Lo que se juega en México

Mañana se celebran elecciones presidenciales en México. Posteamos hoy dos notas sobre el tema. La primera, de Santiago O’Donnell para Página/12, habla de lo que significaría un triunfo del candidato de centroizquierda López Obrador (foto) para toda la región:

Título: Patria agrandada

Texto: Parece que va a ganar López Obrador. Es su tercera oportunidad y esta vez la diferencia parece irremontable. Está a punto de convertirse en el primer presidente mexicano proveniente de los movimientos sociales y llega a este punto crucial en un momento clave  para el futuro de su país y su región. Y lo precede un debate sobre el lugar que debe ocupar México en la región dada su cercanía geográfica con Estados Unidos y su afinidad cultural con Latinoamérica.

El momento es clave porque en Estados Unidos gobierna  Donald Trump, quien ha hecho del desprecio y del insulto a los mexicanos un emblema de su pólítica exterior. Las señales de ninguneo incluyen, por supuesto, el culebrón del muro que terminará siendo alguna foto y mucho bla bla bla. Pero, significativamente, incluye también la cancelación unilateral por parte de Washington del Nafta, o Tratado de Libre Comercio de Norteamérica. Aunque poco después de asumir Trump le dijo a su colega Peña Nieto que estaba dispuesto a renegociar el acuerdo, en septiembre del año pasado Estados Unidos se retiró de la negociación y el posible futuro acuerdo quedó en la nada. Mas alá de las ventajas y desventajas del tratado para cada país, que aún hoy se discute, lo  innegable es que el Nafta ataba la economía mexicana a la suerte de sus socios norteamericanos y esa dependencia no le dejaba mucho margen para explorar vías alternativas de desarrollo.

Poco más de una década atrás, bajo el liderazgo de Lula y Chávez, una generación de líderes latinoamericanos convergieron en un proyecto de integración regional invocando la visión de Patria Grande de Bolívar y San  Martín. Lo hicieron a través de una arquitectura de instituciones que cumplen al menos tres funciones. Primero, sirven de garantes de la autonomía del bloque ante actores externos. Segundo, actúan como mecanismos de resolución de conflictos entre paises miembro. Tercero, operan como guardianes de los regímenes democráticos post dictatoriales ante amenazas internas y externas. Unasur, Celac, Mercosur, ALBA, OEA, Aladi, CAF, CIDH, Corte IDH,  hicieron su parte para que esto sucediera en mayor o menor medida, con éxito y también con algunos fracasos.

Entonces el bloque ocupó su lugar en el mundo, en la ONU, el G20, los Brics, entre otros foros, asumiendo  posturas comunes, por ejemplo, en temas como el asilo a Julian Assange, el terrorismo islamista en Europa, el conflicto de Medio Oriente y los tratados internacionales sobre el calentamiento global.

Pero como todo proyecto de integración la Patria Grande tenía sus límites, empezado por su geografía. ¿Hasta dónde llegaba? Para Chávez llegaba hasta el Río Grande y además de México abarcaba a Centroamérica y las islas del Caribe. De ahí sus generosas ayudas de petróleo subsidiado a los países más pobres de esa subregión. En cambio Lula, apoyado por Néstor Kirchner, sostenía que el bloque terminaba en el límite entre Colombia y Panamá. No había integración latinoamericana posible con países que además de compartir tratados de libre comercio con Estados Unidos, dependen de remesas de dinero desde ese país para subsidiar a sus economías y a la inversa,  alimentan a Estados Unidos de mano de obra barata a traves de un  flujo migratorio constante y sostenido. El golpe contra el presidente de Honduras Mel Zelaya en 2009 reafirmó ese límite ante el flamante bloque sudamericano. Brasil, Argentina y sus aliados apostaron fuerte por el retorno del mandatario depuesto pero Estados Unidos ejerció su hegemonía para imponer una rápida salida electoral a través del gobierno de facto.

Ahora el escenario vuelve a dar señales de volatilidad. Con el primer presidente de México inclinado a la izquierda por lo menos desde el sexenio de Lázaro Cárdenas (1934-40), con el proyecto de la derecha mexicana agotado primero desde adentro y luego por fuera del PRI, con un bloque sudamericano golpeado pero todavía vivo, con la perspectiva realista de un triunfo de Lula o del PT en octubre en Brasil, con un Trump que no quiere saber nada con la región mientras no se convierta en un semillero de terroristas islamistas, el mapa político de las Américas podría  reconfigurarse.      

Por peso propio y también por geografía, un México desafiante y en busca de nuevos socios rápidamente podría posicionarse como el eje norte de una Patria Grande agrandada, que mantiene vínculos innegables con la industria cultural y tecnológica norteamericana  pero que ya tiene a China y no a Estados Unidos como principal socio comercial, y que mira a Europa y Asia en busca de nuevos mercados e inversores. Así, en este momento tan particular de debilidad relativa de Estados Unidos en la región (moral, política, económica),  la elección mexicana,  bien aprovechada, podría ser el disparador de un novedoso proceso de integración entre centroamérica y sudamérica. Pero claro, dicho proceso solo será posible si el eje México-Brasil logra  romper con las barreras sociales, culturales, políticas y económicas que lo venían impidiendo y que por lo tanto no se pueden subestimar.

***

La nota que sigue habla del clima de violencia que ha envuelto a México en los últimos años. Es de Alberto Pradilla para el diario español Público.es:

Título: Votar en el país de la guerra sin trincheras

Epígrafe: México acude el domingo a las urnas tras la campaña más sangrienta de su historia. Al menos 133 políticos han sido asesinados. Desde que el expresidente Felipe Calderón declaró la “guerra al narco”, más de 260.000 personas han sido asesinadas y 36.000 están desaparecidas.

Texto: Omar García Velásquez tiene 27 años y es un sobreviviente. Hace cuatro años, la noche del 26 de septiembre de 2014, 43 de sus compañeros de la Escuela Normal Rural de Ayotzinapa desaparecieron sin dejar rastro. No por propia voluntad. Los desaparecieron. Habían tomado por la fuerza varios autobuses en Iguala, a 200 kilómetros de la Ciudad de México. Querían acudir a la marcha que conmemora la matanza de Tlatelolco, cuando cientos de estudiantes murieron acribillados en 1968. No llegaron a su destino. La versión oficial dice que fueron víctimas de un grupo de narcos, que los secuestró, los quemó y tiró sus restos a un vertedero. García niega esa tesis: “Fue el Estado. Miembros del Ejército y policías federales, por orden de las autoridades a nivel federal”. Él está vivo, puede denunciar, puede pelear para que el crimen no quede impune.

García vive ahora en México DF. Sobrevivir lo convirtió en amenazado. “Tuve que salir de mi pueblo, de mi Estado, las amenazas son constantes y no se investigan. Me llamaban por teléfono, me dejaban mensajes en las redes sociales. Aquí no creo que este tan seguro, pero trabajo, estudio, etcétera. Si algo va a pasar pues, pasará”, dice. No habla desde la resignación. A pesar de lo padecido, no ha dejado el activismo.

La línea que separa miembros del Estado de crimen organizado es muy delgada

Nadie sabe qué fue de los 43 de Ayotzinapa. Desde que se perpetraron los hechos solo se han identificado los restos de uno de los estudiantes. Tampoco las investigaciones han dado sus frutos. Después de superarse el centenar de detenidos, no se ha determinado qué ocurrió aquella noche ni quiénes son los responsables. Los relatos siguen oscilando entre quienes aseguran que fueron víctimas de los narcos, que les castigaron por secuestrar un autobús en el que habría escondido un alijo, hasta quien responsabiliza directamente a algún cuerpo uniformado. La línea que separa uno y otro grupo, crimen organizado y miembros del Estado, es muy fina y es difícil determinar si alguien forma parte solo de uno, otro, o de ambos.

El caso de los normalistas de Ayotzinapa es un símbolo de las desapariciones forzosas y el crimen de Estado para un México que acude a elecciones marcado por la violencia.

Todas las encuestas dan como vencedor al izquierdista Andrés Manuel López Obrador, candidato de Morena (Movimiento de Regeneración Democrática). Por detrás, Ricardo Anaya y José Antonio Meade. El primero, liderando una extraña coalición entre el derechista Partido de Acción Nacional (PAN) y el progresista Partido de la Revolución Democrática (PRD), donde López Obrador militó hasta su marcha en 2011. El segundo, como aspirante tecnócrata del Partido de la Revolución Institucional (PRI), que ha dominado la política mexicana casi ininterrumpidamente desde hace 80 años.

La violencia es una de las grandes preocupaciones para los mexicanos y no parece que nadie tenga una receta para ponerle fin.

Las cifras son espeluznantes. Desde 2006, cuando el entonces presidente Felipe Calderón dio inicio a lo que denominó “guerra contra el narco”, el país se hunde en un charco de sangre. Al menos, 230.000 asesinados. Al menos, 35.000 desaparecidos. Una tasa de homicidios de 20 por cada 100.000. Cierto es que todavía está por debajo de sus vecinos centroamericanos. México no llega a los niveles de Guatemala (26 muertes violentas por cada 100.000), Honduras (43 por cada 100.000) o El Salvador (64 por cada 100.000). No obstante, mientras que la tendencia en estos países va a la baja, en México los números no hacen sino crecer. En el último año, al menos 26.000 personas fueron asesinadas. Es difícil hacerse una idea de qué significan estas cifras. Imaginemos, por ejemplo, el estadio de Vallecas, con su aforo completo, todos cadáveres. Multipliquémoslo por dos. Ese es el número de víctimas de homicidios solo en un año en México.

“Antes esto no era así”, dice Ixchel Cisneros, directora de Cencos (Centro Nacional de Comunicación Social), una ONG que denuncia las violaciones de Derechos Humanos en México. Responsabiliza a la “guerra contra el narco” decretada por Calderón pero recuerda que el actual presidente, Enrique Peña Nieto, ha sido incapaz de detener la sangría. De hecho, las cifras de homicidios y desapariciones ya superan a las de su antecesor.

La última campaña de Cencos se llama Voces Libres y alerta sobre el asesinato de periodistas. En los últimos seis años, un total de 46 informadores han sido asesinados. El caso más conocido es el de Javier Valdez, muerto a tiros en Sinaloa el 15 de mayo de 2017. Si algo caracteriza a estos crímenes, según Cisneros, es la impunidad. Lo habitual es que nunca llegue a saberse quién mató al periodista. En caso de que sí que se detenga al que apretó el gatillo, lo que nunca se averigua es quién dio la orden.

Primero les mataron; luego trataron de hacer creer que se lo habían buscado

A los 46 periodistas asesinados se suma la ejecución extrajudicial de 106 defensores de Derechos Humanos. Cuando hablamos de esta categoría, hacemos mención a la participación directa del miembros del Estado.

“Antes se decía que mientras no nos metamos en problemas o andemos de revoltosos, no pasa nada. A esta hora, todo el mundo está propenso de que te desaparezcan, te confundan con un narco, quieran tratar con tu cuerpo en el caso de las mujeres, o tus órganos. ¿Quién está exento?”, se pregunta Omar García. En su opinión, uno de los castigos sufridos por los familiares de los desaparecidos de Ayotzinapa es la revictimización y la criminalización. Primero, les mataron. Luego, trataron de instalar el discurso de que algo habían hecho, que se lo habían buscado.

Explicar por qué la violencia se ha desatado en México es complejo. Antes del inicio de la “guerra” de Calderón existía una especie de acuerdo entre el Gobierno del PRI y los cárteles, según explica el investigador José Antonio Crespo, del Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE). El conflicto descabezó las estructuras criminales, con arrestos como el de Chapo Guzmán, todopoderoso líder del cártel de Sinaloa, extraditado a Estados Unidos en 2017. Estas se fragmentaron en un todos contra todos. Los Zetas, cártel de Sinaloa, Jalisco Nueva Generación, etcétera, son nombres trágicamente populares. Más grupos ampliando sus negocios (drogas, armas, trata, migración irregular) y pugnando por las plazas. Más muertos. El ejército en las calles. Y la cifra de víctimas desatada.

La carrera electoral más sangrienta

La violencia también ha estado presente en campaña. Por un lado, en los discursos de los candidatos. Por otro, con ataques directos contra políticos y cargos públicos. Esta es la carrera electoral más sangrienta de la historia de México. En total, según datos de la consultora Etellekt, al menos 133 muertos, entre precandidatos, candidatos y cargos institucionales. Hay que tomar en cuenta que estas son las elecciones más grandes de la historia de México, en las que se escoge un 80% de sus puestos institucionales. Hay zonas en las que resulta muy difícil ejercer algún poder sin el beneplácito del grupo criminal que la controla y los cargos públicos se ven obligados a enfrentarse a la disyuntiva “plata o plomo”, popularizada por el narcotraficante colombiano Pablo Escobar.

Al menos 34 de los detenidos sufrieron torturas a manos de la policía

Si resulta difícil explicar cómo se ha llegado a esta situación, más complejo es plantear cómo salir de ella. Todas las encuestas dan por ganador a Andrés Manuel López Obrador, líder de Morena. En un primer momento, puso sobre la mesa una idea de amnistía que no fue bien explicada, como reconoce Aníbal García, del Centro Estratégico Latinoamericano de Geopolítica (Celag). En su intervención en el cierre de campaña, celebrado el miércoles en el Estadio Azteca, el previsiblemente futuro jefe de Gobierno habló de combatir el crimen respetando los derechos humanos y de establecer un plan contando con diversos actores: policías, grupos de defensa de DDHH, ONU. En caso de ganar el domingo tiene cinco meses hasta que asuma el puesto para definir su propuesta. Su explicación, sin embargo, trata de ir más allá del militarismo. Considera que el origen de la violencia está en la desigualdad y la pobreza y fía todo a la lucha contra la corrupción como receta para pacificar el país. Como ejemplo, su lema “becarios sí, sicarios no”, para promover becas a estudiantes y alejarles de las redes criminales.

“Quien llegue al gobierno se va a encontrar un país hecho pedazos. La gente ha normalizado la violencia. No te voltea ver a una madre a la que le han desaparecido un hijo porque son tantas que solo te impacta si te ocurre a ti directamente”, dice Ixchel Cisneros.

Para Omar García la llegada de López Obrador puede ser una esperanza, al menos para los sobrevivientes de Ayotzinapa y las familias de las víctimas. Recuerda que el líder de Morena se ha comprometido a promover la investigación. Y pone en valor la reciente sentencia del Primer Tribunal Colegiado del Decimonoveno Circuito, con sede Ciudad Reynosa, Tamaulipas, que obliga a repetir las pesquisas ante las graves irregularidades detectadas. Al menos 34 de los detenidos sufrieron torturas a manos de la policía.

Existe un ambiente contradictorio en México. Por un lado, desazón ante un Estado incapaz de frenar la sangría. Por otro, esperanza por la previsible llegada al poder de un líder, López Obrador, que promete un “cambio”. Frenar la matanza será una de sus primeras tareas.

Incierto destino de Ucrania

Hablamos de Ucrania como si todavía fuera un país. Error: ya no lo es. Crimea y el Donbas no lo son, y es probable que sigan otras regiones. Según varios, el destino de "Ucrania" es la fragmentación territorial, tal vez siguiendo líneas de frontera que respondan a las distintas regiones que se fueron adicionando a partir del Siglo XVII (ver mapa de arriba). La nota que sigue, originalmente en ruso, fue redactada por Rostislav Ishchenko para el sitio web Stalker Zone; fue traducida al inglés por Ollie Richardson and Angelina Siard para el blog The Vineyard of the Saker, desde donde la copiamos. Acá va:

Título: Why the Operation to De-Legitimise Ukraine Should Be Extended to 2019

Texto: What people were saying about 4 years ago concerning the probable (even desirable) future absolutely imperceptibly became the reality. The US, which staged the Ukrainian and Syrian crises for the sake of preserving their hegemony, lost the position of the sole world leader. They launched trade wars not only with China, India, Russia, but also with the European Union, Canada, and Japan.

During the last G7 summit the allies actively pursued Trump so much so that observers started talking about the transformation of the “7” into “6”.

The US President takes the initiative of returning Russia into a “8”, Moscow answers by saying that it didn’t especially want this. If, supposedly, you need to communicate, then you can come to our place – either all seven at once or one after the other.

The slogan “We need Berlin!” that amused many has practically been realised. Germany stubbornly completes “Nord Stream-2", ignoring the discontent of both Washington and their East European allies.

The EU remains in crisis, European politicians and experts predict disintegration and also speak about the need for reform. One thing is clear: in the nearest future the EU won’t exist in the form that it has existed in up to know. Regardless of whether or not there will be a centralised Franco-German “Fourth Reich”, whether or not the EU will drop its East European ballast – having returned to a primordial Western European format, whether or not a Europe of strong national states will appear, the kingdom of supranational euro-bureaucracy is crumbling in front of the eyes anyway.

Brussels, which still yesterday had national governments dancing to its beat at its discretion, today can’t do much.

NATO is in crisis. The US admits that it can’t defend Europe in the event of a “Russian attack”. At the same time, the considerable part of Europe (from Bulgarians to these same Germans) starts considering the Russian military-political umbrella as a desirable alternative to an American one. So far the creation of a euro-army becomes more active. This process, of course, is long and not simple, it is possible to say endless, but here it’s not the result, but the demonstrative counterposing of hypothetical “independent European defense” to NATO under the US’ control that is important here.

In Syria Assad successfully finishes off the insurgents of all colors and shades activated by the US. And in Ukraine the local oligarchy, without any serious efforts by Russia, finishes up dismantling the Ukrainian State and definitively discrediting the idea of Ukrainian statehood. The only thing that now worries Moscow and Berlin is that Ukrainians liquidate Ukraine not very quickly. There is a need for some more time in order to definitively get rid of dependence on Ukrainian transit and also to coordinate positions on the future of the territory that becomes wild before the eyes, including concerning allocating the money needed to create a new economy and to restore normal life for the remaining people. Russia absolutely distinctly hints to the European Union that it expects its active financial participation in reconstruction of the State that was destroyed by its [EU’s – ed] efforts.

And there was no need for any tank armadas coming either to Lvov or Paris. It happened without multi-billion investments in “the creation of a pro-Russian layer” in the ranks of a “creative class” (roughly speaking – bribery of media outlets). Ukrainian nationalists convincingly showed the population that Ukraine isn’t capable of having an independent existence, and that normal life is possible on this territory only if it enters into Russia’s orbit.

Pro-maidan Ukrainian politicians rendered to Russia the hugest service. They themselves severed all cooperation ties and destroyed the Ukrainian industry that acted as a natural competitor to the Russian one. Moreover, before the implementation of the import substitution program Russia depended on the deliveries of a huge nomenclature of Ukrainian products. And it critically depended on many indicators.

If it wasn’t for the distinct policy of the Ukrainian authorities (all authorities, and not just the latest ones) aimed at severing cooperation ties, the import substitution program would never have been realised (nobody will invest billions in the construction of duplicating enterprises or bypassing pipelines if deliveries are rhythmical and transit is guaranteed). So today’s Russian industrial power is the unintentional merit of the Ukrainian authorities, which de-industrialised Ukraine in the interests of Russia.

But now, when, as was already said, the expectations of four-year prescription became a reality, the question “and what will happen in Ukraine afterwards?” didn’t lose relevance.

The hopes of the Ukrainian nationalists to receive aid from the West failed. The West itself needs help (at least political and diplomatic) from Russia. Washington and Brussels have long been ready to give Ukraine back to Moscow in order to not incur political, financial, and reputation losses because of the behavior of their local proteges, but, with the mercantilism that is inherent in the West, they want to receive something in exchange.

And Russia doesn’t want to give them anything. On the contrary, Moscow absolutely fairly considers that the West – which suffered a geopolitical defeat, as some kind of reparations – must clean up wherever it left a mess, in Ukraine in particular.

And this isn’t about evacuating [from Ukraine – ed] pro-West politicians and dismantling the regime – the Ukrainian authorities perfectly cope with it. It is about financial participation in restoring the destroyed habitat, which in the best years fed over 50 million population.

But in order to start to rebuild something, there is a need to get rid of the current Ukrainian regime, to practically nullify the contents of the highest political echelon. The West can’t do this. And Russia can’t do this either. Not because such a decision is difficult. It is simpler to convene an international tribunal for Ukraine. From the “heavenly hundred“ killed during the coup to the Malaysian “Boeing”, from the attempted genocide of the population of Donbass to the murders on May 2nd, 2014 in Odessa, from mass human rights violations to even more mass corruption — there will be enough charges. It is possible to jail for a long time, if not for forever, everyone – from the “experts” and journalists that the regime relies on to the politicians and oligarchs who benefit the most from it.

But this is ineffective because folk storytellers will re-appear and convince the trustful new generations – who didn’t see the results of nationalist governance – that if it wasn’t for Russia, which displaced the Ukrainian authorities by force, the descendants of Sumerians [some Ukrainian “patriots” actually think they are descendants of the ancient Sumerians – ed] would be tired of prosperity.

The genocide of the Ukrainian political elite should be carried out by the Ukrainian political elite itself. And it will cope with this task. Moreover, it is already coping with it. In fact, this is the only task that is the bread and butter of the Ukrainian governors. They may not be good at many things, but eating each other and not being fully sated is something they are masters of.

The essence of the Ukrainian regime consists in destroying any competition. It grew from gangs that extorted market kiosks to the size of the State, but didn’t change its habits and methods.

There can’t be two gangs in the market, someone has to leave. And in the Ukrainian State there can’t be two oligarchs, there can’t be competing politicians or parties. There can be only an absolute vertical of co-subordination and like-mindedness. Every politician and every oligarch in Ukraine aspired, aspires, and will aspire to concentrate allow power and poverty in their hands.

Now Poroshenko is the weak link, and an oligarchical consensus that placed a stake on Tymoshenko developed against him. In order to not change one robber for another, even more dangerous one, the oligarchy decided to indeed realise the idea of the decentralisation of Ukrainian power. That’s why Tymoshenko started talking about the transformation of Ukraine into a chancellor republic (with a weak president and a government that is strong, but dependent on parliament) and about its practical transformation into a federal state with a two-chamber parliament. Among other things, this is also a demonstration for Russia that Yulia Tymoshenko can do what Poroshenko couldn’t (implement key points of the Minsk Agreements).

However, we know that Tymoshenko isn’t one of those people who refuses absolute power – on the contrary, no matter how many powers may be conferred on her, it won’t be enough. We also know that the Ukrainian political tradition assumes the concentration of power in one pair of hands. The position can be called whatever you want: the president, the Prime Minister, the Chairman of the Supreme Council, even the first secretary of the Central Party Committee, but its essence won’t change because of it — the governor will be super-authorised and an individual person. That’s why Tymoshenko easily promises to become a chancellor, understanding that it’s not about the job title, but about taking from Poroshenko the real levers of control over the State.

However, the political struggle has its own logic and the steps and statements made today, which the politician considers to be void of meaning and unable to influence tomorrow’s agenda, in practice have a key impact on the formation of tomorrow’s political landscape.

Tymoshenko in the fight against Poroshenko tries to lean on parliament and regional elites. In order for these structures to be able to effectively support her they have to be strong, and Tymoshenko tries to strengthen them, suggesting to them to appropriate additional powers without prior arrangement and calling them (via Baloga’s lips) to form their own power structures.

But then nobody will simply give back the once appropriated powers. In the fight against Poroshenko, Tymoshenko forms and strengthens groups of her future enemies. As soon as she will try to become the sole leader, the accumulated forces will be thrown at her and the experience gained in the fight against Poroshenko will be used [against her – ed] too. I.e., a confrontation between Tymoshenko and her nowadays allies is inevitable. And this confrontation can’t be victorious for her, for the same reason that Poroshenko couldn’t and can’t win in the Ukrainian political struggle. Everyone unites against him like they would against a political figure that is too strong, but it is impossible for him to win against all of them.

Thus, the Ukrainian political elite, continuing the internecine fight, leads matters towards the further disintegration of the State and to its own self-destruction. It is already too late to transform Ukraine into a federal republic. The economy that united it has been destroyed. Regions become more and more autarkical, and the capital (the central power) doesn’t give them anything besides problems. In these conditions, the mobilisation of regional elites for the fight against Poroshenko threatens to become a critical turn during which the regional elites will finally gain awareness of their interests, will study joint actions, and will gain a successful fighting experience. Further, it’s not important what the central power will be called. Regardless of its title, it will be hated by regions anyway (either with a hair braid [Tymoshenko – ed] or in a wrinkled suit [Poroshenko – ed]).

Thus, since 2014 the elite groups that lost out have become not opposition, but emigrants (Azarov), prisoners (Efremov), or ended up in the cemetery (where they tried to send Yanukovych during his epic fleeing). I.e., every new conflict leads to a reduction in the ranks of the traditional elite and the exhaustion of its forces, while the Nazis cultivated by the country breathe down their neck, aspiring to become the new elite. At the present moment these militants are used in the intra-elite infighting. But they are also quite capable of becoming aware of their own interests and possibilities. Especially as they will soon gain the experience of acting on the side of the regional elite against President Poroshenko. The power of oligarchs is de-sacralized. And there aren’t any other applicants for national power in Ukraine. The economic base of the national power has been destroyed.

Now, the most important thing is that the complete collapse doesn’t arrive before the end of the year. Gas pipelines will still work for some time, and in 2019 “Nord Stream-2” will be put into operation, after which the value of Ukraine will in every sense be reduced to zero.

***

Entre los comentarios que provocó la nota en el sitio web The Saker, rescatamos estos dos:

1. Auslander on June 27, 2018  ·  at 1:45 am EST/EDT

The last sentence says it all: “in 2019 “Nord Stream-2” will be put into operation, after which the value of Ukraine will in every sense be reduced to zero.”

Ukraine could not and can not exist without extensive, read vast, trade and communication with Russia. Europe and US can wish, snarl, scream, wring hands and scream again all they want, reality is reality. However, over the last five years Ukraine has committed economic and societal suicide at the behest and urging of US and her main colony, but her grasping hands never quite managed to grab what her parasitical leaders wished for most and were promised, access to the unbelievable, they thought, wealth of western Europe.

I won’t go in to a long liturgy of what leftover Soviet industry has been willfully laid to waste, most everyone does, or should, know the list. With the willing hands from The West, the destruction, both physical and cultural, of Ukraine has been achieved, it is now undeniable fact. Because of her past actions, Ukraine can not be, and has not been trusted to be, a transit source of that commodity that Europe needs so desperately from Russia, natural gas and liquid gold. Tymoshenko and her ilk have proven too often to be the untrustworthy thieves they are, ergo the old saying is still viable: Trust is like youth, when it’s gone, it’s gone forever.

It only remains to be seen how much of what was Ukraine will survive the next three years. Regardless of glowing reports of the Utopia that is Ukraine in west media, people vote with their feet if the vote by ballot is useless. With the loss of all of Donbas, Krimea and Sevastopol abrogating the illegal actions of Krushchov in the early 50’s, and the hideous economic prospects, let alone the violence that has permeated Ukraine, real estimates are that Ukraine has lost a quarter of her population since 2013. Quite a feat in a little over five years.

With Ukraine in her death throes, all the toil, work, investment, war and trauma of the last century comes to naught. Ukraine will go back to being Malorus, the backshop and farm of Russia, in a decade or less. Yes, there will be promising attempts at industry renewal and some investments from abroad, but Ukraine is dead. Donbas is gone forever and Donbas was the industrial heartland of Ukraine. The divorce is final and irrevocable, and while Donbas can, and will, have trade and economic intercourse with the remains of Ukraine, the dice have been rolled and Ukraine as she was a decade ago is gone forever.

2. B.F. on June 27, 2018  ·  at 7:33 am EST/EDT

As Henry Kissinger said, being a friend of the United States is dangerous, being an enemy is deadly. Both the EU countries and Ukraine are discovering this.

When it comes to the EU, it should be underlined that it is not a European creation as such. It was jointly created by the Rothschild/Rockerfeller banking empires, and it is based on the US Federation. Both the EU and US have central banks which are controlled by private bankers. The intent of the EU was to diminish the sovereign status of European states, placing them under banker control. The EU open border policy was introduced to allow mass immigration into Europe and undermine European states by presenting them with political, economic, financial and ethnic problems, as events have proved.

Yes, the EU certainly cannot exist any more in it’s present form. There is not one EU state where you will not find opposition to it’s existence. Back in 2014 some 2/3 of people in the EU wanted their countries to leave the EU. It will either have to be reorganized, restoring the sovereign status of it’s members, or else dissolved. Contrary to what has been stated in the article, I just don’t see the creation of a centralized Franco-German “Fourth Reich”, as that is absurd. Yes, France and Germany might launch some joint initiatives, but I don’t see France being able to do much, bearing in mind it’s financial and immigration problems, having French troops patrolling Paris (imagine if this happened in Moscow and how the Western media would react).

Germany is the economic powerhouse of Europe, and it’s influence will be supreme. The Atlantic powers will of course try to subvert this, preventing a German-Russian economic alliance, a nightmare of Anglo-Saxon bankers for more than a hundred years. The mass immigration of false “refugees” during the past years was nothing more than an attempt to subvert Germany. Even so, Germany will in the end solve it’s immigration problems, which cannot be said for France. And yes, the article is certainly correct when it states that most Europeans consider the Russian military-political umbrella more desirable than the American one. NATO’s days are indeed numbered, with Turkey probably being the first to depart.

When it comes to Ukraine, it needs to be stated that there is no such thing as the Ukrainian ethnic group and

Ukrainian language. The name of Ukraine is derived from the Slavic word “krayina”, and it means “frontier region”. Ukraine was the western frontier of Russia. The first Russian state was centered in Kiev. Ukrainians are descended from Russians. The Ukrainian “language” has 90 % Russian words and 10 % Polish, with some Western words. The exception to the stated is western Ukraine, the former Galicia, which has mixed blood.

I don’t see Ukraine existing in it’s present form. Ukrainians themselves have admitted that by December of 2017 some 4 million Ukrainians have fled to the West and 4.4 million to Russia. Now 100.000 Ukrainians are emigrating from the country each MONTH.

Analysts are stating that the country might well break up into three parts. As things are developing, this possibility is turning into the inevitable. The eastern regions will certainly rejoin Russia. Central Ukraine will follow. This leaves western Ukraine, the former Galicia, which will probably be split between Poland and Hungary. The new Ukraine (approximately 75% of the current one) will eventually become part of the Russian Federation.

In 2014 the US, a former colony, applied colonial methods with that coup d’etat in Kiev, using oligarchs, neo-Nazis, thugs, criminals and foreign agents. NATO grabbed Kiev and Putin grabbed back the Crimea. Both NATO and Washington have become Putins greatest allies without realizing it. Before they staged that coup d’etat, they should have done their homework and read some history. They started a chain reaction which cannot be stopped. The oligarchs and neo-Nazis have opened the country to political instability and plundering. The population is being impoverished. More than 4 million Ukrainians have fled to Russia, conscious of the fact that they are of Russian origin. The ones who remained are being reminded of this fact.

Finally, Washington’s imperial policies are making their contribution to the dissolution of both the EU and NATO. European bitterly resent the fact that a former colony has the audacity to impersonate Imperial Rome and issue imperial decrees, like threatening European firms with sanctions if they participate in the building of the Nord Stream – 2 gas pipeline. Washington and Wall Street, of course, are incapable of understanding this. They will understand it when it’s too late.

Guerra civil suave

Arrecia el clima de hostigamiento mutuo entre trumpistas y liberales en el corazón del Imperio. Por el momento la cosa no pasa a mayores, pero algunos ya han comenzado a hacer sonar las alarmas. Acá van algunas. La primera de las dos notas que siguen es de Francis Willkinson para Bloomberg:


Título: What Democratic Rage Would Look Like

Subtítulo: “I think we’re at the beginning of a soft civil war.”

Texto: It seems, maybe, that President Donald Trump has abandoned his policy of separating children from their immigrant parents and warehousing them in detention facilities. But the conflict over the policy has been, among other things, starkly clarifying.

The cruelty, accompanied by the lies deployed to excuse it, further inflamed political passions and sharpened the divide between Republicans, who support the president, and Democrats, who detest him.

It feels as though another political Rubicon was crossed.

"I think we're at the beginning of a soft civil war," political scientist Thomas Schaller said in a telephone interview. "I don't know if the country gets out of it whole."

The heightened conflict of recent weeks led to more ominous rhetoric — anyone else notice the abundance of Nazi references from sane people? — and more definitive, unequivocal acts. Former Republican strategist Steve Schmidt renounced his party of 29 years this week and pledged to vote for Democrats until decency returns to the GOP.

Law professor and blogger Orin Kerr, perhaps sensing the ugly turn in the air, tweeted: "Few things are more corrosive in politics than the conviction that you have been wronged so much that you're justified in breaking all the rules to get even."

For years, Republicans have led the way in breaking rules — from taking the national debt hostage to usurping a Supreme Court seat. In a 2016 poll, almost three-quarters of Trump supporters, a group marked by grievances, agreed that the country needed a leader who would "break some rules," as did 57 percent of Republicans overall. Only 41 percent of Democrats agreed.

But Democrats can tire of rules, too. Lots of rules, after all, don't do Democrats any favors. The past two Republican presidencies were a product of the Electoral College, that useless appendix of American politics, overriding the popular vote. The Senate favors rural states over representative democracy. (Los Angeles County has a larger population than 42 states, each of which has two more senators than LA County has.) Seats in the House of Representatives are apportioned in such a lopsided way — due both to geography and gerrymandering — that Democrats must win far more than 50 percent of the collective vote to win a majority of the House.

Perhaps Democrats will nonetheless win control of the House in November, oversight of the Trump administration will commence and law-enforcement investigations will be unimpeded. The political system will snap back, partly at least, to where it was.

But partisan conflict, even under that scenario, will be intense, bordering on vicious. Trump has a large and committed propaganda apparatus to assist him. That apparatus has enormous influence with conservative voters, many of whom already feel they are waging a racial and religious war with their backs against a demographic wall.   

And what if Democrats fall short in November? Especially if Democratic candidates get more votes than Republicans but fail to gain control of at least one side of Congress?

Here's an easy prediction. Democrats will then experience rage — at Tea-Party levels or worse.

Speaking of the GOP, former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum said, "When highly committed parties strongly believe things that they cannot achieve democratically, they don't give up on their beliefs — they give up on democracy."

Democrats won't give up on democracy. It's too central to their identity, and their commitment to democratic norms and processes is also their point of greatest contrast with Trumpism.

Instead, Democrats will give up on conservatives. They will give up on Alabama and Mississippi, on Kansas and Nebraska. They will explore ways to divorce their culture, politics and economy from Trumpism and from their fellow Americans who support it.

I don't know exactly what that would look like. But liberals have a great deal of cultural, academic and economic heft, stretching from Hollywood to Harvard. Just this week, some Hollywood powerhouses flirted with leveraging their clout against the Trumpist Fox News. There are endless variations on such a power play. If Democrats opt to use their power more aggressively — breaking rules —Schaller's soft civil war hardly seems unlikely.



***


Por su parte, la siguiente nota de Glenn Harlan Reynolds, que hace referencia a la anterior, salió publicada estos días en USA Today:



Título: Is America headed toward a civil war? Sanders, Nielsen incidents show it has already begun

Texto: Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Kirstjen Nielsen experiences at restaurants suggest a 'soft' civil war is well underway. It will get worse unless we learn to stop hating each other.

The other day, author Tom Ricks asked whether we’re heading toward a civil war. "I don’t believe we’re to Kansas of the 1850s yet. But we seem to be lurching ... in that direction,” he wrote.

Ricks was commenting on “What Democratic rage would look like,” a Bloomberg opinion column that quotes political scientist Thomas Schaller as saying, "I think we're at the beginning of a soft civil war. ... I don't know if the country gets out of it whole."

That sounds pretty serious. The column by Francis Wilkinson presents a catalog of things Democrats are mad about — from the existence of the electoral college to Trump’s “propaganda apparatus” — and predicts that if Democrats lose the midterm elections, there will be hell to pay. (And Republicans, you know, could make a similar list of their own complaints.)

“I don't know exactly what that would look like," Wilkinson writes. "But liberals have a great deal of cultural, academic and economic heft, stretching from Hollywood to Harvard. Just this week, someHollywood powerhouses flirted with leveraging their clout against the Trumpist Fox News. There are endless variations on such a power play. If Democrats opt to use their power more aggressively — breaking rules — Schaller's soft civil war hardly seems unlikely.”


The civil war is already starting

Well, actually this sort of thing seems to be well underway. Hollywood has basically turned its products, and its award shows, into showcases for "the resistance." Americans are already sorting themselves into communities that are predominantly red or blue. And in heavily blue Washington, D.C., Trump staffers find that a lot of people don’t want to date them because of their politics.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was even kicked out of the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, because the owner and employees disliked her politics. This seems like a small thing, but it would have been largely unthinkable a generation ago.

And, in a somewhat less “soft” manifestation, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was bullied out of a restaurant by an angry anti-Trump mob, and a similar mob also showed up outside of her home.

Will it get worse? Probably. To have a civil war, soft or otherwise, takes two sides. But as pseudonymous tweeter Thomas H. Crown notes, it’s childishly easy in these days to identify people in mobs, and then to dispatch similar mobs to their homes and workplaces. Eventually, he notes, it becomes “protesters all the way down, and if we haven't yet figured out that can lead to political violence, we're dumb.”

Apparently, some of us are dumb or else want violence. As Crown warns, “We carefully erected civil peace to avoid this sort of devolution-to-a-mob. It is a great civilizational achievement and it is intensely fragile.” Yes, it is indeed fragile, and many people will miss it when it’s entirely gone.


Political contempt is the problem

Marriage counselors say that when a couple view one another with contempt, it’s a top indicator that the relationship is likely to fail. Americans, who used to know how to disagree with one another without being mutually contemptuous, seem to be forgetting this. And the news media, which promote shrieking outrage in pursuit of ratings and page views, are making the problem worse.

What would make things better? It would be nice if people felt social ties that transcend politics. Americans’ lives used to involve a lot more intermediating institutions — churches, fraternal organizations, neighborhoods — that crossed political lines. Those have shrunk and decayed, and in fact, for many people politics seems to have become a substitute for religion or fraternal organizations. If you find your identity in your politics, you’re not going to identify with people who don’t share them.

The rules of bourgeois civility also helped keep things in check, but of course those rules have been shredded for years. We may come to miss them.

America had one disastrous civil war, and those who fought it did a surprisingly good job of coming together afterward, realizing how awful it was to have a political divide that set brother against brother. Let us hope that we will not have to learn that lesson again in a similar fashion. 

Inmigrantes ilegales

El reciente caso de los niños inmigrantes ilegales separados de sus padres en los EEUU por las fuerzas migratorias ha conmocionado a una sociedad que no suele ponerse a pensar por qué se producen estos mismos fenómenos de inmigración en masa. Acá va una respuesta clarita; la dio William Blum en el sitio web Empire Report:



Título: Why Do They Flee?

Texto: USA illegal immigrantsThe current mass exodus of people from Central America to the United States, with the daily headline-grabbing stories of numerous children involuntarily separated from their parents, means it's time to remind my readers once again of one of the primary causes of these periodic mass migrations. 

Those in the US generally opposed to immigration make it a point to declare or imply that the United States does not have any legal or moral obligation to take in these Latinos. This is not true. The United States does indeed have the obligation because many of the immigrants, in addition to fleeing from drug violence, are escaping an economic situation in their homeland directly made hopeless by American interventionist policy. 

It's not that these people prefer to live in the United States. They'd much rather remain with their families and friends, be able to speak their native language at all times, and avoid the hardships imposed upon them by American police and other right-wingers. But whenever a progressive government comes to power in Latin America or threatens to do so, a government sincerely committed to fighting poverty, the United States helps to suppresses the movement and/or supports the country's right-wing and military in staging a coup. This has been the case in Guatemala, El Salvador, Mexico, Nicaragua and Honduras. 

The latest example is the June 2009 coup (championed by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) ousting the moderately progressive Manuel Zelaya of Honduras. The particularly severe increase in recent years in Honduran migration to the US is a direct result of the overthrow of Zelaya, whose crime was things like raising the minimum wage, giving subsidies to small farmers, and instituting free education. It is a tale told many times in Latin America: The downtrodden masses finally put into power a leader committed to reversing the status quo, determined to try to put an end to two centuries of oppression ... and before long the military overthrows the democratically-elected government, while the United States - if not the mastermind behind the coup - does nothing to prevent it or to punish the coup regime, as only the United States can punish; meanwhile Washington officials pretend to be very upset over this "affront to democracy" while giving major support to the coup regime.1 The resulting return to poverty is accompanied by government and right-wing violence against those who question the new status quo, giving further incentive to escape the country. 


Talk delivered by William Blum at the Left Forum in New York, June 2, 2018 

We can all agree I think that US foreign policy must be changed and that to achieve that, the mind - not to mention the heart and soul - of the American public must be changed. But what do you think is the main barrier to achieving such a change in the American mind? 

Each of you I'm sure has met many people who support American foreign policy, with whom you've argued and argued. You point out one horror after another, from Vietnam to Iraq to Libya; from bombings and invasions to torture. And nothing helps. Nothing moves these people. 

Now why is that? Do these people have no social conscience? Are they just stupid? I think a better answer is that they have certain preconceptions. Consciously or unconsciously, they have certain basic beliefs about the United States and its foreign policy, and if you don't deal with these basic beliefs you may as well be talking to a stone wall. 

The most basic of these basic beliefs, I think, is a deeply-held conviction that no matter what the US does abroad, no matter how bad it may look, no matter what horror may result, the government of the United States means well. American leaders may make mistakes, they may blunder, they may lie, they may even on many occasions cause more harm than good, but they do mean well. Their intentions are always honorable, even noble. Of that the great majority of Americans are certain. 

Frances Fitzgerald, in her famous study of American school textbooks, summarized the message of these books: "The United States has been a kind of Salvation Army to the rest of the world: throughout history it had done little but dispense benefits to poor, ignorant, and diseased countries. The U.S. always acted in a disinterested fashion, always from the highest of motives; it gave, never took." 

And Americans genuinely wonder why the rest of the world can't see how benevolent and self-sacrificing America has been. Even many people who take part in the anti-war movement have a hard time shaking off some of this mindset; they march to spur America - the America they love and worship and trust - they march to spur this noble America back onto its path of goodness. 

Many of the citizens fall for US government propaganda justifying its military actions as often and as naively as Charlie Brown falling for Lucy's football. 

The American people are very much like the children of a Mafia boss who do not know what their father does for a living, and don't want to know, but then they wonder why someone just threw a firebomb through the living room window. 

This basic belief in America's good intentions is often linked to "American exceptionalism". Let's look at just how exceptional America has been. Since the end of World War 2, the United States has:


-Attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically-elected.
-Dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries.
-Attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.
-Attempted to suppress a populist or nationalist movement in 20 countries.
-Grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries.


Led the world in torture; not only the torture performed directly by Americans upon foreigners, but providing torture equipment, torture manuals, lists of people to be tortured, and in-person guidance by American teachers, especially in Latin America.
This is indeed exceptional. No other country in all of history comes anywhere close to such a record. But it certainly makes it very difficult to believe that America means well. 

So the next time you're up against a stone wall ... ask the person what the United States would have to do in its foreign policy to lose his or her support. What for this person would finally be TOO MUCH. Chances are the US has already done it. 

Keep in mind that our precious homeland, above all, seeks to dominate the world. For economic reasons, nationalistic reasons, ideological, Christian, and for other reasons, world hegemony has long been America's bottom line. And let's not forget the powerful Executive Branch officials whose salaries, promotions, agency budgets and future well-paying private sector jobs depend upon perpetual war. These leaders are not especially concerned about the consequences for the world of their wars. They're not necessarily bad people; but they're amoral, like a sociopath is. 

Take the Middle East and South Asia. The people in those areas have suffered horribly because of Islamic fundamentalism. What they desperately need are secular governments, which have respect for different religions. And such governments were actually instituted in the recent past. But what has been the fate of those governments? 

Well, in the late 1970s through much of the 1980s, Afghanistan had a secular government that was relatively progressive, with full rights for women, which is hard to believe, isn't it? But even a Pentagon report of the time testified to the actuality of women's rights in Afghanistan. And what happened to that government? The United States overthrew it, allowing the Taliban to come to power. So keep that in mind the next time you hear an American official say that we have to remain in Afghanistan for the sake of the women. 

After Afghanistan came Iraq, another secular society, under Saddam Hussein. And the United States overthrew that government as well, and now the country has its share of crazed and bloody jihadists and fundamentalists; and women who are not covered up properly are sometimes running a serious risk. 

Next came Libya; again, a secular country, under Moammar Gaddafi, who, like Saddam Hussein, had a tyrant side to him but could in important ways be benevolent and do some marvelous things. Gaddafi, for example, founded the African Union and gave the Libyan people the highest standard of living in Africa. So, of course, the United States overthrew that government as well. In 2011, with the help of NATO, we bombed the people of Libya almost every day for more than six months. 

Can anyone say that in all these interventions, or in any of them, the United States of America meant well? 

When we attack Iran, will we mean well? Will we have the welfare of the Iranian people at heart? I suggest you keep such thoughts in mind the next time you're having a discussion or argument with a flag-waving American. 


In Case You Haven't Noticed 

No evidence of "Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election" has yet been presented. And we still await even a believable explanation of how the supposedly advanced American nation of 138 million voters could be so crucially influenced by a bunch of simplistic, often-crude, postings on Facebook and elsewhere on the Internet. 

In May, the House Intelligence Committee began releasing the text of numerous of these postings as evidence of Russian interference. The postings dealt with both sides of many issues, including football players who knelt during the national anthem to bring attention to issues of racism, and pro- and anti-Trump and Clinton messages. Most did not even mention Trump or Clinton; and many were sent out before Trump was even a candidate. 

So what did any of this have to do with swaying the result of the election? The committee did not say. However, Cong. Adam Schiff (Calif.), the top Democrat on the committee, stated: "They sought to harness Americans' very real frustrations and anger over sensitive political matters in order to influence American thinking, voting and behavior. The only way we can begin to inoculate ourselves against a future attack is to see first-hand the types of messages, themes and imagery the Russians used to divide us." 

Aha! So that's it, dividing us! Imagine that - the American people, whom we all know are living in blissful harmony and fraternity without any noticeable anger or hatred toward each other, would become divided! Damn those Russkis! 

Many of the Facebook postings were done well after the presidential election. That alone should have made the congressmen think that perhaps the ads had nothing to do with the US election, but that is not what they wanted to think. 

This all lends credence to the suggestion that what actually lay behind the events was a so-called "click-bait" scheme wherein certain individuals earned money based on the number of times a particular website is accessed. The mastermind behind this scheme is reported to be a Russian named Yevgeny Prigozhin of the Internet Research Agency of St. Petersburg, which is referred to by the House committee as "Kremlin-sponsored", without explanation.2 

The organization has been named in an indictment issued by special counsel Robert Mueller's investigating committee, but as the Washington Post reported: "The indictment does not accuse the Russian government of any involvement in the scheme, nor does it claim that it succeeded in swaying any votes."3 

In the new Cold War, as in the old one, the powers-that-be in America seldom miss an opportunity to make Russia look bad, even to the point of farce. Evidence is no longer required. Accusation is sufficient. 


Another charming example of American exceptionalism 

The Washington Post coverage of the football World Cup in Russia couldn't allow all the joy and good vibes to go unchallenged of course. So they found "a pipe worker named Alexander" who had a joke to tell: "An adviser comes to Putin and says, 'I have good news and bad news. The good news is that you were elected president. The bad news is that no one voted for you.'" 

Now let's imagine an American adviser coming to President Trump and saying: "I have good news and bad news. The good news is that you were elected president. The bad news is that you didn't get the most votes." 

This has now happened five times in the United States, five times that the "winner" received fewer popular votes than any of his opponents; this insult to democracy and common sense has now happened twice within the most recent five presidential elections. 

And I find the worst news is that a year and a half after Trump's election I haven't heard or read a word of anyone in the US Congress or a state legislature who has taken the first step in the process of modifying the US Constitution to finally do away with the stupid, completely outmoded Electoral College system. If it's such a good system, why doesn't the United States use it for local and state elections? Why doesn't it exist anywhere else in the world? Is it to be regarded as part of our beloved "American exceptionalism"? 


The Other "N" Word is Even More Prohibited 

The city of Seattle on June 12 voted to repeal a tax hike on large employers that it had instituted only weeks before. The new tax would have raised $48 million annually to combat Seattle's homelessness and affordable-housing crisis. The Seattle area has the third-largest homeless population in the country. 

The plan had passed the City Council unanimously but was fiercely opposed by Amazon.com and much of the city's business community. 

Many American cities are sincerely struggling to deal with this problem but are faced with similar insurmountable barriers. The leading causes of homelessness in the US are high rents and low salaries. A report released June 13 by the National Low Income Housing Coalition stated that there is nowhere in the country where someone working a full-time minimum-wage job could afford to rent a modest two-bedroom apartment. Not even in Arkansas, the state with the cheapest housing. More than 11.2 million families wind up spending more than half their paychecks on housing.4 

The cost of rent increases inexorably, year after year, regardless of tenants' income. Any improvement in the system has to begin with a strong commitment to radically restraining, if not completely eliminating, the landlords' profit motive. Otherwise nothing of any significance will change in society, and the capitalists who own the society - and their liberal apologists - can mouth one progressive-sounding platitude after another as their chauffeur drives them to the bank. 

But to what extent can landlords be forced to accept significantly less in rents? Very little can be done. It's the nature of the beast. Rent control in some American cities has slowed down the steady increases, but still leaving millions in constant danger of eviction or crippling deprivation. The only remaining solution is to "nationalize" real estate. 

Eliminating the profit motive in various sectors, or all sectors, in American society would run into a lot less opposition than one might expect. Consciously or unconsciously it's already looked down upon to a great extent by numerous individuals and institutions of influence. For example, judges frequently impose lighter sentences upon lawbreakers if they haven't actually profited monetarily from their acts. And they forbid others from making a profit from their crimes by selling book or film rights, or interviews. It must further be kept in mind that the great majority of Americans, like people everywhere, do not labor for profit, but for a salary. 

The citizenry may have drifted even further away from the system than all this indicates, for American society seems to have more trust and respect for "non-profit" organizations than for the profit-seeking kind. Would the public be so generous with disaster relief if the Red Cross were a regular profit-making business? Would the Internal Revenue Service allow it to be tax-exempt? Why does the Post Office give cheaper rates to non-profits and lower rates for books and magazines which don't contain advertising? For an AIDS test, do people feel more confident going to the Public Health Service or to a commercial laboratory? Why does "educational" or "public" television not have regular commercials? What would Americans think of peace-corps volunteers, elementary and high-school teachers, clergy, nurses, and social workers who demanded well in excess of $100 thousand per year? Would the public like to see churches competing with each other, complete with ad campaigns selling a New and Improved God? Why has American Airlines just declared "We have no desire to be associated with separating families, or worse, to profit from it." 


Notas:

1. See Mark Weisbrot, "Top Ten Ways You Can Tell Which Side The United States Government is On With Regard to the Military Coup in Honduras." Also see William Blum, Killing Hope, chapters on Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador.

2. Moon of Alabama, "Mueller Indictment - The 'Russian Influence' Is A Commercial Marketing Scheme", February 17, 2018

3. Washington Post, June 23, 2018

4. Washington Post, June 9 and 16, 2018

SCO: India y Pakistán

El ingreso de India y Pakistán a la Organización para la Cooperación de Shangai (SCO, sus siglas en inglés) va dando forma a una unión económica asiática que, a partir de ahora, incluye a 3.000 millones de habitantes. Occidente podría ir tomando nota de estos sucesos. La nota que sigue es de Martin Sieff para el sitio web Strategic Culture Foundation:



Título: The World Transformed And No One In America Noticed

Subtítulo: The world transformed and nobody in the West noticed.

Texto: India and Pakistan have joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The 17 year-old body since its founding on June 15, 2001 has quietly established itself as the main alliance and grouping of nations across Eurasia. Now it has expanded from six nations to eight, and the two new members are the giant nuclear-armed regional powers of South Asia, India, with a population of 1.324 billion and Pakistan, with 193.2 million people (both in 2016).

In other words, the combined population of the SCO powers or already well over 1.5 billion has virtually doubled at a single stroke.

The long-term global consequences of this development are enormous. It is likely to prove the single most important factor insuring peace and removing the threat of nuclear war over South Asia and from 20 percent of the human race. It now raises the total population of the world in the eight SCO nations to 40 percent, including one of the two most powerful thermonuclear armed nations (Russia) and three other nuclear powers (China, India and Pakistan).

This development is a diplomatic triumph especially for Moscow. Russia has been seeking for decades to ease its longtime close strategic ally India into the SCO umbrella. This vision was clearly articulated by one of Russia’s greatest strategic minds of the 20th century, former Premier and Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov, who died in 2015. In the past China quietly but steadfastly blocked the India’s accession, but with Pakistan, China’s ally joining at the same time, the influence of Beijing and Moscow is harmonized.

The move can only boost Russia’s already leading role in the diplomacy and national security of the Asian continent. For both Beijing and Delhi, the road for good relations with each other and the resolution of issues such as sharing the water resources of the Himalayas and investing in the economic development of Africa now runs through Moscow. President Vladimir Putin is ideally placed to be the regular interlocutor between the two giant nations of Asia.

The move also must be seen as a most significant reaction by India to the increasing volatility and unpredictability of the United States in the global arena. In Washington and Western Europe, it is fashionable and indeed reflexively inevitable that this is entirely blamed on President Donald Trump.

But in reality this alarming trend goes back at least to the bombing of Kosovo by the United States and its NATO allies in 1998, defying the lack of sanction in international law for any such action at the time because other key members of the United Nations Security Council opposed it.

Since then, under four successive presidents, the US appetite for unpredictable military interventions around the world – usually bungled and open-ended – has inflicted suffering and instability on a wide range of nations, primarily in the Middle East (Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen) but also in Eurasia (Ukraine) and South Asia (Afghanistan).

The accession of both India and Pakistan to the SCO is also a stunning repudiation of the United States.

The US has been Pakistan’s main strategic ally and protector over the past more than 70 years since it achieved independence (Dean Acheson, secretary of state through the 1949-53 Truman administration was notorious for his racist contempt for all Indians, as well as for his anti-Semitism and hatred of the Irish).

US-Pakistan relations have steadily deteriorated even since the United States charged into Afghanistan in November 2001, but through it all, US policymakers have always taken for granted that Islamabad at the end of the day would “stay on the reservation” and ultimately dance to their tune.

The United States has courted India for 17 years since President Bill Clinton’s state visit in 2000, which I covered in his press party. Current Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed a Joint Session of Congress in 2016, the ultimate accolade of approval by the US political establishment for any foreign leader.

US policymakers and pundits have endlessly pontificated that India, as an English speaking democracy would become America‘s ideological and strategic partner in opposing the inevitable rise of China on the world stage. It turned out to be a fantasy.

During the era of the Cold War, the “loss” of any nation of the size and standing of India or Pakistan to a rival or just independent ideological camp and security grouping would have provoked waves of shock, hurt, rage and even openly expressed fear in the US media.

However, what we have seen following this latest epochal development is far more extraordinary. The decisions by Delhi and Islamabad have not been praised, condemned or even acknowledged in the mainstream of US political and strategic debate. They have just been entirely ignored. To see the leaders and opinion-shapers of a major superpower that still imagines it is the dominant hyper-power conduct its affairs in this way is potentially worrying and alarming.

The reality is that we live in a multipolar world – and that we have clearly done so at least since 2001. However, this obvious truth will continue to be denied in Washington, London and Paris in flat defiance of the abundantly clear facts.