Obama seems destined to be somewhat controversial even when he has done nothing to deserve it. And this seems the main reason for all the noise around the Nobel Peace Prize, that still he did nothing to deserve it. Moreover, a cursory analysis of the list of the political colleagues predecessors, seems to show a tendency to give the prize to those who have finished a war or signed a peace treaty, no matter how many innocent victims have been responsible for previously.
Thus understood, the criterion of the Norwegian committee seems to have been so far to encourage wild animals to stop shooting in exchange for a glamorous prize. But now the approach seems to have changed to reward the most beautiful speeches and the best voice to tell them, though the protagonist is developing a devious war with many civilian casualties in two sovereign countries invaded by his troops. It seems easy to agree with the columnist of El Pais, when implied that this was not a Peace prize but one for the Communication.
Interestingly, the reasons cited by the committee seem to agree with some international surveys that show a dramatic improvement in the image of the United States of America in the world. And that, in the Age of Marketing, is crucial even for a committee of experts that demonstrates once more, how far the media construction of Common Sense exerts its influence penetrating any citadel.
Perhaps, the Norwegian committee should take the opportunity to put set a new subcategory for presidents of countries at war, adhering to the creative advertising of the Bushies: the Preventive Nobel Peace Prize.
PS: I just realize (damn Google!) that the “preventive peace prize” idea has been employed previously by Gerald Loftus of the Avuncular American blog. He’s a diplomat who resides in Europe; and a very articulated one as such! My excuses to him.
The old conservative coaches the liberal to get untied
While the battle over the Public Option in the health care system attracts all the attention these days, other issues of equal importance goes less noticed. Not to me, mind you (in fact, I just happen to be assigned as illustrator to a good columnist at the Río Negro daily in Argentina). Two articles give different evaluations of the Obama’s record to this date on security and military matters.
Garry Willis in the New York Review of Books looks disappointed. He sees the new President already trapped by the network of secrets and responsibilities delivered to the Oval Office by the Intelligence and the National Security agencies. Many promises seems to never be fulfilled and the extraordinary concentration of power gathered by the Executive through many decades will not be given back to the Legislative as intended by the Constitution. I find Willis’ claim interesting as in order to accomplish with his liberal demands from the present state of things, you’ll need nothing short of a revolutionary action.
On the other hand, Joseph Cirincione in Foreign Policy seems to be far more optimistic as he sees the decision to abandon the missile shield projected for East Europe as a sign of Obama’s ability to build a pragmatist approach, not constrained by the plans already deployed by the Neocons before his arrival.
We have to wait an see. The signs are still unclear. In Colombia an agreement of facilities to use six military bases (where an undisclosed number of troops will be private contractors) weighs on the “business as usual” side of the balance; while the prolonged negotiations in the case of the Honduras coup (supported by the lobby of American fruit and coffee enterprises) keeps the hope alive that Obama seeks to detach himself from the secular Imperialist policy towards the backyard.
Eisenhower warns of a Military Industrial complex danger
Belatedly, here is the illustration I did for this article by Andrés Oppenheimer who -I must say- shows this time a lot of sense. Micheletti has been caught in surprise and exposed as a truly dictator, closing TV an radio stations.
Obama too is pressed to a disambiguation on rejection of any kind of coup. At the last G-20 summit he asked Argentina’s president, Cristina Fernández ( as told from her inner circles), about what Latin Americans expect from him if they complaint about past American interventions?; her answer: “true leadership”.
But the real star of this chapter isn’t at the picture: Brazil’s president “Lula” da Silva is said to staging Zelaya’s return (even noticing Obama about it) and saying loud and clear that no alternative solution to the restoration of legality will be allowed. So he is displacing the colorful, outspoken Chávez as the leading voice of the region. One progressive but with good sense at the same time.
Mr. Robert Morgenthau has revealed himself as the new American super-hero. He exerted his penetrating insight powers to foresee hidden facilities in Venezuela’s remote places where the still non-existing Iranian weapons of mass destruction are going to be stored. No probe, no evidences but, does anybody doubts he knows what is he talking about? It is the old “first time a tragedy, second a farce” scenario (thinking of Cuba’s missile crisis).The problem with this kind of nonsense is no one of these “evil doers” have mastered the nuclear cycle. Argentina does, but (despite friendly ties with Chávez) has an unsettled feud with Iran because of the later involvement in the bombing of the Jewish communal Center in 1994. The true is these countries are major oil producers and are more concerned with their huge social problems more than with the Armageddon. But got undependable regimes who found a common enemy; so are subjected to the ruthless “character assassination” delivered from the moral Olympus where Morgenthau rules.
What happen when a society grows to become the center of the World? It takes advantage of its dominant position over lesser countries to suck their resources by commercial and/or financial channels. And what happens when the standard of living for the peoples in those lesser countries drop down year after year? They try to immigrate to the center, seeking jobs and bringing their culture with them. How do conservatives in the center deal with these sudden changes in their environment? They complaint about the loss of ancient virtues and customs closing their eyes to the causes. It was so in ancient Rome and it is in the USA today.
Lou Dobbs has been playing Cicero for a time now from the CNN cathedra, complaining about the evils Hispanic immigrants where bringing with them. From the language they refuse to forget to supposedly dangerous diseases. Now a coalition of American Hispanic organizations and activists has taken action into their hands, calling for a boycott on Dobbs’s advertisers. While the rather conservative Andrés Oppenheimer (of Argentine stock) agreed with the boycott because Dobbs has been giving his opinions as if it were plain informative stuff, others warns of turning the man into a martyr.
To me, as a foreigner, what calls my attention is the course these organizations chose to go. Cause this way is the American way, not the one Hispanics were supposed to bring with their culture. And this is the best proof of the degree to which Hispanics have integrated into the mainstream traditions of their new environment. Even if they talk of their Spanish language and culture pride; of La Raza or any other peculiarities, they are, in fact, assimilated to the systemic web of the American society. This phenomena should be the best argument to convince Dobbs to change his rhetoric, even before the boycott shows itself successful with his advertisers and employers.
Conservative pubishers got a problem with Joseph Stiglitz. As his weight as a mainstream economist is too heavy to just throw him apart (he chairs the United Nations “Comission of Experts on reforms of the international monetary and financial system”) the new tactics seems to be misrepresent his words, so to round his uncomfortable sharp angles.
Oppenheimer claims to got some statements in an interview with Stiglitz that are bound to curb the enthusiasm of his leftists fans (the likes of Chávez or Cristina F. de Kirchner, who look at Stiglitz as a rock star). According to him, the Nobel laureate is cooling down his critics onto Globalization and the IMF: “It has changed in many ways, and I think everybody needs to recognize it”. Even more: “If Latin America is going to prosper, it has to upgrade its skills, improve its technology to become more competitive in the global economy”. Which is always a healthy advice, of course. But what he says about the global condition itself?
Let’s take a look at Stiglitz own words in his own syndicated column. Back in April he said:
But if we are to avoid winding up in another debt crisis, some, perhaps much, of the money will have to be given in grants. And, in the past, assistance has been accompanied by extensive “conditions,” some of which enforced contractionary monetary and fiscal policies – just the opposite of what is needed now – and imposed financial deregulation, which was among the root causes of the crisis.
So:
It is thus imperative that assistance be provided through a variety of channels, in addition to, or instead of, the IMF, including regional institutions.
And again in July, reporting on the UN Conference on the impact of the crisis on developing countries:
One might have thought that the United States would have taken a leadership role, since the crisis was made there. Indeed, the US Treasury (including some officials who are currently members of President Barack Obama’s economic team) pushed capital- and financial-market liberalization, which resulted in the rapid contagion of America’s problems around the world.
And, in regards to the IMF and the like:
But many developing countries have just emerged from being overburdened with debt; they do not want to go through that again. The implication is that they need grants, not loans. The G-20, which turned to the IMF to provide most of the money that the developing countries need to cope with the crisis, did not take sufficient note of this; the UN conference did.
Now comes the dollar sickness:
The most sensitive issue touched upon by the UN conference – too sensitive to be discussed at the G-20 – was reform of the global reserve system. The build-up of reserves contributes to global imbalances and insufficient global aggregate demand, as countries put aside hundreds of billions of dollars as a precaution against global volatility. Not surprisingly, America, which benefits by getting trillions of dollars of loans from developing countries – now at almost no interest – was not enthusiastic about the discussion.
The proposed solution:
On the last day of the conference, as America was expressing its reservations about even discussing at the UN this issue which affects all countries’ well being, China was once again reiterating that the time had come to begin working on a global reserve currency. Since a country’s currency can be a reserve currency only if others are willing to accept it as such, time may be running out for the dollar.
Finally, Stiglitz real conclusions on the shape of globalization:
The US and other advanced industrial countries pushed globalization. But this crisis has shown that they have not managed globalization as well as they should have. If globalization is to work for everyone, decisions about how to manage it must be made in a democratic and inclusive manner – with the participation of both the perpetrators and the victims of the mistakes.
It looks like “bad boy” Joseph Stiglitz keeps rocking hard and kicking.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the conference by C.P. Snow on ‘The Two Cultures “, the one in which he complained about the hegemony of the “Literary Culture” upon the “Scientific-Empirical Culture”. Since then, there are still those who keep on dreaming with the day in which the scientists replace the politicians. Others, like John Brockman, do their day editing and publishing best-sellers of “Pop Science” and promoting from some foundation the advent of a supposed “Third Culture”, that of the “Humanist Scientists” who educate the public (by chance those that he manage).
Paraphrasing J.M. Keynes we might say that the scientists who believe themselves free of literary influences are usually slaves of some defunct philosopher. In this case Plato, who dreamed of expelling the poets from his ideal Republic. He too was aspiring to end with the diffusers of myths and replace them by cultivators of the rigorous thought (his, of course).
But, since Thomas Khun published “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” (1962), we know that the scientists stick to erroneous ideas (paradigms) for many subjective reasons (pride, prestige, interest and even religious faith). Some “evangelists” of the popularization of science are pathetic, like these ethologists who studying the pigeons give an opinion on the social human organization. The biologists will be able to keep on scanning the cerebral activity and on registering the hormonal changes –surely with big profit for the Humanity. But they hardly will advance one centimeter further away from Shakespeare and Freud in the comprehension (and the control) of the Passions.
The Pope teaching chastity to the kids
Don’t you love when somebody gives lessons about something he voluntary vowed to ignore about? Catholics are starting to get filled up with his detachment from real dramatic issues.
This illustration was done in the middle of a violent attack by an Argentine Bishop (Msgr. Aguer) against a set of instructions issued by the Education Ministry to the teachers, as to avoid premature pregnancy and sexual diseases amid teens.
Recently, Israeli Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has been touring four Latin American countries: Brazil, Argentina, Peru and Colombia. He traveled there together with a retinue of Israeli businessmen. The claimed aim was to strength commercial ties with the region and to counterbalance the increasing presence by Iran in some countries.
According to Andres Oppenheimer, the true reason for the tour is Netanyahu’s need to give some stage role to his uncomfortable partner while sensible matters are dealed by himself (with USA) or by President Peres (with the Arabs).
Lieberman is the representative in the government coalition of the extremist fringe of Israel society, the colonialist settlers and the immigrants from the former USSR, some of them of a dubious (but convenient) Jewish identity, some linked to the mafia underworld. Lieberman’s fast enrichment has been scrutinized by the Police and now it seems to be on the verge of indictment.
These are no news for those already convinced of the colonialist character of Zionism and of the role of Israel as a bridgehead against the Arab peoples (the Palestinians in the first place). For those of us old enough to have witnessed the enormous changes occurred since 1967 is not so easy.
The Six Day War was a turning point that confronted Israelis with the neurotic consequences of become an occupation force with an increasing cynical, intolerant sectarianism. My standpoint of view is close to that written by Tom Segev at the 40th anniversary.
Before that, Zionist nationalism (beyond discursive nuances from left to right) sought the help of colonialist powers (be it the Turkish, British, German, USA, etc) as well as Arab nationalists did (from the British against the Turks, then from the Nazis against the British, the USSR, etc).
Now, to every person sincerely interested in stopping the endless circle of violence, let it hope the exit of Lieberman. Then, if Obama’s team of advisers succeed in isolating the extremist fringe of settlers and to draw recognized boundaries for the Palestine Autonomy (and to pull out the Israeli soldiers from surveillance upon Palestinians daily life), then this will be a first step towards a true coexistence between two people poisoned by mutual disbelief for too much time.
For the last years China has become a major buyer of Latin America raw materials and crops and a vendor of industrialized goods. As imported goods to the region from the USA shrank amidst the financial storm, some people feels the need to diminish the panic. With this goal in mind, Oppenheimer collects some figures to show how much behind is China from the States: direct inversion in the region, per capita income, military budget. Last but not least, American inventors’ annual registered patents is many times the number of Chinese ones.
The paradox is: all these American “tests of strength” are the same ones China is taking advantage from to increase its influence. Because it’s the large amount of military expenditure and the need to keep pace with its high per capita consumerism level that showed the weakest side of “the American Way”. Furthermore, as stated by a comment to the article, China lacks inhibitions to copy any technology developed by its competitors.
