Brexit y el elefante en el bazar

Acá va un inusual análisis sobre el posible significado del “Brexit” para el Reino Unido, la unión Europea y la integridad de la NATO. La tesis del politólogo anglosajón Norman Pollak, aparecida anteayer en Counterpunch, es que la desintegración de Europa implicará repensar la NATO, instrumento "defensivo" (en realidad, ariete contra Rusia) que siempre estuvo entre bambalinas en el proceso de integración. La estrategia antirrusa del Imperio podría entrar, en consecuencia, en una fase de descomposición.

Título: Fissures in World Capitalism: the British Vote

Texto: The collapse of world markets is telling evidence of capitalism’s stake in maintaining a renewed Cold War, indispensable to its logic of global confrontation as a sustaining developmental force and dependence on a disproportionate, heavy-laden defense sector for America and drawing in its allies. The European Union, historically, was first and foremost the economic underpinning to solidify NATO, itself from first to last an obviously military alliance. Together, EU and NATO represented America’s stalking horse in its posture of world intervention and counterrevolution. Obama’s “pivot” to the Far East, his Pacific-first geostrategic framework, complements and extends the US geopolitical vision of global, unilateral dominance—military, ideological, economic.

With Britain’s vote, we see a magnificent—even if Britons voted on other grounds—objective determination to put a roadblock into the American Grand Design of universalizing its own brand of monopoly capitalism (and heading off a projected nuclear holocaust), in which systemic financialization erodes and supplants the US manufacturing base via outsourcing, foreign investment, and securing predictable sources of raw materials, including of course oil.

Consternation and worse reigns supreme in both the capitalist and defense communities, the architectural splendor of simultaneous containment, even isolation, of Russia and China, now on hold, yet hardly surrendered, as America, for its own self-identity, reified the idea of the Pervasive Enemy to accompany its doctrine of Permanent War. Blowback, after all, has some validity, as America’s warmongers pressed too far: Obama’s modernization of the nuclear arsenal, provocative incursion in the South China Sea, pressures on NATO to occupy the borderlands of Russia. Whether or not inadvertent, Britons have thwarted the US move toward the greater fascistization of a once-democratic polity, yet no longer recognizable as such.

How will America react to the British vote? Probably by intensifying, as is already happening, its Cold War rhetoric, and translating that into more aggressive policies of containment vis-a-vis a growing list of enemies presumed waiting in the wings. Counterterrorism, which has become a catch-all for creating a mindset for ideological conformity, will be a useful instrument for confusing radicalism and terrorism, in order to suppress the former as in Latin America and Africa. Secretly, I suspect, American policy makers hoped for the Britain-EU outcome, so as to beef up European defenses, continue the rearming (encouragement of a nuclear capability) of Abe’s Japan, and feel relief in pursuing the abominable policy of armed drone targeted assassination.

My Comment in The New York Times on Erlanger’s article, “Britain Votes to Leave E.U.,” follows:

Delighted! There has been such evasiveness about the meaning of the campaign. British exit from the EU is a vote AGAINST the renewed Cold War. The elephant in the room is NATO. Obviously, the EU is its economic counterpart, and was never conceived in isolation as a mere trading bloc.

With Britain out, hopefully others will follow, the EU will tighten its ship as an economic union and NATO, now presently at Russia’s borders, will be forced to rethink its dangerous course.

Britain did the right thing, even if only intuitively; for only in the defense establishment of the West was the true nature of the vote, and its implications, discussed. Yes, if NATO unravels, along with an EU unravelling, the world will be a step closer to peace and the avoidance of a nuclear holocaust.

I’m ashamed that Corbyn didn’t see this, or worse, did, but has been less than frank. Now, Britain, for the first time since the end of World War II, can break its dependence on the US and perhaps,just perhaps, lead the world on a middle course away from bipolarization.

I am thrilled by the results–the ticking clock toward WAR has been slowed down, until perhaps good sense can prevail.

Y el perdedor es...

En la nota que sigue, el analista William Engdahl señala que el gran perdedor tras la guerra de precios desatada por Arabia Saudita en 2014, con el objetivo de debilitar las finanzas de Rusia, es… Arabia Saudita. Quién lo hubiera dicho, chicos! Si todo marchaba sobre ruedas!

Título: Saudis Have Lost the Oil War

Texto: Poor Saudi Arabia. They don’t realize it yet but they have lost their oil war. The war in its current phase began in September, 2014, when the dying King Abdullah and his Minister of Petroleum, Ali Al-Naimi, told US Secretary of State John Kerry they would gladly join Washington in plunging world oil prices. It became clear the main Saudi motive was to eliminate the new growing challenge to their control of world oil markets by forcing prices so low that the US shale oil industry would soon go bankrupt. For Kerry and Washington the focus, of course, was to economically cripple Russia in the wake of new US sanctions by damaging their revenues from export of oil. Neither achieved their aim.

Now, however, it’s clear that Saudi Arabia, which along with Russia is the world’s largest oil producer, is going down a dark road to ruin. Washington seems more than happy to cheer them on.

The long-term Washington strategy since at least 1992, well before September 11, 2001 and the Washington’s declaration of its War on Terror, has been by hook or by crook, by color revolution or outright invasion, to directly, with US “boots-on-the-ground,” militarily control the vast oil reserves and output of the major Arab OPEC oil countries. This is a long-standing institutional consensus, regardless who is President

Cheney: ‘Where the Prize Ultimately Lies’

To appreciate the long-term strategic planning behind today’s chaotic wars in the Middle East there is no better person to look at than Dick Cheney and his statements as CEO of the then-world largest oilfield services company. In 1998, four years after becoming head of Halliburton, Cheney gave a speech to a group of Texas oilmen. Cheney told the annual meeting of the Panhandle Producers and Royalty Owners Association in reference to finding oil abroad, “You’ve got to go where the oil is. I don’t think about it [political volatility] very "much.”

During his first five years as CEO of Halliburton, Cheney took the company from annual revenues of $5.7 billion to $14.9 billion by 1999. Halliburton foreign oilfield operations went from 51% to almost 70% of revenues in that time. Dick Cheney clearly looked at the global oil picture back then more than most.

In September 1999 Cheney delivered a speech to the annual meeting of an elite group of international oilmen in London. One section is worth quoting at length:

“By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from?

Governments and the national oil companies are obviously controlling about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow.”

The PNAC Warplan

Now let’s follow that bouncing ball sometimes called Dick Cheney a bit further. In September 2000 Cheney signed his name before his selection as George W. Bush’s vice presidential running-mate, to an unusual think-tank report that became the de facto blueprint of US military and foreign policy to the present. Another signer of that report was Don Rumsfeld, who would become Defense Secretary under the Cheney-Bush presidency (the order reflects the reality–w.e.)

The think-tank, Project for a New American Century (PNAC), was financed by the US military-industrial complex, supported by a gaggle of other Washington neo-conservative think tanks such as RAND. The PNAC board also included neo-conservative Paul Wolfowitz, later to be Rumsfeld’s Deputy Secretary of Defense; ‘Scooter Libby,’ later Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff. It included Victoria Nuland’s husband, Robert Kagan. (Notably Victoria Nuland herself went on in 2001 to become Cheney’s principal deputy foreign policy adviser). It included Cheney-Bush ambassador to US-occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, and hapless presidential candidate Jeb Bush.

Cheney’s PNAC report explicitly called on the future US President to remove Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and militarily take control of the Middle East a full year before 911 gave the Cheney-Bush Administration the excuse Cheney needed to invade Iraq.

The PNAC report stated that its recommendations were based on the report in 1992 of then-Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney: “In broad terms, we saw the project as building upon the defense strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department in the waning days of the Bush Administration. The Defense Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992 provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests.”

At a time when Iran as a putative nuclear “threat” was not even on the map, PNAC advocated Ballistic Missile Defense: “DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSES to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for US power projection around the world. (emphasis added)

In the report Cheney’s cronies further noted that, “The military’s job during the Cold War was to deter Soviet expansionism. Today its task is to secure and expand the “zones of democratic peace; (sic)” to deter the rise of a new great-power competitor; defend key regions of Europe, East Asia and the Middle East; and to preserve American preeminence…”

The Cheney PNAC document of 2000 went on: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.“

The quote is worth reading at least twice.

A year after the PNAC report was issued, then-General Wesley Clark, no peacenik to be sure, in a March 2007 speech before the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco, told of a Pentagon discussion he had had shortly after the strikes of September 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center and Pentagon with someone he knew in Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s office.

Ten days after the 911 attacks, Clark was told by the former Pentagon associate, a general, that the Pentagon planned to invade Iraq. This was when Osama bin Laden, a bitter foe of the secular Baathist Socialist, Saddam, was being blamed for the terror attacks, and there was no 911 link to Iraq’s government. Clark related his conversation that day with the general:

“We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.”

“I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

These were all wars, or attempted wars from the US for military control of the most abundant proven oil regions of the world, what Cheney in 1999 described as, “where the prize ultimately lies.”

Since that time, the US State Department and a host of government-tied NGO’s such as National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House, Soros’ Open Society Foundations and others, along with the CIA, have launched the US-orchestrated (“lead from behind” is the current slogan) Arab Spring series of “democratic” regime coups across the Middle East, including Hillary Clinton’s war against Qaddafi in Libya, against Bashar al Assad in oil-and-gas-rich Syria, in Iraq yet again, Egypt and other oil or gas states of the Middle East, including an failed 2009 Color Revolution, the so-called “Green Revolution” in Iran.

US Agenda in the Mideast

The Washington Pentagon and US State Department agenda today in the Middle East has not varied one bit from that described by General Clark about his September 20 2001 Pentagon talk. It has expanded, but the aim is the same: full US military control of the heart of world oil flows, the Persian Gulf and beyond. As Henry Kissinger is alleged to have said during the first oil shock of the arly 1970’s (which he was instrumental in making happen), “If you control the oil, you control entire nations or groups of nations.”

Here we come to the September, 2014 Kerry-Abdullah deal. Washington ultimately has her eye on controlling the Saudi monarchy and its vast oil reserves, along with those of Kuwait and other Gulf Cooperation Council US “allies.” Britain, whom Charles de Gaulle referred to as “perfidious Albion,” is not the only perfidious world power.

After major surprises in their 2014 strategy of killing Russia’s oil revenue with Saudi help, when their own booming oil shale industry began to face major company bankruptcies, Washington was forced to recalculate. When Russia made its surprise entry into Syria on invitation of her legitimately elected President, Assad, on September 30, 2015, Washington was forced again to recalculate. Now the new plan seems to be to give Saudi Arabia “enough rope to hang herself” as that Soviet hangman, V. I. Lenin, was fond of saying.

When Prince Salman, the de facto Saudi King, fired the architect of Abdullah’s oil strategy to destroy US shale and regain world oil hegemony earlier this year and replaced him by ARAMCO chairman, Khalid Al-Falih, someone said to be more compliant with the 31-year-old erratic Prince Salman, Khalid immediately announced no plan to alter the low price high-production strategy of the Kingdom in order to kill the US shale rivals. That, despite mounting evidence the world oil market had undergone profound change since 2014.

It seems, however, that the US shale producers are far more resilient than the wily Prince Salman has calculated. On April 26, in testimony before the US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee’s “Hearing to examine challenges and opportunities for oil and gas development in different price environments,” Suzanne Minter, Manager, Oil and Gas Consulting at Platts’ Analytics presented pretty interesting details that help explain why the volume of US shale oil has not yet collapsed despite a fall in global oil prices from around $103 a barrel in September 2014 to a range of $40-50 a barrel today. Most shale projects were to have gone under at prices below $65 or thereabouts.

In her testimony, Minter described extraordinary technology changes that have allowed US shale oil producers to survive and more. She noted that since 2012 US oil production grew by 57% from 6.1 million barrels per day (mmb/d) to a peak of 9.7 MMB/d in April of 2015. Almost all was due to new shale oil output. That’s 3.6 million barrels of US shale oil a day, a huge volume for the world oil market, including Saudi Arabia, to deal with.

Minter described the effects of huge technology improvements using the Texas Eagle Ford Basin shale region as an example: “Currently the Eagle Ford accounts for 13% of US crude production. In October, 2014 the rig count in the Eagle Ford peaked at 209 rigs. At that time, the average initial production (IP) rate for a well in the Eagle Ford was 436 barrels of crude per day and the average time it took to drill a well was 15 days. At that time, those 209 rigs, should they have remained in the basin, and continued to drill at that rate of one well every 15 days, would have ultimately produced 3.3 MMB/d of crude in the Eagle Ford by 2020.”

Then she describes the technology gains in production as well as time to drill and how many wells needed to get the same shale oil output. It’s impressive:

“In 2015 as producers cut their rig fleets, the rigs remaining now sit on the best known acreage. Resultantly, the average IP rate in the Eagle Ford increased by 50% to 662 barrels of crude per day and average drill times have fallen by 25% to 11 days. As a result, the current rig count of 49 in the Eagle Ford could theoretically hold production flat at the current estimated level of 1 MMb/d, so long as those 49 rigs stay in the basin through 2020 and continue to drill one well each every 11 days with an IP rate of 662 barrels each. This also means, that when recovery occurs, the Eagle Ford would only require 125 rigs to create the 3.3 MMB/d previously projected by 2020 that had once required 209 rigs to produce.“

Minter continued, “The time and the rate in which this energy entered the market appears to have stressed the system in ways unimagined” making the US producer, “the marginal supplier and price setter into the global market.” The Platts oil expert continued, “Drilled but uncompleted wells hold reserves that can be brought on line in a short period of time, thereby defining the concept of spare capacity. It is plausible to believe that US spare capacity may be close to rivaling OPEC’s current spare capacity. However, we believe that the prices needed to incentivize the US producer to complete their drilled but uncompleted wells may be much lower than global competitors believe or would like it to be. (emphasis added). Minter concluded, “Texas alone could introduce 1.25 MMB/d of oil into the global market and can do so in a short space of time – on average just 30 days. That’s more oil than the Saudis have threatened to flood the market with.”

So poor Prince Salman and his Royals may soon face an internal revolt by jealous and angry Royal rivals for destroying the finances of the once-super-rich Saudi Kingdom. The only fly in the US shale oil soup, however, is how long the shale oil bonanza can last. Shale oil reservoir depletion rates are significantly faster that with conventional wells. Some estimate that shale volumes in the US will drop dramatically, despite the new technologies, within five or so years. But by then Washington’s foolish Pentagon planners hope to have locked the entire Persian Gulf into their military grip, including the foolish Saudis. Both sides have a mad agenda.

Brexit (2)

Un aspecto poco comentado por la prensa internacional el día de hoy es cómo queda la política británica en vista del resultado del Brexit en el Reino "Unido". La siguiente nota de Raúl Ilargi Meijer para el sitio web The Automatic Earth (http://www.theautomaticearth.com) se explaya un poco sobre el tema: 


Título: Brexit: The System Cannot Hold

Texto: Well, they did it. A majority of Britons made clear they’re so fed up with David Cameron and everything he says or does, including promoting the EU, that they voted against that EU. They detest Cameron much more than they like Nigel Farage or Boris Johnson. It seems that everyone has underestimated that.

Cameron just announced he’s stepping down. And that points to a very large hole in the ground somewhere in London town. Because going through a list of potential leaders, you get the strong impression there are none left. Not to run the country, and not to negotiate anything with Brussels. Which has a deep leadership -credibility- hole of itself, even though the incumbents are completely blind to that.

But first Britain. The Leave victory was as much a vote against Chancellor George Osborne as it was against Cameron. So Osborne is out as potential leader of the Conservatives. Boris Johnson? Not nearly enough people like him, and he fumbled his side of the Leave campaign so badly his credibility, though perhaps not being fully shot, is far too much of an uncertainty for the Tories to enter the upcoming inevitable general elections with.

Who else is there? Michael Gove? Absolute suicide. Likeability factor of zero Kelvin. That bus these guys drove around which proclaimed they could get £350 million extra a year for the NHS health care system in case of a Brexit will come back to haunt all of them. Just about the first thing Farage said earlier when the win became clear, was that the £350 million was a mistake.

I guess you could mention Theresa May, who apparently wants the post, but she’s an integral part of the Cameron clique and can’t be presented as the fresh start the party so badly needs.

Talking about Farage, who’s not Tory, but Ukip, he’s done what he set out to do, and that means the end of the line for him. He could, and will, call for a national unity government, but there is no such unity. He got voted out of a job today -he is/was a member of the European Parliament- and Ukip has only one seat in the British parliament, so he’s a bit tragic today. There is no place nor need for a UK Independence Party when the UK is already independent.

Then there’s Labour, who failed to reach their own constituency, which subsequently voted with Farage et al, and who stood right alongside Cameron for Remain, with ‘leader’ Jeremy Corbyn reduced to the role of a curiously mumbling movie extra. So Corbyn is out.
Shadow finance minister John McDonnell has aspirations, but he’s a firm Remain guy as well, and that happens to have been voted down. Labour has failed in a terrible fashion, and they better acknowledge it or else. But they already had a very hard time just coming up with Corbyn last time around, and the next twist won’t be any easier.

Cameron, Osborne, Corbyn, they have all failed to connect with their people. This is not some recent development. Nor is it a British phenomenon, support for traditional parties is crumbling away everywhere in the western world.

The main reason for this is a fast fading economy, which all politicians just try to hide from their people, but which those same people get hit by every single day.

A second reason is that politicians of traditional parties are not perceived as standing up for either their people nor their societies, but as a class in themselves.

In Britain, there now seems to be a unique opportunity to organize a movement like (Unidos) Podemos in Spain, the European Union’s next big headache coming up in a few days. Podemos is proof that this can be done fast, and there’s a big gaping hole to fill.

Much of what’s next in politics may be pre-empted in the markets. Though it’s hard to say where it all leads, this morning there’s obviously a lot of panic, short covering etc going on, fact is that as I write this, Germany’s DAX index loses 6% (-16.3% YoY), France’s CAC is down 7.7% (-18.5%) and Spain’s IBEX no less than 10.3% (-30%). Ironically, the losses in Britain’s FTSE are ‘only’ 4.5% (-11%).

These are numbers that can move entire societies, countries and political systems. But we’ll see. Currency moves are already abating, and on the 22nd floor of a well-protected building in Basel, all of the relevant central bankers in the world are conspiring to buy whatever they can get their hands on. Losses will be big but can perhaps be contained up to a point, and tomorrow is Saturday.

By the way, from a purely legal point of view, Cameron et al could try and push aside the referendum, which is not legally binding. I got only one thing on that: please let them try.
As an aside, wouldn’t it be a great irony if the England soccer (football) team now go on to win the Euro Cup? Or even Wales, which voted massively against the EU?

Finally, this was of course not a vote about the -perhaps not so- United Kingdom, it was a vote about the EU. But the only thing we can expect from Brussels and all the 27 remaining capitals is damage control and more high handedness. It’s all the Junckers and Tusks and Schäubles and Dijsselbloems are capable of anymore.

But it’s they, as much as David Cameron, who were voted down today. And they too should draw their conclusions, or this becomes not even so much about credibility as it becomes about sheer relevance.

Even well before there will be negotiations with whoever represents Britain by the time it happens, the Brussels court circle will be confronted with a whole slew of calls for referendums in other member states. The cat is out of Pandora’s bag, and the genie out of her bottle.

Many of the calls will come from the far-right, but it’s Brussels itself that created the space for these people to operate in. I’ve said it before, the EU does not prevent the next battle in Europe, it will create it. EC head Donald Tusk’s statement earlier today was about strengthening the union with the remaining 27 nations. As if Britain were the only place where people want out…

Holland, France, Denmark, Italy, Spain, Hungary, they will all have calls for referendums. Greece already had one a year ago. The center cannot hold. Nor can the system. If referendums were held in all remaining 27 EU member states, the union would be a lot smaller the next morning. The Unholy Union depends on people not getting a say.

The overwhelming underlying principle that we see at work here is that centralization is dead, because the economy has perished. Or at least the growth of the economy has, which is the same in a system that relies on perpetual growth to ‘function’.

But that is something we can be sure no politician or bureaucrat or economist is willing to acknowledge. They’re all going to continue to claim that their specific theories and plans are capable of regenerating the growth the system depends on. Only to see them fail.

It’s high time for something completely different, because we’re in a dead end street. If the Brexit vote shows us one thing, it’s that. But that is not what people -wish to- see.
Unfortunately, the kinds of wholesale changes needed now hardly ever take place in a peaceful manner. I guess that’s my main preoccupation right now.

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned

Yeats

Brexit

Bueno, hay movimientos espasmódicos en el mundo de las finanzas. Nerrrrrrvios en las cities de todo el planeta. Así cerraban hoy los mercados europeos el día después del Brexit: Japón casi ocho puntos abajo, Alemania casi siete. Así eran los títulos de sitios web como Zero Hedge el día de hoy:



"Worse Than Lehman" - European Bank Bloodbath Sparks Dollar Funding Crisis

For European banks, today is worse than Lehman with a 13%-plus collapse in the broad index. The major banks - like Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank - have crashed over 15% to record lows as "Lehman moments" loom. This crisis prompted massive demand for USDollars, sending basis swaps (and other funding vehicles) spiking which it appears is why The Fed said it was ready to provide liquidity.

The broad EU banking system is collapsing...

Led by the majors...

Raising "Lehman moment" alarms again...

And sparking desperate demand for USDollars...

And Sterling was sold hard into the European close (down 200 pips)

As counterparty risk looms again...

Which explains why The Fed stepped up already with swap lines...

Earlier today we said that it was inevitable that the Fed would join the world's other central bankers in providing backstops to global markets, the only question is whether it would take place before or after the open. We now have the answer. Before.

The Federal Reserve is carefully monitoring developments in global financial markets, in cooperation with other central banks, following the results of the U.K. referendum on membership in the European Union. The Federal Reserve is prepared to provide dollar liquidity through its existing swap lines with central banks, as necessary, to address pressures in global funding markets, which could have adverse implications for the U.S. economy.

Because free, impartial, efficient, and unmanipulated markets.  Also we can finally stop holding our breath on those two Fed rate hikes which the FOMC anticipates in 2016.

And then Lagarde confrmed:

LAGARDE REITERATES SUPPORT FOR C.BANK LIQUIDITY READINESS

***

British Money-Changer Imposes Capital Controls, Suspends Online FX Transactions

Yesterday it was physical lines as people 'queued' for hours to exchange their pounds sterling for anything else.

Perhaps more should have done the same and exchanged their far more valuable - yesterday - pounds sterling, than waiting until today's historic devaluation.

Not only that, but they may not be able to do it today. As The FT reports UK-based travel group Thomas Cook has suspended its online currency purchases and imposed a £1000 limit on transactions at its high street branches due to an unforseen demand for euros, a soft form of capital controls as FX service providers run out of "harder" currencies.

Having alreay warned yesterday that...

  “There’s been a surge in customers buying euros in the last six weeks and euro sales have been consistently strong, building day by day.”

... The leading money-changer's statement added today:

We have temporarily suspended our travel money website following unprecedented customer demand for foreign currency overnight and this morning.

We apologise to all customers affected.

Our immediate priority is to ensure that we have enough currency in store to fulfill outstanding orders.

 We hope to be back up and running as soon as possible.
Is this the beginning of more than just "soft" capital controls?


***

Dow Opens Down 500 Points To "Jo Cox" Lows - Largest Gap-Down Since 1986

The bounce' gap from last Friday has been filled...

... Bringing us to the largest gap-down in the S&P since 1986:


***

A New Balance Of Power In The Gold Market

With precious metals soaring on safe haven buying...

We thought John Rubino's thoughts (via DollarCollapse.com) were particularly prescient...

Gold analyst Michael Ballanger just posted an article noting how much things have changed — perhaps for the better — in the gold market. Here’s an excerpt:


Commercial Traders Have Just Gone Over the Top

(24hGold) – With Friday’s Commitment of Traders Report, the ridiculous has just metastasized into the sublime as the Commercial Cretins have just gone “over the top” and added another 5.4M “ounces” to their synthetic gold short position. At 298,077 contracts declared short, they are now carrying the largest short position in Crimex history. The scary part is that these figures don’t include the big rise in open interest yesterday and you just KNOW that it ballooned out due to more Cartel shorting.

While these numbers are synonymous with prior tops like in 2008 and 2011, the difference today lies in two realities: 1) The Shanghai Gold Exchange is keeping the Crimex and LBMA (London Bullion Market Association) thieves at bay through some voracious arbitrage, and 2) Raw demand from the Far East and from Western investment pools are keeping inventories tight. If this was back in 2011-2015, the market would be limit down on Monday as the criminals have their way with us. However, this is a NEW bull market and dips are to be bought while holding onto your core position for dear life as I have been trying to do with my GDXJ (Market Vectors Junior Gold Miners ETF) position. I can’t tell you how many times I have had to lock myself in the wine cellar during trading hours because the temptation to “SELL!” was so overwhelming.

The bullion banksters and their well-armed trading desks have now arrived into somewhat of a “pickle” in that the movie reel that they thought would play out with the bad guys winning and gold following through to the downside on what should have been another Freaky Friday where gold and silver get clobbered. Since it DIDN’T, they now have to await selling from the Asian markets in order to give them the slightest chance of a downside flush this coming week.

What IS a certainty is that the PMs are trading in a totally bizarre fashion, and anyone who fails to pay attention to Commercials are indeed paying no attention to “that man behind the curtain” who most certainly is pulling levers and spinning dials frantically in order to secure the desired effect while being short nearly 30 Moz of phony, synthetic gold that closed within a whisker of a new closing high for the move. There must be carloads of Pepto and adult diapers being handed out to the Cretins as the wait in agony for the Sunday night opening.

Let’s expand on that “voracious arbitrage” idea: The Shanghai exchange is a physical market, where buyers go to get actual gold and silver. So prices there are set by sellers with metal to move and buyers who want to take delivery. On the Western paper exchanges, in contrast, the players mostly gamble on price movements using futures contracts with very little actual metal changing hands.
But if the price set in the Shanghai physical market is higher than in the paper markets — reflecting the different aims of the respective sets of traders — then it becomes profitable for holders of long futures contracts in the West to demand delivery of the metal, ship it to China and sell it at the higher Shanghai price.

Once this process gets going it will quickly clear out the inventories of the Western exchanges, leaving nothing for future arbitrageurs. The exchanges will then force those wanting delivery to accept cash instead, in effect defaulting on their promises. Then it’s game over, with the big futures manipulators no longer a factor in pricing.

Presumably from then on gold and silver prices will reflect rising physical demand in the East (and in the West from individual stackers). And gold will begin its long climb to the $10,000 or so price necessary to balance the amount of fiat currency created during the inflation of the Money Bubble.

This phase change could take a while, creating the possibility of some more nasty corrections while the paper players retain the upper hand. And once it gets going it could be steady and relatively peaceful or a “punctuated equilibrium” move where the failure of an exchange or bullion bank sends gold from $2,000 one day to $6,000 the next. Either way, the dominance of physical exchanges implies that much higher prices are coming.


***

Historic Volume Surge Forces Deutsche, Morgan Stanley To Shut Down Dark Pools

Following weeks of declining volume due to fears of an "unfavorable" Brexit outcome, it was only logical that the same "unfavorable"  Brexit outcome would result in a historic surge in pent up volume. And, as Bloomberg reports, "a turbulent start to the open of the London market propelled trading volume as much as 700 percent higher than normal, while at least one dark pool was suspended as investors around the globe digested U.K. voters’ decision to leave the European Union."

Think August 24 in the US, only this time in Europe: while the London Stock Exchange was functioning properly,many stocks took longer than normal to start trading amid a spike in volatility.

“A number of stocks were going into volatility halts at the open,” Mark Hemsley, chief executive officer of Bats Global Markets Inc.’s European unit, said in a phone interview. “We’re just seeing really high volumes. It’s a heavy day, but we’re nowhere near our peak capacity rates.”

As Bloomberg details, the shock Brexit decision sparked an outpouring of buying and selling: European markets saw 25.5 billion euros ($28.3 billion) in trading -- at least half of a typical day’s volume -- by just 9:10 a.m., according to Bats, which operates the biggest exchange in Europe.

However, unlike the US, where last August a historic volatility surge broke ETF pricing models and sent the entire VIX calculation engine at the CME offline for nearly 30 minutes, European market participants had a more practical solution: just shutting everything down.

Case in point, Morgan Stanley’s dark pool - the venue where these days most size, block trades are executed due to fears of HFT frontrunning - was offline this morning, Bloomberg reports. The pool is up and running now. Morgan Stanley declined to comment. “The first hour was pretty horrific,” Rob Boardman, chief executive officer for Europe of Investment Technology Group Inc., an electronic broker and dark-pool operator, said in a phone interview. “There was almost no trading before 8:10 a.m. because prices were just bouncing around, stocks struggling to open. Now we’re actually seeing volume go through the market properly, prices are becoming a bit more real.”

Deutsche Bank followed suit, and temporarily shut off outside market makers in its dark pool, SuperX. The bank told outside market makers that they would be prohibited from trading in SuperX on Friday, until the bank notified them it was ready to resume.

Bank of America Corp. asked some outside trading firms to cut their messaging
volume by half, said the people, who asked not to be named because the
announcements were not public.

And then, all it took for trading to resume were a few central bank, IMF, and G-7 statements to soothe frayed nerves and restore confidence that Draghi, Yellen, Kuroda et al have traders' backs.

Bats says equities on its European platform are subject to price collars, which reject orders that stray too far from previous reference prices. The thresholds range from about 5 percent to 10 percent.

Meanwhile, over in Mahwah, New Jersey, the amusingly named "New York" Stock Exchange announced it would widen its price collars to 10 percent for all stocks. The company said premarket trading was heavier than usual. Today will also see a volume boost from the annual rebalancing of FTSE Russell’s stock indexes. In 2015’s rebalancing exercise, U.S. equity trading jumped by more than 10 billion shares.

The good - or perhaps bad - news, is that unlike Europe, US markets went online without a glitch.

While extended auctions are to be expected on such a volatile day, there are signs, based on how markets in Asia performed, that the infrastructure has the capacity to withstand the shock of Brexit, said Philip Gough, chief executive officer of Convergex Ltd.’s London-based brokerage.

“When you look at how the Asia infrastructure held up, I didn’t hear of any issues,” Gough said by phone. “The capacity people have put into technology is drastically different than a few years ago. So far everything has held up.”
Needless to say, as all global markets approach the CYNK singularity which we described two years ago, where ever lower volumes lead to ever higher prices, only to eventually result in a burst bubble at which point trading is halted, this is merely a precursor, and a handy harbinger, of what is coming as all those "pent up sellers", who have been so very dormant for the past several years, decided to finally cash out. We wish them the best of luck when they do.

***

Cumbre en La Habana

Acaba de concluir el acto formal con la firma del acuerdo de paz entre el gobierno colombiano y las FARC. Un sobrio anfitrión, Raúl Castro, presidió el acto. Se nos ocurre que la significación del mismo sólo va a ser correctamente ponderada en unos años. Alguien dijo que, con este acto, Colombia deja el Siglo XX para entrar en el Siglo XXI. 

Dos notas de hoy de RT en español se explayan sobre el tema: 


Título: El Último Día De La Guerra: todo lo que debe saber sobre el conflicto interno colombiano

Texto: Mediante un comunicado conjunto los equipos negociadores de ambas partes anunciaron desde La Habana que este miércoles que se ha llegado "con éxito" a firmar el "Acuerdo para el Cese al Fuego y de Hostilidades Bilateral y Definitivo". Asimismo se destaca también el consenso para "la Dejación de las armas; las garantías de seguridad y la lucha contra las organizaciones criminales responsables de homicidios y masacres o que atentan contra defensores de Derechos Humanos, movimientos sociales o movimientos políticos".

Esto último incluye a "las organizaciones criminales que hayan sido denominadas como sucesoras del paramilitarismo y sus redes de apoyo, y la persecución de las conductas criminales que amenacen la implementación de los acuerdos y la construcción de la paz".


Este jueves se realizará el acto formal donde se anunciará la paz definitiva. Estarán presentes el presidente de Colombia, Juan Manuel Santos, el  comandante de las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), Timoleón Jiménez, y los representantes de lo países garantes: el presidente de Cuba, Raúl Castro, y por Noruega, el canciller Borge Brende. Asimismo, en su calidad de "países acompañantes" asistirán la presidenta de Chile, Michelle Bachelet y el mandatario venezolano, Nicolás Maduro.  

Otros diplomáticos de EE.UU. y la Unión Europea estarán acompañando, al igual que el secretario general de la ONU, Ban Ki-moon.


Un proceso de paz que llevó cuatro años

En 2012 se instaló la primera mesa de diálogo entre el gobierno y las FARC en la capital cubana. Desde entonces se ha avanzado en acuerdos parciales sobre distintas temáticas.

Según datos del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Refugiados (ACNUR), 6,9 millones de personas se han visto obligadas a desplazarse de sus hogares; además se contabilizaron 260.000 muertos y 45.000 desaparecidos

Durante diversas rondas de negociación se logró avanzar en los ejes de desarrollo agrario, participación política, lucha conjunta contra el narcotráfico, atención a las víctimas del conflicto y aplicación de un sistema de justicia transicional, entre otros puntos.

En julio del año pasado, el grupo insurgente declaró un cese unilateral del fuego como muestra de buena voluntad y en septiembre se anunció que el acuerdo definitivo de paz se firmaría en 2016.

Si bien originalmente se esperaba que esto sucediera en marzo, la definición se postergó por falta de acuerdo en el último punto: la implementación, verificación y refrendación de todo lo consensuado hasta el momento.

De lo anunciado este miércoles 22 de junio se desprende que se logró acordar en lo que refiere a la definición de las zonas de ubicación de las tropas guerrilleras para la verificación del cese bilateral del fuego; el cronograma de la dejación de armas, y las garantías de seguridad para los combatientes.


Datos de un conflicto de medio siglo

Con fecha formal de inicio en 1958 cuando las FARC se dieron a conocer públicamente, la guerra interna en Colombia lleva casi 60 años.

En este tiempo ha generado, según datos de la oficina del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Refugiados (ACNUR), que 6,9 millones de personas se vean obligadas a desplazarse de sus hogares. Esto supone un 14% de la población total del país. También, de acuerdo a los datos oficiales, se contabilizaron 260.000 muertos y 45.000 desaparecidos.

Asimismo, quienes han sido desplazados de sus hogares sufren otras consecuencias: el 80% viven en situación de pobreza y el 30%, "en la pura indigencia".

Cabe destacar que, existieron diversos antecedentes de intentos de lograr la paz. En la década de 1980, en el marco del diálogo con el gobierno del presidente Belisario Betancur, la guerrilla conformó un partido político llamado Unión Patriótica. Fue el primer intento por entrar a la arena de la política legal.

Pero tal como recuerda el periódico colombiano El Tiempo, rápidamente sufrió una "atroz campaña de exterminio" en la cual "según lo han determinado numerosos fallos, participaron agentes estatales, además de narcotraficantes y organizaciones paramilitares".

Fueron asesinados 5.000 militantes, "entre ellos dos candidatos presidenciales: Jaime Pardo Leal, en 1987, y Bernardo Jaramillo Ossa, en 1990; además de 8 congresistas, 13 diputados, 70 concejales y 11 alcaldes".

Por este motivo las expectativas de este acuerdo son muy altas. Y si bien la firma de un papel no garantiza por sí misma la paz, el hecho de que durante cuatro años ambas partes hayan podido avanzar hasta aquí, abre una luz de esperanza en el futuro de un país golpeado por más de medio siglo de conflicto interno.


***

Título: ¿Después del acuerdo qué?: "En Colombia nos tocará desarmar las palabras"

Texto: El anuncio de la firma del acuerdo sobre el fin del conflicto armado en Colombia fue recibido con alegría, sin embargo, para creadores y activistas culturales del país suramericano, el gesto de La Habana es apenas el inicio de un desarme más complejo: el discurso de la violencia.

"Habrá que ir desarmando las palabras porque aún están cargadas de mucha violencia. Para eso hará falta mucha pedagogía y en eso la cultura puede ayudar muchísimo: a sanar, a buscar la verdad, a tener una especie de reparación", considera Sergio Restrepo, gestor cultural y director del Teatro Pablo Tobón de Medellín, en entrevista a RT.

Restrepo, quien recibió el anuncio desde Bruselas, considera que la firma del acuerdo es un punto positivo pero que "hará falta un callo duro" para afrontar la etapa siguiente, no sólo porque las expectativas son muy altas sino "porque el país se va a polarizar mucho más y eso se usará, sin duda, con fines electorales".

Además de ese aluvión de polarización que se prevé en la esfera pública, la rúbrica del acuerdo supone que se hagan visibles realidades que permanecían soterradas por el conflicto, advierte Restrepo: La desmovilización de miles de personas que ahora tendrán que integrarse al ámbito civil, las profundas desigualdades sociales que deben resolverse para evitar el resurgimiento de actores armados y la necesaria presencia del Estado en zonas que históricamente han sido marginadas.

Ese proceso tendrá que hacerse en medio de un contexto económico complicado para Colombia, que este año ha sido afectada por la caída de los precios del petróleo y de la explotación del carbón, así como la depreciación de su moneda con respecto al dólar. El reto en ciernes, afirma Restrepo, es que el país retome la senda del crecimiento pero que el gobierno actúe para que ese auge retorne a la sociedad con mayor equidad.

"No vamos a superar tan rápido el conflicto porque son muchos los intereses antagónicos y los ánimos están crispados. La paz no se logra únicamente con una negociación o cese al fuego entre gobierno y las FARC, pero en todo caso, este proceso desescala la confrontación. Por ahora, estamos en la etapa de un post-acuerdo, no del post-conflicto”, sostiene Restrepo.

Para el director del Festival de Poesía de Medellín, Fernando Rendón, la firma del cese bilateral de hostilidades previsto para este jueves, "es la realización de un sueño de varias décadas para varias generaciones de colombianos que han padecido en carne propia todo el oprobio y toda la crueldad del conflicto doloroso y sangriento".

A Rendón la noticia lo tomó por sorpresa y en medio de la cita que reúne en Medellín, la segunda ciudad más poblada de Colombia, a cientos de poetas nacionales e internacionales: "No sólo se abre una nueva época de reconciliación y recuperación del diálogo entre posiciones divergentes, sino que vamos a fortalecer la lucha por la belleza, por la convivencia", declaró en entrevista a RT.

Rendón, al igual que Restrepo, considera que este es apenas el comienzo de un camino largo. "Lo que viene, naturalmente, es un post-acuerdo (...) El conflicto social no ha terminado, el conflicto político tampoco, y el conflicto cultural menos porque siguen en pugna una cultura de la masacre, de la violencia y de expoliación, contra la idea de una patria para la libertad, para la creación y para la expresión democrática".

Son sentimientos encontrados, confiesa. Por un lado, la alegría por la expectativa de que "Colombia pueda vivir en paz después de un infierno de guerra y se abra un período de prosperidad, de florecimiento cultural, de un nuevo espíritu generoso", y por el otro, el temor de que se repita una historia de compromisos diluidos.

"Esperamos que el gobierno entienda que el conflicto no es solo con la guerrilla sino entre el Estado y el pueblo. Debe estructurarse un diálogo con la Colombia profunda de la selva, del campo, de las comunidades de base, de toda la sociedad colombiana para que podamos tener la certeza de una paz duradera", apunta.

El director del Festival de Manizales, Octavio Arbeláez, estima que el acuerdo no es el último día de la guerra, pero hace que la paz sea "una utopía posible, próxima".

"Es el comienzo del fin de un período de agudización de las contradicciones que dieron origen a las formas más violentas de enfrentarnos entre nosotros", sostiene en declaraciones a RT. Porque el asunto está allí, dice, en el carozo del conflicto: en el miedo como relación social "que expropia la energía del cuerpo y la capacidad de construir un mundo del habla, la conversación y la imaginación".

Si bien considera que Colombia ha avanzado mucho en enfriar el caldo de la confrontación social, lo que se evidencia en la disminución del número de víctimas del conflicto en los últimos años, "la violencia sigue siendo un campo sobre el cual se habla poco y al cual, en muchos casos, se le teme. Este es un referente significativo desde el que se debe trabajar por la gente de la cultura".

La cultura, insiste, es el espacio idóneo para generar nodos, "espacios para la paz, el diálogo y la participación social". Ya hay un camino andado con la labor de las comunidades de base en el país suramericano pero que no tienen suficiente "vinculación entre sus redes de conversación y acción, en un contexto donde perviven niveles de exclusión en diferentes esferas, acusándose profundamente en el mundo afro e indígena", asevera Arbeláez.

"Diálogos de nación, sin excluidos, es nuestra necesidad", agrega.

Datos del Grupo de Memoria Histórica (GMH) señalan que el conflicto ha causado la muerte de unas 220.000 personas entre el enero de 1958 y el 31 de diciembre de 2012, de las que 81,5% correspondían a civiles, las principales víctimas de la confrontación armada.

Además de la violencia letal, cifras del Registro Único de Víctimas (RUV) señalan que hasta el 31 de marzo de 2013 se reportaron 25.007 desaparecidos, 1.754 víctimas de violencia sexual, 6.421 niños, niñas y adolescentes reclutados por grupos armados y más de 5,7 millones de desplazados, un número que equivale a 15% del total de la población colombiana.

Según datos de la firma Cifras & Conceptos, entre 1970 y 2010, hubo más de 27 mil secuestros y se cuentan más de 10.189 víctimas de minas antipersonal, desde 1982 hasta 2012, refiere el Programa Presidencial de Atención Integral contra Minas Antipersonal.

Pero las cifras no son capaces de traducir una herida que se abrió por la tierra. El despojo, el uso y la apropiación del campo en Colombia fue el germen de la violencia que, en más de medio siglo, ha cobrado dimensiones inmanejables al sumar fenómenos como el narcotráfico, el paramilitarismo y la explotación minera y energética, refiere el informe general del GMH.

La mayoría de los victimarios no han sido combatientes de la guerrilla o efectivos del ejército, sino pertenecientes a grupos al margen del Estado que, en alianza con poderes fácticos, han escrito su propia caligrafía del terror: por cada masacre que perpetraron guerrilleros, los paramilitares efectuaron tres.

"Las autodefensas, las bandas criminales, el paramilitarismo, no son más que un síntoma de la debilidad del Estado. Por eso es impensable que este sea el fin del conflicto", recalca Restrepo. Y Arbeláez coincide: "Los conflictos subsistirán desde sus múltiples dimensiones, dada su relación íntima con la forma del Estado y con el deterioro de las relaciones sociales".

Lo que se firmará este jueves en La Habana contempla el cese al fuego y de hostilidades entre el gobierno y las FARC-EP; la dejación de armas; las garantías de seguridad y la lucha contra las organizaciones responsables de violaciones de Derechos Humanos, incluidos los grupos sucesores del paramilitarismo; y la persecución de las conductas criminales que amenacen la construcción de la paz.

La suscripción de ese tratado inicia, para Arbeláez, "la etapa del post-acuerdo, un acuerdo que debe ser apropiado culturalmente, que permita la irrupción de nuevas dimensiones de una cultura democrática por espacios y tiempos de libertad y creatividad".

Es, también, el resquicio por el que Restrepo sueña un país posible pero, hasta ahora, desconocido: "uno donde podamos convivir en la diferencia, en el que podamos construir relatos desde la cotidianidad y cerremos esa brecha social que en Colombia es inaudita".

"Ojalá el espíritu de este acuerdo pueda transmitirse al pueblo de a pie, de base, que es el gran creador de su destino. Mi esperanza es que este diálogo permee en todos los estamentos sociales para iniciar juntos la lucha por la existencia, por la belleza, por el amor, por la vida", sostiene Rendón.

Lo que sí es una certeza es que, después de casi cuatro años de negociaciones, el presidente de Colombia, Juan Manuel Santos, da hoy un paso decisivo hacia la pacificación del único conflicto armado que queda vivo en la región. Al menos en La Habana hubo "pelo pal' moño".
“En Colombia nos toca ahora desarmar las palabras”: Las voces del post-acuerdo

El anuncio de la firma del acuerdo sobre el fin del conflicto armado en Colombia fue recibido con alegría, sin embargo, para creadores y activistas culturales del país suramericano, el gesto de La Habana es apenas el inicio de un desarme más complejo: el discurso de la violencia.

“Habrá que ir desarmando las palabras porque aún están cargadas de mucha violencia. Para eso hará falta mucha pedagogía y en eso la cultura puede ayudar muchísimo: a sanar, a buscar la verdad, a tener una especie de reparación”, considera Sergio Restrepo, director del Teatro Pablo Tobón de Medellín, en entrevista a RT.

Restrepo, quien recibió el anuncio desde Bruselas, considera que la firma del acuerdo es un punto positivo pero que “hará falta un callo duro” para afrontar la etapa siguiente, no sólo porque las expectativas son muy altas sino “porque el país se va a polarizar mucho más y eso se usará, sin duda, con fines electorales”.

Además de ese aluvión de polarización que se prevé en la esfera pública, la rúbrica del acuerdo supone que se hagan visibles realidades que permanecían soterradas por el conflicto armado, advierte Restrepo: La desmovilización de miles de personas que ahora tendrán que integrarse al ámbito civil, las profundas desigualdades que deben resolverse para mitigar la violencia y la necesaria presencia del Estado en zonas que históricamente habían sido marginadas.

Ese proceso tendrá que hacerse en medio de un contexto económico complicado para Colombia, que este año ha sido afectada por la caída de los precios del petróleo y de la explotación del carbón, así como la depreciación de su moneda con respecto al dólar. El reto en ciernes, afirma Restrepo, es que el país retome la senda del crecimiento pero que el gobierno actúe para que ese auge retorne a la sociedad con mayor equidad.

“No vamos a superar tan rápido el conflicto porque son muchos los intereses antagónicos y los ánimos están crispados. La paz no se logra únicamente con una negociación o cese al fuego entre gobierno y las FARC, pero en todo caso, esto desescala la confrontación. Por ahora, estamos en la etapa de un post-acuerdo, no del post-conflicto”, sostiene Restrepo.

Acuerdo de paz en Colombia

El gráfico de arriba detalla las distintas modalidades en que se vieron afectados, en forma directa, casi ocho millones d colombianos desde 1985 a la fecha como consecuencia de los enfrentamientos entre guerrillas, paramilitares y gobierno. El acuerdo firmado ayer es entre el gobierno de Juan Manuel Santos y las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC). El mismo viene siendo prolijamente bombardeado por una serie de agentes, entre ellos el ex presidente Uribe, delegado del Imperio en ese país. Es que sin conflicto no hay amigo americano, chico, diría Fidel. Leemos en el diario español El País:


Título: El Gobierno de Colombia y las FARC acuerdan el cese del fuego bilateral y definitivo

Subtítulo: El presidente Juan Manuel Santos anunciará el jueves en La Habana los detalles que terminan con más de 50 años de guerra

Texto: El Gobierno de Colombia y las FARC han anunciado la mañana del miércoles en un comunicado que han llegado con éxito "al acuerdo del cese al fuego y de hostilidades bilateral y definitivo, la dejación [entrega] de las armas y las garantías de seguridad". Este texto es el paso previo al anuncio oficial que se hará mañana jueves, también en La Habana. Este nuevo pacto no significa que el final de la violencia llegue de manera inmediata. Solo entrará en vigor cuando el punto 3, el del Fin del Conflicto, se firme en su totalidad. Tras más de 50 años de guerra, el enfrentamiento armado más longevo de América llega a su fin con más de seis millones de desplazados, más de 200.000 muertos y 45.000 desaparecidos.

Previsiblemente en el acto oficial del jueves se detallará el cronograma para el cese, las condiciones para la puesta en marcha de las zonas de concentración de los guerrilleros y la fórmula de dejación y entrega de las armas con garantías de seguridad para los desarmados. Quedan por cerrar los capítulos que hacen referencia a la implementación, la verificación y la refrendación de los acuerdos. El Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas ya está preparado parasupervisar y verificar el cese bilateral del fuego, incluyendo la entrega de las armas, a través de una misión política aprobada por el organismo el pasado enero. Las tareas durarán un año, con la posibilidad de extenderlas si lo piden el Gobierno y las FARC, y empezarán a contar tras la firma del acuerdo final de paz entre ambas partes.

El comunicado también especifica que el final de la guerra con la guerrilla implica "la lucha contra las organizaciones criminales responsables de homicidios y masacres o que atentan contra defensores de Derechos Humanos, movimientos sociales o movimientos políticos". Es decir, se hace referencia directa sobre el papel a "las organizaciones criminales que hayan sido denominadas como sucesoras del paramilitarismo y sus redes de apoyo, y la persecución de las conductas criminales que amenacen la implementación de los acuerdos y la construcción de la paz". Uno de los principales escollos que ha retrasado la negociación ha sido la demanda de las FARC de que se garantice su seguridad para que no se vuelva a producir un exterminio como el que sufrió el partido de izquierda Unión Patriótica durante los ochenta y noventa.

Al acto del jueves en La Habana acudirán las dos delegaciones que negocian la paz desde hace más de tres años, el presidente Juan Manuel Santos y el secretario general de la ONU Ban Ki-Moon en compañía del presidente del Consejo de Seguridad y el presidente de la Asamblea General. Raúl Castro, presidente de Cuba, el canciller noruego, Borge Brende, lo harán en calidad de garantes del proceso. También estarán en representación de los estados acompañantes, la presidenta de Chile, Michelle Bachelet y el de Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro. Completan la delegación, el delegado especial de Estados Unidos para el proceso de paz, Bernie Aronson; y de la Unión Europea, Eamon Gilmore.

La guerrilla de las FARC se ha adelantando al anuncio del anuncio a través de sus miembros. Carlos Antonio Lozada, que forma parte de la comitiva insurgente en La Habana, comenzó a compartir mensajes en su cuenta de Twitter con el hashtag #ElUltimoDiaDeLaGuerra, desde primera hora de la mañana, canalizando la conversación en las redes sociales. 

El martes los negociadores viajaron a Cuba para ultimar esta hoja de ruta y permanecerán en la isla hasta el 5 de julio con el fin de lograr un acuerdo definitivo, o al menos dejar cerrado los asuntos más relevantes. El lunes en la tarde, el presidente Juan Manuel Santos, aseguró que confía en haber firmado la paz con las FARC para el 20 de julio, día de la Independencia de Colombia. Para esa fecha, el mandatario confía en que la Corte Constitucional haya aprobado la celebración del plebiscito –la consulta que ha prometido a los ciudadanos para refrendar el acuerdo- y que estén listos los mecanismos jurídicos para aplicar la mayor parte de los pactos alcanzados en La Habana. “Creo que las dos partes queremos terminar lo antes posible para poder empezar a implementar. No quiero dar fechas porque siempre se le devuelven a uno con gran fuerza. La práctica ha demostrado que fijar fechas le hace daño al proceso, más cuando no es un acuerdo… aunque avanzamos aún falta pelo pa'l moño”, respondió a través de Twitter el líder de las FARC, alias Timochenko. La última fecha propuesta por ambas partes fue el pasado 23 de marzo y no se pudo llegar a un acuerdo.


***

Lo que sigue fue señalado por Joaquín Villalobos, ex guerrillero salvadoreño y actual asesor del Gobierno colombiano en el proceso de paz con las FARC.

Título: El acuerdo de los acuerdos

Subtítulo: El mito de que no era posible la paz en Colombia ha muerto

Texto: Medio siglo de conflicto, varios intentos de negociaciones fallidas, dos años de conversaciones secretas y cuatro de negociaciones públicas son el camino recorrido que ha llevado a la guerrilla de las FARC a firmar el acuerdo de cese de fuego y dejación de las armas en La Habana. Las exploraciones confidenciales comenzaron a inicios del año 2010, durante la administración del presidente Álvaro Uribe, ahora el principal opositor al proceso. Esos contactos fueron retomados por el presidente Juan Manuel Santos y, a finales de ese año, se iniciaron conversaciones secretas, se acordó una agenda que incluyó el desarme y se designó a La Habana como sede de las negociaciones. En estos años la opinión pública colombiana se ha mantenido dividida entre los que creían y los que no creían que el desarme de la guerrilla sería posible. Con este acuerdo, las FARC han puesto sus armas sobre la mesa con fecha para dejarlas, por lo tanto el mito de que esto no era posible ha muerto.

Se habla mucho de las garantías y mecanismos para que los acuerdos se cumplan, pero la realidad es el principal garante. Después de muchas décadas de violencia recurrente, está en el propio interés del Estado colombiano tener presencia y llevar el desarrollo a la Colombia rural, profunda y salvaje. 

Igualmente, después de medio siglo de lucha armada está en el propio interés de las FARC dejar las armas y pasar a la lucha política. En esencia, el acuerdo de paz es el cruce histórico de estos dos intereses. En medio de esto tendrán que atenderse los daños dejados por el conflicto en cuanto a reinserción, justicia, víctimas y narcotráfico.

Progresar jamás implica que las dificultades terminan, progreso es cambiar unos problemas por otros que nacen como producto de que los anteriores fueron resueltos. El gran reto del posconflicto será pacificar en lugares donde la insurgencia, el paramilitarismo y la criminalidad se convirtieron, por la ausencia del Estado, en profesiones bien reconocidas, respetadas y remuneradas. 

Terminado el conflicto comienza la tarea de reducir la profunda asimetría entre la Colombia sofisticada y la Colombia salvaje. Con el acuerdo de paz otro país está en marcha, pero los retos para que siga avanzando son enormes. Lo que viene sin duda no será fácil, pero será menos peor que los 225.000 muertos y los seis millones de desplazados.