.

The man’s body was mangled by the impact, leaving one of the vehicle’s passengers horrified, witnesses said.

“I went outside, and the woman in the car was screaming, ‘I didn’t know where he came from!’?” said Hans Peler, 48, a manager at the building’s parking garage. “It happened right in front of our guy who waves cars in with the flag. He was so shaken up, I told him to go home.”

Tourists in a nearby open-air bus that was stuck in traffic, saw more than they bargained for when the gruesome scene unfolded right in front of them. Then they quickly found their bearing and realized the tragedy would look perfect on their Instagram profile, and scrambled for their cellphones to snap pictures of the body, said workers at the building.

“The head hit the railing .?.?. Half his head is on one side of the railing, half on the other,” recalled Frank Rodriguez, 44, a handyman who was working nearby. “It’s never worth this . . . Life is too precious.”

Sources said the young banker had made several attempts to kill himself earlier in the morning, including cutting his wrists, before making the plunge.

The man — whom police did not immediately identify — was from a wealthy family in Westchester County, sources said. He had apparently become very successful on his own.

He owned his apartment in the 36-story Ocean complex, which overlooks The Battery and New York Harbor, and had just returned from a vacation in the Bahamas, sources said.

At this point we have lost count of how many bankers have taken their own lives in the past year, despite stocks rising to all time highs and an artificial "wealth effecting" environment which if nobody else, benefits the banker class. We dread to think what happens to New York's pavements once the central planners finally lose control.

Libia, siempre Libia...

En lo que va del 2015, decenas de miles de libios han intentado cruzar el mar Mediterráneo en barquitos pequeños, de pesca costera la mayor parte de ellos. Muchos han muerto ahogados (más de 500 en lo que va de este año), si bien la mayoría logró acceder a las costas europeas, fundamentalmente de Italia y España. El lector atento se preguntará: ¿Qué hace la Unión Europea al respecto? Pues bien, han identificado a la causa del problema. Sí señor, se trata de... ¡los dueños de los barquitos!!! No se rían: en Bruselas están planificando acciones militares, con tropas en tierra en la misma Libia, para destruir los barquitos que transportan refugiados! 

Geniales los chicos, ¿no? Primero invaden un país (Libia) y lo bombardean hasta llevarlo a la Edad de Piedra. Luego les roban toda la plata que el gobierno libio mantenía en cuentas en el extranjero al tiempo que les les saquean el propio Banco Central. Les destruyen buena parte de su infraestructura, incluyendo el "río del desierto", la obra de ingeniería civil más importante del planeta. Luego lo parten en dos, tres o cuatro pedazos (todavía no sabemos bien); en tercer lugar alientan cualquier matanza y/o limpieza étnica, tribal o ideológica que e les ocurra. Finalmente se quejan porque los libios se rajan de su país. 

¡Gente desagradecida los libios!

El siguiente artículo es de Dmitry Minin y apareció ayer en el sitio web Strategic Culture Foundation:

Título: Civilized West and Libyan Nightmare

Texto: In 2011 the West intervened into Libya going beyond the resolution N1973 of the United Nations Security Council. A nightmare followed. Now it looks like Europe has decided to tackle the burning problem. On May 18, EU ministers agreed to launch a sea and air mission that could in its later phases destroy vessels used by human traffickers. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg supported the decision. He said there had been no formal request for NATO involvement but that the alliance stood ready to play a role if asked. According to Federica Mogherini, the EU has envisaged an operation that would start as a monitoring and intelligence-gathering one but could eventually deploy force at sea — and potentially on the Libyan coast—to capture and destroy smugglers’ vessels, embarkation points and fuel dumps. There would be three phases in the naval operation, including intelligence gathering on smugglers, inspection and detection of smugglers' boats and destruction of those boats, the European Union’s foreign policy chief explained,. «It is not so much the destruction of the boats but the destruction of the business models of the smugglers networks themselves,» she said.

51 thousand migrants, mainly from Libya, have crossed the Mediterranean to Europe in 2015. According to the data of the United Nations, more than 1,800 migrants have died in the Mediterranean this year only. That is a 20-fold increase on the same period in 2014. The European Union plans to stop smugglers preventing them from getting far from the Libya’s coast. In other words, Europe is not going to fight the evil it gave birth to, nor is it going to offer significant aid to suffering people. It wants to build a fence keeping immigrants away and thus do away with the problem. There is a possibility that this time the European Union will go around the United Nations Security Council. Formally no naval operation can take place in the territorial waters of Libya or any other state without the resolution of United Nations Security Council. Neither of Libya's rival governments, recognized or not, have yet shown any desire to co-operate with this plan. Both have so far criticized it. The Libya's internationally recognized government in Tobruk — which is fighting both a rival administration in Tripoli and the rising threat of Islamic State militants — opposes the naval plan and said Brussels must talk with it first. «The military option to deal with the boats inside Libyan waters or outside is not considered humane,» government spokesman Hatem el-Ouraybi said.

Libyans leave their country, which was prosperous once, in despair. The problems they face were engendered by nobody else but Europe which wants to isolate them now as if they were infected with leprosy. Refugees use small fishing boats. If destroyed, Libyan fishermen will suffer damage to exacerbate the problem of hunger in the country. Deutsche Welle believes the planned intervention will not help. The people left in Libya will eke out a miserable existence. There are indeed a lot of questions to be answered. Who will decide what a smuggler's boat is, and what isn't? Will the heads of smuggling syndicates be captured, or just their henchmen? And how will legal criminal prosecution be organized? Isn't there a danger that innocent civilians will die if EU troops intervene, especially on land in Libya? How will the EU protect itself against counterattacks? As time goes by, smugglers will find new ways to conduct their illegal activities.

The most important question of all is - can the use of arms really solve the refugee problem? The answer is clear: no. People who can no longer flee over the Mediterranean will end up stranded in Libya, under miserable conditions. After a while, migrants and smugglers will find new routes. By the way, Libya slid into its current state in part because of NATO's good intentions to help out during its civil war. A new EU military operation will do nothing to stabilize the situation. With the effects of such an operation on refugees, and on Libya, so impossible to calculate, the EU should keep its hands off.

The events unfolding inside Libya are dramatic enough. The country is partitioned into a few quasi-states.

Libya’s south-western desert region of Fezzan, mainly populated by nomads declared itself on an autonomous federal province in September 2013. The Western Mountains region that lies to the north of Mezzan has its own strong armed formations. Misrata (also spelled Misurata or Misratah) is the third largest city in northwestern Libya situated to the east of Tripoli on the Mediterranean coast near Cape Misrata. Isolated from the rest of the country the city is thriving. The territory is surrounded by check points. Outsiders are let in only upon the request of Misrata residents. Oil guards (with headquarters in Ajdabiya) protect oil facilities in Sirte.

Benghazi has declared itself an autonomous region. It is ruled by transitional National Council of Cyrenaica. According to French expert Fabrice Balanche, Libya follows the way of «somalization». A failed state is getting apart as a result of fighting between rival armed groups. Like in Somalia they have heavy weapons. The country is facing political schism, the regular military is weak, the separatist sentiments are strong in the regions, the legal government is impotent, there are no security guarantees and the influence of radical Islam is growing. The country is torn by ethnic and tribal conflicts. The fight for control of hydrocarbons is raging between different groups. The weapons from military storage facilities or received from NATO countries have spread around Libya. Armed militants rule the country. The Libyan Prime Minister, Ali Zeidan, has been kidnapped. Released in a few hours he told that the people who took away his money, clothes, cell phone and important documents were members of parliament. Libyans ask each other «How can the Prime Minister protect the country if he can’t protect himself?» If the chairman of National Congress and ministers say they don’t rule the country, then who does? The Islamic State takes advantage of the situation to make more gains. François Fillon, who was French Prime Minister at the time the intervention took place in 2011, admits that France took part in the operation in Libya that destroyed the country and spread around the infection across the whole Sahel. 4 Libya’s Islamist militants are now fighting for control of the entire country, and they are making headway. In April 2014, they captured a secret military base near Tripoli that, ironically, U.S. special operations forces had established in the summer of 2012 to train Libyan counterterrorist forces. The Islamic State militant formations have entered the Sirte Basin Province of Libya. The situation makes remember the event in Iraq. The Islamic State became much stronger there after many former officers of Saddam Hussein’s army joined its ranks. If former Gaddafi officers followed their example, Libya could become the first country to fully fall under the Islamic State’s control and become part of the new caliphate the Islamic militants want to found. The fight of European countries against Libyan refugees will expedite the process making it spill over the boundaries of the Middle East. Libya is turning into a new strategic stronghold of the Islamic State to be used for further expansion in North Africa or attacking Europe across the Mediterranean. Obama was proud to say that after the Gaddafi’s overthrow the mission was accomplished without boots on the ground, «Without a single US service member on the ground we achieved our objectives,» he said. Ivo Daalder, former U.S. Permanent Representative on the Council of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and James Stavridis, a retired United States Admiral who served as the Commander, US European Command and NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, wrote in their piece published by Foreign Policy in the March/April 2012 issue that the «NATO's operation in Libya has rightly been hailed as a model intervention». There are other opinions. Alan J. Kuperman of Texas University says «…in retrospect, Obama’s intervention in Libya was an abject failure, judged even by its own standards. Libya has not only failed to evolve into a democracy; it has devolved into a failed state. Violent deaths and other human rights abuses have increased severalfold».

The situation has gone too far. The officials of international organizations believe that an intervention by the West to support he legitimate government would take place too late. Andrew Engel-Bernardino León, U.N. special envoy for Libya, thinks Libya is too close to total chaos and the arms deliveries won’t turn the tide. According to him, «Weapons delivered to a central government lacking official armed forces could be diverted to the various armed groups that have, since 2011, undermined the emergence of a strong unity government in the first place. An influx of weapons to Libya could also exacerbate terrorism-related security challenges facing Libya’s neighbor».

Summing it all up, these are the results of the West’s mission to make Libya a civilized state.

Ruta de la Seda: motivaciones & consecuencias

Mientras esperamos para ver cómo continúa la saga “anticorrupción” del FBI y del departamento de Justicia de los EEUU contra los malos de la FIFA, reproducimos un extenso artículo escrito recientemente por el analista financiero en temas energéticos Robert Berke. El artículo apareció en el sitio web OilPrice.com y consta de dos partes: en la primera parte se examinan las motivaciones y planes de China para la construcción de la denominada “Ruta de la Seda” (la cual, conviene aclarar, no es una ruta o vía férrea específica sino un conjunto de megaproyectos transnacionales de infraestructura en una escala sencillamente colosal). En la segunda parte se examinan las consecuencias y tensiones geopolíticas que un proyecto como este podría desencadenar.

Parte 1: New Silk Road Could Change Global Economics Forever

Texto: Beginning with the marvelous tales of Marco Polo’s travels across Eurasia to China, the Silk Road has never ceased to entrance the world. Now, the ancient cities of Samarkand, Baku, Tashkent, and Bukhara are once again firing the world’s imagination.

China is building the world’s greatest economic development and construction project ever undertaken: The New Silk Road. The project aims at no less than a revolutionary change in the economic map of the world. It is also seen by many as the first shot in a battle between east and west for dominance in Eurasia.

The ambitious vision is to resurrect the ancient Silk Road as a modern transit, trade, and economic corridor that runs from Shanghai to Berlin. The ‘Road’ will traverse China, Mongolia, Russia, Belarus, Poland, and Germany, extending more than 8,000 miles, creating an economic zone that extends over one third the circumference of the earth.

The plan envisions building high-speed railroads, roads and highways, energy transmission and distributions networks, and fiber optic networks. Cities and ports along the route will be targeted for economic development.

An equally essential part of the plan is a sea-based “Maritime Silk Road” (MSR) component, as ambitious as its land-based project, linking China with the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea through Central Asia and the Indian Ocean.

When completed, like the ancient Silk Road, it will connect three continents: Asia, Europe, and Africa. The chain of infrastructure projects will create the world’s largest economic corridor, covering a population of 4.4 billion and an economic output of $21 trillion.

Politics and Finance

The idea for reviving the New Silk Road was first announced in 2013 by the Chinese President, Xi Jinping. As part of the financing of the plan, in 2014, the Chinese leader also announced the launch of an Asian International Infrastructure Bank (AIIB), providing seed funding for the project, with an initial Chinese contribution of $47 billion.

China has invited the international community of nations to take a major role as bank charter members and partners in the project. Members will be expected to contribute, with additional funding by international funds, including the World Bank, investments from private and public companies, and local governments.

Some 58 nations have signed on to become charter bank members, including most of Western Europe, along with many Silk Road and Asian countries. There are 12 NATO countries among AIIB´s founding member states (UK, France, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Denmark, Iceland, Spain, Portugal, Poland and Norway), along with three of the main US military allies in Asia (Australia, S. Korea and New Zealand).

After failed attempts by the US to persuade allies against joining the bank, the US reversed course, and now says that it has always supported the project, a disingenuous position considering the fact that US opposition was hardly a secret. The Wall Street Journal reported in November 2014 that “the U.S. has also lobbied hard against Chinese plans for a new infrastructure development bank…including during teleconferences of the Group of Seven major industrial powers.

The Huffington Post’s Alastair Crooke had this to say on the matter: “For very different motives, the key pillars of the region (Iran, Turkey, Egypt and Pakistan) are re-orienting eastwards. It is not fully appreciated in the West how important China’s “Belt and Road” initiative is to this move (and Russia, of course is fully integrated into the project). Regional states can see that China is very serious indeed about creating huge infrastructure projects from Asia to Europe. They can also see what occurred with the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), as the world piled in (to America’s very evident dismay). These states intend to be a part of it.”

Buttressing this effort, China plans on injecting at least $62 billion into three banks to support the New Silk Road. The China Development Bank (CDB) will receive $32 billion, the Export Import Bank of China (EXIM) will take on $30 billion, and the Chinese government will also pump additional capital into the Agricultural Development Bank of China (ADBC).

The US: Unlikely Partner on the Silk Road

Will the US join the effort? If the new Trans-Pacific Partnership (that pointedly leaves out both Russia and China, two Pacific powers) is any indication, US participation seems unlikely and opposition all but certain.

But there’s no good reason that America should sacrifice its own leadership role in the region to China. A project as vast and complicated as the Silk Road will need US technology, experience, and resources to lower risk, removing political barriers for other allied countries like Japan to join in, while maintaining US influence in Eurasia. The Silk Road could enhance US objectives, and US support could improve the outcome of the project.

An editorial in the Wall St. Journal argues that the US proposed trade agreement and China’s sponsored Silk Road project are complimentary, with the trade agreement aimed at writing rules for international trade, while the Chinese aim at developing infrastructure is necessary for increased trade.

Initial Project

A look at the first project, currently under development, provides a good example of how China plans to proceed.

The first major economic development project will take place in Pakistan, where the Chinese have been working for years, building and financing a strategic deepwater port at Gwadar, on the Arabian Sea, that will be managed by China as the long-term leaseholder.

Gwadar will become the launching point for the much delayed Iran-Pakistan natural gas pipeline, which will ultimately be extended to China, with the Persian section already built and the Pakistan-Chinese section largely financed and constructed by the Chinese.

The pipeline is also set to traverse the country, following the Karakoram Mountain Highway towards Tibet, and cross the Chinese western border to Xinjang. The highway will also be widened and modernized, and a railroad built, connecting the highway to Gwadar.

Originally, the plan was to extend the pipeline to India, with Qatar joining Iran as natural gas suppliers, forging what some considered a “peace pipeline” between India and Pakistan, but India withdrew, under pressure from the US along with its own concerns over having its energy supplies dependent upon its adversary, Pakistan.

India’s Counter

Not surprisingly, India, a US ally, countered China’s initiative with one of its own, announcing a new agreement to build a port in Iran on the Arabian Sea, only a few hundred miles from Gwadar, bringing Iranian energy to India via Afghanistan, bypassing Pakistan.

Although it would offer an alternative to the Chinese-backed Gwadar initiative, the US warned India not to move ahead with the port project before a final nuclear agreement between Iran and the West is actually signed.

Both the Chinese and Indian projects are clearly in defiance of international sanctions on Iran, but both countries appear unconcerned. The Chinese could also be accused of a ‘double dip’ sanctions violation, given the immense and continuing trade deals it negotiated with Russia.

The rest of the business world is sure to follow, or risk losing out in what is certain to be a new “gold rush” towards Asia in a world still struggling with the lingering effects of the great recession. And New Delhi pointed out the harsh truth: American energy companies are also trying to negotiate deals with Iran. Following on the heels of the US visit, the German mission is due in Tehran soon, with the French beating everyone to the punch in an earlier visit.

What then of sanctions? Sanctions only work in a world united behind them. If a large part of the world chooses to ignore sanctions, they become unenforceable.

Conclusions

China and much of the world is intent on developing the largest economic development project in history, one that could have dramatic ripple effects throughout the world economy.

The project is expected to take decades, with costs running into the hundreds of billions of dollars, if not trillions. What that will mean for the world economy and trade is almost inconceivable. Is it any wonder then, that the world’s largest hedge funds, like Goldman Sachs and Blackstone, are rushing to market new multi-billion dollar international infrastructure investment funds?

No doubt a project as large and complex as this is likely to have failures, and is certain to face many western geopolitical obstructions. Assuredly, the “great game” will continue. Look no further than US President Barack Obama, who also senses the urgency. “If we don’t write the rules, China will write the rules out in that region,” he said in defense of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

In a world where economic growth is tepid, with Europe still struggling with the aftermath of the global recession, along with China’s growth slowdown, where else could a project that promises so much opportunity be found?

It’s a good bet that giant iron mining companies like Vale, that have seen their business fall to a thirteen-year low, are currently busy figuring how much steel goes into construction of a new, high speed 8,000 mile railroad. If the project is successful, it could very well spark a boom across the entire depressed international mining, commodities, and construction sectors.

Consider how many jobs could be created in a decades-long construction project that spans a huge region of the world. In practically every sector, the prospects are enormous for a revival of trade and commerce.

The ancient Silk Road increased trade across the known world, but the Road also offered far more than trade. One of its least anticipated benefits was the widespread exchange of knowledge, learning, discovery, and culture.

Beyond the riches of silks, spices, and jewelry, it could be argued that the most important thing that Marco Polo brought back from China was a famous nautical and world map that was the basis for one of the most famous maps published in Europe, one that helped spark the Age of Discovery. Christopher Columbus was guided by that map and was known to have a well-annotated copy of Marco Polo’s travel tales with him on his voyage of discovery of a new route to India.

For the world at large, its decisions about the Road are nothing less than momentous. The massive project holds the potential for a new renaissance in commerce, industry, discovery, thought, invention, and culture that could well rival the original Silk Road. It is also becoming clearer by the day that geopolitical conflicts over the project could lead to a new cold war between East and West for dominance in Eurasia.

The outcome is far from certain.

***

Parte 2: The End of Old Geopolitical Tensions? Cold War or Competition on the New Silk Road

Texto: Silk Road Projects: It is important to understand that the new “Road’ is not a formal plan in any sense but merely a broad outline of goals, a work in progress, being filled in, opportunistically, with projects as they are developed, and as negotiations with target countries allow. The Road is also not a ‘start-up’ from scratch, but builds upon and extends a number of projects that have been ongoing with China’s partners.

The Iran-Pakistan-China project (described in Part 1) is one of the few that provides more details, but it is still very much in the planning stage. The second proposed project, only recently made public, focuses on Russia. China is also proposing a partnership with India for its third project.

The Pakistan program is an important economic development project that ties in with the Road as one of the connecting dots along the way, while the proposed program for Russian could become the nexus for the entire Road project, and the proposed India project could become the crucial piece in tying it all together.

Russia and China, the Emerging Partnership

What makes Russia important enough to include in the plan? A better question might be: how is it possible to leave out Russia, the largest country in Eurasia, from a plan to build across the entire region?

In a recent meeting in Moscow, celebrating the 70th anniversary of the allied victory in World War II – which saw Indian, Chinese, and Russia troops parading in Red Square – China and Russia signed multiple agreements to tie development of the Chinese sponsored Silk Road to the Russian sponsored Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).

The EAEU plan is a Kremlin-sponsored trade union between Russian, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus and Armenia, that has been pilloried in the western press as part of Russia’s supposed underlying agenda to re-establish the Soviet Union. With Russia’s inclusion, the plan for the Silk Road will extend from Beijing to the border of Poland. The blossoming cooperation between Russia and China is not something to be ignored, according to former Indian diplomat M.K. Bhadrakumar:

“Clearly, the cold blast of western propaganda against the EAEU failed to impress China…China’s integration with the EAEU means in effect that a real engine of growth is being hooked to the Russian project. In reality, China is the key to the future of the EAEU. Significantly, Xi has combined his visit to Moscow with a tour of Belarus and Kazakhstan, the two other founder members of the EAEU….This is vital for the implementation of the Silk Routes via Russia and Central Asia.”

The Chinese/Russian agreements cover eight specific projects, starting with the development of a high speed railway that will connect Moscow and Kazan (Tatarstan Republic), and will be extended to China, connecting the two countries via Kazakhstan. China’s Railway Group has won a contract for $390 million to build the road, with China contributing an initial $5.8 billion toward total estimated costs of $21.4 billion. Eventually, the planners hope to link this project to Russia’s planned high speed railway to Europe.

Also, China’s Jilii province has offered to build a cross-border high speed railway link between the two countries connecting with Russia’s major Pacific port city, Vladivostok. In addition, the two nations are expanding their energy partnership through a variety of projects. As Oilprice reported in a May 12 article, “the Russian hydropower company RusHydro and China Three Gorges Corp. have signed a deal to cooperate on a 320-megawatt hydroelectric power project in Russia’s Far East…near the border between China and Russia.” As described, this is the largest dam project in China or Russia, already under construction, and is expected to generate 1.6 trillion watts of electrical energy per year, with an estimated cost of around $400 billion.

China has also proposed developing an economic corridor between Russia, Mongolia, and China, a plan likely to include the EAEU member states, the initial step in development of one of the major components of the Silk Road, the Eurasia Economic Corridor, a preferential trade zone stretching across the region.

Several smaller joint project deals were also signed, including establishing a $2 billion agriculture financing fund.

Geopolitics on the Silk Road

Until very recently, it was widely assumed that the US would lead its western allies in a campaign against the Russian/Chinese deal to develop the Silk Road, but events have been reversing with remarkable speed.

With Obama desperately trying to keep the wars in Yemen, Syria, and Iraq from metastasizing across the region, Obama’s Middle East policy is at a crossroads, with none of the big issues likely to be resolved before his term ends. Clearly, the US President wants to concentrate on Asia and reduce the US presence in the Mid-East, a region that has bedeviled every President for more than a generation.

The Deal to Get Out

In the midst of all this, and after more than a two year absence from Russia, Kerry and his entourage requested an immediate urgent meeting with Putin and Lavrov that was granted by the Kremlin.

There is widespread speculation over what might have taken place in the Kremlin meeting on May 8th. Yet, the fact that the meeting took place at all may be more important than any agreements reached, because it clearly shows some form of thaw in a relationship that’s in process.

The rumor out of Russia is that Kerry requested Putin’s help in resolving the ME conflicts and closing the nuclear deal with Iran, with the Russian President agreeing. The quid pro quo for Russia was the US lowering tensions in Ukraine. The issue of Crimea was apparently not even raised, while the visit ended with Kerry’s unprecedented warning to Kiev to abide by the Minsk 2 agreement for a truce in Ukraine’s eastern provinces.

Much of the news media is speculating that the US is starting to remove the ‘crime scene tape’ around the Kremlin. Whether this is really a US offer of an olive branch to Russia is still pretty much guesswork, and even if it were, how far the US is willing to go in accommodating the Kremlin is largely unknown. Stratfor, the popular internet intelligence newsletter, speculates that the US is willing to start easing sanctions on Russia.

Israel and the Gulf Kingdoms

For the Israelis, any easing of tensions with Iran and Russia is very bad news. In the Middle East, Israel is the canary in the coal mine, and is always among the first to discern the faintest signs of political unrest in its region.

There’s no denying the significance of Israel’s reaction to the US/Iran nuclear deal and US coordination with Iran and Russia in Syria and Iraq. Israel placed all of its chips on its ability to stop the deals, and lost badly, while perhaps severely damaging its relationship with it largest ally, the US.

Now, the howls of protest and betrayal pour out of every media source in the country, and Israel is not the only one. Saudi Arabia also feels left out in the cold with the Iran deal.

Proposed Partnership with China and India

If it were possible to put politics aside, there’s no question that China’s single best partner for the Road would be its giant neighbor, bringing together the two most important markets for traders on the original ancient Silk Road. As the Associated Press reported on May 14, 2015:

“Both countries are members of the BRICS grouping of emerging economies, which is now establishing a formal lending arm, the New Development Bank, to be based in China’s financial hub of Shanghai and headed by a senior Indian banker. India was also a founding member of the embryonic China-backed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

The cooperation between China and India is only growing, and their needs appear to be compatible, as the AP goes on to note:

China is looking to India as a market for its increasingly high-tech goods, from high-speed trains to nuclear power plants, while India is keen to attract Chinese investment in manufacturing and infrastructure. With a slowing economy, excess production capacity and nearly $4 trillion in foreign currency reserves, China is ready to satisfy India’s estimated $1 trillion in demand for infrastructure projects such as airports, roads, ports and railways.”

If India chooses to partner with China in the Silk Road, it could keep China building for the rest of the century, in a project that would combine the world’s most populous nations, with more than 2.6 billion people. With Russia already a partner, and Iran waiting in the wings to join, the project could add almost another quarter of a billion people, with a combined total of over one third the global population. A better fit would be hard to find.

But there is no shortage of historical baggage between China and India, ranging from a half century of unresolved border disputes; China’s growing relationship with Pakistan, India’s longtime adversary; and India’s close relationship with the US and Japan, both opposed to China’s claims in the South China Sea.

In a recent meeting in Beijing, China and India signed agreements for $22 billion in development projects, disappointing to many observers when compared to the $47 billion committed to the China/Pakistan deal. A former Indian diplomat, Bhadrakumar, argues, “that strategic distrust cannot be wished away,” and “…that India is not ready to replace the west as its development partner.”

It seems like the US influence with India has at least slowed prospects of recruiting India as a major Silk Road partner. Yet, the results are not so simple to predict since so many countries involved are dependent upon trade with China to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars annually, and are also active trading partners with both Russia and Iran.

Even in the cold war, India became adept in its studied policy of co-existence with the Soviet Union and the US, which allowed India to play both sides. For pragmatic India, the choice of development partners may depend on the simple formula of ‘following the money’, given the fact that China is one of the few countries in the world with sufficient resources to finance the rebuilding of India’s infrastructure.

The rush of western allies, including India, to join China’s sponsored Asian Infrastructure Bank speaks clearly to the fact that western business is eager to take part in the Road projects. There are probably few banks in the world that would hesitate to finance major components of the project. However, whether the recent sea change in the US/Russian dynamic is a prelude for US support of the Silk Road project remains an open question.