Much has been written about the "cultural" divide between Norte Americanos and Latinos. But with the burst of the asset bubble, we've learned that politicians, north and south, react similarly in the face of economic crisis.

This commonality occurred to me over breakfast in New York last week with Mexico's minister of finance, Agustin Carstens. The University of Chicago-trained economist was explaining the rationale behind President Felipe Calderón's "stimulus" package. I kept thinking about President-elect Barack Obama's promised further spending spree on this side of the border. The Mexican version is not nearly as ambitious but the concept is the same. "He's taking my money in order to spend it better than I can," a Mexican friend shot back sardonically when I asked him his views on Mr. Calderón's plan. We're all keynesianos now.

The Keynesian theory, calling for government spending as a way to boost aggregate demand during economic downturns, has repeatedly failed to deliver on its promises. But it endures because of its political expediency. It is the best excuse ever invented to expand government. It is both frightening and discouraging to hear politicians offering more Keynes at a time when what is most needed is a way of restoring the appetite of the private sector for risk.

Yet the news from Mexico is not all bad. As I listened to Mr. Carstens discuss his government's economic options, what also came through is how different Mexico is from 15 years ago. These changes may keep the country from backsliding under the strain of the current financial panic.

To be sure, Mr. Carstens believes in the state's capacity to stimulate economic activity. "If you can get the economy going and you have the instruments to do it, it is important that you use them," he told me. Then he added a historic footnote: "But we have limits to how much we can borrow and finance prudently." He went on: "Thinking that we are going to run a fiscal deficit without thinking of how we will finance it? That would be irresponsible."

For a country that has repeatedly gotten itself into fiscal and monetary trouble by running up big budget deficits, this is a tectonic shift in thinking. It is true that Mr. Carstens's predecessor, Francisco Gil-Diaz, also kept a tight grip on the purse strings during the government of Vicente Fox. But for a Mexican finance minister to be worried about excessive borrowing during a global economic slump of the magnitude now expected is a meaningful departure from tradition.

It isn't the only new-found prudence in Mexico. Twenty five years ago when oil prices skyrocketed, Latin oil producers spent the windfall as fast as it flowed in -- and more besides. Now Mexico takes a different approach. Earlier this year when Maya crude -- Mexico's main blend for export -- was topping $120 per barrel, Mr. Carstens instructed his team to begin using derivatives to lock in a floor price of $70 per barrel. "Prices had risen to such a high level that the only direction left was down," he explained to reporters in Mexico City last month.

With this hedge, Mexico has covered its net oil exports for 2009 at $70 while Maya crude is now trading around $45. What is important here is not that Mr. Carstens's hedge worked but that this time an oil boom didn't turn into a government binge.

Yet another big change in Mexico is on the trade front. By now most economists recognize that closing domestic markets in hard times only makes things worse. But candidate Obama's campaign vow to force protectionist changes to the North American Free Trade Agreement demonstrates the constant temptation for politicians to protect special interest groups from foreign competition.

Yet while Mr. Obama and Congress are talking up more trade barriers, Mr. Calderón's government is going the other way. At the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Lima, Peru, last month, the Mexican president warned that changes to Nafta would damage both sides of the border. Mexico has numerous free trade agreements but Mr. Carstens told me at breakfast that working to lower tariffs on imports from non-FTA countries is a Calderón priority.

With these advances Mexico may muddle through this recession. But there are also grave risks to its strategy. The much-touted reform of state-owned oil monopoly Pemex is too timid to boost output in the near term. Elsewhere Mr. Carstens says he is working toward eventual tax cuts and simplification of the tax code but adds that now is not the time to go there. The trouble is that as he waits for the right time, the private sector could decide that the cost of doing business in Mexico is just too high. That will leave Mexico more dependent on Mr. Carstens's strategy of government spending out of the treasury and state-owned "development" banks. That would be a throwback to an unrewarding past.

Labels: Mexico, United States

In the old days — from the Venetian Republic to, oh, the Bear Stearns rescue — if you wanted to get rich, you did it the Warren Buffett way: You learned to read balance sheets. Today you learn to read political tea leaves.

You don't anticipate Intel's third-quarter earnings; instead, you guess what side of the bed Henry Paulson will wake up on tomorrow.

Today's extreme stock market volatility is not just a symptom of fear — fear cannot account for days of wild market swings upward — but a reaction to meta-economic events: political decisions that have vast economic effects.

As economist Irwin Stelzer argues, we have gone from a market economy to a political economy. Consider seven days in November.

On Tuesday, Nov. 18, Paulson broadly implies that he's only using half the $700 billion bailout money. Having already spent most of his $350 billion, he's going to leave the rest to his successor. The message received on Wall Street — I'm done, I'm gone.

Facing the prospect of two months of political limbo, the market craters. Led by the banks (whose balance sheets did not change between Tuesday and Wednesday), the market sees the largest two-day drop in the S&P since 1933, not a very good year.

The next day (Friday) at 3 p.m., word leaks of Timothy Geithner's impending nomination as Treasury secretary. The mere suggestion of continuity — and continued authoritative intervention during the interregnum by the guy who'd been working hand in glove with Paulson all along — sends the Dow up 500 points in one hour.

Monday sees another 400-point increase, the biggest two-day (percentage) rise since 1987. Why?

Three political events: Paulson's weekend Citigroup bailout; the official rollout of Obama's economic team, Geithner and Larry Summers; and Paulson quietly walking back from his earlier de facto resignation by indicating that he would be ready to use the remaining $350 billion (with Team Obama input) over the next two months.

Lobby For Life

That undid the market swoon — and dramatically demonstrated how politically driven the economy has become.

We may one day go back to a market economy. Meanwhile, we need to face the two most important implications of our newly politicized economy: the vastly increased importance of lobbying and the massive market inefficiencies that political directives will introduce.

Lobbying used to be about advantages at the margin — a regulatory break here, a subsidy there. Now lobbying is about life and death. Your lending institution or industry gets a bailout — or it dies.

You used to go to New York for capital. Now Wall Street, broke, is coming to Washington. With unimaginably large sums of money being given out by Washington, the Obama administration, through no fault of its own, will be subject to the most intense, most frenzied lobbying in American history.

That will introduce one kind of economic distortion. The other kind will come from the political directives issued by newly empowered politicians.

First, bank presidents are gravely warned by one senator after another about "hoarding" their bailout money. But hoarding is another word for recapitalizing to shore up your balance sheet to ensure solvency.

Schumer-Mobiles

Is that not the fiduciary responsibility of bank directors? And isn't pushing money out the window with too little capital precisely the lending laxity that produced this crisis in the first place? Never mind. The banks will knuckle under to the commissars of Capitol Hill. They control the purse. Prudence will yield to politics.

Even more egregious will be the directives to a nationalized Detroit. Sen. Charles Schumer, the noted automotive engineer, declared "unacceptable" last week "a business model based on gas." Instead, "We need a business model based on cars of the future, and we already know what that future is: the plug-in hybrid electric car."

The Chevy Volt, for example? It has huge remaining technological hurdles, gets 40 miles on a charge and will sell for about $40,000, necessitating a $7,500 outright government subsidy. Who but the rich and politically correct will choose that over a $12,000 gas-powered Hyundai?

The new Detroit churning out Schumer-mobiles will make the steel mills of the Soviet Union look the model of efficiency.

The ruling Democrats have a choice: Rescue this economy to return it to market control. Or use this crisis to seize the commanding heights of the economy for the greater social good. Note: The latter has already been tried. The results are filed under "History, ash heap of."

Labels: United States

Regulation: The Community Reinvestment Act is to blame for the financial crisis, but it so powerfully serves Democrats' interests that they'll do anything to protect it — including revising history.

The CRA coerces banks into making loans based on political correctness, and little else, to people who can't afford them. Enforced like never before by the Clinton administration, the regulation destroyed credit standards across the mortgage industry, created the subprime market, and caused the housing bubble that has now burst and left us with the worst housing and banking crises since the Great Depression.

The CRA should be abolished, along with the government-sponsored enterprises that fueled the secondary market for subprimes — under pressure from Clinton, who ordered HUD to set quotas for "affirmative action" lending at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

But powerful Democrats in Washington want to protect the act — along with Fannie and Freddie — and spin the subprime scandal as the result of too little regulation, not too much.

"Repealing or weakening the CRA would be a mistake," warns Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who argues that the CRA should be strengthened.

Dodd, the top recipient of Fannie donations and himself a beneficiary of a sweetheart mortgage brokered by a subprime lender, recently invited one of Clinton's top enforcers of the CRA to testify.

"The notion that CRA has caused this problem is a pernicious thought," said former Comptroller of the Currency Gene Ludwig. "These are not truthful statements. The CRA has helped to create a better and sounder world for finance, not the opposite."

Dead wrong. But the mainstream media believe it, and have attacked those, including this paper, who dare to tell the truth about the crisis. Already the debacle has erased $13 trillion in wealth, while putting taxpayers on the hook for up to $8 trillion in bailouts.

"The latest salvo from conservatives began via a Sept. 15 editorial in Investor's Business Daily, titled 'The Real Culprits In This Meltdown,' " grumbled a column distributed by Scripps Howard News Service. "Its editorial blamed President Clinton for today's mess."

As we said, Clinton beefed up the CRA and used it to force banks to subsidize poor communities with close to $1 trillion in high-risk loans and other commitments that flouted underwriting rules.

Yet, somehow, these media-driven myths keep getting in the way of actual facts, such as:

Fact: The 1977 law was only lightly enforced until Clinton added teeth to it in 1994 and launched an anti-redlining campaign against banks, led by Ludwig, Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros (and later Andrew Cuomo) and Attorney General Janet Reno that lasted into this decade.

Minority homeownership rates, which had been flat, began a steep rise in 1995, and home prices soon followed, stoked by easier lending. Numerous bank officials complain that they still feel pressured by CRA regulators to make inner-city loans they know are at great risk of defaulting.

Myth: The CRA could not have led to financial Armageddon, because the overwhelming share of subprime mortgages came from lenders that were not banks and not regulated by the CRA.

Fact: Nearly 4 in 10 subprime loans between 2004 and 2007 were made by CRA-covered banks such as Washington Mutual and IndyMac. And that doesn't include loans made by subprime lenders owned by banks, which were in effect covered by the CRA.

Last year, when the bubble burst, bank subprime loans totaled $142 billion, dwarfing those made by lenders.

What's more, the biggest subprime lender, Countrywide, while not subject to the law, still came under federal pressure to make risky loans in minority communities.

Clinton created a separate department at HUD to police "fair lending" at Fannie and Freddie and also at lenders like Countrywide, which became Fannie's biggest client. In 1994, Countrywide became the nation's first mortgage lender to sign with HUD a "Declaration of Fair Lending Principles and Practices."

As a result, Countrywide made more loans to minorities than any other lender — and not surprisingly, was one of the first lenders swamped by loan defaults.

Other lenders felt the heat from Reno's Justice Department, which prosecuted them for failing to operate enough branches in black neighborhoods. Reno put the entire banking industry on notice about the CRA and her enforcement program.

Myth: The CRA did not force anyone to do subprime loans or take excessive risks.

Fact: Subprime loans were the vehicle banks used to satisfy CRA compliance, and Clinton and his regulators encouraged their use. Before Clinton took office, subprimes were virtually unheard of. By the time he left, they made up more than 9% of the market for mortgage originations. Today they're 20%.

"It's instructive to go back to the early stages of the subprime market, which has essentially emerged out of the CRA," ex-Fed chief Alan Greenspan said in recent testimony on the roots of the crisis.

Clinton pushed banks to grant mortgages to minorities with poor credit by using "flexible" underwriting standards — or risk being branded racist. Rules were weakened to the point where welfare and unemployment checks were accepted as qualifying income.

Myth: Greedy investment bankers, who securitized and sold subprime mortgages, drove us to the credit crisis, not government.

Fact: Clinton's regulatory policies led to the creation of this new risk on Wall Street. His CRA amendments created the subprime market, and only after he pressured Fannie and Freddie to socialize the risk and guarantee the profit from the subprime loans did Wall Street get involved in a big way.

The exotic securitizations that have gotten so much of the blame were a symptom, not the cause, of the crisis.

The architects of the crisis want to divert attention from their own culpability by blaming the markets rather than their own regulations mandating that banks make high-risk loans based on race.

In fact, regulations had almost everything to do with this mess. And instead of strengthening them to atone for the alleged "sins of capitalism," we should be abolishing them.

Two bills in the House would be a good place to start. HR 7264, which has nine co-sponsors, would repeal the CRA. And HR 7094, with 17 co-sponsors, would dissolve Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

During the last severe slump, President Reagan deregulated the economy, saying: "Government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem." He's as right today as he was then.

Labels: United States

The Vernon K. Krieble Foundation today praised an Administration plan to overhaul the nation's immigration services agency, using a consortium of private-sector contractors to alter the way the government handles millions of visa applications, the citizenship process and work permits. The five-year plan to convert U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' case-management system from paper to electronic systems –and outsourcing the implementation to private companies that can easily handle the workload – is part of a new plan the Foundation has been pushing for years.

Helen E. Krieble, President of the Foundation, said “the use of private companies could reduce backlogs, speed up the work permit process, and put administration into the hands of people who are good at it.” She added, “The bureaucratic system has frustrated both employers and workers for years, and must be replaced by a system relying on incentives, such as the profit motive, to get the job done.”

Krieble has met numerous times with Administration officials and others in recent years, urging a private-sector contracting approach to various aspects of the illegal immigration dilemma. She has advocated the use of smart cards, modern technology, fingerprints and biometrics, private employment agencies and background checks. She says foreign workers do not have to wait years for approval, and border control would be much easier, with such a practical system. “This new proposal is an excellent first step, and it will demonstrate clearly the ability of the government to achieve important national security goals, using the quick responsiveness and the cost competitiveness of the private sector.

The new electronic system, called the “transformation initiative,” will permit government agencies and law enforcement personnel throughout the country to access immigration records faster and more accurately. Krieble says such records could also make it much easier for employers to check the immigration status of potential workers if it were also available to them. That is not part of the current plan, but Krieble says it is a logical next step.

The government says, in addition to initiatives to link digital fingerprints to unique identification numbers, the plan will create a lifelong digital record for applicants. That could eliminate the need to file millions of paper forms, and enable border agents, employers and policemen to instantly check the legal status of foreign workers. Krieble says that will allow employers to hire legal workers they currently have trouble finding, and give workers a means to come out of the shadows and work legally.

Krieble points out the need to fix two remaining problems that also contribute to the problem: a bureaucratic system for issuing the visas themselves (which takes much too long), and an artificial limit on the number of workers allowed. She says the number should not be unlimited, but rather tied closely to the demands of the labor market rather than “picked out of the sky” like the current limit.

“This new proposal is an excellent start toward modernizing a badly broken system,” said Krieble. “A couple more important changes would go a long way toward fixing one of America’s most frustrating problems, so I hope the new Administration and new Congress will seriously consider my proposal to build on this work and take it to the next level.”

Labels: United States

George W. Bush entered office arguing for "regime change" in Iraq. He leaves it with global calls for regime change in finance. That heads of state from the biggest emerging economies are attending the crisis summit in Washington alongside their "emerged" peers shows that business is no longer as usual, even if, as Brazil's foreign minister put it, they have only been invited for the coffee breaks.

The G20 faces two main challenges: stopping the world sliding into a depression and reforming the global financial system so that such a crisis never recurs. On the first point, governments have moved quickly to prop up banks. Central banks have slashed interest rates and put in place measures to keep credit flowing to the developing world. Consensus is now building for increased government spending. It is more efficient if all countries agree to this and if it is co-ordinated - then one man's higher spending is not frittered away on another's exports. Yet G20 members need not reach collective agreement for individual states to go ahead.

Meanwhile, confidence in the Anglo-Saxon model of financial capitalism is on the ropes. Yet, in spite of French enthusiasm for root and branch regulatory reform, this is too complex a subject to be sorted out in two days. The issue, anyway, is a need for better supervision rather than more regulation. After all, the heart of the current crisis lies less with unregulated hedge funds than with overleveraged, regulated banks.

The meeting's guiding rubric should, therefore, be: first do no harm. Given that, what might it realistically generate, other than hot air? A united commitment to free trade for one, given the temptation, heightened in a recession, to raise trade barriers. Such a pledge might disappoint those hoping for a weekend makeover of capitalism. But jaw-jaw is always better than trade war-war.

Labels: Latin America, United States

Despite the fact that President-elect Barack Obama's vision for our nation leaves a lot to be desired, the fact that he was elected represents a remarkable national achievement.

When the War of 1861 ended, neither a former slave nor slave owner would have believed it possible for a black to be elected president in a mere century and a half, if ever. I'm sure that my grandparents, born in the 1880s, or my parents, born in the 1910s, would not have believed it possible for a black to be president and neither did I for most of my 72 years.

That's not the only progress. If one totaled black earnings, and consider blacks a separate nation, he would have found that in 2005 black Americans earned $644 billion, making them the world's 16th richest nation. That's just behind Australia but ahead of Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland. Black Americans have been chief executives of some of the world's largest and richest cities such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. Gen. Colin Powell, appointed Joint Chief of Staff in October 1989, headed the world's mightiest military and later became U.S. Secretary of State, and was succeeded by Condoleezza Rice, another black. A few black Americans are among the world's richest people and many are some of the world's most famous personalities. These gains, over many difficult hurdles, speak well not only of the intestinal fortitude of a people but of a nation in which these gains were possible. They could not have been achieved anywhere else.

Acknowledgement of these achievements is not to deny that a large segment of the black community faces enormous problems. But as I have argued, most of today's problems have little or nothing to do with racial discrimination. That's not to say that every vestige of racial discrimination has been eliminated but as my colleague Dr. John McWhorter said in "End of Racism?" Forbes (11/5/08), "There are also rust and mosquitoes, and there always will be. Life goes on." The fact that the nation elected a black president hopefully might turn our attention away from the false notion that discrimination explains the problems of a large segment of the black community to the real problems that have absolutely nothing to do with discrimination.

The illegitimacy rate among blacks stands at about 70 percent. Less than 40 percent of black children are raised in two-parent households. Those are major problems but they have nothing to do with racial discrimination. During the early 1900s, illegitimacy was a tiny fraction of today's rate and black families were just as stable as white families. Fraudulent education is another problem, where the average black high school senior can read, write and compute no better than a white seventh-grader. It can hardly be blamed on discrimination. Black schools receive the same funding as white schools and most of the teachers and staffs are black and the schools are often in cities where the mayor and the city council are mostly black. Crime is a major problem. Blacks commit about 50 percent of all homicides and 95 percent of their victims are blacks.

Tragically, many black politicians and a civil rights industry have a vested interest in portraying the poor socioeconomic outcomes for many blacks as problems rooted in racial discrimination. One of the reasons they are able to get away with such deception is because there are so many guilt-ridden white people. Led by guilt, college administrators, employers and others in leadership positions, in the name of diversity, buy into nonsense such as lowering standards, racial preferences and acceptance of behavior standards they wouldn't accept from whites. Maybe the election of a black president will help white people over their guilt feelings so they can stop acting like fools in their relationships with black people.

Labels: United States

El ex presidente del Gobierno elogia al mandatario estadounidense en un artículo publicado en el diario francés Le Figaro. Destaca que Bush asumió "con lealtad y valentía" sus responsabilidades para hacer avanzar "causas nobles y justas".

El ex presidente del Gobierno José María Aznar elogia el legado del mandatario norteamericano, George W. Bush, y su "gran contribución" a la causa de la libertad en un artículo que hoy publica el diario conservador galo Le Figaro bajo el título Lo que le debemos a George W. Bush.

Aznar cree que Bush asumió "con lealtad y valentía" sus responsabilidades para hacer avanzar "causas nobles y justas" y aunque es consciente de que muchos no compartirán esa afirmación se muestra convencido de que la Historia "le hará justicia".

Defiende su "gran contribución" para "la supervivencia de la libertad en las naciones que la disfrutaban y para promover que se extienda a tierras condenadas durante demasiado tiempo a la tiranía y la barbarie".

En su artículo, recuerda que "el sueño de la libertad sin amenazas" acabó el 11 de septiembre de 2001, día de "infamia" en el que se vivió, añade, un ataque "brutal" contra la libertad de todos y que Bush ha sido el presidente que ha liderado a su nación desde entonces.

Prueba de éxito
"El hecho de que dentro de unas semanas pueda entregar el poder a su sucesor sin que Estados Unidos hayan sufrido un ataque similar es una prueba de éxito. Ha hecho de la defensa y la extensión de la libertad en todos los campos el centro de su actividad política", argumenta el ex presidente.

En la misma línea, resalta que la libertad gana cuando se muestra determinación y coraje para defenderla, cuando hay más naciones que pueden elegir libremente a sus gobernantes y cuando hay más posibilidades de comerciar y que éste es el legado que ha "preservado, acrecentado y transmitido" Bush.

En su panegírico, Aznar sostiene que el presidente norteamericano decidió luchar por las "ideas, principios y valores" que inspiraron la Revolución Americana y la Revolución Francesa y que en el momento en que está a punto de dejar el poder, es justo reconocérselo.

"En el momento del adiós, que muchas veces va unido a momento de ingratitudes, me parece justo reconocer que George W. Bush ha marcado el camino que debemos seguir en estos tiempos oscuros y difíciles, pero también de esperanza. Nos deja su mejor legado: el legado de la libertad", concluye Aznar. (Ep)

--------
Algunas de las frases que Aznar le dedica a Bush:

"Un dirigente político debe asumir sus responsabilidades con toda lealtad y mostrando coraje, lo que se requiere para avanzar en las causas nobles y justas. Es precisamente la misión que llevó a cabo George W. Bush en EE.UU. como presidente.
Soy muy consciente de que un buen número de personas no compartirá esta opinión, pero la Historia le hará justicia".

"Su visión y determinación son fundamentales para la supervivencia de la libertad en los países que ya pueden disfrutar de ella y para asegurar que esta se extienda a las tierras gobernadas durante demasiado tiempo por la tiranía y la barbarie
La libertad ha triunfado, ya que ahora es posible votar en lugares donde hasta ahora era inconcebible hacerlo. Hay cada vez menos dictaduras asesinas capaces de albergar terroristas, ya que hay una mayor libertad de comercio".

"Admirar la réplica de la Estatua de la Libertad en la isla del Cisne, en París, es siempre evocador. Mirando hacia el oeste, parece saludar a su hermana mayor que, situada a miles de kilómetros, desde 1886 acoge a los inmigrantes que marcharon rumbo a América".

"El hecho de que George W. Bush vaya a ceder el próximo enero el poder a su sucesor sin que Estados Unidos haya vuelto a sufrir un atentado semejante [al del 11 de septiembre] es una prueba de éxito".

Labels: Spain, United States

Alors que George W. Bush s'apprête à quitter la Maison-Blanche, l'ancien chef du gouvernement espagnol José Maria Aznar salue l'action internationale du président américain sortant.


Un leader politique doit assumer ses responsabilités, en toute loyauté et en faisant preuve de courage, de même qu'il est tenu de faire avancer des causes nobles et justes. C'est précisément la mission qu'a accomplie George W. Bush en tant que président des États-Unis. Je suis bien conscient que bon nombre de personnes ne partageront pas cet avis, mais l'Histoire lui rendra justice. Même si, à l'heure actuelle, son actionn'est pas reconnue, et elle ne le sera pas, il a pourtant largement contribué à défendre la causede la liberté. Sa détermination et sa vision ont été fondamentales pour la survie de la liberté dans les pays qui pouvaient déjàen jouir, et pour veiller à ce qu'elle soit étendue à des terres vouées, pendant trop longtemps, à la tyrannie et à la barbarie. La liberté a triomphé, lorsqu'il est désormais possible de voter dans des lieux où c'était, jusqu'à présent, inconcevable de le faire. Il y a moins de dictateurs meurtriers et moins de gouvernements en mesure d'abriter des terroristes, de même que l'on observe une plus grande liberté d'échanges commerciaux.

Admirer la réplique de la statue de la Liberté sur l'île des Cygnes à Paris est toujours évocateur. En regardant vers l'ouest, elle semble saluer sa sœur aînée située à des milliers de kilomètres qui, depuis 1886, accueille les immigrés ayant mis le cap sur l'Amérique. Le pouvoir symbolique de cette icône a été et reste toujours une source d'inspiration et d'espoir pour des générations entières disséminées dans le monde entier. Elle évoque également l'amitié unissant la France et les États-Unis, sans oublier le rôle décisif du Vieux Continent, de toute sa tradition politique et philosophique, pour l'avènement des États-Unis d'Amérique.

L'histoire du XXe siècle en Europe illustre parfaitement le concept selon lequel, en dépit de sa force, la liberté est fragile. Elle a été sur le point de capituler à maintes occasions. Si, finalement, elle a su s'imposer, ce fut au prix du sacrifice de nombreuses personnes, de part et d'autre de l'Atlantique, qui ont été prêtes à donner leur vie pour la défendre. Un Paris et un Berlin libres témoignent de l'amitié et de l'engagement des États-Unis pour la liberté en Europe.

À la fin du siècle dernier, à l'issue de la défaite du communisme sur notre continent, nous avons pensé que la liberté dont nous pouvions jouir, en tant qu'Européens, ne serait plus menacée. La chute du mur de Berlin a montré - même à ceux qui croyaient que se cachait là le paradis - la misère morale imputable au manque de liberté.

Ces vingt années après l'effondrement du mur de Berlin ont démontré la force de régénération morale et économique des sociétés libres. L'Europe réunifiée en est la preuve la plus tangible.

Mais le 11 septembre 2001 a sonné le glas de ce rêve. Nous avons vécu, lors de ce jour d'infamie, une attaque brutale contre la liberté. Les terroristes ont choisi, avec une précision macabrement préméditée, les symboles qu'ils souhaitaient détruire. Leur objectif ultime était et demeure d'annihiler la liberté.

Le fait que George W. Bush, président en exercice lors de cette tragédie, soit capable, en quelques semaines seulement, de céder le pouvoir à son successeur sans que les États-Unis n'aient à subir d'attaque semblable est une preuve de succès. Il a fait de la défense et de l'extension de la liberté dans tous les domaines le nerf de son activité politique.

La liberté triomphe lorsque l'on fait preuve de détermination et de courage pour la défendre. La liberté gagne également lorsqu'il y a plus de nations capables de choisir librement leurs gouvernants. Et la liberté parvient à vaincre lorsqu'il existe un plus grand nombre d'opportunités commerciales.

Tel est précisément l'héritage qu'a préservé, fait prospérer et transmis George W. Bush. C'est ce que l'on retiendra finalement de son mandat. Il a décidé de lutter pour la cause la plus importante. Et il s'est attelé à cette mission, conscient que la lutte dans laquelle nous sommes impliqués est une lutte d'idées, de principes et de valeurs, les mêmes qui ont inspiré la Révolution américaine et la Révolution française.

Cette détermination et ces idées étaient clairement exposées dans le discours d'inauguration de son second mandat. La force capable de terrasser la haine qui a animé les terroristes du 11 Septembre est bien la force de la liberté. Le meilleur espoir pour ceux qui vivent dans la pauvreté en quête d'un avenir meilleur est la liberté. La survie de la liberté dans nos pays dépend également du triomphe de cette valeur sur d'autres terres. Et la meilleure garantie pour la paix est l'extension de la liberté et de la démocratie dans le monde entier.

Cette tâche ne relève pas d'une seule nation, ni d'un seul président. Il s'agit d'un engagement qui doit occuper longtemps ceux qui, comme nous, croient à la liberté. Au moment de dire adieu, période très souvent marquée par des bilans d'ingratitudes, il me paraît honnête de reconnaître que George W. Bush a tracé la voie que nous devons suivre en ces périodes obscures et difficiles, mais également teintées d'espoir. Il nous transmet son meilleur héritage : l'héritage de la liberté.

Labels: Spain, United States

The Hemisphere: The accelerating drug war in Mexico cries out for more attention. The horrific violence signals something already too big for Mexico to fight alone. It will spread north. The U.S. can't afford to wait.

As Americans went to the polls last week, Juan Camilo Mourino, Mexico's interior secretary, was falling to Earth over the capital in a fiery crash that killed him and 13 others.

Investigators are trying to determine why the helicopter carrying Mexico's second-highest official failed, but many think it was the work of drug cartels that Mexico has been at war with since 2006.

If traffickers were indeed responsible, they have sent a signal that they're coming for the government and can take down Mexico's leaders anywhere, anytime. If it was an accident, there's the disturbing implication that Mexico's aircraft are deficient even for its leaders. Either way, the U.S. ought to do more to help.

Some 4,400 Mexicans have been killed in the drug war this year alone — including a record 58 in one day last week. Grisly killings of honest cops, officials, innocent bystanders, kidnap victims and other traffickers engulf border towns like Juarez and Tijuana.

But the carnage is spreading even to formerly placid vacation spots such as Rosarito Beach on the west coast. The tourists, of course, are gone, U.S. State Department travel advisories are up, and local economies are withering.

Mexico has also become the kidnapping capital of the world, not only in numbers but in viciousness. Victims are often killed even after a ransom is paid. And they're no longer confined to the wealthy.

A week ago, the 5-year-old son of impoverished street merchants was taken and then, when a ransom wasn't paid, killed with an injection of acid into his heart. This week, 27 farm laborers were kidnapped. Twenty-six Americans have also been abducted in Mexico, and there are signs that it's spreading north of the border. A few weeks ago, 8-year-old Cole Puffenberger of Las Vegas was taken because a relative owed debts to drug cartels.

Two years ago, when Mexico went on the offensive against the drugs, every analyst dismissed the idea of Mexico becoming "another Colombia." No one believed that the impact of the drug trade could ever be as pervasive as in that South American country.

There, drug lords aligned with Marxist terrorists, burned down the Supreme Court, won seats in Congress and fought pitched battles with weapons more advanced than those used by the Colombian military. By 1998, they had nearly toppled the government.

The country was saved by a U.S. infusion of $6 billion in training and equipment that gave the country the tools it needed to fight back. That aid, combined with strong Colombian leadership, has worked wonders. Today, Colombia is a growing country with safe cities and victory in sight.

The U.S. still spends $600 million to train drug-fighters in Colombia, but that's $200 million more than we give Mexico for the same purpose. All of this pales in comparison with the $3 billion a year we send to Israel and the $1 billion sent to Georgia for reconstruction after the Russian attack, not to mention the $10 billion a month that goes to defending and rebuilding Iraq.

Yet we have a long, unguarded border with Mexico, where the drug war claimed more victims last year than the U.S. has suffered in fatalities since the war in Iraq began in 2003.

This is a bad skewing of priorities, and not just because of Mexico's proximity to the U.S., its capacity to ship millions of illegal immigrants and its status as America's second-largest trading partner.

The war Mexico is fighting is fueled by drug consumption north of the border, reason enough for the U.S. to share responsibility, as Mexico has asked. Mexico's war also has more potential to spread here than any other, and its insidious violence has a capacity to corrupt institutions and create insecurity. It should not fight this alone.

Labels: Mexico, United States

La preocupación del próximo gobierno de Barack Obama sobre la economía probablemente evitará que los defensores de la inmigración en el Congreso estadounidense saquen provecho de las pérdidas significativas de escaños que sufrieron sus opositores en las elecciones de la semana pasada. Esta situación retrasaría cualquier intento de reforma migratoria en Estados Unidos.

De los 13 representantes republicanos a la Cámara que perdieron su curul el 4 de noviembre, 10 eran miembros del Comité de Reforma Migratoria, el cual se ha opuesto a la legalización de los cerca de 12 millones de inmigrantes ilegales en EE.UU.

En el caso de muchos candidatos republicanos, una postura fuerte contra la inmigración ilegal se tradujo como antilatina, y probablemente perjudicó a miembros del partido en Florida, Virginia y Colorado, donde los votos de los hispanos fueron decisivos.

La inmigración no fue el único tema en las elecciones en esos estados. Pero en un estudio que será difundido hoy, America's Voice (un grupo a favor de la inmigración) estableció que en 20 elecciones en las que los candidatos tomaron posturas claras sobre la inmigración, los defensores de la "imposición de leyes" de línea dura perdieron en 18.

La derrota de los opositores a la reforma migratoria dejó a muchos grupos que la apoyan con la esperanza de que el gobierno de Obama premie a los votantes hispanos con algún tipo de programa de legalización. Pero esto no significa que una reforma migratoria amplia vaya a ser una prioridad para los legisladores o que tenga más posibilidades de ser aprobada en el Congreso. El nuevo presidente se concentrará en la economía y la política tributaria y probablemente no gastará capital político en un tema tan divisivo, dicen muchos expertos en inmigración.

Tampoco existe un líder que se encargue de presionar por una reforma, en reemplazo del senador Edward Kennedy, quien se encuentra luchando contra el cáncer. Los líderes republicanos en las últimas dos reformas, los senadores John McCain y Jon Kyl, enfrentan intensas críticas por parte de sus votantes.

"La percepción general de que la amnistía es un hecho es incorrecta", asegura Mark Krikorian, director del Centro de Estudios de Inmigración, una organización de Washington que se opone a un aumento en la inmigración.

Los grupos que defienden a los inmigrantes temen que cualquier ley que busque la legalización de millones de indocumentados se hunda rápidamente y han insistido en que la legalización sea parte de una ley mucho más amplia.

"El tema de los ilegales es tan controvertido que los grupos que respaldan una reforma saben que hay que proponer otro tipo de concesiones para que pueda ser aprobada", dice Kara Calvert, del Consejo Industrial de Tecnología de la Información.

Sin embargo, las firmas tecnológicas podrían presionar por una ley independiente que provea más visas temporales y permisos de residencia permanentes (green cards) a ingenieros, matemáticos y científicos para ayudar a impulsar a la economía, agregó Calvert. Las empresas agrícolas podrían hacer lo mismo, argumentando que necesitan más trabajadores para evitar tener que trasladar su producción a México.

Eso podría fracturar la coalición entre empresarios, sindicatos e inmigrantes detrás de los proyectos de ley en 2005 y 2007 que terminaron fracasando. Los sindicatos del sector comercial probablemente se opondrán a un plan de trabajadores temporales que era parte de ambas leyes anteriores porque impactaría al empleo durante la recesión.

Un indicio temprano sobre las posturas del Congreso y del gobierno Obama ante la inmigración podría llegar en marzo cuando expire el programa E-verify, el cual permite a los empleadores verificar de forma electrónica el estatus legal de nuevos trabajadores. El programa es una piedra angular de la política migratoria de Bush, pero tiene detractores entre los grupos defensores de las libertades individuales y los grupos de inmigrantes.

Otra clave sería si el gobierno de Obama continuará o no con las redadas en los lugares de trabajo que han conducido al arresto de miles de indocumentados. El gobierno de Bush, luego de presionar al Congreso por un programa de legalización, aumentó las redadas después que fracasara la ley.

Labels: United States

With global financial markets in turmoil and several trade deals on ice, labor unions and business groups are trying to decipher how President-elect Obama and an expanded Democratic majority in Congress will approach international trade policy, and are eyeing the U.S.-Colombia trade pact as an early indicator.

President Bush wants to see action on the deal, which has been hamstrung due to Democratic concerns over violence against union activists in the South American country, in a lame-duck session next week. With Democrats seeking to advance an economic stimulus package that the White House has thus far resisted, the deal could be a bargaining chip.

But unions and other skeptics of trade liberalization are arguing that the election results were a clear signal that the public is opposed to further trade agreements, and Democratic action on the Colombia deal would prompt a backlash from organized labor and other groups, which would be unhelpful, to say the least, to Obama’s political honeymoon.

“I think it’s ridiculous. It’s a complete non-starter,” said Thea Lee, policy director for the AFL-CIO, adding that the deal would not stimulate the economy. “The Colombia agreement has nothing to do with the economic crisis we’re facing right now. ... We obviously would be strongly opposed.”

Obama’s incoming chief of staff, Rep. Rahm Emanuel , D-Ill., appears to agree. “You don’t link those essential needs to some other trade deal,” he said Sunday on ABC.

Stalled Agenda
While President Bush was able to push through several free trade initiatives in his administration, including a renewal of fast-track trade negotiating authority and passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement, the pace has slowed considerably since Democrats captured control of Congress in 2006.

In 2007, the White House and congressional Democrats reached a deal on how labor and environmental standards should be dealt with in trade agreements. But the Democratic majority remains split on trade policy, thwarting Bush’s trade agenda.

A deal with South Korea faces opposition from domestic automakers. An agreement with Panama was sidelined after Pedro Miguel Gonzalez, wanted in the United States for the murder of a U.S. soldier in 1992, was elected in 2007 to Panama’s National Assembly. (Gonzalez has now stepped down, however, possibly removing that political obstacle.) And the Colombia deal, which is strongly supported by companies like Caterpillar Inc., remains in limbo.

‘Clear the Decks’?
Pro-trade business groups, whose victories have been few and far between of late, would like to see the deals — particularly with Colombia and Panama — done before the new president takes office and has an opportunity to renegotiate them. The logic being pushed is that Obama should want to “clear the decks” before delving into the myriad challenges that face him starting Jan. 20.

A coalition of more than 1,000 business, chambers of commerce and other industry groups calling itself the Latin America Trade Coalition wrote Obama Nov. 5 urging him to work with lawmakers to get the Colombia and Panama deals passed.

“To delay approval of these trade deals would be to abandon America’s closest allies in Latin America at a critical moment,” the group wrote. “To approve them will spur the economic growth and job creation that U.S. workers, farmers, and companies need; approval of these agreements is a logical part of any stimulus package.”

Retailers would also like to see lawmakers attach language to the stimulus that would eliminate a tariff on low-cost imported footwear originally enacted as part of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley law.

But during his bitter primary battle with Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Obama’s rhetoric on trade in battleground states like Michigan and Ohio had a decidedly skeptical tint, and he at one point suggested that the North American Free Trade Agreement be re-negotiated.

In his final televised debate during his general election campaign against Sen. John McCain , R-Ariz., Obama expressed clear concerns about the Colombia deal. “The history in Colombia right now is that labor leaders have been targeted for assassination on a fairly consistent basis and there have not been prosecutions,” Obama said. “I think that the important point is we’ve got to have a president who understands the benefits of free trade but also ... is going to stand up to other countries.”

The Bush administration and Colombian officials insist that Bogota has made significant progress in curbing violence and instituting the rule of law amid a 40-year civil war against leftist guerrillas and right-wing militias. But Democrats say the progress is insufficient.

Congressional Election Issue
Organizations like Public Citizen are watching Obama’s words carefully, and say they intend to hold him to them. The group, which calls for “fundamental overhaul” of U.S. trade policies, tracked how trade was used as an issue during the 2008 campaign, especially in political advertisements, and argues that as many as 37 members of Congress were replaced by newcomers more apt to overhaul current trade policy.

“This political shift follows where the American public has been moving for years,” Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch program, said during a Nov. 6 conference call. “The challenge . . . is to translate the electoral messaging into real change.”

“Just the political cost of doing a Colombia agreement . . . would just shut down everything else they’re going to do,” Wallach argued in a separate interview.

“Fair trade has become a national priority,” Sen. Sherrod Brown , D-Ohio, said during the conference call. “We start with a timeout on trade agreements.”

Still, many in the business community argue that Obama will find it in his interest to pursue more free trade agreements — and even to ask Congress for a new version of trade promotion authority. The biggest test may be how Obama handles calls from some Democratic lawmakers for the administration to take action against China for alleged currency manipulation.

At the same time, business groups anticipate a difficult road ahead on trade and other issues on which organized labor is weighing in.

“I’m not naive. I’ve been around a long time, and I can count,” Thomas J. Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said at a Nov. 6 news conference. He predicted it will be “much harder to stop some anti-business” measures, and that unions and trial lawyers will be looking for “quick and frequent political payback.”

Benton Ives contributed to this report.

Labels: Colombia, United States

President Bush denies reports that, in conversations with President-elect Barack Obama, he linked his support for a bigger auto industry bailout, or possibly a fiscal stimulus package, to a demand that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) end her legislative blockade of the Colombia free-trade agreement. The Obama transition team denies it, too. That's just as well, since every legislative proposal should stand or fall on its own merits. Fortunately, the Colombia agreement passes that test.

Democrats in Congress, regrettably echoed by Mr. Obama on the campaign trail, frame their objections not in economic but political terms, arguing that Colombia has a dismal record on human rights. This characterization defies all reality. Since President Álvaro Uribe's first election in 2002, murder has declined by 40 percent; kidnappings have fallen by 75 percent. Supported by the United States and by a huge majority of the Colombian people, Mr. Uribe's firm but professional military approach has decimated the Marxist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (known as FARC), which once threatened to render the country ungovernable. Mr. Uribe has also brought right-wing paramilitary groups to heel. When evidence emerged recently that some of his troops had killed innocent people to inflate enemy body counts, Mr. Uribe fired 27 army officers and soldiers, including three generals.

Nor do the facts support Democrats' oft-repeated claim that Colombia is a particularly deadly place for trade unionists. Crime statistics for 2007 show that union members in Colombia were actually less likely to be murdered than members of the general population. This is partly due to the overall drop in homicide, but it is also because of special protective measures instituted by the Uribe government, at a cost of $38 million last year. More broadly, the U.S.-Colombia pact contains the same protections for labor rights -- and the environment -- that Congress accepted in a separate deal between the United States and Peru. A steadfast U.S. ally in South America, Colombia deserves the political seal of approval that the free-trade agreement would deliver -- not ostracism.

And then there's self-interest: The main economic effect of the trade agreement would be to enable U.S. producers -- automakers included -- to export to Colombia tariff-free. This would simply level the playing field, because 90 percent of Colombian goods already arrive in the United States tariff-free under temporary trade preferences that Congress recently renewed. With U.S. goods exports to Colombia totaling over $8 billion per year, the pact offers a nifty dose of stimulus for U.S. businesses and workers. While America stalls, Europe moves: The European Commission announced yesterday that it wants to start free-trade talks with Bogota. Why would Democrats need any deals or inducements to pass a measure that would promote U.S. foreign policy interests and create American jobs?

Labels: Colombia, United States

A diferencia del 99% de la población mundial, yo no espero que un político me tenga que subir el sueldo, sacar de la crisis en la que estamos o hacerme la sanidad más accesible. Sé que si el Gobierno me sube el sueldo por decreto ley, me van a despedir.

"Vota a aquel que prometa menos. Será el que menos te decepcione" W. M. Ramsay

Uno de los grandes defectos del ser humano es su fe ciega en los milagros, esto es, la esperanza de liberarse de sus responsabilidades y de obtener al mismo tiempo el mejor de los resultados posibles. Algo así, no tiene precio. Fíjense por ejemplo en estas pastillas y dietas para adelgazar o aquellos potingues que hacen crecer el pelo y los hombres buscan desesperadamente. Todos sabemos que no funcionan, pero ¿y si dieran resultado?

El día que Obama ganó las elecciones americanas, sus electores estaban eufóricos: habían comprado el mejor producto milagroso del mercado electoral. Sus seguidores decían: Obama abaratará la medicina, unirá a los sindicatos, nos sacará de la crisis, cambiará las guerras internacionales por la diplomacia, subirá el salario mínimo, incluso bajará los impuestos a los pobres y pequeñas empresas para subirlo a los ricos y grandes compañías. Vamos, será el primer Gobierno en la historia de la humanidad que dejará de ser fuerte con los débiles y débil con los fuertes. Lo que no se explica entonces es cómo Obama ha sido el candidato que más dinero ha recibido de Wall Street. De hecho, el Dow Jones se disparó el día anterior a las elecciones descontando ya su victoria, al día siguiente bajo por eso de "comprar con el rumor y vender con la noticia". Negros pobres y blancos ricos unidos por un mismo candidato. ¿Se ha dado cuenta de que aquí en España ocurre algo similar? Los "desamparados" votaron a Zapatero y las grandes compañías se han llevado los beneficios.

A diferencia del 99% de la población mundial, yo no espero que un político me tenga que subir el sueldo, sacar de la crisis en la que estamos o hacerme la sanidad más accesible. Sé que si el Gobierno me sube el sueldo por decreto ley, me van a despedir. Sé que si intenta sacarme de la crisis, será arrebatándome mi dinero para dárselo a alguna inmobiliaria o banco. Y sé, que si me hace la sanidad más accesible, tendré que aguantar largas colas, una sanidad ineficiente y médicos prepotentes e ineptos que jamás son responsables de sus errores.

Bush era el presidente de la Seguridad Nacional (con mayúsculas) y ha acabado arruinando al país, convirtiéndolo en un estado de sitio para sus ciudadanos con campo de concentración incluido (Guantánamo). Zapatero, era el presidente de la concordia, justicia social y prosperidad. Jamás ha habido en este país tanta crispación, mal funcionamiento de la justicia y crisis económica como ahora.

¿Y cuál es el mejor presidente entonces? Tal vez las cosas vayan al revés. El que menos haga, será el mejor. Estados Unidos nos da tres muestras.

William Henry Harrison. ¿Le suena? Difícilmente. Fue el noveno presidente de los Estados Unidos. Hizo el discurso de posesión a la presidencia más largo que jamás se había realizado hasta entonces, dos horas. Un mes después murió. Afortunadamente para los americanos, no le dio tiempo a hacer nada.

Millard Fillmore fue el decimotercero presidente de los Estados Unidos. Tuvo tantas peleas políticas durante su presidencia que tampoco hizo nada. Su mayor logro fue montar un baño en la Casa Blanca. Otro gran respiro para los americanos.

Warren G. Harding fue el presidente número veintinueve. Muchos historiadores lo tachan como el peor presidente de la historia americana. No pueden estar más equivocados. Nadie era capaz de descifrar las cosas que decía; no sólo porque no tenían sentido, sino porque se inventaba palabras a la hora de hablar y escribir. El periodista H.L. Mencken dijo de él que "tiene el peor inglés que haya visto jamás". No viajó mucho ni despilfarraba el dinero, daba los discursos en el porche de su casa.

Tenía fama de mujeriego, bebedor y ahí donde iba visitaba el show de variedades del lugar. Dos veces a la semana, montaba timbas de póker en la Casa Blanca. Evidentemente, un hombre con una vida social tan activa poco podía dedicar a las cuestiones de Estado. Fueron dos años donde los americanos se vieron libres de la tiranía de las buenas intenciones políticas.

Los políticos estrella, los que quieren hacer historia son las peores amenazas para el ciudadano libre. Lincoln, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Bush (hijo)... Todos han hecho historia. Todos ellos han dejado su país en la miseria, participado en invasiones o guerras y han ampliado los poderes políticos por encima de la libertad de los ciudadanos. El mejor presidente es el que no tiene edificios a su nombre, ni bibliotecas, ni estatuas: el que nadie recuerda. Esperemos que Obama no haga más historia de la que ya ha hecho siendo el primer presidente negro de los Estados Unidos.

Labels: United States

"... Una conducta de mayor radicalización y confrontación de Chávez podría llevar a Obama a posponer, incluso a desechar, su disposición inicial de diálogo. También dependerá de la conducta de Hugo Chávez que el nuevo inquilino de la Casa Blanca endurezca o flexibilice la política que hasta ahora los EEUU han desarrollado hacia Venezuela. Si tras las elecciones regionales venezolanas del próximo 24 de noviembre, Chávez se radicaliza -como lo viene demostrando y anunciando- el nuevo gobierno de Obama se verá en la obligación de enfrentarlo. Se trata de una política de Estado..."

La revolución chavista es, y seguirá siendo bajo la administración Obama, uno de los puntos prioritarios de la agenda latinoamericana de los Estados Unidos. No por casualidad, el hoy presidente electo de ese país se detuvo en el caso venezolano –el único digno de mención entre los diversos asuntos latinoamericanos- en los cuatro debates mantenidos con su contrincante republicano durante la campaña electoral.

A decir verdad, en el transcurso de toda esa campaña, tanto Barack Obama como sus asesores y posibles colaboradores en materia de política internacional, se manifestaron preocupados por la actuación desafiante y antidemocrática del presidente Hugo Chávez, por sus violaciones al Estado de derecho y a las libertades de los venezolanos, por sus nexos con grupos terroristas, y por su expansión e intervencionismo regional.

Sin embargo, pese a las críticas y diferencias político-ideológicas, Obama aseguró estar dispuesto a conversar con el mandatario venezolano, aunque bajo ciertas condiciones. "Es importante para nosotros no reaccionar exageradamente en relación contra Chávez. Debemos hacerle entender con respeto pero con firmeza que no queremos que siga propagando el sentimiento antiamericano en la región y que estamos interesados en un diálogo respetuoso con los integrantes de América Latina para buscar la manera de mejorar su calidad de vida", afirmó en una oportunidad. Obama parte de la premisa que confrontar a Chávez y no propiciar un diálogo presidencial con él, sólo fortalece la posición doméstica y regional del chavismo. No es una conjetura descabellada, menos ahora que el régimen chavista se encuentra debilitado, tanto política como económicamente.

Pero en realidad, que se dé o no un diálogo entre Obama y Chávez, dependerá más de éste último que de aquél. Y en este sentido las declaraciones del mandatario venezolano han sido ambiguas. En principio Chávez aseguró que no se sentaría a hablar con Obama puesto que estaba seguro que sería igual de imperialista que todos los gobernantes estadounidenses, pero al final de la campaña electoral, cuando ya era evidente su victoria, afirmó que sí lo haría.

Una conducta de mayor radicalización y confrontación de Chávez podría llevar a Obama a posponer, incluso a desechar, su disposición inicial de diálogo. También dependerá de la conducta de Hugo Chávez que el nuevo inquilino de la Casa Blanca endurezca o flexibilice la política que hasta ahora los EEUU han desarrollado hacia Venezuela. Si tras las elecciones regionales venezolanas del próximo 24 de noviembre, Chávez se radicaliza -como lo viene demostrando y anunciando- el nuevo gobierno de Obama se verá en la obligación de enfrentarlo. Se trata de una política de Estado. No es de extrañar que se ejerzan sanciones mayores a las tomadas hasta ahora, como la de colocar a Venezuela en la lista de naciones que promocionan el terrorismo.

Hasta es posible, en un momento dado, un bloqueo estadounidense a la importación de crudo venezolano. Según informes bipartidistas realizados desde el propio Congreso estadounidense, las implicaciones de una medida como esa podrían compensarse con la liberación de alrededor de dos millones de barriles diarios de crudo de la reserva estratégica de ese país y con la compra de crudo a otros socios más confiables.

Arabia Saudita seguramente supliría de inmediato los 1.200.000 barriles que la Venezuela “revolucionaria” dejaría de enviarle al “imperio”. Para Venezuela, los efectos de un bloqueo de compra de petróleo serían devastadores; más aún en este momento de desaceleración económica, en que disminuyen los precios del petróleo, en que PDVSA tiene que recurrir a su filial norteamericana, Citgo, para obtener créditos bancarios. Si Chávez se radicaliza, le resultará más fácil al Congreso estadounidense –ahora de mayoría demócrata- apoyar a Obama en éstas y otras sanciones.

Independientemente de lo que haga o deje de hacer el nuevo gobierno, los diversos entes gubernamentales de EEUU – el Departamento de Estado, el Departamento del Tesoro, el Departamento de Defensa, la Fiscalía, entre otros- continuarán haciendo su trabajo con respecto a ciudadanos y empresas venezolanas que violen las leyes establecidas. Creo que seguiremos viendo sanciones tales como las de cerrar cuentas bancarias en territorio estadounidense a aquellos funcionarios del chavismo a los que se les demuestren nexos con grupos narcoterroristas, o como las recién aplicadas en contra de la empresa gubernamental Industrias Militares de Venezuela (Cavim), por haber violado la prohibición norteamericana de vender tecnología militar que pudiese ayudar a Siria, Irán y Corea del Norte a desarrollar sistemas de armamento sensible.

En cuanto a las relaciones comerciales bilaterales, sobre todo en materia petrolera, el gobierno de Obama mantendrá el patrón seguido hasta ahora, al menos en el corto plazo. Le sería costoso cambiarlo de inmediato ya que Venezuela, sin tener un acuerdo de libre comercio con EEUU, figura entre las 30 naciones con mayor intercambio comercial con ese país, situándose en el puesto 23. Las exportaciones venezolanas a ese país, entre enero y agosto de 2008, aumentaron 59,4% con respecto al mismo lapso en el 2007. Mientras que las exportaciones estadounidenses hacia Venezuela, se incrementaron en 14,8% en el mismo período. Sin embargo, Barack Obama tomará acciones en forma paulatina que le permitan independizarse de la compra de petróleo venezolano, la cual irá reemplazando con la importación de crudos a México y Canadá.

Como vemos, el panorama futuro de las relaciones entre Venezuela y EEUU no luce tan esperanzador como afirmó Hugo Chávez en su más reciente alocución. Es más, podría oscurecerse a niveles no vistos hasta ahora. Dependerá más de él que de Obama.

Labels: United States, Venezuela

What are we to make of this epic election? Are we really, as some contend, a country torn between “red” and “blue” America. Are there truly “patriotic” and “unpatriotic” quarters? A closer look at our country’s history reveals otherwise.

Many of us who are first-generation Americans retain immediate connections to nations truly savaged by civil unrest, ethnic and class conflict and political violence. We don’t have to think too hard to think of places where “suffrage,” “elections” and even “democracy” are generally just catchy slogans.

For many, these are the places our ancestors escaped. These are the places of enduring family and cultural ties, but not the lands of our political hopes and dreams.

Sadly, the history of Latin America and the Caribbean is riddled with coups, revolutions, fixed elections, massive voter fraud and deception that seriously eroded the confidence the people had in the idea of democracy. Worse yet, as in the cases of Argentina, Chile and Uruguay in the 1970s, political discontent was so severe that civil unrest eventually culminated in military takeovers.

In the 1980s, after the Sandinistas promised democracy, Nicaragua underwent a bloody civil war pitting the Sandinistas against the Contras. Ferocious political divisions in El Salvador and Guatemala claimed tens of thousands of lives. Cuba passed from the reactionary dictatorship of Batista to the revolutionary dictatorship of Fidel Castro without ever experiencing freedom.

And while Mexico was mostly spared bloodshed in the latter half of the 20th century, it suffered under a one-party grip for close to seven decades, despite frequent calls for change. Not until 2000 could it be said that Mexico entered the modern era of real democracy. In short, while free, fair and open election is still a relatively new reality in the Western Hemisphere, the United States has been doing elections and transitions since 1789.

It’s a remarkable feat in many places to have even one peaceful transfer of power. Yet the United States has done it over and over across more than two centuries. This is particularly stunning since we’ve had our share of political and civil discontent. Yet only once -- the Civil War -- did citizens resist the decision of the majority.

While there’s no doubt Barack Obama’s election has angered many people, the peaceful transition we are witnessing is a testament of the greatness of this wonderful country and its diverse but deeply democratic people.

Even in an election where so many were emotionally invested in one candidate or the other, and where passions at times ran high, the outcome closed a chapter. Americans move ahead. On Jan. 20, President-elect Obama will be sworn in on the steps of the U.S. Capitol ensuring that this great, enduring, if sometimes overlooked, tradition continues.

As Americans of Hispanic descent, we should never lose sight of how fortunate we are to live in this great country where voting rights and a free and fair election are not fancy catchphrases, but are deeply ingrained in the very fabric of American citizenship. As it says in the Declaration of Independence, government must operate by the “consent of the governed.”

The results of this election are still being analyzed, but election data indicates that Hispanics played a crucial role in determining the outcome of the presidential election in a number of “swing states,” including Florida, Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico. It’s clear that this election ignited the passions of many Hispanic Americans -- particularly younger Hispanics. The important thing will be sustaining their enthusiasm in the years ahead. A well-informed and civic-minded citizenry is absolutely vital in breathing new life into the spirit of our government.
Voting is just one of the many rights and responsibilities that come with being a citizen. Having a strong command of our English language, respecting the laws, working to build community, and appreciating our country’s rich history will be even more important as our Hispanic minority grows in numbers.

Only by truly appreciating how fortunate we are to be living in the greatest nation on Earth and by acting as responsible citizens will we ensure that tomorrow’s immigrants, like the millions before us, can enjoy the liberties we enjoy today.

* Israel Ortega is a Senior Media Services Associate at The Heritage Foundation.

Labels: United States