Programa de las Americas

El Plan de Defensa de Obama, Mapa Estratégico para Conservar la Hegemonía Global

by William D. Hartung

La estrategia revisada de defensa de la administración Obama, presentada en el Pentágono el pasado 16 de enero, ya es objeto de ataques. Mitt Romney, el precandidato presidencial republicano que lleva la delantera, ha argumentado que el Plan es ingenuo y riesgoso. Expertos independientes como Russel Rumbaugh, del Stimson Center con sede en Washington, D.C., han criticado el Plan por su extrema timidez en lo que concierne a la reducción de gastos del Pentágono. No se ha prestado atención adecuada al hecho de que las modestas reducciones que el Plan de Obama contiene seguirían permitiendo al aparato bélico de Estados Unidos un alcance global sin paralelo en un momento en que las amenazas militares tradicionales se contraen rápidamente.

El Plan de Obama contiene elementos potencialmente positivos; empero su importancia disminuye ante el llamado a nuevos compromisos con los que Estados Unidos permanecería en perpetuo pie de guerra. Entre estos elementos positivos se encuentra la promesa de evitar guerras a gran escala como en Irak y Afganistán, recurrir preferentemente a la diplomacia y asistencia para el desarrollo, y convertir la salud de la economía estadounidense en la prioridad de seguridad nacional número uno de la administración. De ejecutarlas fielmente, estas modificaciones justificarían reducciones de gastos bélicos muy superiores a las propuestas por la administración Obama hasta la fecha, y sentarían las circunstancias para una política exterior menos intervencionista.

Por desgracia, los puntos alentadores del enfoque de Obama se enfrentan al contrapeso de una expansión de compromisos militares de Estados Unidos más apropiados para una política de hegemonía global que para una genuina política de defensa.

Por ejemplo, las reducciones de tropas de E.U. planeadas en Europa coincide con un mayor compromiso militar en Asia que incluye una nueva base de marines en Australia, una presencia naval de gran escala en los Océanos Pacífico e Índico, y nuevas ventas de armamento a Taiwan, Corea del Sur, Japón y otros aliados de Estados Unidos en la región, todos ellos esfuerzos dirigidos a contener el poderío bélico de China.

Tal vez el desarrollo más ominoso desde la perspectiva de China sea el que implica rodear a esta nación con un sistema defensivo de misiles que en teoría, anularía la capacidad china para responder a un ataque nuclear estadounidense. Este sistema, sea que funcione o no, elevará los niveles de ansiedad en China, cuyo arsenal nuclear de unos cientos de misiles de largo alcance queda empequeñecido por las miles de ojivas nucleares estratégicas que Estados Unidos posee.

En Medio Oriente, las reducciones de fuerzas de combate en Irak aún dejarán una fuerza residual de alrededor de 16,000 individuos, entre personal militar uniformado, elementos de la CIA y contratistas bélicos privados. Estados Unidos estará también fortaleciendo su red de bases militares en la región, y, no menos importante, Washington está cerrando cifras récord de ventas de armamento a países del Medio Oriente y el Golfo Pérsico, entre ellas un trato sin precedente de $60 mil millones de dólares por aeronaves y helicópteros de combate de alta tecnología, armas y bombas a Arabia Saudita. Cada venta de armamento irá acompañada de las tropas y contratistas privados que auxiliarán a la nación receptora en la operación y mantenimiento de su armamento estadounidense.

Contra cualquier implicación de que la nueva estrategia condujera al descuido de los compromisos bélicos de E.U. en África e Iberoamérica, existe la posibilidad de que la actividad militar estadounidense en ambas regiones alcance niveles todavía más intensos que los actuales. En la presentación de la nueva estrategia de defensa de Obama, el Secretario de la Defensa Leon Panetta se refirió al uso de “medios innovadores” para mantener esta presencia militar. Los métodos mencionados incluyen una rotación más intensiva de las tropas de E.U. sobre la totalidad de esos territorios, más ejercicios con los ejércitos locales y el aumento de las transferencias de armas y la capacitación militar.

África ofrece un claro ejemplo del nuevo enfoque militar en acción. En los últimos dos años Estados Unidos ha intervenido reiteradamente en el continente, desde su papel en la coalición que derrocó al gobierno del dictador libio Muammar Kadafi, hasta el envío de personal militar a Uganda y el sur de Sudán, pasando por el uso de naves aéreas no tripuladas y de aliados armados por Estados Unidos para intervenir en la guerra civil en Somalia. Añádase a ello el papel de empresas contratistas privadas como Dyncorps en la capacitación de tropas africanas, y los alcances de la capacidad intervencionista de E.U. en África se tornarán evidentes. Nada en la nueva estrategia defensiva de Obama le impedirá dedicarse a actividades similares en el futuro o bien expandirlas.

En América Latina, la forma primordial de participación militar estadounidense en los últimos años ha sido el abastecimiento de armas y entrenamiento militar mediante una diversidad de programas, muchos de los cuales no parecen de naturaleza bélica a primera vista. De acuerdo con la base de datos “Sólo Hechos” que mantiene el Centro para la Política Internacional, el Grupo de Trabajo para América Latina y la Oficina de Washington sobre América Latina, la asistencia militar y policiaca que provee Estados Unidos a Iberoamérica y el Caribe sumará casi mil millones de dólares para el ejercicio fiscal de 2012; la ayuda total militar y policíaca a la región desde 2007 rebasa 7,500 millones de dólares. Tan sólo en 2010 las ventas de armamento de E.U. a la región alcanzaron otros mil setecientos millones de dólares. Agréguense los despliegues de tropas estadounidenses en el hemisferio bajo la categoría de actividades humanitarias y contra el narcotráfico la presencia militar estadounidense en el hemisferio resulta más que sustancial. Nada indica que la nueva estrategia de la administración Obama vaya a modificar lo anterior; si acaso, algunos elementos como las rotaciones de tropas y ejercicios bélicos podrían aumentar.

En resumidas cuentas, la nueva estrategia estadounidense como la enunció el Secretario de la Defensa de E.U. Leon Panetta, indica que Estados Unidos sigue queriendo estar preparado para combatir y derrotar a cualesquiera enemigos en cualquier lugar. Lo que Washington no ha respondido, o ni siquiera se ha preguntado en el congreso o en los principales círculos políticos, es si la de Obama es una estrategia que busca enemigos que la justifiquen, más bien que un enfoque disciplinado para la defensa de Estados Unidos contra amenazas genuinas. Las soluciones a los desafíos más obvios para la seguridad de E.U., desde ataques cibernéticos a la proliferación nuclear, no son militares; en cuanto al futuro, los retos potenciales como la “amenaza china” se resuelven mejor a través de la cooperación política y económica que por medio de alardeos o acumulación de poderío bélico.

La “nueva” estrategia de Obama apenas tiene algo nuevo; el cambio genuino surgirá cuando los dirigentes estadounidenses abandonen la idea obsoleta de que Estados Unidos debe estar listo para trasladarse a cualquier lugar y librar cualquier batalla con la pretensión de seguir siendo “el policía del mundo.”

William Hartung es director del Proyecto de Armamento y Seguridad de la Campaña para una Defensa Común (Common Defense Campaign: Arms and Security Project), en el Centro para la Política Internacional (Center for International Policy, CIP). Igualmente fue director de la Iniciativa de Armamento y Seguridad en la Fundación New America así como del Arms Trade Resource Center en el World Policy Institute (Instituto de Política Mundial). Su último libro es Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex (Profetas de la Guerra: Lockheed Martin y la Construcción del Complejo Industrial Militar), Nation Books, 2011. Sus colaboraciones han aparecido en el New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, The Nation y The World Policy Journal, y se ha presentado en 60 Minutes de la CBS, Nightly News de la NBC. Es columnista para el Programa de las Américas.

Traducción: María Soledad Cervantes Ramírez

CBN - Entrevista Sobre as eleições americanas.

Estadão - Artigo de Lee Siegel

O próximo presidente dos Estados Unidos

02 de janeiro de 2012 | 6h 50

Lee Siegel

Se os eleitores aceitarem por completo o fato de ele ser mórmon, Mitt Romney será o próximo presidente dos Estados Unidos. Não será eleito por suas ideias a respeito do futuro do país. Será eleito porque o presidente Barack Obama é negro. Apesar de tudo o que se fala sobre a divisão existente entre os eleitores americanos conservadores, eles votarão de forma unânime em qualquer candidato republicano que seja branco. Herman Cain, quem sabe? Este nunca teve qualquer chance.

Deixando de lado as considerações de cunho ideológico - admito que, embora espere que Obama seja reeleito, se Romney se tornasse presidente eu não pegaria a minha família e sairia do país. A verdade nua e crua, olhando retrospectivamente os últimos três anos, é que o presidente negro desconcertou a metade dos cidadãos deste país. Se Obama fosse branco, nunca teria encontrado a resistência frenética que o persegue praticamente desde a posse, em janeiro de 2009.

Não consigo lembrar de outro presidente americano que tenha despertado tanto rancor e ódio quanto Obama. Nixon foi odiado porque estendeu e intensificou uma guerra absurda no Sudeste Asiático, na qual pereceram 50 mil americanos. Clinton foi violentamente odiado pela direita, mas em especial na periferia da política americana - e não no que ela tem de mais tradicional.

Obama recebeu mais ameaças de morte do que qualquer outro presidente moderno. Ele provocou o tratamento mais desrespeitoso por parte da oposição de que se tem memória. Em várias ocasiões, os republicanos se recusaram a sentar com ele à mesa para negociar o compromisso mais básico. Quando, em setembro, o presidente pediu permissão para discursar em uma sessão conjunta do Congresso, John Boehner, o presidente da Câmara, recusou. Isto jamais aconteceu. Como alguns dos republicanos mais destacados afirmaram off the record, sua única estratégia é repudiar toda e qualquer iniciativa proposta por Obama.

São políticos ambiciosos. Eles não insultariam e obstruiriam o presidente se não tivessem a certeza de que este comportamento arbitrário provoca uma reação favorável em seu eleitorado. A verdade pura e simples é que os Estados Unidos são na realidade dois países. "Vermelhos" e "azuis" - como costumam ser designados respectivamente conservadores e liberais - são qualificativos que não traduzem a feroz polaridade expressa pela fratura. Estas duas Américas existem desde a Guerra Civil. Os transtornos econômicos e a desorientação social só contribuíram para tornar as divergências entre ambos ainda mais amargas.

A divergência mais profunda diz respeito à raça. Não que os conservadores sejam racistas e os liberais não. O mito da inteligência de uma raça foi relegado à margem da vida americana. Hoje existe uma sólida classe média negra e um crescente estrato social de negros ricos. Milhões de donas de casa brancas bebem avidamente cada palavra de Oprah Winfrey. Personalidades negras irrefutáveis em todos os aspectos da nossa vida servem de modelo de comportamento às crianças brancas. Uma breve incursão em qualquer pátio de escola revelará grupos de crianças negras e de crianças brancas que se segregam voluntariamente, mas tribalismo não é racismo. Toda a vida social é uma lenta jornada que leva da semelhança à diferença.

Contudo, não obstante todo o progresso social ocorrido nos Estados Unidos, uma ideia de hierarquia permaneceu arraigada nas profundezas da mente americana. Quando a indústria do país entrou em crise, e milhões de trabalhadores brancos perderam os seus empregos ou tiveram de aceitar ocupações inferiores, nunca deixou de persistir um sentimento atávico de que os brancos sempre deteriam uma posição social acima da dos negros.

Porque, apesar da ascensão de alguns negros em todos os campos da vida americana, a preponderância dos negros ricos e bem-sucedidos ocorre nas áreas do entretenimento e dos esportes. É fácil para a classe média baixa branca afetada pela crise sentir-se superior a personagens, por mais que estes sejam pessoalmente dotados, cujo trabalho consiste em representar para dar prazer a um público.

De repente, quando todo o universo do trabalho e da posição social parecia mudar, apareceu um presidente negro, e como se não bastasse, um intelectual. Isto foi, e é demais para pelo menos a metade do país, que todos os dias vê seu mundo virar de cabeça para baixo, em vários sentidos. Neste país, há pessoas, talvez a maioria, que votarão contra Obama simplesmente para corrigir o erro histórico que sua presidência representa para elas. Em comparação com a aberração, na opinião delas, de um presidente negro, o fato de ter um presidente mórmon parece menos aberrante. Observem Romney atentamente quando ele aparece no noticiário. Os candidatos à presidência costumam esforçar-se em projetar um ar de confiabilidade, estabilidade, conhecimento e sucesso. Romney se esforça, principalmente, por parecer branco.

FP - 10 Reasons Why Obama Will Win in 2012

10 Reasons Why Obama Will Win in 2012

From the GOP foreign-policy debate to Europe's financial crisis, here's why Obama will declare victory next year.

BY DAVID ROTHKOPF | NOVEMBER 15, 2011

Watching this weekend's Republican presidential debate on U.S. foreign policy, you might be forgiven if you thought it shed absolutely no light on U.S. foreign policy. After all, by definition ... and by God's good graces ... the views expressed represented those of people who will have precious little influence over America's international course. Only one of these people can be the Republican nominee. And, in part thanks to performances like what we saw on Saturday, even that individual is very likely not going to ever be president of the United States.

As a consequence the vapidity of Herman Cain is irrelevant. The pro-torture stance of the wing-nuts in the group is irrelevant. The ridiculous zero-based foreign aid formula suggested by Rick Perry is irrelevant. Even the pontificating of Republican non-Romney of the Month, Newt Gingrich is irrelevant. Because these weren't foreign policy ideas or positions. They were desperate cries for attention.

Sadly, also irrelevant will be thoughtful views offered by Jon Huntsman, who clearly distinguished himself as the most capable, thoughtful, experienced, and credible of the crew.

This means that the 30 minutes of the debate that CBS chose not to air will have a virtually identical impact to the 60 minutes of Obama-bashing, fear-mongering, and peacocking that actually were broadcast.

It is possible that some of the views that were offered by likely nominee Mitt Romney could be consequential. This would not seem to be good for U.S.-China relations except that there is virtually zero possibility that President Mitt Romney -- who would essentially be the hand-picked candidate of the business community and the major party presidential candidate with the closest ties to America's economic establishment in modern memory -- would actually follow through on his anti-Beijing saber-rattling once in office. Further, some of his statements were essentially meaningless to begin with -- like his assertion that a vote for him was the only way to avert Iran getting the bomb, not being backed by facts or even being remotely credible given how key what happens between now and when the next president takes office will be.

But more important still is that Romney isn't going to be the next President either. In all likelihood that will be Barack Obama. Here are 10 reasons why:

1. Obama is the incumbent. That matters. And he has become increasingly confident in using the bully pulpit to his advantage, at appearing presidential. The crucial issue is going to be economics.

2. Despite Europe's economic mess, a number of other factors suggest that the U.S. economy may begin to tick upward more during the next year. Other parts of the world are likely to be growing from the emerging markets to, in a modest way, Japan. More importantly, the likelihood that the U.S. unemployment rate declines the better part of a point to something closer to 8 percent is pretty good. That ought to be enough to make the case he avoided the abyss and turned things around in much the same way that Ronald Reagan did in 1984.

3. Like Reagan, Obama is liked and seen as trying hard to do the right thing. That, plus some signs of progress goes a long way with the American people.

4. Furthermore, none of these candidates are a Ronald Reagan. Moreover, none of them are even a George W. Bush, which is saying something. Mitt Romney is the whitest white man in America. He will look more like the establishment than Obama in an anti-establishment year. He will not get any journalistic good bounces because frankly it is hard to spin a narrative about the guy that will grab anyone's heartstrings. Want evidence, look at how desperately half the Republican party is at looking for alternatives.

5. That search for alternatives could lead to a third party candidate. If it's Ron Paul it will eat into Romney's base. It is highly unlikely the left will pose a similar challenge to Obama. As for the possibility of a centrist third party candidate, appealing as it may be, it will be less so to many if it appears that candidate can't win and will only increase the likelihood that Mitt Romney will be elected on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ticket.

6. While external events in the world -- like the Iranian detonation of a nuclear device or a terror attack -- could hurt Obama, in all likelihood, given his growing comfort with foreign-policy and the tendency of the American people to rally around the president in times of crisis, it would be a mistake to count on such a development being more likely to help the Republican candidate.

7. The reality is that while foreign policy won't be central to the election, Obama has already succeeded in doing something remarkable: Taking it off the table. He is hard to criticize given his record with bin Laden, Al Awlaki, Qaddafi, meeting his promise in Iraq, starting to get out of Afghanistan, and restoring America's international reputation.

8. We haven't gotten to the one-on-one segment of the campaign yet. Whoever is the Republican candidate has to run against the very disciplined, intelligent, well-prepared, charismatic president. Which of those folks you saw Saturday night can hold their own versus Obama?

9. The Republican Party on the Hill, via the Tea Party and via its more extreme elements has adopted a bunch of policies that are astonishingly out of touch with the moment. They should be doing great given the economic problems. But they are not only seen as obstructionist on the Hill but they are seen as advocates of millionaires they don't want taxed and opposed to fairness in sharing the burden for the sacrifices fixing the economy will require.

10. By extension the leading voices for the Republican Party are folks like those on the stage ... and John Boehner and Eric Cantor and Mitch McConnell. Really? That's going to grab America in the current environment?

The electoral map says it will be close. But already Republican overreaching has pushed Ohio back toward Obama. The Republican hope re: Florida, Marco Rubio has suffered some self-inflicted wounds. Virginia gets bluer by the day. It's close ... but it's trending toward the President.

And so, while making predictions a year out is a sucker's game, for those of you who watched the Saturday debate and were disheartened there is at least all the above to suggest that none of it mattered that much anyway. As of right now the favorite to be the next president of the U.S. has to be the current president of the U.S.

Economist - Eleições presidenciais dos EUA.

A beatable president

But only if a Republican candidate starts laying out a sensible plan for the American economy

Jun 9th 2011 | from the print edition

NEXT week a collection of largely unknown Republicans will hold the first proper TV debate of the 2012 presidential campaign. Whoever eventually wins their party’s nomination then has to take on Barack Obama, the giant of American politics. The president has a huge war-chest, his own party firmly behind him and a rare capacity to inspire. Yet he is vulnerable. This week a poll showed him in a dead heat with Mitt Romney, the Republican front-runner. America’s sluggish recovery will give any challenger a chance. The question is whether any Republican has the personality and especially the ideas to take him on. For the best way to make this race competitive—and the best thing for America—is to force voters to confront the hard choices their country has to make.

This time, Mr President, you are playing Goliath

In terms of the horse race, an incumbent president (especially if he is without a primary challenger) usually has a head start. While the Republicans spend the next year clobbering each other, Mr Obama can appear statesmanlike and husband his resources. His approval rating is in the 50s, better than Bill Clinton’s at this stage in the proceedings in 1995, before he went on to score a solid victory against Bob Dole in 1996.

But whereas that Clinton race should encourage Mr Obama, the previous one should worry him. In spring 1991 George Bush senior was coasting towards re-election; by November 1992 the president was toast—and the main reason was a sluggish economy. This recovery, in the wake of the worst financial shock since 1929, is even slower. Growth in the first quarter was a feeble 1.8%. The unemployment rate actually rose, to 9.1%, in May: the rate of job creation is barely keeping track with the natural increase in the working-age population. Twice as many Americans think the country is on the wrong track as the right one. Many of the places where Americans feel angriest are battleground states: Florida, Michigan and Ohio all saw big Republican gains in the 2010 mid-terms.

In 2008 Mr Obama represented change. This time he will have to fend off charges that he is to blame for the achingly slow recovery by arguing that it would have been worse without his actions, such as his $800 billion stimulus package and the takeover of GM and Chrysler. That may be true but it is not easy to sell a counterfactual on the stump (as the first President Bush learned). And there are other holes in Mr Obama’s record. What happened to his promises to do something about the environment or immigration or Guantánamo? Why should any businessman support a chief executive who has let his friends in the labour movement run amok and who let his health-care bill be written by Democrats in Congress? Above all, why has he never produced a credible plan to tackle the budget deficit, currently close to 10% of GDP?

Asking these questions will surely give any Republican a perch in this race. But to beat the president, the Republicans need both a credible candidate and credible policies.

In terms of talent, the current line-up is not without hope (see article). Jon Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty and Mr Romney have all been first-rate governors: they can claim the sort of hands-on experience of government that Mr Obama so signally lacked in 2008. Mr Romney could get it right this time (see Lexington); or the more charismatic Mr Huntsman could soar. All the same, there are other current and former governors who this newspaper wishes were in the race—notably Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels and Rick Perry. As for Sarah Palin, her antics are helping no one, other than Mr Obama; she should put up, or preferably shut up. Michele Bachmann, a right-wing congresswoman, can carry the tea-party banner.

Yes you can—if we can afford it

Talent is less of a problem than policies. A serious Republican candidate must come up with answers to the two big problems facing America’s economy: how to get more people back to work, and how to fix the deficit. The first requires a swathe of bold structural reforms to boost jobs and growth, the second a credible plan to balance the books in the medium term that does not wreck the economy in the short term.

When it comes to encouraging jobs, the Republican failure is largely one of inventiveness. They focus merely on tax cuts and slashing red tape. But what about a big new push to free up trade? Or an overhaul of the antiquated unemployment-insurance scheme and worker-training programmes that gets business more involved? Or serious immigration reform?

The Republican failure on the deficit is more serious. Mr Obama is deeply vulnerable here, not least because he is still trying to kid Americans that their fiscal future can be shored up merely by taxing the rich more. But the Republican solution of tax cuts and even deeper spending cuts (typified by Mr Pawlenty’s proposals this week) is arguably worse. Most of the burden of repairing America’s public finances should certainly fall on spending. But the deficit is simply too large to close through spending cuts alone. The overall tax take—at its lowest, as a share of GDP, in decades—must eventually rise.

An honest Republican candidate would acknowledge this and lay out the right way to do so—for instance, by eliminating distorting loopholes and thus allowing revenues to rise. He (or she) would also come up with a more systematic plan on the spending side. No Republican seems to understand the difference between good spending and bad. Investment in roads and education, for instance, ought not to be lumped in with costly and unreformed entitlements, like Social Security and Medicare. Defence should not be sacrosanct. That Mr Obama has no strategy either is not an excuse.

In most elections promising toughness is not a successful tactic; but this time Americans know that their country has huge problems and that their nation’s finances are the biggest problem of all. In Britain the Conservatives made the incumbent Gordon Brown seem ridiculous by spelling out the austerity that he at first barely dared mention; now another tough-talking centre-right party has won in Portugal (see article). If ever there was a time for pragmatic conservative realism, it is now. Mr Obama might also bear that in mind.

The Nation - Obama and the Middle East

Obama Gives Major Middle East Speech—But Is the Region Still Listening?

Robert Dreyfuss
May 19, 2011


The Middle East that President Obama addressed today is rapidly spinning out of the American orbit. With the possible exception of Jordan’s King Abdullah, a docile monarch, none of the other leaders in the region pay much attention to what the United States wants or needs. Not only do they not respond to American diktat, they barely listen when the United States begs, pleads, and cajoles them.

Consider the roster: Pakistan openly defies the United States, and its leaders recently visited Afghanistan to urge Kabul to break with Washington and join a new alignment with Pakistan and China. Afghanistan’s government, though dependent on U.S. support, flouts U.S. demands with impunity, and President Karzai has openly accused the United States of trying to dominate Central Asia. Iran, despite onerous sanctions and repeated threats of U.S. military action, has not only refused to compromise over its nuclear program, but Tehran is supporting anti-American movements in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, and the Gulf states. Iraq, whose very government is the creation of the U.S. invasion in 2003, has all but shut the door on a continued U.S. military presence there, and its leadership touts its new alliance with Iran. Saudi Arabia, where anti-American sentiment has been growing for a decade, is seething over U.S. policy in the region, and Riyadh is reaching out to Beijing, Moscow, and other powers, despite its overwhelming dependence on weapons and security assistance from Washington. Israel, under Bibi Netanyahu, gleefully defies American pressure to halt its expansion into the occupied West Bank. The Palestinian National Authority, under President Abbas, has all but broken with the United States by forging a deal with Hamas and by short-circuiting the U.S.-led peace process and going to the United Nations for ratification of its statehood. And the new, emerging governments of Egypt and Tunisia owe nothing to the United States. Egypt, in particular, is reaching out to Iran.

Yet, in introducing Obama at the State Department, Secretary of State Clinton said, “America’s leadership is more essential than ever,” and she stressed the “indispensable role our country can and must play.” Unfortunately, Obama continued that theme.

To be sure, Obama acknowledged that the protests that are sweeping the region could unleash a form of populism that could strengthen the Arab world’s resolve to confront Israel’s expansionism and to demand that Israel, and its supporters in the United States, take the necessary steps to settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. As Obama put it: A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people
– not just a few leaders – must believe peace is possible.” Though he wasn’t being explicit, Obama was using that message as a warning to Israel that, as he said, “The status quo is unsustainable.” Certainly, in Palestine, Egypt, and elsewhere, democratic change and elections will catapult into power people and political forces who, unlike deposed President Mubarak in Egypt, won’t so easily tolerate Israel’s refusal to live within the borders of 1967. Unfortunately, although Obama outlined, in his speech, his rough vision for what a settlement might look like, and although he said that he disagrees with the notion that the peace process is dead, he failed to provide any path from here to there. (By all accounts, his refusal to put forward an American plan for Middle East peace was in deference to the influence of Dennis Ross, the principal White House Middle East adviser, over the wishes of the State Department and, presumably, the Defense Department, too.) And Obama put most of the onus for a deal on the Palestinians, saying that the recent Fatah-Hamas accord had complicated matters and that it was the Palestinians, not Israel, that has to get its house in order first. Not only that, but he disparaged the Palestinian plan to go to the United Nations in September to win its endorsement of an independent state, an action that Obama called “symbolic,” and he warned that “we will stand against attempts to single [Israel] out for criticism in international forums.”

In his litany of praise for democratic change in the region, Obama did not mention democracy in Palestine, where voters in a free election voted for Hamas, and although he did not call Hamas a “terrorist” group, he pointedly refrained from suggesting that the United States might open a dialogue with them.

In discussing the outbreak of popular revolts, Obama said – perhaps in a sideways slap at the U.S. intelligence community – that the Arab spring “should not have come as a surprise.” (No doubt, it was a surprise to the White House.) He praised the fact that a “new generation has emerged,” tech savvy and aware. And, usefully, he acknowledged that the people of region mistrust the United States, given decades of history in which the United States has supported forces of reaction and viewed the region as a big oil well that needs American protection.

Yet Obama tried to fit a bunch of square pegs into round holes, lumping Egypt and Tunisia (allies whose leaders were toppled), Libya, Syria and Iran (adversaries where leaders have used violence against rebels), and Yemen and Bahrain (where allied authoritarian leaders have used force against demands for regime change). Yet the U.S. approach in all of these situations has not fit nicely into a pattern. Though Obama spoke of an overarching principle (“It will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region”), no overarching principle is evident, so far at least. The United States was slow to throw its support behind Egyptian rebels, yet quick to slap sanctions on Syria’s government, though hundreds of protesters were killed in both places. Quick to intervene militarily in Libya, in support of rebels there, Obama has so far backed the government of Bahrain that used military force to crush a rebellion by majority Shia. Nothing in Obama’s speech clarified these gaps, which are hypocritical at best and, at worst, just the same old application of cold, calculating national interest foreign policy that has guided U.S. policy in the region since the Cold War.

At the start of his speech, Obama tried to put U.S. policy in the framework of shift. He is, he said, winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and, with the killing of Osama bin Laden, the threat from Al Qaeda has received a “huge blow.” Perhaps he wants credit in the region for unwinding the Bush administration reckless policy, which declared war on a mythical alliance that included Al Qaeda, Iraq, the Taliban, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood. But unless he takes far stronger steps, in July, to withdraw forces from Afghanistan, unless he acts more forcefully to draw down the U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf and in vast arms sales to the region, and unless he drags Israel kicking and screaming to the bargaining table, his speech will have been for naught. And the democratic movement in the Middle East, meanwhile, will hum along happily without him.

Robert Dreyfuss
In his Middle East speech today, addressing the political changes sweeping the region, President Obama said, “The question for us is: What role will America play?” Although he declared that he will approach that question with “humility,” and although he noted that “it is not America that put people into the streets of Tunis and Cairo,” the president’s address, and the remarks of Hillary Clinton before him, indicate clearly that the Obama administration has yet come to grips with the fact that the Middle East is no longer a region in which the United States is playing the central role.

The Middle East that President Obama addressed today is rapidly spinning out of the American orbit. With the possible exception of Jordan’s King Abdullah, a docile monarch, none of the other leaders in the region pay much attention to what the United States wants or needs. Not only do they not respond to American diktat, they barely listen when the United States begs, pleads, and cajoles them.

Consider the roster: Pakistan openly defies the United States, and its leaders recently visited Afghanistan to urge Kabul to break with Washington and join a new alignment with Pakistan and China. Afghanistan’s government, though dependent on U.S. support, flouts U.S. demands with impunity, and President Karzai has openly accused the United States of trying to dominate Central Asia. Iran, despite onerous sanctions and repeated threats of U.S. military action, has not only refused to compromise over its nuclear program, but Tehran is supporting anti-American movements in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, and the Gulf states. Iraq, whose very government is the creation of the U.S. invasion in 2003, has all but shut the door on a continued U.S. military presence there, and its leadership touts its new alliance with Iran. Saudi Arabia, where anti-American sentiment has been growing for a decade, is seething over U.S. policy in the region, and Riyadh is reaching out to Beijing, Moscow, and other powers, despite its overwhelming dependence on weapons and security assistance from Washington. Israel, under Bibi Netanyahu, gleefully defies American pressure to halt its expansion into the occupied West Bank. The Palestinian National Authority, under President Abbas, has all but broken with the United States by forging a deal with Hamas and by short-circuiting the U.S.-led peace process and going to the United Nations for ratification of its statehood. And the new, emerging governments of Egypt and Tunisia owe nothing to the United States. Egypt, in particular, is reaching out to Iran.

Yet, in introducing Obama at the State Department, Secretary of State Clinton said, “America’s leadership is more essential than ever,” and she stressed the “indispensable role our country can and must play.” Unfortunately, Obama continued that theme.

To be sure, Obama acknowledged that the protests that are sweeping the region could unleash a form of populism that could strengthen the Arab world’s resolve to confront Israel’s expansionism and to demand that Israel, and its supporters in the United States, take the necessary steps to settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. As Obama put it: A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people

– not just a few leaders – must believe peace is possible.” Though he wasn’t being explicit, Obama was using that message as a warning to Israel that, as he said, “The status quo is unsustainable.” Certainly, in Palestine, Egypt, and elsewhere, democratic change and elections will catapult into power people and political forces who, unlike deposed President Mubarak in Egypt, won’t so easily tolerate Israel’s refusal to live within the borders of 1967. Unfortunately, although Obama outlined, in his speech, his rough vision for what a settlement might look like, and although he said that he disagrees with the notion that the peace process is dead, he failed to provide any path from here to there. (By all accounts, his refusal to put forward an American plan for Middle East peace was in deference to the influence of Dennis Ross, the principal White House Middle East adviser, over the wishes of the State Department and, presumably, the Defense Department, too.) And Obama put most of the onus for a deal on the Palestinians, saying that the recent Fatah-Hamas accord had complicated matters and that it was the Palestinians, not Israel, that has to get its house in order first. Not only that, but he disparaged the Palestinian plan to go to the United Nations in September to win its endorsement of an independent state, an action that Obama called “symbolic,” and he warned that “we will stand against attempts to single [Israel] out for criticism in international forums.”

In his litany of praise for democratic change in the region, Obama did not mention democracy in Palestine, where voters in a free election voted for Hamas, and although he did not call Hamas a “terrorist” group, he pointedly refrained from suggesting that the United States might open a dialogue with them.

In discussing the outbreak of popular revolts, Obama said – perhaps in a sideways slap at the U.S. intelligence community – that the Arab spring “should not have come as a surprise.” (No doubt, it was a surprise to the White House.) He praised the fact that a “new generation has emerged,” tech savvy and aware. And, usefully, he acknowledged that the people of region mistrust the United States, given decades of history in which the United States has supported forces of reaction and viewed the region as a big oil well that needs American protection.

Yet Obama tried to fit a bunch of square pegs into round holes, lumping Egypt and Tunisia (allies whose leaders were toppled), Libya, Syria and Iran (adversaries where leaders have used violence against rebels), and Yemen and Bahrain (where allied authoritarian leaders have used force against demands for regime change). Yet the U.S. approach in all of these situations has not fit nicely into a pattern. Though Obama spoke of an overarching principle (“It will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region”), no overarching principle is evident, so far at least. The United States was slow to throw its support behind Egyptian rebels, yet quick to slap sanctions on Syria’s government, though hundreds of protesters were killed in both places. Quick to intervene militarily in Libya, in support of rebels there, Obama has so far backed the government of Bahrain that used military force to crush a rebellion by majority Shia. Nothing in Obama’s speech clarified these gaps, which are hypocritical at best and, at worst, just the same old application of cold, calculating national interest foreign policy that has guided U.S. policy in the region since the Cold War.

At the start of his speech, Obama tried to put U.S. policy in the framework of shift. He is, he said, winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and, with the killing of Osama bin Laden, the threat from Al Qaeda has received a “huge blow.” Perhaps he wants credit in the region for unwinding the Bush administration reckless policy, which declared war on a mythical alliance that included Al Qaeda, Iraq, the Taliban, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood. But unless he takes far stronger steps, in July, to withdraw forces from Afghanistan, unless he acts more forcefully to draw down the U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf and in vast arms sales to the region, and unless he drags Israel kicking and screaming to the bargaining table, his speech will have been for naught. And the democratic movement in the Middle East, meanwhile, will hum along happily without him.

Entrevista Record News - Morte de Osama Bin Laden

Site R7 - Obama e a morte de Bin Laden

Obama é o grande vencedor com a morte de Bin Laden

Morte do terrorista pode ajudar reeleição do presidente dos EUA, em 2012

Maurício Moraes, do R7

Em apenas um dia, Obama viu sua popularidade disparar; há uma semana, presidente teve de provar que havia nascido nos Estados Unidos

Há uma semana, a Casa Branca teve de divulgar a certidão de nascimento de Barack Obama, para responder setores conservadores que acusavam o presidente de não ser americano. Dias depois, Obama é o grande líder do país, que conseguiu, dez anos após os ataques do 11 de Setembro, matar seu inimigo número 1, Osama bin Laden. A explosão de patriotismo devolve orgulho aos americanos e pode ser a chave para a reeleição do presidente, no ano que vem.

Tanto Heni Ozi Cukier, da ESPM (SP), quanto Creomar Lima Carvalho de Souza, do IBMEC (Brasília), ambos professores de relações internacionais, concordam que Obama é o “grande vencedor” da operação que matou Bin Laden, neste domingo (1º), em sua casa nos arredores de Islamabad, no Paquistão.

Para Cukier, além de Obama, o “povo americano também será beneficiado”.

- O 11 de Setembro, a guerra no Iraque e no Afeganistão e a crise econômica derrubaram a autoestima dos americanos. A morte de Bin Laden eleva a autoestima e os americanos voltam a se ver como líderes e vencedores.

Carvalho de Souza diz que Obama “recebeu um abacaxi da mão dos republicanos”.

- Recebeu duas guerras, uma imagem negativa dos EUA, a crise econômica. E próximo do ciclo eleitoral, Bin Laden está morto. Isso faz com que Obama tenha uma carta na manga para as eleições.

Aprovação de Obama dispara

Antes do anúncio da morte de Bin Laden, apenas 17% dos americanos consideravam favoravelmente a atuação de Obama como comandante-em-chefe das Forças Armadas e líder em questões de segurança nacional. Sua popularidade, de modo geral, estava em 41% - ponto mais baixo desde o pico de 62%, em 2009.

Mas, já na tarde de segunda-feira (2), a primeira pesquisa sobre os mesmos quesitos mostravam níveis favoráveis de 76% em termos amplos, com 77% de aprovação no item “segurança nacional”.

Al Qaeda deve reagir

Segundo Cukier, a morte de Bin Laden “não afeta o coração operacional da Al Qaeda. Mas tem um impacto simbólico muito forte”.

- O lado simbólico é importante, porque o terrorismo não visa conquistar um território, mas sim usar o medo para atingir seus objetivos.

Bin Laden era a principal referência da rede terrorista Al Qaeda, que espalhou células por várias partes do mundo.

Carvalho de Souza alerta, no entanto, que a rede terrorista irá reagir.

- Uma parte da militância da Al Qaeda está de luto. De outro lado, a morte também estimula o movimento “agora é hora de dar o troco”. Alguma reação ocorrerá, qual o tamanho e como isso ocorrerá, não se sabe.

Paquistão é o grande problema

Tanto Cukier quanto Carvalho de Souza ressaltam que o Paquistão se torna, agora, o centro das preocupações sobre a segurança internacional.

Apesar de ser um aliado histórico dos EUA, o Paquistão não é um regime confiável para os americanos, tanto que a operação que matou Bin Laden não foi comunicada com antecedência ao governo paquistanês.

Nesta segunda-feira (2), o assessor para segurança interna de Obama, John Brennan, informou que os EUA vão investigar a eventual colaboração paquistanesa a Bin Laden.

Pronunciamento de Barack Obama sobre a morte de Bin Laden

Infomoney - Redução da perspectiva de rating ressalta necessidade de ajuste fiscal nos EUA

Redução da perspectiva de rating ressalta necessidade de ajuste fiscal nos EUA

Por: Tatiane Monteiro Bortolozi

SÃO PAULO - A diminuição da perspectiva para o rating da dívida soberana dos Estados Unidos pela S&P, mais do que assustar os mercados e pressionar o desempenho das bolsas mundiais, ressalta a necessidade de consolidar rapidamente um ajuste fiscal no país. Em meio aos conturbados debates entre democratas e republicanos, economistas apontam que uma decisão é essencial para definir o modo como os investidores e os mercados passarão a olhar para o país daqui em diante.

"A política americana está muito complicada, como poucas vezes vimos na história", diz o economista sênior da LCA Consultores, Homero Guizzo. Após o presidente Barack Obama ter perdido a maioria no Congresso, a aprovação do novo Orçamento quase culminou na paralisação dos serviços públicos do país. Em forte campanha pela redução das despesas públicas, os republicanos aproveitaram para minar a popularidade do presidente, por meio da supressão de parte de serviços básicos para a população.

Ao aprovar um corte fiscal de US$ 37,8 bilhões, o maior da história norte-americana, os dois partidos concordaram com a necessidade da reduzir gastos públicos. Isso não significou, entretanto, que estejam de acordo sobre o método e os segmentos para aplicá-lo. Outra questão se impõe, diz o professor de Relações Internacionais da Ibmec, Creomar Lima Carvalho de Souza: "como cortar gastos em uma economia sem empregos?"

Plano de corte é um "ponto de partida"

Um plano de redução do déficit proposto por Obama na última semana visa reduzir a dívida federal em US$ 4 trilhões nos próximos 12 anos. Outros membros do Congresso advogam uma redução de US$ 4,4 trilhões, por métodos diferentes.

"Vemos o caminho para um acordo como desafiador, já que a diferença entre os partidos remanescem grandes. Há um risco significativo de que negociações no Congresso não atinjam nenhum acordo no médio prazo", disse a S&P em comunicado enviado na segunda-feira. A agência Moody's também se pronunciou sobre a indefinição fiscal, e reconheceu que embora o plano traga perspectivas positivas, ainda falta muito para ser concretizado.

"É como se a agência dissesse que está de olho na dívida pública e, se nada mudar, poderá acontecer um downgrade", diz Guizzo. O economista é cético em relação à uma efetiva piora na nota de risco, argumentando que a percepção do mercado financeiro sobre a dívida pública é mais importante do que a própria classificação da agência e a reação natural do mercado, que seria evitar a compra de Treasuries norte-americanos, seguiu uma movimentação contrária, talvez em busca de proteção contra os riscos de dívida soberana europeia. Além disso, nenhuma informação nova foi trazida aos mercados, completa Guizzo.

Desdobramentos políticos são incertos

Lima, do Ibmec, ainda aponta que desde 2008, o mercado está bastante ciente dos riscos atrelados ao mercado dos Estados Unidos. O importante seria avaliar de que forma o governo irá reagir para recuperar sua economia.

Caso as pressões no Congresso pelo Orçamento tornassem inviável um ajuste fiscal e a reeleição de Obama, o mercado e as agências de risco teriam mais um desafio pela frente: como avaliar a administração de um novo governo?, ressalta o professor.

Coluna Direto de Buenos Aires - Tais Julião

As relações Argentina - Estados Unidos contemporâneas

Por: Taís Sandrim Julião*

Nos anos 1990, a Argentina figurava como um dos principais parceiros dos Estados Unidos na América Latina. Isso se devia principalmente à convergência entre o ideário denominado “Consenso de Washington” e as políticas macroeconômicas implantadas por Buenos Aires. A Argentina passou por um processo acelerado de privatizações de empresas estatais estratégicas – como na área de comunicações, transportes e energia -, abertura econômica e a adoção de medidas cambiais radicais. Esse período de alinhamento político-econômico aos Estados Unidos motivou a utilização da expressão “relações carnais” para descrever o estado das relações bilaterais.

No início dos anos 2000, o país enfrentou uma severa crise inflacionária, que viria a alterar não somente as dinâmicas macroeconômicas, mas também o cenário político argentino. Desde a crise econômica e social de 2001, as relações com os Estados Unidos tem sido objeto de reavaliação, iniciando-se processo de paulatino desgaste, ainda em curso.

Em muitos países latinoamericanos, as políticas neoliberais não foram capazes de realizar o projeto a que se propunham. Na Argentina, o modelo não somente fracassou como também provocou uma reflexão política crítica sobre o papel das relações com os Estados Unidos e com os organismos financeiros internacionais – em particular, o Fundo Monetário Internacional (FMI) -, como co-responsáveis pela situação degradante em que se encontrava do país.

Entre 1999 e 2002, o país buscou recuperar suas instituições básicas e garantir a continuidade do processo democrático. Em 2003, foi eleito Néstor Kirchner, que ascendeu ao poder com a bandeira de renovação da política nacional e da defesa dos interesses argentinos. A relação com o FMI tornou-se conflitiva, e foram aprofundados laços com outros eixos, tais como a América do Sul e a América Latina.

A continuidade do kircherismo deu-se pela eleição de Cristina Kirchner em 2007, o que garantiu a continuidade de alguns processos políticos e econômicos iniciados na presidência anterior. No entanto, no que diz respeito às relações com os Estados Unidos, aprofundaram-se os antagonismos.

Em linhas gerais, as relações Buenos Aires-Washington contemporâneas podem ser compreendidas por meio de dois movimentos. O primeiro diz respeito ao processo de associação da presença estadunidense no país com a crise econômica e social dos anos 2000. A recuperação do país – ainda em curso, diga-se de passagem -, não deve pautar-se em um adensamento das relações comerciais e políticas com os Estados Unidos, mas sim em uma política externa plural, capaz de contribuir no fortalecimento da economia nacional, sobretudo a partir dos fluxos de comércio com novos e tradicionais parceiros da região.

Incidentes diplomáticos ocorridos neste ano sinalizam para o clima nada amistoso que impera entre os dois países desde meados de 2000: a apreensão da carga de uma aeronave norte-americana que trazia equipamentos militares para treinamento, e a visita de Obama ao Chile e ao Brasil, abordada pelos jornais com a manchete “Obama sobrevoa a Argentina”. Eventos como esses têm contribuído para o estabelecimento de um sentimento ambíguo com relação ao papel dos Estados Unidos.

Ademais, a decisão de reposicionar os Estados Unidos na agenda de política externa corrobora as percepções de demais países em desenvolvimento sobre o declínio estadunidense como pólo de poder central na economia política internacional. Dessa forma, os fluxos econômicos parecem apontar para o aprofundamento das relações com países parceiros - ou seja, países em desenvolvimento que compartilham uma visão sobre as mudanças na ordem internacional contemporânea -, e das relações no âmbito do Mercosul, em particular com o Brasil.

A propósito, o segundo movimento está relacionado à dinâmica brasileira no contexto regional e na política internacional. A Argentina parece observar o Brasil com olhos atentos. Por um lado, tem aderido ao projeto de construção de uma América do Sul unida e fortalecida política e economicamente. A Argentina tem buscado aproveitar o bom desempenho brasileiro para aprofundar as relações no âmbito do Mercosul comercial.

Por outro, preocupa-se com o ambiente favorável à campanha do Brasil para tornar-se membro permanente no Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas – posto também cobiçado pelos argentinos. Em termos políticos, a Argentina deseja ser um parceiro horizontal, reforçando que ambos os países exercem em parceria a liderança no subcontinente e, nesse sentido, são interdependentes em diversas agendas regionais e multilaterais.

Em 2011, ocorrerão eleições presidenciais e a presidente Kirchner ainda não se posicionou sobre uma possível candidatura à reeleição. Todavia, o cenário político aponta para uma continuidade do kirchnerismo. Nesse cenário, Estados Unidos parece ser cada vez menos uma opção na política externa argentina.

*Mestre em Relações Internacionais pela Universidade de Brasília

The Nation - Obama vs. Congress

Why President Obama Is Losing the Budget Fight

Ari Berman

April 11, 2011

Friday night’s dramatic budget agreement represented a major defeat for President Obama and Congressional Democrats. On substance, John Boehner and Congressional Republicans received $7 billion more in spending cuts than they originally asked for. From a messaging standpoint, the entire debate unfolded on the GOP’s terms (excerpt for a brief interlude concerning Planned Parenthood)—the discussion was about how much to cut, not whether to cut or who would be impacted by such cuts or if such cuts would depress economic growth. The word “jobs” was practically absent from the debate.

President Obama’s advisers apparently believe that his best route to reeelection is to acknowledge the need for more fiscal discipline, while picking a fight with the GOP over the need for targeted government investment in our future and painting the GOP’s cut-at-all-costs vision as out of the mainstream. In fairness, his advisers, as Paul Krugman noted recently, may very well be right about this.

But it’s still worth appreciating how far to the right the debate has shifted, in part because of Democratic acquiescence. The idea that government spending should be a job-creation tool in our arsenal was entirely marginalized, to the point that it was simply not part of the discussions; meanwhile, the insane conservative demand for $100 billion in cuts was treated as a kind of outer right-wing boundary of legitimate discourse. The result: Giving Boehner more than he originally asked for in cuts became the stuff of middle ground compromise.

Obama, as Krugman, put it: “has effectively surrendered in the war of ideas.” Wrote Krugman today:

Obama is conspicuously failing to mount any kind of challenge to the philosophy now dominating Washington discussion — a philosophy that says the poor must accept big cuts in Medicaid and food stamps; the middle class must accept big cuts in Medicare (actually a dismantling of the whole program); and corporations and the rich must accept big cuts in the taxes they have to pay.

The president is following the example of Bill Clinton after the 1994 election, who brought in Dick Morris to “fast-forward the Gingrich agenda.” Often lost in this story is how Clinton, en route to a balanced budget, fought Gingrich over steep spending cuts and vowed to protect “Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment,” as part of the budget deal. Clinton confronted, then compromised. Obama has fast-forwarded the Boehner agenda with no pushback, even bragging about enacting “the largest annual spending cut in our history.” The president is practically doing Boehner’s job for him!

The White House is obsessed with positioning Obama as a president who stays above the fray during partisan disputes. But the president’s unwillingness to take sides has its own cost. “For Obama, it is not good enough to cast himself as the school principal scolding competing congressional gangs,” wrote Washington Post columnist EJ Dionne. “He needs the courage to defend the government he leads. He needs to declare that he will no longer bargain with those who use threats to shut down the government or force it to default on its debt as tools of intimidation.”

Heretofore, debates over economic policy between Obama and Congressional Republicans have followed a familiar script. Said Jon Cohn of The New Republic:

Obama starts off with a flexible, center-left position. The Republicans start off with a rigid, far-right position. Obama's commitment to bringing people together seems absolutely sincere; the Republicans' interest in shredding the welfare state seems absolutely sincere. The two go back and forth, eventually reaching a compromise that is somewhere between the two ideological starting points--which is somewhere on the right.

This week President Obama will deliver a major address concerning the deficit, responding to the plan put forward by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan last week. Ryan, by introducing a truly radical blueprint that would gut the social safety net and drastically redistribute income upwards, has given Democrats a major opening to present an alternative economic vision to the public. But thus far Obama has been content to meet Republicans in the middle, even as the middle moves sharply to the right, instead of laying out a bold economic narrative of his own.

House Republicans are now determining the priorities and direction of the entire US government. Until that changes, Obama and Congressional Democrats will continue to find themselves on the defensive.

Blog da Christina Lemos site R7 - Artigo autoral.

Obama entre o protagonismo brasileiro e as incertezas americanas

Enviado pelo prof. Creomar Lima Carvalho de Souza*

A visita de Barack Obama ao Brasil foi cercada de uma série de expectativas e simbolismo. O primeiro aspecto a se destacar é o momento vivido pelos Estados Unidos tanto em âmbito interno quanto externo. Internamente, os resquícios da crise econômica recente, fruto da má gestão governamental, em termos de regulação das atividades financeiras e da própria estagnação dos modelos produtivos locais, não parece dar sinais de superação no curto prazo. E, se por um lado a eleição de Obama simbolizou uma retomada da esperança entre os cidadãos americanos, de outro, a aparente dificuldade da administração em implementar as mudanças prometidas durante a campanha aumenta a pressão sobre o presidente por resultados e dá combustível à oposição no questionamento das decisões tomadas.

Essas várias frentes de confrontação interna podem explicar o conservadorismo com o qual os Estados Unidos têm levado sua política externa, estratégia cautelosa para não abrir mais trincheiras no plano político interno. Diante desse quadro, o país busca renovar parcerias tradicionais e buscar novas e estratégicas, prova disso têm sido as manifestações do presidente Obama, que nega o papel de dar solução solitária de crises internacionais. O reforço, portanto, a determinadas instâncias multilaterais não surge da crença nas mesmas. Ao contrário, nasce da percepção de que novas aventuras internacionais aumentam as desconfianças com relação aos EUA e também fazem subir a pressão sobre o orçamento nacional, prejudicando o contribuinte e provocando resultados eleitorais indesejados.

A preocupação maior dos Estados Unidos parece ser, portanto, antes evitar que o sistema internacional aumente as pressões sobre a sua política externa do que, efetivamente, fazer avançar o rearranjo de forças. Isso explicaria a rejeição velada em considerar o Brasil uma liderança no Sistema Internacional. O Brasil reconhece a liderança americana e reclama de forma justa o reconhecimento por parte de Washington do protagonismo brasileiro que vem se consolidando nos últimos anos.

No imaginário dos tomadores de decisão do Brasil, reclames históricos como a necessidade de reformular organismos internacionais – como o Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas – são cada vez mais inadiáveis. Porém, por não ser uma potência global consolidada, o Estado Brasileiro, de certa forma, necessita do endosso de outros atores para suas pretensões. O fato de a Casa Branca apoiar ambições semelhantes de outros atores – caso do endosso de Obama a uma vaga para Índia como membro permanente no Conselho de Segurança, pode indicar que o Brasil ainda não é o parceiro estratégico no tabuleiro político que os EUA vêm buscando.

Conclui-se que os EUA ainda possuem bastante dificuldade em lidar com o surgimento de uma liderança continental que possui discurso autonomista. Isto, porém, não quer dizer que não haja um reconhecimento da crescente importância do Brasil em vários âmbitos das relações internacionais, particularmente no plano econômico e estratégico, principalmente do ponto de vista energético. Ciente disso Obama veio ao Brasil, para dar impulso material a uma relação que não pode viver de simbolismo.

Entrevista Record News 3ª parte.

Entrevista Record News 2ª parte.

Entrevista Record News 1ª parte.

Correio Braziliense - O discurso de Obama no Brasil

Discurso de apreço por Brasil no conselho de segurança é vista como avanço

Rosana Hessel

Gabriel Caprioli

A candidatura do Brasil para um assento permanente no Conselho de Segurança da Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU) segue sem o apoio da maior potência global, os Estados Unidos. Em novembro, ao visitar a Índia, o presidente norte-americano, Barack Obama, endossou a reivindicação do país, idêntica à brasileira. No sábado, quando esteve em Brasília, Obama limitou-se a uma declaração oficial de “apreço” à aspiração do Brasil. Ao contrário do que possa parecer, porém, isso não provocou grande frustração, segundo especialistas em relações internacionais. De um lado, os Estados Unidos avançam um passo em direção ao apoio. De outro, a diplomacia brasileira adapta o discurso das expectativas. “O Brasil é a favor da reforma do Conselho em primeiro lugar, depois de sua candidatura”, afirmou o assessor para assuntos internacionais da Presidência da República, Marco Aurélio Garcia.

Luiz Felipe Lampreia, que foi ministro das Relações Exteriores no governo Fernando Henrique Cardoso, analisou o discurso do presidente norte-americano de forma otimista. “Os Estados Unidos nunca havia sido tão incisivos”, disse ontem o ex-diplomata logo após sair do Theatro Municipal do Rio de Janeiro. Na avaliação de Lampreia, houve uma guinada nos rumos da diplomacia brasileira com o governo Dilma Rousseff em relação ao antecessor, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Ele acredita em grandes avanços nas relações entre Brasil e Estados Unidos. “Lula tomou decisões polêmicas e acho que os EUA optaram por passar por cima disso ao demonstrar simpatia à candidatura do país ao Conselho”, completou.

Para o sociólogo Demétrio Magnoli, a declaração do presidente norte-americano passou longe de decepcionar. “Obama foi além da expectativa razoável”, disse. Ele destacou que a política externa de Lula só afastaou o Brasil do Conselho de Segurança, sobretudo pela aproximação com ditadores. “O Brasil tem conquistado notoriedade no cenário geopolítico global com o crescimento econômico”, adicionou, o que credencia a reivindicação brasileira. “O Conselho é hoje anacrônico, reflete um mundo de quando ele foi criado, em 1945”, criticou o sociólogo. Segundo ele, a entrada de mais países, como Japão, Alemanha, Índia e Brasil, é mais do que razoável e nós temos chances de alcançar esse objetivo. “No entanto, o Brasil tem de romper vários obstáculos”, afirmou.

Discurso no Itamaraty

No sábado, em almoço no Itamaraty, ao falar para empresários e políticos, Obama disse ser favorável à reforma da instância da ONU, mas não declarou apoio na forma incisiva que esperava parte da diplomacia brasileira. O Conselho tem 15 membros. Apenas cinco são permanentes e com direito a veto: Estados Unidos, França, Reino Unido, Rússia e China. Os demais são rotativos e têm mandatos de dois anos.

O ex-embaixador do Brasil nos Estados Unidos Roberto Abdenur está entre os que esperavam claro apoio norte-americano a vaga no Conselho de Segurança. Mas tampouco se decepcionou. “Uma declaração mais forte teria sido o ideal. Mas, do ponto de vista diplomático, o foi bastante representativo. É um avanço considerável”, afirmou. “O apoio para um trabalho na reformulação do Conselho é um compromisso importante dos EUA”, completou.

Os recados dados pelos presidentes Dilma e Obama vão além do pedido de apoio pela conquista de uma cadeira permanente, segundo o professor de relações internacionais do Ibmec-DF Creomar Souza. “Eles simbolizaram o anseio do Brasil em obter o reconhecimento de seu potencial político e econômico por parte de um dos maiores atores do cenário internacional”, avaliou.

Foreign Policy - Relações EUA e América Latina

Think Again: Latin America America's backyard is no longer an afterthought -- or Washington's to claim.

BY MAURICIO CÁRDENAS | MARCH 17, 2011

"There's no reason for Obama to be going to Latin America now."

On the contrary. Former U.S. President Richard Nixon once famously told the young Donald Rumsfeld that "people don't give one damn about Latin America now." (To be fair, his view of the region may have been colored by the experience of being pelted with rocks in Caracas while on a vice presidential goodwill tour in May, 1958.) Today, with popular revolutions upending the political order in the Middle East, an unprecedented natural disaster devastating Japan, and his own government hovering on the verge of shutdown, it may seem odd to many that U.S. President Barack Obama is choosing to embark on a five-day tour of a region often considered an afterthought in international politics.

But in fact, Obama's trip south is important for long-term U.S. interests, and long overdue. In today's economic order, where the G-20 is essentially a board of directors with only minority shareholders, the United States needs strong allies. Brazil is the ideal partner: large among the emerging countries, democratic, free of internal tensions, and without enemies. Cultivating that relationship is essential if Washington wants to continue to exercise leadership in the region. The recent turmoil in the Middle East also reminds us again of the fragility of energy security in the United States, and the importance of Latin America as a reliable source of renewable and nonrenewable energy.

A look at Rio as Obama arrives.

Other powers have begun to take notice. China, for one, seems to have a strong strategic interest in a region where the U.S. is losing influence. China is Brazil and Chile's main trading partner, and in 2009 and 2010, the China Development Bank agreed to lend more than $35 billion to borrowers in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, and Venezuela (mostly under "loans-for-oil" arrangements). This is three times what the Inter-American Development Bank approves every year for the region as a whole.

U.S. political and business leaders, on the other hand, often seem reluctant to look to Latin America for opportunity, hampered as they are by outdated views of the region as dangerous, economically stagnant, and politically backward. With the U.S. losing market share to other countries eager to invest in and trade with Latin America, it is time to dispel some myths hanging over the region.

"Latin America is an economic failure."

Not anymore. Alan Greenspan devoted a chapter in his memoir to Latin America's proclivity for populist politics, which he defined as a "very special brand of short-term focus, which invariably creates very difficult long-term problems." Greenspan's observations were probably seasoned by the disastrous decade of the 1980s, during which the region suffered from chronic severe debt crises and hyperinflation. Today, Latin America is on a path of remarkable economic stability and growth thanks to macroeconomic policies that have brought low inflation and sustainable public finances.

The global recession was a small bump in the road for most of Latin America. Today, the region is growing at an average of 5 percent per year, inflation is in single digits and fiscal deficits are small. Public debt as a share of GDP is much lower than in the developed world. Chile and Peru are the two countries that stand out in terms of economic performance, but considerable success is also apparent in Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Panama, and Uruguay. Rating agencies have granted all of them investment-grade status, which means that the risk of a default is extremely low. (Argentina and Venezuela are the two salient exceptions in the region.)

This is not just good luck, but a result of good policies. China's insatiable appetite for the region's natural resources has certainly helped, but the more important factor has been responsible macroeconomic management, a choice widely supported by voters in Latin America. Center-left governments -- like those of former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and his successor Dilma Rouseff in Brazil, former President Michelle Bachelet in Chile, and former President Tabare Vasquez and President Jose Mujica in Uruguay -- have made macroeconomic stability a pillar of their economic strategies.

"Latin America is ideologically divided."

Not as much as you think. Many think that there is an ideological race in the region, reminiscent of Cold War tensions between East and West Germany. The popular perception is that one of the camps is led by Venezuela's president, Hugo Chávez, while the other camp is formed by the right-of-center governments of Colombia, Chile, and Peru.

In reality, most countries -- with the notable exceptions of Bolivia, Cuba, and Nicaragua -- have definitively rejected Chavez's "21st century socialism," which is based on heavy state intervention, forced nationalizations, and fiscal profligacy. The disastrous economic consequences in Venezuela are visible: Inflation hovers at around 30 percent and investment has been falling continuously since 2007. The economy contracted by 1.4 percent in 2010, in sharp contrast with the rapid growth of other countries in the region. Fewer and fewer countries are tempted by the populist rhetoric and the attacks on private enterprise.

A pragmatic Latin American consensus has emerged in contrast to the more ideologically driven Washington consensus. This new thinking combines market-friendly policies with a much more ambitious social agenda. While preserving macroeconomic stability, both left and right governments are aggressively combating poverty with programs like conditional cash transfers, first introduced by former President Ernesto Zedillo in Mexico, which have become a model for countries outside the region. Latin America's economic growth and effective public interventions have created an unprecedented expansion of the middle class. In a forthcoming Brookings publication with Homi Kharas and Camila Henao, we estimate that by 2020 10 percent of Latin America's population will enter the global middle class, bringing nearly 60 million individuals up to the same level of income as lower-middle-class citizens in such European countries as Portugal and Italy.

"Latin America is violent and dangerous."

Yes, but not unstable. Latin American countries have among the world's highest rates of crime, murder, and kidnapping. Pockets of abnormal levels of violence have emerged in countries such as Colombia -- and more recently, in Mexico, Central America, and some large cities such as Caracas. With 140,000 homicides in 2010, it is understandable how Latin America got this reputation. Each of the countries in Central America's "Northern Triangle" (Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador) had more murders in 2010 than the entire European Union combined.

Violence in Latin America is strongly related to poverty and inequality. When combined with the insatiable international appetite for the illegal drugs produced in the region, it's a noxious brew. As strongly argued by a number of prominent regional leaders -- including Brazil's former president, Fernando H. Cardoso, and Colombia's former president, Cesar Gaviria -- a strategy based on demand reduction, rather than supply, is the only way to reduce crime in Latin America.

Although some fear the Mexican drug violence could spill over into the southern United States, Latin America poses little to no threat to international peace or stability. The major global security concerns today are the proliferation of nuclear weapons and terrorism. No country in the region is in possession of nuclear weapons -- nor has expressed an interest in having them. Latin American countries, on the whole, do not have much history of engaging in cross-border wars. Despite the recent tensions on the Venezuela-Colombia border, it should be pointed out that Venezuela has never taken part in an international armed conflict.

Ethnic and religious conflicts are very uncommon in Latin America. Although the region has not been immune to radical jihadist attacks -- the 1994 attack on a Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, for instance -- they have been rare. Terrorist attacks on the civilian population have been limited to a large extent to the FARC organization in Colombia, a tactic which contributed in large part to the organization's loss of popular support.

"Resurgent Latin America is a Threat to U.S. Interests."

Quite the opposite. Listen to some of the rhetoric in Washington and you would think that Latin America only impacts the U.S. economy by sucking away manufacturing jobs and flooding the country with illegal immigrants. The truth is that U.S. economic interests are more entwined with those of its southern neighbors than ever. This is an overwhelmingly positive development.

For instance, U.S. oil imports from Latin America are larger than those from the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait combined make up only 20 percent of U.S. oil imports. Latin American countries -- specifically Venezuela, Mexico, Ecuador, Colombia, and Trinidad and Tobago -- account for one third of U.S imports. For the United States, assuring a stable oil supply from its Latin American neighbors should be no less important than preserving stability in the Middle East.

Also, the Latin American consumer market is by no means irrelevant for U.S. companies. The region's GDP is $4.2 trillion, roughly 84 percent of China's $5 trillion. With only 40 percent of China's population, Latin America's average per capita income is twice that of China's. Therefore, Latin American households are important consumers of U.S. manufactured goods and services. For example, in 2010, 20 percent of Citicorp's overall profits came from Latin America.

While the Middle East is currently forging its own path toward democracy and Asian nations are rapidly competing with the United States for global market share, the United States can partner with its democratic Latin American neighbors to set a strong path toward mutual economic prosperity.

Stronger hemispheric economic integration is the natural first step. But moving forward in this direction requires debunking the most pernicious myth. Many in Washington still believe that the United States is exporting jobs to Latin America. Rather, the opposite is true: The region buys goods and services that generate jobs in the United States. Mexico is the second-largest market for U.S. exports, Brazil the 8th, and Colombia the 20th -- even without the passage of the pending free-trade agreement. Their combined imports from the United States in 2010 exceeded $210 billion, which represent thousands of jobs in America, especially in the manufacturing sector. But today, Latin America has signed free-trade agreements with countries like Canada and South Korea that can supply similar goods. Signing the pending free-trade agreements with Panama and Colombia would be an effective way to preserve U.S. competitiveness in the region.

Economic success, social inclusion, and political assertiveness are the buzzwords of the new Latin America, a region that now exudes confidence and optimism. Long-term U.S. strategic interests will be much better served by a re-engagement with this often-ignored neighbor.

President Obama is exceptionally popular in the region, and can play a transformational role in hemispheric relations. But to do that he will need to begin by challenging Washington itself, slaying the demons and self-serving misconceptions that muddle a clear view of Latin America.

CBN Noite Total - A expectativa para a Visita de Barack Obama ao Brasil

CBN - A rádio que toca notícia - CBN Noite Total

Entrevista Almanaque Band News - Visita de Obama ao Brasil