Alberto Nájar
BBC Mundo
Desde hace varios meses Emerenciana Martínez dejó de comer un día a la semana porque el dinero no le alcanza para comprar todos sus alimentos.
No es la única que lo hace, pues la mayoría de sus vecinos del barrio Alfareros en Chimalhuacán, un municipio marginado al oriente de la capital mexicana, quitó la carne de res de su dieta cotidiana.
"Aquí no hay persona que no tenga hambre, ves a los niños cada vez más flacos", dijo Martínez en conversación con BBC Mundo.
Es una nueva cara de la crisis económica en México, donde cifras oficiales revelaron que por lo menos 2,6 millones de familias dejaron de comer un día a la semana por falta de recursos.
Esta cifra representa el 9,9% del total de hogares mexicanos.
Analistas advirtieron el riesgo de que aumente la desnutrición y las enfermedades degenerativas por esta causa.
"Es un síntoma de que cada vez hay más sectores de la población que caen en la pobreza", le dijo a BBC Mundo Julio Boltvinik, investigador del Colegio de México.
Actualmente el 47% de la población, unos 50,6 millones de personas, se considera viven en situación de pobreza patrimonial, según el Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Secretaría de Desarrollo Social.
Menos comida
Según la más reciente encuesta del Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (Inegi), 6,5 millones de hogares mexicanos cambiaron su dieta por la crisis económica.
Los datos del Módulo de Acceso a Alimentación del sondeo indicaron que el 24,5% de los entrevistados reconoció que come menos de lo que esperaba.
Los más afectados son los niños. De acuerdo con la Encuesta Nacional de Ingreso y Gasto en los Hogares, el 31% de los menores de edad tuvieron una dieta con poca variedad en los alimentos.
Además, en por lo menos un millón de hogares los niños se van a la cama con el estómago vacío, reveló el sondeo.
Un dato adicional es que las familias mexicanas compran cada vez menos carne de res o verduras, y las sustituyen con alimentos ricos en calorías y pocos nutrientes.
Riesgo de obesidad
Esto significa que la calidad de la dieta de los mexicanos se ha deteriorado en los últimos años, y que incidirá en el aumento de la obesidad en la población, dijeron los analistas.
"Son datos dramáticos, le dan una nueva cara a la imagen de la pobreza. Es algo que ya sabíamos pero que no se había podido medir", dijo Boltvinik.
Esta es la primera vez que el gobierno mexicano mide la cantidad de alimentos que consumen los habitantes del país.
La situación podría agravarse ante el anuncio de las autoridades de que a partir de 2010 aumentará el precio de la gasolina y la energía eléctrica.
Share This
Tecpatl
Our Word is Our Weapon, if you have anything you would like us to publish please send us an email @ maiz_centeotl_chicomecoatl@riseup.net
Subscribe To Maiz Today!!!!
Posts
All Comments
8/10/09
Janice Harper, the Nuclear Option, Silence and New Threats to Academic Freedom
Trial by FBI Investigation
By DAVID PRICE
CounterPunch
Beginning in the early 1990s, I spent about a dozen years slowly collecting, analyzing and compiling tens of thousands of FBI files detailing how dozens of American anthropologists were investigated and harassed by the FBI and various loyalty boards during the late-1940s and 50s. In most of the cases I encountered, the scholars under investigation were targeted because they were involved in unpopular (legal) political causes—the most common of which involved activist campaigns fighting for racial equality, in others they challenged gender roles, economic stratification, the unbridled militarism or other conventions of their era. Many of those investigated already stood out amongst their colleagues as individuals unwilling to go along with the polite social conventions that supported the world they were challenging.
In most of these instances, non-relevant facets of individuals’ lives were collected and analyzed by the FBI, employers or local law enforcement agents, and unsubstantiated accusations were collected and used to informally blackball and persecute individual anthropologists who were engaged in political activities. The range of these collected details was bizarre and often prurient (in one case, a well known anthropologist’s reported, private, onanistic habits were collected and reported by the FBI). In the several dozens of cases I analyzed in my book Threatening Anthropology, none of the FBI’s exhaustive inquiries into the private affairs of anthropologists provided any proof of illegal activity directly related to these investigations; but many of the anthropologists who were the subjects of these investigations wound up losing jobs, marginalized within their discipline, or leaving the field entirely, simply because they were investigated by the FBI. In the McCarthy years, the mere investigation by the FBI as a suspected communist was enough to ruin one’s career, and the FBI’s practice of keeping their files and findings private lent a twisted sense of legitimacy to shadowy accusations and rumors of wrong doing—yet, when I had over a dozen linear feet of these files released under the Freedom of Information Act, I found that the FBI actually had nothing of substance.
As it was in other academic fields, anthropology’s weak disciplinary defensive response allowed the FBI and wider-facets of McCarthyism to flourish and wreck havoc on many of the field’s best and brightest. There was an emerging silence that took over the American Anthropological Association’s leadership and spread throughout the membership. Everyone got scared when the FBI investigated anthropologists in the late-1940s and 1950s, and, as the fear spread, everyone went silent. Sometimes the psychological anguish and reactions of those being persecuted made it easy for colleagues to rationalize abandoning friends. Just being investigated was enough to ruin careers and alienate individuals from other scholars—and, more generally, to teach the discipline not to study or engage in advocacy relating to controversial topics like racial inequality, poverty, segregation, and economic inequality. At a time when they were most needed, the professional associations went silent.
The relevance of this mid-century history takes on new meanings as Janice Harper, formerly of the University of Tennessee Knoxville’s (UTK) Department of Anthropology has found herself subjected to a bizarre and Kafkaesque investigation of the sort which cannot hope to produce anything resembling a positive outcome for the subject, regardless of the findings of the investigation: indeed, this investigation’s impact on Dr. Harper’s reputation seems to be an outcome structurally connecting these events with investigations of the McCarthy period. As it was during the McCarthy period, just being investigated is enough to undermine one’s career, and as reported by Robin Wilson in the Chronicle of Higher Education this past week, Dr. Harper has now been fired by the University of Tennessee.
The Chronicle piece skirts the details of this very complicated story (a story made all the more complicated by UTK declining to provide their version of events because of a pending lawsuit), characterized with baroque twists and turns, betrayals, ruptures in internal university procedures and safeguards, that, along the way, obscure the story’s main thread. But, the basic facts of the case are these: Dr. Janice Harper was an untenured assistant professor in the University of Tennessee’s Department of Anthropology, with an established research career as a medical anthropologist and a research interest in the nuclear legacy of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. She was hired in 2004, and her initial performance reviewers were extremely positive. According to Dr. Harper, her 2004 evaluation said she was “off to an excellent start” and her following reviews were unanimously positive, with the exception of a 2006 review indicating that she might not be tenured due to issues of non-collegiality. In a department that Harper says now has no tenured women and has only tenured two women since 1947, it remains unclear what such an evaluation means.
Harper maintains that perceptions of her lack of “collegiality” stemmed from a meeting in 2005, where after problems with a failed job search, Dr. Harper says she raised questions about the department’s problems in hiring and retaining women. Dr. Harper contacted the campus Office of Equity and Diversity (OED) to discuss her concerns, and Dr. Harper believes that it was her decision to go outside the department to raise these issues that led some in the department to see her as not being a “team player” and raising issues of “collegiality.”
Professor Harper says that her teaching and research continued to be productive and highly rated. What sets Dr. Harper’s case apart from the usual tenure struggles was the series of events that spilled over from the personal and professional battles academics often have to endure, as the National Security State’s intervention superseded all other issues. With time, her research interests increasingly focused on controversial issues that included collecting oral histories of individuals recounting the past lax disposal of nuclear waste at Oak Ridge National Labs and legacies of disease among workers, while her department came to increasingly build up its institutional affiliations with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Department of Energy.
Dr. Harper says that in October 2007 as she was under consideration for tenure, she approached her department chair raising concerns about an employee’s behavior. She says that the college called for a sexual harassment investigation, and that she was told she was compelled to cooperate and when she did, she says, “I was told that my tenure would not have been an issue without this report, but because I did make a report, my tenure should be denied.”
In February, 2008, the University of Tennessee’s College Tenure and Promotions Committee voted to grant her tenure with a 9-0 vote, noting that she had an “outstanding” record of graduate advising. But the following month, her Associate Dean rejected letters submitted by colleagues from other universities, citing concerns that these letters went beyond evaluation of Dr. Harper and her work into the realm of “advocacy.” Having written and read dozens of letters supporting promotion and tenure efforts, I must add that rejecting such letters from outside colleagues (who had apparently been pre-approved as appropriate references) for this reason, so late in the process, is highly unusual. But, this was apparently just the beginning of a seemingly inexplicable descent into the surreal. When Dr. Harper called a UTK colleague and friend to privately express her deep frustrations, her call reportedly triggered a police visit to her home, ostensibly to evaluate whether her upset state suggested that she might harm to herself or others. Harper says that the local police soon realized that this was not the case, but soon after this, University of Tennessee “police officers came to my home with notice banning me from the university for allegedly threatening the lives of my university employees and mandating I obtain a mental health evaluation.” Soon afterwards, the University Police informed her that two individuals had made these reports, but, after a police investigation, the case was closed and she was allowed to return to campus and officially declared not to be a threat.
But, like a textbook discussion of collective mobbing behavior, the act of investigation brought more accusations. As soon as this investigation was closed, Dr. Harper says she was informed by an Associate Dean that there had been more reports made against her, this time from students. Dr. Harper says that the Associate Dean would not tell her what the allegations were other than they related to a “bombing” and that she was being investigated by Homeland Security. In late April, 2008, Professor Harper says that she “received a letter from the Provost informing me that new information has come to light that could have a bearing on my tenure application.” But, the specifics of what was going on remained obscure. Dr. Harper says “I had no idea what I was accused of, other than it had been reported to Homeland Security.” Later, claims were made that Dr. Harper had tried to coerce a graduate student to provide classified data to help her own research; a claim Dr. Harper continues to deny and that the Faculty Senate Appeals Committee Report later suggested that even the Provost’s Office “did not find [these] charges credible,” yet these damaging claims remained as supplemental information in Dr. Harper’s file.
On May 9, 2008, Dr. Harper was suddenly approached by FBI agents. She says that:
Meanwhile, Dr. Harper says that the university began its own investigation, talking with students in her classes, even though the university was unable to identify a single student who could confirm that she had made any threat or acted inappropriately. The lack of evidence, however, only seemed to fuel the university’s compulsion to investigate.
The agents’ questions about “plans for building a hydrogen bomb” demonstrate how absurd the accusations had become, and how a climate of gossip had made even teaching a risk to Dr. Harper’s personal security. Dr. Harper was teaching courses on the history and impact of the nuclear weapons industry and a course on anthropology and warfare. Her class had been assigned to read anthropologist Joseph Masco’s brilliant book, Nuclear Borderlands, and had discussed Howard Morland’s landmark 1979 article in The Progressive disclosing “The H –Bomb Secret,” and these investigations suggested sinister undertones for such readings—as if it were any of Homeland Security or the FBI’s business what professors choose to read in the classroom.
Dr. Harper says that in early June, the University of Tennessee’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) revoked her standing research clearance on the grounds that the police and FBI investigations and the seizure of her research materials exposed her informants to risks. She was told that she “could not use my data until I had assurance from the FBI and university that I was no longer under surveillance.” As these investigations continued, however, they found nothing to indicate that she had made threats or was somehow building a hydrogen bomb. Yet, Dr. Harper was caught in a classic double-bind. Although the FBI did not find that she had done anything wrong, she could not complete her work simply because this investigation had opened her private research records up to FBI scrutiny. This, of course, seriously imperiled her professional activity and development. Last fall, Dr. Harper learned that the faculty in her department voted to deny her tenure application.
In June 2009, the University of Tennessee Faculty Senate Appeals Committee issued a detailed 26 pages report expressing concern over the procedural irregularities in Dr. Harper’s case. The report quotes from an FBI report indicating that even after the FBI undertook “a very aggressive and action oriented” investigation of these claims about Dr. Harper, the FBI closed the investigation after US Attorney “Jeffrey E. Theodore declined prosecution due to lack of criminal activity and no nexus to terrorism.” But a satisfied Justice Department appeared to make no difference to UTK officials.
Her position with the University officially ended a few weeks ago at the end of July, but Dr. Harper has retained legal counsel and reports she is filing suit against the university for gender discrimination, breach of contract, defamation and other tort claims, with additional Title VII Retaliation claims pending. Many academics, learning some of the details of Dr. Harper’s story, are content to let the courts adjudicate the matter, such an approach betrays unusual faith in the judicial system. Such a view overlooks the onerous financial costs facing a single mother waging a protracted legal battle with an entity as well endowed, financially and politically, as the University of Tennessee, while missing the important role that might be played by professional associations in investigating such threats to academic freedom.
Dr. Harper’s story appears to be one in which the usual politics of academic advancement became tainted by the “nuclear option” of an FBI investigation. This is an option that anthropologists and others who choose to critically (or perhaps even not so critically, in the case of fired Human Terrain Team member, Zenia Helbig, a doctoral student in religious studies at the University of Virginia, who was removed from her position after she joked over beers about defecting to Iran if the US declared war on Iran) study or work with the military or military-related sectors will increasingly risk such actions. With the military and intelligence and security agencies of the US government increasingly seeking to hire anthropologists and other social scientists, Dr. Harper’s experiences raise the probability that any scholars working in, with, or even around such sectors can easily become targets of investigation.
The way in which accusations of “non collegiality” morphed into an FBI witch-hunt is one measure of the chilling impact of the post-9/11 national security state on American campuses. The silence surrounding these issues adds to the chill and risks nurturing environments that invite rogue inquests to spread to other campuses. Professional associations such as the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the American Anthropological Association (AAA) and the Society for Applied Anthropology (SFAA) have been approached and asked to take a stand in support of Dr. Harper, to ensure that she is given the protections of procedures and investigations due to all scholars, but, so far, they have done nothing. Beyond last week’s brief article in The Chronicle, a vacant silence surrounds her termination. Certainly, the loss of a scholar’s IRB clearance because of an FBI investigation that found no wrong doing ought to be an issue of central importance to such professional organizations, and I would hope that the AAUP, AAA and SFAA would recognize the need for them to weigh-in on this and other procedural aspects of her case. This is a case that impacts us all.
I have known Janice Harper as a valued colleague for over a decade (having read her work and appeared on panels with her organized by the American Anthropological Association and the Society for Applied Anthropology), and know her to be a strong, independent and respected scholar. Over the last two years, she has periodically kept me apprised of some of these developments, and I am left wondering if being a strong woman in a department that has historically been so male-dominated relates to accusations of non-congeniality, or even how “non-congeniality” was, if at all, related to the ensuing FBI investigation. So convoluted and obscure has the entire story been that, even at this late date, Janice Harper herself isn’t sure if it was the political nature of her research at Oak Ridge National Laboratories that led to this chain of events. As she observes, “maybe my research had nothing to do with it and it was exclusively being the first woman up for tenure in years, in the front lines of feminizing the department, and not being the right kind of woman. I broke the silence about sexualizing women, keeping our mouths shut, being perky and quiet, non-assertive.” Regardless of the role of her Oak Ridge National Laboratory research in the chain of events described here, it is clearly the wider culture of national security paranoia and the broad powers of government investigation that allowed the sort of witch-hunt that has so damaged her professional standing.
Janice Harper wonders if this cascading flow of investigations makes her a sort of “indicator species of the Patriot Act;” as if her experience marks an entry into a new era where those engaged in the usual departmental disputes of academia can now use the specter of security issues to decimate their opposition. Similar dynamics occurred in the 1950s when mere accusations of communism led to firings, bankruptcies, suicides, or worse; in the mid-1980s claims of ritualistic satanic child-abuse soared and spread under conditions of presumed guilt and prosecutions without corroborating physical evidence. Today, the Patriot Act serves as attractive nuisance inviting abuses of process and principles of fundamental fairness, while Homeland Security and FBI agents’ snooping through professors’ course reading lists undermines the basic foundations of academic freedom needed for free and honest inquiry.
Precious few protections are afforded untenured professors, but chief among these hoped protections are expectations of fundamental fairness and protections of due process. Without knowing all the details of what occurred between Dr. Harper, her department and the administration, if her core claims are true that (and these claims have been echoed by the UTK Faculty Senate Appeals Committee Report): after making accusations of sexual harassment, a claimed positive tenure review was overturned at the end of the process by the unusual and sudden rejection of evaluative letter by respected colleagues, then the calm and neutral judgment of some outside body is needed to evaluate what happened here. I understand that UTK’s silence is only that mandated by lawyers demanding no comments on matters likely leading to litigation, but professional associations concerned with the protection of academic freedom and due process need to independently investigate what happened.
I began working on this story a few months ago, and when I contacted the University of Tennessee’s Chair of the Anthropology Department, Dr. Andy Kramer, for comments and to try and verify Harper’s version of events I was referred to the university’s General Counsel, Lela Young; who had no comment but referred me to Margie Nichols, Vice Chancellor for Communications, who also had no comment. No one at UTK would confirm, deny or comment on any aspect of this story beyond confirming Dr. Harper’s then employment at the university. I do not know all of the facts surrounding the University of Tennessee’s termination of Dr. Janice Harper; given the University’s silence, I mostly have Dr. Harper’s account along with records from the Faculty Senate inquiry and other sources substantiating her narrative. I would certainly welcome more information on the University of Tennessee’s version of events, but I have learned enough to support a call for a thorough independent investigation by an outside body of procedural violations of Dr. Harper’s due process, and violations of her academic freedom. The University of Tennessee Faculty Senate Appeals Committee report found that “this case creates the unmistakable impression that the outcome was decided by all parties in the University hierarchy long before the tenure application was ever filed, and the various entities along the way simply tried to find grounds to justify the desired conclusion of denying Dr. Harper’s tenure.” While this Faculty Senate report will likely be a devastating court document in Dr. Harper’s lawsuit, the issues raised by the actions in this case cannot just be left to the courts.
Professional academic associations need to investigate and take a stand on what has happened here. The post-9/11 militarization of our universities has opened the way for the sort of abusive FBI and Homeland Security probes that Dr. Harper had to suffer; and each such incursion on our campuses teaches students, professors and administrators to self-censor, remain silent, and to distance themselves from those who might fall under suspicion. This is exactly how the American social sciences learned to disengage from the sort of research focusing on racial and economic social justice during the McCarthy period, and it is easy to see how these impacts can be replayed slightly differently in the present if academics remain silent.
David Price is a member of the Network of Concerned Anthropologist. He is the author of Anthropological Intelligence: The Deployment and Neglect of American Anthropology in the Second World War, published by Duke University Press, and a contributor to the Network of Concerned Anthropologists’ new book Counter-Counterinsurgency Manual published last month by Prickly Paradigm Press. He can be reached at dprice@stmartin.edu
By DAVID PRICE
CounterPunch
Beginning in the early 1990s, I spent about a dozen years slowly collecting, analyzing and compiling tens of thousands of FBI files detailing how dozens of American anthropologists were investigated and harassed by the FBI and various loyalty boards during the late-1940s and 50s. In most of the cases I encountered, the scholars under investigation were targeted because they were involved in unpopular (legal) political causes—the most common of which involved activist campaigns fighting for racial equality, in others they challenged gender roles, economic stratification, the unbridled militarism or other conventions of their era. Many of those investigated already stood out amongst their colleagues as individuals unwilling to go along with the polite social conventions that supported the world they were challenging.
In most of these instances, non-relevant facets of individuals’ lives were collected and analyzed by the FBI, employers or local law enforcement agents, and unsubstantiated accusations were collected and used to informally blackball and persecute individual anthropologists who were engaged in political activities. The range of these collected details was bizarre and often prurient (in one case, a well known anthropologist’s reported, private, onanistic habits were collected and reported by the FBI). In the several dozens of cases I analyzed in my book Threatening Anthropology, none of the FBI’s exhaustive inquiries into the private affairs of anthropologists provided any proof of illegal activity directly related to these investigations; but many of the anthropologists who were the subjects of these investigations wound up losing jobs, marginalized within their discipline, or leaving the field entirely, simply because they were investigated by the FBI. In the McCarthy years, the mere investigation by the FBI as a suspected communist was enough to ruin one’s career, and the FBI’s practice of keeping their files and findings private lent a twisted sense of legitimacy to shadowy accusations and rumors of wrong doing—yet, when I had over a dozen linear feet of these files released under the Freedom of Information Act, I found that the FBI actually had nothing of substance.
As it was in other academic fields, anthropology’s weak disciplinary defensive response allowed the FBI and wider-facets of McCarthyism to flourish and wreck havoc on many of the field’s best and brightest. There was an emerging silence that took over the American Anthropological Association’s leadership and spread throughout the membership. Everyone got scared when the FBI investigated anthropologists in the late-1940s and 1950s, and, as the fear spread, everyone went silent. Sometimes the psychological anguish and reactions of those being persecuted made it easy for colleagues to rationalize abandoning friends. Just being investigated was enough to ruin careers and alienate individuals from other scholars—and, more generally, to teach the discipline not to study or engage in advocacy relating to controversial topics like racial inequality, poverty, segregation, and economic inequality. At a time when they were most needed, the professional associations went silent.
The relevance of this mid-century history takes on new meanings as Janice Harper, formerly of the University of Tennessee Knoxville’s (UTK) Department of Anthropology has found herself subjected to a bizarre and Kafkaesque investigation of the sort which cannot hope to produce anything resembling a positive outcome for the subject, regardless of the findings of the investigation: indeed, this investigation’s impact on Dr. Harper’s reputation seems to be an outcome structurally connecting these events with investigations of the McCarthy period. As it was during the McCarthy period, just being investigated is enough to undermine one’s career, and as reported by Robin Wilson in the Chronicle of Higher Education this past week, Dr. Harper has now been fired by the University of Tennessee.
The Chronicle piece skirts the details of this very complicated story (a story made all the more complicated by UTK declining to provide their version of events because of a pending lawsuit), characterized with baroque twists and turns, betrayals, ruptures in internal university procedures and safeguards, that, along the way, obscure the story’s main thread. But, the basic facts of the case are these: Dr. Janice Harper was an untenured assistant professor in the University of Tennessee’s Department of Anthropology, with an established research career as a medical anthropologist and a research interest in the nuclear legacy of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. She was hired in 2004, and her initial performance reviewers were extremely positive. According to Dr. Harper, her 2004 evaluation said she was “off to an excellent start” and her following reviews were unanimously positive, with the exception of a 2006 review indicating that she might not be tenured due to issues of non-collegiality. In a department that Harper says now has no tenured women and has only tenured two women since 1947, it remains unclear what such an evaluation means.
Harper maintains that perceptions of her lack of “collegiality” stemmed from a meeting in 2005, where after problems with a failed job search, Dr. Harper says she raised questions about the department’s problems in hiring and retaining women. Dr. Harper contacted the campus Office of Equity and Diversity (OED) to discuss her concerns, and Dr. Harper believes that it was her decision to go outside the department to raise these issues that led some in the department to see her as not being a “team player” and raising issues of “collegiality.”
Professor Harper says that her teaching and research continued to be productive and highly rated. What sets Dr. Harper’s case apart from the usual tenure struggles was the series of events that spilled over from the personal and professional battles academics often have to endure, as the National Security State’s intervention superseded all other issues. With time, her research interests increasingly focused on controversial issues that included collecting oral histories of individuals recounting the past lax disposal of nuclear waste at Oak Ridge National Labs and legacies of disease among workers, while her department came to increasingly build up its institutional affiliations with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Department of Energy.
Dr. Harper says that in October 2007 as she was under consideration for tenure, she approached her department chair raising concerns about an employee’s behavior. She says that the college called for a sexual harassment investigation, and that she was told she was compelled to cooperate and when she did, she says, “I was told that my tenure would not have been an issue without this report, but because I did make a report, my tenure should be denied.”
In February, 2008, the University of Tennessee’s College Tenure and Promotions Committee voted to grant her tenure with a 9-0 vote, noting that she had an “outstanding” record of graduate advising. But the following month, her Associate Dean rejected letters submitted by colleagues from other universities, citing concerns that these letters went beyond evaluation of Dr. Harper and her work into the realm of “advocacy.” Having written and read dozens of letters supporting promotion and tenure efforts, I must add that rejecting such letters from outside colleagues (who had apparently been pre-approved as appropriate references) for this reason, so late in the process, is highly unusual. But, this was apparently just the beginning of a seemingly inexplicable descent into the surreal. When Dr. Harper called a UTK colleague and friend to privately express her deep frustrations, her call reportedly triggered a police visit to her home, ostensibly to evaluate whether her upset state suggested that she might harm to herself or others. Harper says that the local police soon realized that this was not the case, but soon after this, University of Tennessee “police officers came to my home with notice banning me from the university for allegedly threatening the lives of my university employees and mandating I obtain a mental health evaluation.” Soon afterwards, the University Police informed her that two individuals had made these reports, but, after a police investigation, the case was closed and she was allowed to return to campus and officially declared not to be a threat.
But, like a textbook discussion of collective mobbing behavior, the act of investigation brought more accusations. As soon as this investigation was closed, Dr. Harper says she was informed by an Associate Dean that there had been more reports made against her, this time from students. Dr. Harper says that the Associate Dean would not tell her what the allegations were other than they related to a “bombing” and that she was being investigated by Homeland Security. In late April, 2008, Professor Harper says that she “received a letter from the Provost informing me that new information has come to light that could have a bearing on my tenure application.” But, the specifics of what was going on remained obscure. Dr. Harper says “I had no idea what I was accused of, other than it had been reported to Homeland Security.” Later, claims were made that Dr. Harper had tried to coerce a graduate student to provide classified data to help her own research; a claim Dr. Harper continues to deny and that the Faculty Senate Appeals Committee Report later suggested that even the Provost’s Office “did not find [these] charges credible,” yet these damaging claims remained as supplemental information in Dr. Harper’s file.
On May 9, 2008, Dr. Harper was suddenly approached by FBI agents. She says that:
“Special Agents with the FBI-Joint Terrorism Task Force appeared at my door. They asked about my interest in bombs, if I would ever attend an anti-war rally, if I had plans for building a hydrogen bomb, if I had a list of human and building targets, if I planned to kill people, if I ever sought classified nuclear secrets, why I was researching uranium, what I would do if someone offered me classified information, would I ever attend anti-war rallies, what my politics are, if I keep in touch with my family, if I made a habit of talking about bombs. I had no idea what they were investigating me for, they were surprised I had not been told the nature of the accusations, but would not tell me themselves other than a student claimed I attempted to obtain classified information on nuclear transport and storage and reports of threatening students in class that I was building a hydrogen bomb. They soon realize that I am not at all a threat; I give them a copy of my course syllabus, and they leave, telling me they are closing the case, cannot tell me the extent of the searches and surveillance, but advise me to ‘hang in there.’”
Meanwhile, Dr. Harper says that the university began its own investigation, talking with students in her classes, even though the university was unable to identify a single student who could confirm that she had made any threat or acted inappropriately. The lack of evidence, however, only seemed to fuel the university’s compulsion to investigate.
The agents’ questions about “plans for building a hydrogen bomb” demonstrate how absurd the accusations had become, and how a climate of gossip had made even teaching a risk to Dr. Harper’s personal security. Dr. Harper was teaching courses on the history and impact of the nuclear weapons industry and a course on anthropology and warfare. Her class had been assigned to read anthropologist Joseph Masco’s brilliant book, Nuclear Borderlands, and had discussed Howard Morland’s landmark 1979 article in The Progressive disclosing “The H –Bomb Secret,” and these investigations suggested sinister undertones for such readings—as if it were any of Homeland Security or the FBI’s business what professors choose to read in the classroom.
Dr. Harper says that in early June, the University of Tennessee’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) revoked her standing research clearance on the grounds that the police and FBI investigations and the seizure of her research materials exposed her informants to risks. She was told that she “could not use my data until I had assurance from the FBI and university that I was no longer under surveillance.” As these investigations continued, however, they found nothing to indicate that she had made threats or was somehow building a hydrogen bomb. Yet, Dr. Harper was caught in a classic double-bind. Although the FBI did not find that she had done anything wrong, she could not complete her work simply because this investigation had opened her private research records up to FBI scrutiny. This, of course, seriously imperiled her professional activity and development. Last fall, Dr. Harper learned that the faculty in her department voted to deny her tenure application.
In June 2009, the University of Tennessee Faculty Senate Appeals Committee issued a detailed 26 pages report expressing concern over the procedural irregularities in Dr. Harper’s case. The report quotes from an FBI report indicating that even after the FBI undertook “a very aggressive and action oriented” investigation of these claims about Dr. Harper, the FBI closed the investigation after US Attorney “Jeffrey E. Theodore declined prosecution due to lack of criminal activity and no nexus to terrorism.” But a satisfied Justice Department appeared to make no difference to UTK officials.
Her position with the University officially ended a few weeks ago at the end of July, but Dr. Harper has retained legal counsel and reports she is filing suit against the university for gender discrimination, breach of contract, defamation and other tort claims, with additional Title VII Retaliation claims pending. Many academics, learning some of the details of Dr. Harper’s story, are content to let the courts adjudicate the matter, such an approach betrays unusual faith in the judicial system. Such a view overlooks the onerous financial costs facing a single mother waging a protracted legal battle with an entity as well endowed, financially and politically, as the University of Tennessee, while missing the important role that might be played by professional associations in investigating such threats to academic freedom.
Dr. Harper’s story appears to be one in which the usual politics of academic advancement became tainted by the “nuclear option” of an FBI investigation. This is an option that anthropologists and others who choose to critically (or perhaps even not so critically, in the case of fired Human Terrain Team member, Zenia Helbig, a doctoral student in religious studies at the University of Virginia, who was removed from her position after she joked over beers about defecting to Iran if the US declared war on Iran) study or work with the military or military-related sectors will increasingly risk such actions. With the military and intelligence and security agencies of the US government increasingly seeking to hire anthropologists and other social scientists, Dr. Harper’s experiences raise the probability that any scholars working in, with, or even around such sectors can easily become targets of investigation.
The way in which accusations of “non collegiality” morphed into an FBI witch-hunt is one measure of the chilling impact of the post-9/11 national security state on American campuses. The silence surrounding these issues adds to the chill and risks nurturing environments that invite rogue inquests to spread to other campuses. Professional associations such as the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the American Anthropological Association (AAA) and the Society for Applied Anthropology (SFAA) have been approached and asked to take a stand in support of Dr. Harper, to ensure that she is given the protections of procedures and investigations due to all scholars, but, so far, they have done nothing. Beyond last week’s brief article in The Chronicle, a vacant silence surrounds her termination. Certainly, the loss of a scholar’s IRB clearance because of an FBI investigation that found no wrong doing ought to be an issue of central importance to such professional organizations, and I would hope that the AAUP, AAA and SFAA would recognize the need for them to weigh-in on this and other procedural aspects of her case. This is a case that impacts us all.
I have known Janice Harper as a valued colleague for over a decade (having read her work and appeared on panels with her organized by the American Anthropological Association and the Society for Applied Anthropology), and know her to be a strong, independent and respected scholar. Over the last two years, she has periodically kept me apprised of some of these developments, and I am left wondering if being a strong woman in a department that has historically been so male-dominated relates to accusations of non-congeniality, or even how “non-congeniality” was, if at all, related to the ensuing FBI investigation. So convoluted and obscure has the entire story been that, even at this late date, Janice Harper herself isn’t sure if it was the political nature of her research at Oak Ridge National Laboratories that led to this chain of events. As she observes, “maybe my research had nothing to do with it and it was exclusively being the first woman up for tenure in years, in the front lines of feminizing the department, and not being the right kind of woman. I broke the silence about sexualizing women, keeping our mouths shut, being perky and quiet, non-assertive.” Regardless of the role of her Oak Ridge National Laboratory research in the chain of events described here, it is clearly the wider culture of national security paranoia and the broad powers of government investigation that allowed the sort of witch-hunt that has so damaged her professional standing.
Janice Harper wonders if this cascading flow of investigations makes her a sort of “indicator species of the Patriot Act;” as if her experience marks an entry into a new era where those engaged in the usual departmental disputes of academia can now use the specter of security issues to decimate their opposition. Similar dynamics occurred in the 1950s when mere accusations of communism led to firings, bankruptcies, suicides, or worse; in the mid-1980s claims of ritualistic satanic child-abuse soared and spread under conditions of presumed guilt and prosecutions without corroborating physical evidence. Today, the Patriot Act serves as attractive nuisance inviting abuses of process and principles of fundamental fairness, while Homeland Security and FBI agents’ snooping through professors’ course reading lists undermines the basic foundations of academic freedom needed for free and honest inquiry.
Precious few protections are afforded untenured professors, but chief among these hoped protections are expectations of fundamental fairness and protections of due process. Without knowing all the details of what occurred between Dr. Harper, her department and the administration, if her core claims are true that (and these claims have been echoed by the UTK Faculty Senate Appeals Committee Report): after making accusations of sexual harassment, a claimed positive tenure review was overturned at the end of the process by the unusual and sudden rejection of evaluative letter by respected colleagues, then the calm and neutral judgment of some outside body is needed to evaluate what happened here. I understand that UTK’s silence is only that mandated by lawyers demanding no comments on matters likely leading to litigation, but professional associations concerned with the protection of academic freedom and due process need to independently investigate what happened.
I began working on this story a few months ago, and when I contacted the University of Tennessee’s Chair of the Anthropology Department, Dr. Andy Kramer, for comments and to try and verify Harper’s version of events I was referred to the university’s General Counsel, Lela Young; who had no comment but referred me to Margie Nichols, Vice Chancellor for Communications, who also had no comment. No one at UTK would confirm, deny or comment on any aspect of this story beyond confirming Dr. Harper’s then employment at the university. I do not know all of the facts surrounding the University of Tennessee’s termination of Dr. Janice Harper; given the University’s silence, I mostly have Dr. Harper’s account along with records from the Faculty Senate inquiry and other sources substantiating her narrative. I would certainly welcome more information on the University of Tennessee’s version of events, but I have learned enough to support a call for a thorough independent investigation by an outside body of procedural violations of Dr. Harper’s due process, and violations of her academic freedom. The University of Tennessee Faculty Senate Appeals Committee report found that “this case creates the unmistakable impression that the outcome was decided by all parties in the University hierarchy long before the tenure application was ever filed, and the various entities along the way simply tried to find grounds to justify the desired conclusion of denying Dr. Harper’s tenure.” While this Faculty Senate report will likely be a devastating court document in Dr. Harper’s lawsuit, the issues raised by the actions in this case cannot just be left to the courts.
Professional academic associations need to investigate and take a stand on what has happened here. The post-9/11 militarization of our universities has opened the way for the sort of abusive FBI and Homeland Security probes that Dr. Harper had to suffer; and each such incursion on our campuses teaches students, professors and administrators to self-censor, remain silent, and to distance themselves from those who might fall under suspicion. This is exactly how the American social sciences learned to disengage from the sort of research focusing on racial and economic social justice during the McCarthy period, and it is easy to see how these impacts can be replayed slightly differently in the present if academics remain silent.
David Price is a member of the Network of Concerned Anthropologist. He is the author of Anthropological Intelligence: The Deployment and Neglect of American Anthropology in the Second World War, published by Duke University Press, and a contributor to the Network of Concerned Anthropologists’ new book Counter-Counterinsurgency Manual published last month by Prickly Paradigm Press. He can be reached at dprice@stmartin.edu
8/7/09
Vecinos distantes: México-ALBA
Juan Manuel Bueno Soria
Rebelión
Ochenta millones de pobres es la prueba irrefutable de que el modelo neoliberal aplicado a México, a través del Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (TLCAN), ha dejado exhausto a este país, cuyas ciudades principales están llenas de desempleados y menesterosos, y su sector rural muestra las evidencias del desastre agrícola y humano. Paradójicamente, en el contexto de este tratado, México sufre el desprecio y la discriminación de sus propios socios comerciales, pues el gobierno de Canadá impuso, el 13 de julio del año en curso, con el objeto de controlar el aumento en las solicitudes de refugio por parte de ciudadanos mexicanos, la necesidad de visa a todos aquellos que pretendan viajar a ese país.
De manera opuesta, bajo un nuevo esquema de cooperación, los países del sur del continente, miembros de la Alianza Bolivariana para las Américas (ALBA), muestran un buen desempeño económico y humano, como se desprende del último informe anual publicado por la Comisión Económica para la América Latina (CEPAL), así como de otros organismos internacionales.
1. El doloroso expediente de México.
En México ya hay 80 millones de pobres afirmó el reconocido especialista Julio Boltvinik el 21de julio pasado. Aunado a ello, el gobierno ha aceptado la caída del 10,4 por ciento del Producto Interno Bruto (PIB) en el segundo trimestre de 2009, mientras que el banco central (Banco de México) ha aceptado que este año se perderán 735 mil plazas en el sector formal.
Desde el 22 de mayo pasado, José Ángel Gurría, secretario general de la Organización de Cooperación y Desarrollo Económico (OCDE), sentenció que la economía de México era un desastre. Para finales de julio, este organismo insistía en que es “decepcionante” el crecimiento de la economía mexicana en los últimos 20 años y confirmaba que este país será de los más afectados por la actual recesión y aseveraba que la destrucción de empleos formales se extenderá a 2010.
En este contexto, la Comisión Económica Para América Latina (CEPAL), en su Estudio 2008-2009, hace un recuento de la crisis mexicana: repunte del desempleo, disminución del crédito para el consumo, menor llegada de remesas del exterior y caída de las exportaciones. El informe es contundente, señala que “Las ventas externas en el primer cuatrimestre del año se desplomaron un 30,5% a consecuencia del agravamiento de la situación de la economía de los Estados Unidos, que acapara el 80% de las exportaciones de México”.
Según informes del 28 de julio de la Organización de Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación (FAO), se deduce que los mexicanos sufren de hambre, ya que los precios de los alimentos son 135% superiores a la inflación. Este panorama se agrava con el megafraude del que ha sido objeto por años el sistema de apoyo financiero al agro mexicano, denominado PROCAMPO, que fue creado para que los agricultores del país pudieran competir en los mercados de Estados Unidos y Canadá, el cual sólo ha beneficiado a políticos y grandes terratenientes.
Ante esta situación, inocultable e insostenible, el Consejo Nacional de Evolución de la Política de Desarrollo Social (Coneval) reconoció recientemente que bajo el régimen de Felipe Calderón, unos 5.1 millones de mexicanos se han integrado al universo de personas pobres alimentarias. Esto sin olvidar que el país está sometido al Plan Mérida, apoyado y supervisado por el gobierno americano, mediante el cual se lleva a cabo una intensa e infructuosa batalla contra el narcotráfico, que ya ha costado muchas vidas al país.
2. El modelo ALBA
Por su parte, los países integrantes del ALBA han acelerado los procesos democráticos internos y han privilegiado a la vez sus objetivos de integración económica sostenible. Ejemplo de este esfuerzo es el fomento al intercambio comercial y la protección del empleo que conjuntamente han llevado a cabo. Nos referiremos aquí al desempeño económico de tres países, en base al reciente informe anual de la CEPAL:
Bolivia. La lectura del informe de la CEPAL permite destacar el éxito de la administración del presidente Evo Morales en materia de democracia y desarrollo social, pues señala que en enero de 2009 en este país se aprobó, mediante un referendo organizado por la Corte Nacional Electoral, la nueva Constitución Política del Estado, que se venía discutiendo desde 2006.
En general, el informe de este organismo sobre el desempeño económico de Bolivia es bastante claro por lo que lo citamos textualmente:
“En 2008 la economía boliviana continuó presentando resultados positivos en términos de crecimiento de la actividad económica, cuentas externas y fiscales. El PIB registró un incremento del 6,1%” y “Por quinto año consecutivo, la tasa de crecimiento fue superior al 4%. La tasa de inflación cerró el año en un 11,8%. El incremento de la actividad económica se tradujo en un descenso de la tasa de desempleo que pasó del 7,7% al 7%”. “Con respecto a las remuneraciones, la mano de obra no calificada registró en 2008 un incremento del 18,6%, mientras que el de la mano de obra calificada creció un 8,6%”.
“El sector público no financiero registró un superávit equivalente al 3,2% del PIB. Por su parte, la balanza de pagos presentó un superávit de 2.374 millones de dólares y las reservas internacionales netas en poder del Banco Central de Bolivia (BCB) registraron un incremento de 2.403 millones de dólares. Estos resultados obedecen al incremento del precio medio de exportación del gas y la soja durante 2008 y al mayor volumen exportado de minerales”.
Si aceptamos que el buen manejo de la inflación es un logro irrefutable, entonces éste es el caso del gobierno del presidente Morales, pues el documento de referencia resalta, que para este año la inflación cerrará en el rango de la meta de inflación establecida por el banco central de este país.
- Ecuador. Recientemente incorporado al ALBA, Ecuador alcanzó en 2008 un crecimiento económico de 6,5%. La CEPAL hace énfasis en la aprobación de una nueva Carta Magna por la Asamblea Constituyente, en virtud de la cual se introdujeron cambios significativos en diversas esferas, incluida la económica. Entre las modificaciones se cuenta un rol más importante del Estado en la economía en general y otras de carácter más específico como la eliminación de la autonomía del banco central.
Las medidas descritas han sido positivas para el desarrollo económico de este país, pues de lo informado por la CEPAL, se deduce que la acertada política económica del presidente Rafael Correa ha permitido que la tasa de desempleo se redujera del 7,4% al 6,9%. Cabe resaltar que en Ecuador el salario mínimo real aumentó un 8,5% medio anual.
En el texto del informe se establece que “El resultado de la balanza de bienes fue particularmente favorable como consecuencia de los elevados precios del petróleo observados hasta el tercer trimestre. La balanza de rentas también mejoró durante el año, de manera que el déficit se redujo desde un 4,0% del PIB en 2007 hasta un 2,5% en 2008” y “El superávit de la cuenta corriente en 2008 fue de 1.194 millones de dólares, equivalente al 2,3% del PIB”. La inversión extranjera directa neta alcanzó a representar un 1,8% del PIB.
En cuanto al sector exportador, en 2008, la Comisión señala que “el valor de las exportaciones ecuatorianas aumentó un 29,3%, superando el crecimiento del 12,7% registrado en 2007. Por su parte, las exportaciones no petroleras aumentaron un 14,1% en términos de valor y representaron el 20% del incremento de las exportaciones. Entre los productos de mayor contribución al respecto destaca el banano, cuyas ventas crecieron un 25,9%, mientras que las de pescados enlatados y de extractos y aceites vegetales subieron un 21,5% y un 57,5%, respectivamente”.
En base a lo anterior, podemos afirmar que estos resultados explican el triunfo electoral del presidente Correa durante las elecciones presidenciales de abril pasado.
- Venezuela. Cabe recordar que la tasa actual de desocupación en Venezuela, es de 7,40 %, menor en comparación con el 8,1 % que registra la economía estadounidense, según la Oficina de Estadísticas de Empleo de ese país (Bureau of Labor Statics).
Por su parte, el informe de la CEPAL señala que el PIB de Venezuela aumentó un 4,8% y destaca que en marzo de 2009, el gobierno anunció un conjunto de medidas orientadas a afrontar los efectos de la crisis internacional y de los bajos precios internacionales del petróleo en la economía interna: reducción del sueldo de los altos funcionarios de la administración pública; recorte de gastos suntuarios, así como un incremento del 20% al salario mínimo nacional, entre otros. No obstante, pese a la disminución de los gastos se anunció que no habrá recortes en el presupuesto del gobierno destinado a gasto social.
“En 2008, el índice general de remuneraciones creció un 25% medio anual respecto de 2007. En 2008, tanto las remuneraciones del sector público como el sueldo mínimo fueron ajustados un 30%, efectivo a partir del 1° de mayo. En marzo de 2009 se anunció un 20% de incremento del sueldo mínimo que se otorgará en dos etapas: un 10% a contar del 1º de mayo y un 10% adicional el 1º de septiembre” y “a lo largo de 2008, el mayor número de nuevos empleos se verificó en el sector público”.
Cabe resaltar que además, el gobierno venezolano cuida la disponibilidad de alimentos para la población, pues como lo señala la Comisión, “en marzo de 2009 el gobierno fijó una cuota mínima de producción de 12 partidas de la canasta básica (aceite comestible, azúcar, café, salsa de tomate, queso, leche, harina, arroz y patatas), que deberán venderse al precio estipulado en el marco del control de precios”.
En síntesis, los países del Sur plantean de manera conjunta sus propias opciones ante la crisis económica y financiera mundial, pues además del buen desempeño alcanzado en sus economías nacionales, los integrantes del ALBA se reunieron en la ciudad de Caracas, el 3 de agosto pasado, en la primera reunión del Consejo Económico de esta alianza, que tiene como objeto promover las inversiones en programas de desarrollo, que sean acordes con los modelos sociales de mayor justicia para los pueblos y con el proceso de integración de Latinoamérica y el Caribe.
Por su parte, ante la crisis, México se encuentra solo en Norteamérica. Recordemos la sentencia de José Ángel Gurría, Secretario General de la OCDE: “México está teniendo una recesión que causaron otros, pero que lamentablemente el primero que tiene que ayudarse a sí mismo para salir del agujero es México y los mexicanos porque el apoyo que van a recibir de otros no será en la misma proporción del daño que le han importado… Y el daño es enorme” (sic) (La Jornada, 23/05/09).
*Dr. En derecho de la Cooperación Internacional por la Universidad de Toulouse I, Francia
Rebelión
Ochenta millones de pobres es la prueba irrefutable de que el modelo neoliberal aplicado a México, a través del Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (TLCAN), ha dejado exhausto a este país, cuyas ciudades principales están llenas de desempleados y menesterosos, y su sector rural muestra las evidencias del desastre agrícola y humano. Paradójicamente, en el contexto de este tratado, México sufre el desprecio y la discriminación de sus propios socios comerciales, pues el gobierno de Canadá impuso, el 13 de julio del año en curso, con el objeto de controlar el aumento en las solicitudes de refugio por parte de ciudadanos mexicanos, la necesidad de visa a todos aquellos que pretendan viajar a ese país.
De manera opuesta, bajo un nuevo esquema de cooperación, los países del sur del continente, miembros de la Alianza Bolivariana para las Américas (ALBA), muestran un buen desempeño económico y humano, como se desprende del último informe anual publicado por la Comisión Económica para la América Latina (CEPAL), así como de otros organismos internacionales.
1. El doloroso expediente de México.
En México ya hay 80 millones de pobres afirmó el reconocido especialista Julio Boltvinik el 21de julio pasado. Aunado a ello, el gobierno ha aceptado la caída del 10,4 por ciento del Producto Interno Bruto (PIB) en el segundo trimestre de 2009, mientras que el banco central (Banco de México) ha aceptado que este año se perderán 735 mil plazas en el sector formal.
Desde el 22 de mayo pasado, José Ángel Gurría, secretario general de la Organización de Cooperación y Desarrollo Económico (OCDE), sentenció que la economía de México era un desastre. Para finales de julio, este organismo insistía en que es “decepcionante” el crecimiento de la economía mexicana en los últimos 20 años y confirmaba que este país será de los más afectados por la actual recesión y aseveraba que la destrucción de empleos formales se extenderá a 2010.
En este contexto, la Comisión Económica Para América Latina (CEPAL), en su Estudio 2008-2009, hace un recuento de la crisis mexicana: repunte del desempleo, disminución del crédito para el consumo, menor llegada de remesas del exterior y caída de las exportaciones. El informe es contundente, señala que “Las ventas externas en el primer cuatrimestre del año se desplomaron un 30,5% a consecuencia del agravamiento de la situación de la economía de los Estados Unidos, que acapara el 80% de las exportaciones de México”.
Según informes del 28 de julio de la Organización de Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación (FAO), se deduce que los mexicanos sufren de hambre, ya que los precios de los alimentos son 135% superiores a la inflación. Este panorama se agrava con el megafraude del que ha sido objeto por años el sistema de apoyo financiero al agro mexicano, denominado PROCAMPO, que fue creado para que los agricultores del país pudieran competir en los mercados de Estados Unidos y Canadá, el cual sólo ha beneficiado a políticos y grandes terratenientes.
Ante esta situación, inocultable e insostenible, el Consejo Nacional de Evolución de la Política de Desarrollo Social (Coneval) reconoció recientemente que bajo el régimen de Felipe Calderón, unos 5.1 millones de mexicanos se han integrado al universo de personas pobres alimentarias. Esto sin olvidar que el país está sometido al Plan Mérida, apoyado y supervisado por el gobierno americano, mediante el cual se lleva a cabo una intensa e infructuosa batalla contra el narcotráfico, que ya ha costado muchas vidas al país.
2. El modelo ALBA
Por su parte, los países integrantes del ALBA han acelerado los procesos democráticos internos y han privilegiado a la vez sus objetivos de integración económica sostenible. Ejemplo de este esfuerzo es el fomento al intercambio comercial y la protección del empleo que conjuntamente han llevado a cabo. Nos referiremos aquí al desempeño económico de tres países, en base al reciente informe anual de la CEPAL:
Bolivia. La lectura del informe de la CEPAL permite destacar el éxito de la administración del presidente Evo Morales en materia de democracia y desarrollo social, pues señala que en enero de 2009 en este país se aprobó, mediante un referendo organizado por la Corte Nacional Electoral, la nueva Constitución Política del Estado, que se venía discutiendo desde 2006.
En general, el informe de este organismo sobre el desempeño económico de Bolivia es bastante claro por lo que lo citamos textualmente:
“En 2008 la economía boliviana continuó presentando resultados positivos en términos de crecimiento de la actividad económica, cuentas externas y fiscales. El PIB registró un incremento del 6,1%” y “Por quinto año consecutivo, la tasa de crecimiento fue superior al 4%. La tasa de inflación cerró el año en un 11,8%. El incremento de la actividad económica se tradujo en un descenso de la tasa de desempleo que pasó del 7,7% al 7%”. “Con respecto a las remuneraciones, la mano de obra no calificada registró en 2008 un incremento del 18,6%, mientras que el de la mano de obra calificada creció un 8,6%”.
“El sector público no financiero registró un superávit equivalente al 3,2% del PIB. Por su parte, la balanza de pagos presentó un superávit de 2.374 millones de dólares y las reservas internacionales netas en poder del Banco Central de Bolivia (BCB) registraron un incremento de 2.403 millones de dólares. Estos resultados obedecen al incremento del precio medio de exportación del gas y la soja durante 2008 y al mayor volumen exportado de minerales”.
Si aceptamos que el buen manejo de la inflación es un logro irrefutable, entonces éste es el caso del gobierno del presidente Morales, pues el documento de referencia resalta, que para este año la inflación cerrará en el rango de la meta de inflación establecida por el banco central de este país.
- Ecuador. Recientemente incorporado al ALBA, Ecuador alcanzó en 2008 un crecimiento económico de 6,5%. La CEPAL hace énfasis en la aprobación de una nueva Carta Magna por la Asamblea Constituyente, en virtud de la cual se introdujeron cambios significativos en diversas esferas, incluida la económica. Entre las modificaciones se cuenta un rol más importante del Estado en la economía en general y otras de carácter más específico como la eliminación de la autonomía del banco central.
Las medidas descritas han sido positivas para el desarrollo económico de este país, pues de lo informado por la CEPAL, se deduce que la acertada política económica del presidente Rafael Correa ha permitido que la tasa de desempleo se redujera del 7,4% al 6,9%. Cabe resaltar que en Ecuador el salario mínimo real aumentó un 8,5% medio anual.
En el texto del informe se establece que “El resultado de la balanza de bienes fue particularmente favorable como consecuencia de los elevados precios del petróleo observados hasta el tercer trimestre. La balanza de rentas también mejoró durante el año, de manera que el déficit se redujo desde un 4,0% del PIB en 2007 hasta un 2,5% en 2008” y “El superávit de la cuenta corriente en 2008 fue de 1.194 millones de dólares, equivalente al 2,3% del PIB”. La inversión extranjera directa neta alcanzó a representar un 1,8% del PIB.
En cuanto al sector exportador, en 2008, la Comisión señala que “el valor de las exportaciones ecuatorianas aumentó un 29,3%, superando el crecimiento del 12,7% registrado en 2007. Por su parte, las exportaciones no petroleras aumentaron un 14,1% en términos de valor y representaron el 20% del incremento de las exportaciones. Entre los productos de mayor contribución al respecto destaca el banano, cuyas ventas crecieron un 25,9%, mientras que las de pescados enlatados y de extractos y aceites vegetales subieron un 21,5% y un 57,5%, respectivamente”.
En base a lo anterior, podemos afirmar que estos resultados explican el triunfo electoral del presidente Correa durante las elecciones presidenciales de abril pasado.
- Venezuela. Cabe recordar que la tasa actual de desocupación en Venezuela, es de 7,40 %, menor en comparación con el 8,1 % que registra la economía estadounidense, según la Oficina de Estadísticas de Empleo de ese país (Bureau of Labor Statics).
Por su parte, el informe de la CEPAL señala que el PIB de Venezuela aumentó un 4,8% y destaca que en marzo de 2009, el gobierno anunció un conjunto de medidas orientadas a afrontar los efectos de la crisis internacional y de los bajos precios internacionales del petróleo en la economía interna: reducción del sueldo de los altos funcionarios de la administración pública; recorte de gastos suntuarios, así como un incremento del 20% al salario mínimo nacional, entre otros. No obstante, pese a la disminución de los gastos se anunció que no habrá recortes en el presupuesto del gobierno destinado a gasto social.
“En 2008, el índice general de remuneraciones creció un 25% medio anual respecto de 2007. En 2008, tanto las remuneraciones del sector público como el sueldo mínimo fueron ajustados un 30%, efectivo a partir del 1° de mayo. En marzo de 2009 se anunció un 20% de incremento del sueldo mínimo que se otorgará en dos etapas: un 10% a contar del 1º de mayo y un 10% adicional el 1º de septiembre” y “a lo largo de 2008, el mayor número de nuevos empleos se verificó en el sector público”.
Cabe resaltar que además, el gobierno venezolano cuida la disponibilidad de alimentos para la población, pues como lo señala la Comisión, “en marzo de 2009 el gobierno fijó una cuota mínima de producción de 12 partidas de la canasta básica (aceite comestible, azúcar, café, salsa de tomate, queso, leche, harina, arroz y patatas), que deberán venderse al precio estipulado en el marco del control de precios”.
En síntesis, los países del Sur plantean de manera conjunta sus propias opciones ante la crisis económica y financiera mundial, pues además del buen desempeño alcanzado en sus economías nacionales, los integrantes del ALBA se reunieron en la ciudad de Caracas, el 3 de agosto pasado, en la primera reunión del Consejo Económico de esta alianza, que tiene como objeto promover las inversiones en programas de desarrollo, que sean acordes con los modelos sociales de mayor justicia para los pueblos y con el proceso de integración de Latinoamérica y el Caribe.
Por su parte, ante la crisis, México se encuentra solo en Norteamérica. Recordemos la sentencia de José Ángel Gurría, Secretario General de la OCDE: “México está teniendo una recesión que causaron otros, pero que lamentablemente el primero que tiene que ayudarse a sí mismo para salir del agujero es México y los mexicanos porque el apoyo que van a recibir de otros no será en la misma proporción del daño que le han importado… Y el daño es enorme” (sic) (La Jornada, 23/05/09).
*Dr. En derecho de la Cooperación Internacional por la Universidad de Toulouse I, Francia
Right-Wing Turncoat Gives the Inside Scoop on Why Conservatives Are Rampaging Town Halls
by Francis Schaeffer
AlterNet
The Republican Old Guard are in the fix an atheist would be in if Jesus showed up and raised his mother from the dead: Their world view has just been shattered. Obama's election has driven them over the edge. Consider Former Congressman Dick Armey. Several far right foundations and the multitrillion dollar health-insurance industry have teamed up with him to organize the far right foot soldiers of the Republican Party to intimidate people speaking on behalf of health-care reform. They are using my old shock troops -- given many of these folks were first energized by the Evangelical pro-life movement that my late father and I started in the 1970s. What we did to clinics they are now doing to congressmen and others speaking out for health care reform.
Having failed at the ballot box, having watched their Fox News-organized "tea parties" fizzle the intimidation tactics which the Republicans have embraced are being used in a well-financed, top-down orchestrated fake grass roots campaign by corporate interests to try and protect the profits of the insurance business. Armey's FreedomWorks is organizing against health care reform. Armey's lobbying firm represents pharmaceutical companies including Bristol-Myers Squibb. Armey's lobbying firm also represents the trade group for the life insurance industry. FreedomWorks is supporting the status quo at all costs. (They are also fans of fossil fuels. Armey's lobbying firm represents Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Prime Minister of the UAE, on energy related issues.)
Last year, the Wall Street Journal exposed FreedomWorks for building "amateur-looking" websites to promote far right interests of Armey. FreedomWorks represents a top-down, corporate-friendly approach that's been the norm for conservative organizations for years. How do I know this is the norm? Because I used to have strategy meetings with the late Jack Kemp and Dick Army and the rest of the Republican gang about using their business ties to help finance the pro-life movement to defeat Democrats. I know this script. I helped write it.
Democratic members of Congress are being harassed by angry, sign-carrying mobs and disruptive behavior at local town halls. It's the tactic we used to follow abortion providers around their neighborhoods. "Protesters" surrounded Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) and forced police officers to have to escort him to his car for safety. We used to do the same to Dr. Tiller... until someone killed him.
How Can The Right Stoop So Low?
I used to know Dick Armey quite well. One of my sons even worked for him as an intern. I knew Armey in the context of his being a fan of my late Evangelical Religious Right leader father Francis Schaeffer. (Back in the day when I was a right wing "pro-life" organizer who has long since quit the Republicans in disgust at their -- our -- descent into extremism and hate.) Armey was once a decent guy, whatever his political views. How could he stoop so low as to be organizing what amounts to America's Brown Shirts today?
I think I know what happened to him, Gingrich and the rest: They can't compute that their white man-led conservative revolution is dead. They can't reconcile their idea of themselves with the fact that white men like them don't run the country any more -- and never will again. To them the black president is leading a column of the "other" into their promised land. Gays, immigrants, blacks, progressives, even a female Hispanic appointed to the Supreme Court... for them this is the Apocalypse.
The last presidential election (to paraphrase Bart Simpson) "broke their brains." What else could explain their embrace of intimidation -- rather than discourse -- over the health care debate and such unsavory moments of madness as the Republicans accusing Obama and Judge Sonia Sotomayor of racism, knowing full well that they'd just destroyed their chances with the Hispanic community forever?
The "Scorched Earth Policy"
Dick Army and company have been driven mad by their reversal, not just of political fortunes but of seeing that they've wasted their lives. They now know they were wrong: about the country, the free market, war for fun and profit, and what the American people really want. They made their best case and were rejected by the American people -- and by history. Bush was their man and he turned out to be a fool. So now all the the Republican gurus have left is what the defeated Germans of World War Two had: a scorched earth policy. If they can't win then everyone must go down. Obama must fail! The country must fail!
The Lobbyist-run Groups "Americans for Prosperity " and "FreedomWorks/ Dick Armey-Orchestrated Memo:
Here is a leaked excerpt from the folks organizing the intimidation campaign:
- Artificially Inflate Your Numbers: "Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put the Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up. The Rep should be made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington."
- Be Disruptive Early And Often: "You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep's presentation, Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep's statements early."
- Try To "Rattle Him," Not Have An Intelligent Debate: "The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right back down. Look for these opportunities before he even takes questions."
The Last Republican Tactic: Outright Lies
A barrage of outright lies, wherein the Democrats are being accused of wanting to launch a massive euthanasia program against the elderly, free abortions for everyone, and "a government takeover" of health-care is now being combined with physical intimidation that in several cases has required police escorts to protect pro health-care reform speakers surrounded by angry plants sent to disrupt public forums on the health-care issue. Demonstrators hung Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD) in effigy outside of his office. (Missing from the reporting of these stories -- with the notable exception of Rachel Maddow -- is the fact that much of these protests are coordinated by public relations firms and lobbyists who have a stake in opposing President Obama's reforms.
There is no daylight between the Republican Party, the health-care insurance industry, far right leaders like Dick Armey, the legion of insurance lobbyists, and now, a small army of thugs. All we're missing is actual uniforms, otherwise we now have a full blown American version of the Nazi Brown Shirts.
No, I don't believe that these people are about to take over the country. No, the sky is not falling. But the Republican Party is. It is now profoundly anti-American.
The health-insurance industry is run by very smart and very greedy people who have sunk to a new low. So has the Republican Party's leadership that will not stand up and denounce the likes of Dick Armey for helping organize roving bands of thugs trying to strip the rest of us of the ability to be heard when it comes to the popular will on reforming health care.
Conclusion: the Fascist Formula
Here's the emerging American version of the fascist's formula: combine millions of dollars of lobbyists' money with embittered troublemakers who have a small army of not terribly bright white angry people (collected over decades through pro-life mass mailing networks) at their beck and call, ever ready to believe any myth or lie circulated by the semi literate and completely and routinely misinformed right wing -- Evangelical religious underground. Then put his little mob together with the insurance companies' big bucks. That's how it works -- American Brown Shirts at the ready.
What's the results of the fascist formula for the rest of us? Well, think how this "method" worked against Dr. Tiller's abortion clinic and how that story ended. In this case a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to save our economy from going bankrupt because of spiraling health care costs may be lost, not because of a better argument, but because of lies backed up by anti-democratic embittered thuggery. The motive? Revenge on America by the Old White Guys of the far right, and greed by the insurance industry.
What Can Be Done?
It's time that this whole shabby (and insane) business be exposed, vilified in run out of town on a rail by whatever responsible Republicans -- if any -- that are still in the party and who want to see the fortunes of their party revived. Republican leaders taking insurance industry money via lobbying firms and using it to organize what amounts to roving bands of thugs not only need to be exposed but thrown out of the public debate forever. They should become absolute pariahs.
It's time to give this garbage in name: insurance industry funded fascism.
AlterNet
The Republican Old Guard are in the fix an atheist would be in if Jesus showed up and raised his mother from the dead: Their world view has just been shattered. Obama's election has driven them over the edge. Consider Former Congressman Dick Armey. Several far right foundations and the multitrillion dollar health-insurance industry have teamed up with him to organize the far right foot soldiers of the Republican Party to intimidate people speaking on behalf of health-care reform. They are using my old shock troops -- given many of these folks were first energized by the Evangelical pro-life movement that my late father and I started in the 1970s. What we did to clinics they are now doing to congressmen and others speaking out for health care reform.
Having failed at the ballot box, having watched their Fox News-organized "tea parties" fizzle the intimidation tactics which the Republicans have embraced are being used in a well-financed, top-down orchestrated fake grass roots campaign by corporate interests to try and protect the profits of the insurance business. Armey's FreedomWorks is organizing against health care reform. Armey's lobbying firm represents pharmaceutical companies including Bristol-Myers Squibb. Armey's lobbying firm also represents the trade group for the life insurance industry. FreedomWorks is supporting the status quo at all costs. (They are also fans of fossil fuels. Armey's lobbying firm represents Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Prime Minister of the UAE, on energy related issues.)
Last year, the Wall Street Journal exposed FreedomWorks for building "amateur-looking" websites to promote far right interests of Armey. FreedomWorks represents a top-down, corporate-friendly approach that's been the norm for conservative organizations for years. How do I know this is the norm? Because I used to have strategy meetings with the late Jack Kemp and Dick Army and the rest of the Republican gang about using their business ties to help finance the pro-life movement to defeat Democrats. I know this script. I helped write it.
Democratic members of Congress are being harassed by angry, sign-carrying mobs and disruptive behavior at local town halls. It's the tactic we used to follow abortion providers around their neighborhoods. "Protesters" surrounded Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) and forced police officers to have to escort him to his car for safety. We used to do the same to Dr. Tiller... until someone killed him.
How Can The Right Stoop So Low?
I used to know Dick Armey quite well. One of my sons even worked for him as an intern. I knew Armey in the context of his being a fan of my late Evangelical Religious Right leader father Francis Schaeffer. (Back in the day when I was a right wing "pro-life" organizer who has long since quit the Republicans in disgust at their -- our -- descent into extremism and hate.) Armey was once a decent guy, whatever his political views. How could he stoop so low as to be organizing what amounts to America's Brown Shirts today?
I think I know what happened to him, Gingrich and the rest: They can't compute that their white man-led conservative revolution is dead. They can't reconcile their idea of themselves with the fact that white men like them don't run the country any more -- and never will again. To them the black president is leading a column of the "other" into their promised land. Gays, immigrants, blacks, progressives, even a female Hispanic appointed to the Supreme Court... for them this is the Apocalypse.
The last presidential election (to paraphrase Bart Simpson) "broke their brains." What else could explain their embrace of intimidation -- rather than discourse -- over the health care debate and such unsavory moments of madness as the Republicans accusing Obama and Judge Sonia Sotomayor of racism, knowing full well that they'd just destroyed their chances with the Hispanic community forever?
The "Scorched Earth Policy"
Dick Army and company have been driven mad by their reversal, not just of political fortunes but of seeing that they've wasted their lives. They now know they were wrong: about the country, the free market, war for fun and profit, and what the American people really want. They made their best case and were rejected by the American people -- and by history. Bush was their man and he turned out to be a fool. So now all the the Republican gurus have left is what the defeated Germans of World War Two had: a scorched earth policy. If they can't win then everyone must go down. Obama must fail! The country must fail!
The Lobbyist-run Groups "Americans for Prosperity " and "FreedomWorks/ Dick Armey-Orchestrated Memo:
Here is a leaked excerpt from the folks organizing the intimidation campaign:
- Artificially Inflate Your Numbers: "Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put the Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up. The Rep should be made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington."
- Be Disruptive Early And Often: "You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep's presentation, Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep's statements early."
- Try To "Rattle Him," Not Have An Intelligent Debate: "The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right back down. Look for these opportunities before he even takes questions."
The Last Republican Tactic: Outright Lies
A barrage of outright lies, wherein the Democrats are being accused of wanting to launch a massive euthanasia program against the elderly, free abortions for everyone, and "a government takeover" of health-care is now being combined with physical intimidation that in several cases has required police escorts to protect pro health-care reform speakers surrounded by angry plants sent to disrupt public forums on the health-care issue. Demonstrators hung Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD) in effigy outside of his office. (Missing from the reporting of these stories -- with the notable exception of Rachel Maddow -- is the fact that much of these protests are coordinated by public relations firms and lobbyists who have a stake in opposing President Obama's reforms.
There is no daylight between the Republican Party, the health-care insurance industry, far right leaders like Dick Armey, the legion of insurance lobbyists, and now, a small army of thugs. All we're missing is actual uniforms, otherwise we now have a full blown American version of the Nazi Brown Shirts.
No, I don't believe that these people are about to take over the country. No, the sky is not falling. But the Republican Party is. It is now profoundly anti-American.
The health-insurance industry is run by very smart and very greedy people who have sunk to a new low. So has the Republican Party's leadership that will not stand up and denounce the likes of Dick Armey for helping organize roving bands of thugs trying to strip the rest of us of the ability to be heard when it comes to the popular will on reforming health care.
Conclusion: the Fascist Formula
Here's the emerging American version of the fascist's formula: combine millions of dollars of lobbyists' money with embittered troublemakers who have a small army of not terribly bright white angry people (collected over decades through pro-life mass mailing networks) at their beck and call, ever ready to believe any myth or lie circulated by the semi literate and completely and routinely misinformed right wing -- Evangelical religious underground. Then put his little mob together with the insurance companies' big bucks. That's how it works -- American Brown Shirts at the ready.
What's the results of the fascist formula for the rest of us? Well, think how this "method" worked against Dr. Tiller's abortion clinic and how that story ended. In this case a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to save our economy from going bankrupt because of spiraling health care costs may be lost, not because of a better argument, but because of lies backed up by anti-democratic embittered thuggery. The motive? Revenge on America by the Old White Guys of the far right, and greed by the insurance industry.
What Can Be Done?
It's time that this whole shabby (and insane) business be exposed, vilified in run out of town on a rail by whatever responsible Republicans -- if any -- that are still in the party and who want to see the fortunes of their party revived. Republican leaders taking insurance industry money via lobbying firms and using it to organize what amounts to roving bands of thugs not only need to be exposed but thrown out of the public debate forever. They should become absolute pariahs.
It's time to give this garbage in name: insurance industry funded fascism.
Saber, lucha Política y Esperanza
Desde el lado de la izquierda
Víctor Flores Olea
Rebelion
Nos quejamos de la ausencia de ideas, de uno y otro lado, en la última elección de medio camino. Y teníamos razón. Entre otros factores, a eso atribuimos la catástrofe electoral, sobre todo de la izquierda. Sin embargo, ahora mismo, desde el lado de la izquierda, aparece publicado (La Jornada, 30 julio 2009) un texto de Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) que resulta extraordinariamente importante. No sólo porque expresa con puntualidad “Al Pueblo de México” su visión del país sino porque propone en lo fundamental las líneas de salida a la tremenda crisis que vivimos.
Para AMLO desde hace veinte años cuando menos se habría integrado en México una oligarquía que ha consolidado su poder, también por medio de la corrupción y el saqueo y por arriba de las instituciones fundadas en la Constitución. No se trata únicamente del “grupo político” que ha usufructuado las ventajas del poder, sino el hecho más decisivo aún que ese “grupo político” actúa representando en definitiva a un “puñado” de los más ricos de México, no a los “mejores y más brillantes” sino a los más audaces y voraces, a los capos en México del “capitalismo salvaje” que nos destruye. El país estaría en manos de ese doble puño de quienes detentan la riqueza y el poder político, no en beneficio del pueblo sino en provecho de sus fortunas y ambiciones.
Ese poder alejado del pueblo impondría sus mandatos y conveniencias al conjunto institucional de México: a los Poderes Ejecutivo, Legislativo y Judicial, al complejo de las instancias electorales del país, a la Procuraduría General de la República, a la Secretaría de Hacienda y a los Partidos Revolucionario Institucional y Acción Nacional. El país ofrecería un panorama de concentración de poderes y riqueza en pocas manos y de exclusión hasta la miseria de la mayoría, lo que representa la causa fundamental del desastre que vivimos en multitud de dimensiones. Y que explica su real origen: ¿alguien estaría en desacuerdo?
Se confirma entonces la definición de Aristóteles para quien, en negación y traición a la democracia, en un país con riqueza concentrada y desigualmente distribuida el puñado de oligarcas somete a sus intereses a los gobiernos, creándose complicidades absolutamente indeseables. Y destruyéndose cualquier posibilidad de democracia. El gobierno como simple Consejo de Administración de las empresas y monopolios.
Para ese control general los monopolios de la comunicación resultan esenciales, y para la ciudadanía el instrumento más deleznable de su degradación, ya que el espectáculo del mundo que se les transmite es esencialmente un escenario en que solo se vive para ganar y acumular, para mentir y traicionar, por cualquier medio.
Con un rasgo más que apunta certeramente AMLO: el PRI, para los oligarcas, resultaba insostenible en el año 2000 después de 70 años de poder y decidieron entonces el “recambio” por el PAN, cuyas torpezas y pequeñeces (sobre todo por sus Presidentes) lo han llevado a la bancarrota abismal, uno de cuyos síntomas fue su retroceso en la elección del 5 de julio último. Así fue pero ahora, ante la imposibilidad de seguir sosteniendo al PAN, se habría ya decidido otro “recambio” que haría regresar al PRI al poder en el 2012: objetos desechables según la conveniencia oligárquica, papel para la basura.
Ya en el horizonte del próximo “recambio”, en plena crisis económica, surgen nubarrones que presionarán aun más a la baja los ingresos más modestos: no a una reforma fiscal progresiva sino en todo caso regresiva, IVA para alimentos y medicinas, aumento de precios en luz, gasolinas y otros servicios. Como dice AMLO “…los potentados no están dispuestos a permitir ningún cambio que ayude realmente a enfrentar la crisis económica… Se recortarán antes los programas sociales que los privilegios de ricos y de la alta burocracia”.
López Obrador insiste en que uno de los aspectos más graves de la crisis actual es la descomposición moral y social que vive México, que ciertamente son factores que han llevado a la inseguridad y a la tremenda violencia que vivimos. Y la crisis de violencia eventualmente se enfrenta con más violencia “…sin tomar en cuenta que la paz y la tranquilidad son fruto de la justicia”.
Lo malo, dice AMLO, es que “Todo indica que persistirá la degradación del país. En consecuencia, la única alternativa es seguir luchando hasta derrotar a la oligarquía en el terreno político, de manera pacífica, para hacer valer la democracia y establecer un gobierno que combata la codicia y la corrupción, distribuya con justicia las riquezas de México y garantice el bienestar y la felicidad del pueblo”.
Y llama a realizar algunas tareas fundamentales: la organización de la ciudadanía, desde los comités municipales hasta los de barrio, crear redes alternativas de información que ayuden a romper el bloqueo y la manipulación de las grandes empresas de comunicación, la disponibilidad a movilizarse para detener los más grandes abusos que se presenten, como el de la frustrada privatización del petróleo, e insistir en la defensa de la economía popular y la soberanía.
Propuestas sencillas pero altamente movilizadoras que podrán frustrar en el 2012 los objetivos más despreciables de la oligarquía. Palabras llenas de saber de un mexicano que ha convertido su experiencia de luchador político en un mensaje de esperanza.
Víctor Flores Olea
Rebelion
Nos quejamos de la ausencia de ideas, de uno y otro lado, en la última elección de medio camino. Y teníamos razón. Entre otros factores, a eso atribuimos la catástrofe electoral, sobre todo de la izquierda. Sin embargo, ahora mismo, desde el lado de la izquierda, aparece publicado (La Jornada, 30 julio 2009) un texto de Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) que resulta extraordinariamente importante. No sólo porque expresa con puntualidad “Al Pueblo de México” su visión del país sino porque propone en lo fundamental las líneas de salida a la tremenda crisis que vivimos.
Para AMLO desde hace veinte años cuando menos se habría integrado en México una oligarquía que ha consolidado su poder, también por medio de la corrupción y el saqueo y por arriba de las instituciones fundadas en la Constitución. No se trata únicamente del “grupo político” que ha usufructuado las ventajas del poder, sino el hecho más decisivo aún que ese “grupo político” actúa representando en definitiva a un “puñado” de los más ricos de México, no a los “mejores y más brillantes” sino a los más audaces y voraces, a los capos en México del “capitalismo salvaje” que nos destruye. El país estaría en manos de ese doble puño de quienes detentan la riqueza y el poder político, no en beneficio del pueblo sino en provecho de sus fortunas y ambiciones.
Ese poder alejado del pueblo impondría sus mandatos y conveniencias al conjunto institucional de México: a los Poderes Ejecutivo, Legislativo y Judicial, al complejo de las instancias electorales del país, a la Procuraduría General de la República, a la Secretaría de Hacienda y a los Partidos Revolucionario Institucional y Acción Nacional. El país ofrecería un panorama de concentración de poderes y riqueza en pocas manos y de exclusión hasta la miseria de la mayoría, lo que representa la causa fundamental del desastre que vivimos en multitud de dimensiones. Y que explica su real origen: ¿alguien estaría en desacuerdo?
Se confirma entonces la definición de Aristóteles para quien, en negación y traición a la democracia, en un país con riqueza concentrada y desigualmente distribuida el puñado de oligarcas somete a sus intereses a los gobiernos, creándose complicidades absolutamente indeseables. Y destruyéndose cualquier posibilidad de democracia. El gobierno como simple Consejo de Administración de las empresas y monopolios.
Para ese control general los monopolios de la comunicación resultan esenciales, y para la ciudadanía el instrumento más deleznable de su degradación, ya que el espectáculo del mundo que se les transmite es esencialmente un escenario en que solo se vive para ganar y acumular, para mentir y traicionar, por cualquier medio.
Con un rasgo más que apunta certeramente AMLO: el PRI, para los oligarcas, resultaba insostenible en el año 2000 después de 70 años de poder y decidieron entonces el “recambio” por el PAN, cuyas torpezas y pequeñeces (sobre todo por sus Presidentes) lo han llevado a la bancarrota abismal, uno de cuyos síntomas fue su retroceso en la elección del 5 de julio último. Así fue pero ahora, ante la imposibilidad de seguir sosteniendo al PAN, se habría ya decidido otro “recambio” que haría regresar al PRI al poder en el 2012: objetos desechables según la conveniencia oligárquica, papel para la basura.
Ya en el horizonte del próximo “recambio”, en plena crisis económica, surgen nubarrones que presionarán aun más a la baja los ingresos más modestos: no a una reforma fiscal progresiva sino en todo caso regresiva, IVA para alimentos y medicinas, aumento de precios en luz, gasolinas y otros servicios. Como dice AMLO “…los potentados no están dispuestos a permitir ningún cambio que ayude realmente a enfrentar la crisis económica… Se recortarán antes los programas sociales que los privilegios de ricos y de la alta burocracia”.
López Obrador insiste en que uno de los aspectos más graves de la crisis actual es la descomposición moral y social que vive México, que ciertamente son factores que han llevado a la inseguridad y a la tremenda violencia que vivimos. Y la crisis de violencia eventualmente se enfrenta con más violencia “…sin tomar en cuenta que la paz y la tranquilidad son fruto de la justicia”.
Lo malo, dice AMLO, es que “Todo indica que persistirá la degradación del país. En consecuencia, la única alternativa es seguir luchando hasta derrotar a la oligarquía en el terreno político, de manera pacífica, para hacer valer la democracia y establecer un gobierno que combata la codicia y la corrupción, distribuya con justicia las riquezas de México y garantice el bienestar y la felicidad del pueblo”.
Y llama a realizar algunas tareas fundamentales: la organización de la ciudadanía, desde los comités municipales hasta los de barrio, crear redes alternativas de información que ayuden a romper el bloqueo y la manipulación de las grandes empresas de comunicación, la disponibilidad a movilizarse para detener los más grandes abusos que se presenten, como el de la frustrada privatización del petróleo, e insistir en la defensa de la economía popular y la soberanía.
Propuestas sencillas pero altamente movilizadoras que podrán frustrar en el 2012 los objetivos más despreciables de la oligarquía. Palabras llenas de saber de un mexicano que ha convertido su experiencia de luchador político en un mensaje de esperanza.
WEST PAPUAN LEADERS ARE DISAPPOINTED WITH THE RESULT OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM MEETING
Leaders of the West Papua National Coalition for Liberation were in
Cairns North Queensland to push hard for the PIF to grant West Papua
Observer Status and also for the forum to discuss many other issues
affecting West Papuan people. Meanwhile more human violations are
occurring. PIF should never fail to address the issue of West Papua.
After all PIF was established to address all the issues affecting the
Pacific community, political or otherwise. It is important that leaders
of the PIF raise these concerns in order to prevent further violence.
Turning away from it will only make it worse. Prior to the PIF meeting
they have taken part in a Civil Society Forum on Climate Change where
all these issues were discussed and linked as inseparable part of
climate change.
Vice Chairman of the West Papua National Coalition for Liberation, Dr.
Otto Ondawame stated the coalition is not happy at all about the way the
PIF treated West Papua. “This is hypocrisy; how could they concern
themselves about human right and democracy issues in other parts of the
world but ignore what is happening next door he asked? By not protesting
or even mentioning the violence in West Papua you are infect encourage
it to continue”, he said.
The PIF had clearly stated its concerns about the situation in West
Papua during its 37th forum meeting in Fiji. We would have hoped that
the PIF be consistent with its concerns because the situation is not
improving at all. “Regardless of this setback our Coalition will
continue to work for a peaceful and dignified solution to the West
Papuan issue. We will never stop until once again we become part of the
Pacific community as we were when we were member of the South Pacific
Commission from 1947 – 1962”, said Mr. Rex Rumakiek, the Secretary
General of the WPNCL.
For more information contact: Dr. John Ondawame, on 0439759026 and Rex
Rumakiek on 0414247468.
WEST PAPUA NATIONAL COALITION FOR LIBERATION
P.O. Box 1571, Port Vila, Republic of Vanuatu, ph: + 678 40808;
+61414247468; +61439759026
E-mail: morningstar@vanuatu.com.vu, awulkeweng@yahoo.com,
rexruma@hotmail.com
Cairns North Queensland to push hard for the PIF to grant West Papua
Observer Status and also for the forum to discuss many other issues
affecting West Papuan people. Meanwhile more human violations are
occurring. PIF should never fail to address the issue of West Papua.
After all PIF was established to address all the issues affecting the
Pacific community, political or otherwise. It is important that leaders
of the PIF raise these concerns in order to prevent further violence.
Turning away from it will only make it worse. Prior to the PIF meeting
they have taken part in a Civil Society Forum on Climate Change where
all these issues were discussed and linked as inseparable part of
climate change.
Vice Chairman of the West Papua National Coalition for Liberation, Dr.
Otto Ondawame stated the coalition is not happy at all about the way the
PIF treated West Papua. “This is hypocrisy; how could they concern
themselves about human right and democracy issues in other parts of the
world but ignore what is happening next door he asked? By not protesting
or even mentioning the violence in West Papua you are infect encourage
it to continue”, he said.
The PIF had clearly stated its concerns about the situation in West
Papua during its 37th forum meeting in Fiji. We would have hoped that
the PIF be consistent with its concerns because the situation is not
improving at all. “Regardless of this setback our Coalition will
continue to work for a peaceful and dignified solution to the West
Papuan issue. We will never stop until once again we become part of the
Pacific community as we were when we were member of the South Pacific
Commission from 1947 – 1962”, said Mr. Rex Rumakiek, the Secretary
General of the WPNCL.
For more information contact: Dr. John Ondawame, on 0439759026 and Rex
Rumakiek on 0414247468.
WEST PAPUA NATIONAL COALITION FOR LIBERATION
P.O. Box 1571, Port Vila, Republic of Vanuatu, ph: + 678 40808;
+61414247468; +61439759026
E-mail: morningstar@vanuatu.com.vu, awulkeweng@yahoo.com,
rexruma@hotmail.com
Incriminaciones: el supercomputador de Raúl Reyes y las "verdades" del periodista Jorge Fernández Menéndez...
En defensa de Lucía Morett Álvarez
José Enrique González Ruiz
Rebelion
Hay un pseudoperiodista que, al parecer afectado por una patología, se ha convertido en el incriminador de Lucía Morett Álvarez. Buena parte de su labor en la prensa escrita y televisiva la dedica a perseguir con saña a la joven universitaria que sobrevivió al crimen de Álvaro Uribe que privó de la vida a veintitrés seres humanos, entre ellos cuatro mexicanos. La acusa de ser terrorista internacional y de “participar activamente en el narcotráfico” (Excélsior, 28 de julio del 2009, página 8 Nacional). Ya antes lo hizo, en un libelo intitulado Las FARC en México, en el que pretende dar cátedra de geopolítica y en el que realmente se dedica a reproducir información que le llega de fuentes dudosas (la “inteligencia” colombiana), elevándola a rango de dogma divino.
Con la mayor desfachatez del mundo, Jorge Fernández Menéndez se atribuye el derecho a formular imputaciones de la mayor gravedad, sin experimentar el menor recato y sin sentirse obligado a aportar la correspondiente probanza. Rompe todas las reglas éticas del periodismo, apoyado en una fuente fantasiosa: “la computadora de Raúl Reyes”.
Fernández, de origen argentino, llego a México aduciendo razones políticas. Es, por ende, beneficiario de la generosa tradición de asilo que los mexicanos y las mexicanas sabemos honrar. Dolorosamente, esto, que forma parte de la inmensa vocación solidaria de nuestro pueblo, es precisamente lo que sirve de base para que Fernández incrimine a Lucía Morett.
Entre las linduras que el articulista se atreve afirmar están éstas:
1.- Lucía Morett “fue detenida el primero de marzo del año pasado cuando recibía entrenamiento en el principal campamento de las FARC…”
Sólo alguien que se sabe impune ante la calumnia es capaz de semejante aseveración. La verdad es que Lucía sobrevivió a un ataque criminal del ejército de ÀlvaroUribe Vélez –un presidente narcoparamilitar- en contra de personas que se encontraban dormidas. Varias de ellas fueron ejecutadas por los elementos uribistas y solamente conservaron la vida tres mujeres, entre ellas la universitaria mexicana. Ella es testiga de ese crimen de lesa humanidad.
Lucía no estaba armada ni uniformada y las razones por las que se encontraba en ese lugar son de orden intelectual. Tal vez por ello no las comprenda el incriminador.
2.- México consideraba al comandante Raúl Reyes un terrorista, y como la persona que estaba al mando “del principal productor de cocaína a nivel mundial” (ídem). Quizá esa idiotez la crea él, pero decir que lo cree México es un desvarío. Está bien que ya haya adquirido nuestra nacionalidad (igual que Antonio Solá), pero eso no lo autoriza a hablar a nombre de México. Cuando menos, no en mi nombre.
3.- En el campamento atacado por el genocida que gobierna Colombia “murieron también un grupo (sic) de jóvenes militantes mexicanos que colaboraban y recibían entrenamiento de las FARC”.
Fernández miente a sabiendas, pues tiene claro que no murieron, sino que fueron asesinados por órdenes de Uribe Vélez, quien actuaba bajo la dirección de las fuerzas armadas de Estados Unidos.
La calificación que les hace de “activistas” tiende a desacreditar su memoria y a justificar su asesinato. Y, obviamente, no presenta probanza de que recibían el entrenamiento de que habla. Pero eso lo tiene sin cuidado.
En su Santa Cruzada contra los infieles, el nacionalizado teje una serie de falacias:
a) La milagrosa computadora de Raúl Reyes le dijo que las FARC están en el negocio de la droga. No hay que perder de vista que es el mismo aparato que asegura que Hugo Chávez entrega armamento al grupo rebelde y que éste financió la campaña política del mandatario ecuatoriano Rafael Correa.
b) También le informó que Lucía Morett y los cuatro universitarios mexicanos asesinados eran miembros del grupo alzado. Por ende, su actividad estaba también relacionada con el trasiego de estupefacientes.
c) Las FARC, le hizo saber el mismo aparato, tienen vínculos con grupos guerrilleros mexicanos. Luego, se configura el narcoterrorismo internacional.
Lo cierto es que la verdadera fuente de Fernández Menéndez es el espionaje colombiano, que en México se hace a ciencia y paciencia del gobierno espurio de Calderón. Quien lo provee de datos y “verdades” es la gente de Uribe y no el supercomputador de Reyes.
Fernández subtitula sus colaboraciones, con la palabra “razones”. Pero sus argumentos no son tales, sino burdas incriminaciones.
José Enrique González Ruiz
Rebelion
Hay un pseudoperiodista que, al parecer afectado por una patología, se ha convertido en el incriminador de Lucía Morett Álvarez. Buena parte de su labor en la prensa escrita y televisiva la dedica a perseguir con saña a la joven universitaria que sobrevivió al crimen de Álvaro Uribe que privó de la vida a veintitrés seres humanos, entre ellos cuatro mexicanos. La acusa de ser terrorista internacional y de “participar activamente en el narcotráfico” (Excélsior, 28 de julio del 2009, página 8 Nacional). Ya antes lo hizo, en un libelo intitulado Las FARC en México, en el que pretende dar cátedra de geopolítica y en el que realmente se dedica a reproducir información que le llega de fuentes dudosas (la “inteligencia” colombiana), elevándola a rango de dogma divino.
Con la mayor desfachatez del mundo, Jorge Fernández Menéndez se atribuye el derecho a formular imputaciones de la mayor gravedad, sin experimentar el menor recato y sin sentirse obligado a aportar la correspondiente probanza. Rompe todas las reglas éticas del periodismo, apoyado en una fuente fantasiosa: “la computadora de Raúl Reyes”.
Fernández, de origen argentino, llego a México aduciendo razones políticas. Es, por ende, beneficiario de la generosa tradición de asilo que los mexicanos y las mexicanas sabemos honrar. Dolorosamente, esto, que forma parte de la inmensa vocación solidaria de nuestro pueblo, es precisamente lo que sirve de base para que Fernández incrimine a Lucía Morett.
Entre las linduras que el articulista se atreve afirmar están éstas:
1.- Lucía Morett “fue detenida el primero de marzo del año pasado cuando recibía entrenamiento en el principal campamento de las FARC…”
Sólo alguien que se sabe impune ante la calumnia es capaz de semejante aseveración. La verdad es que Lucía sobrevivió a un ataque criminal del ejército de ÀlvaroUribe Vélez –un presidente narcoparamilitar- en contra de personas que se encontraban dormidas. Varias de ellas fueron ejecutadas por los elementos uribistas y solamente conservaron la vida tres mujeres, entre ellas la universitaria mexicana. Ella es testiga de ese crimen de lesa humanidad.
Lucía no estaba armada ni uniformada y las razones por las que se encontraba en ese lugar son de orden intelectual. Tal vez por ello no las comprenda el incriminador.
2.- México consideraba al comandante Raúl Reyes un terrorista, y como la persona que estaba al mando “del principal productor de cocaína a nivel mundial” (ídem). Quizá esa idiotez la crea él, pero decir que lo cree México es un desvarío. Está bien que ya haya adquirido nuestra nacionalidad (igual que Antonio Solá), pero eso no lo autoriza a hablar a nombre de México. Cuando menos, no en mi nombre.
3.- En el campamento atacado por el genocida que gobierna Colombia “murieron también un grupo (sic) de jóvenes militantes mexicanos que colaboraban y recibían entrenamiento de las FARC”.
Fernández miente a sabiendas, pues tiene claro que no murieron, sino que fueron asesinados por órdenes de Uribe Vélez, quien actuaba bajo la dirección de las fuerzas armadas de Estados Unidos.
La calificación que les hace de “activistas” tiende a desacreditar su memoria y a justificar su asesinato. Y, obviamente, no presenta probanza de que recibían el entrenamiento de que habla. Pero eso lo tiene sin cuidado.
En su Santa Cruzada contra los infieles, el nacionalizado teje una serie de falacias:
a) La milagrosa computadora de Raúl Reyes le dijo que las FARC están en el negocio de la droga. No hay que perder de vista que es el mismo aparato que asegura que Hugo Chávez entrega armamento al grupo rebelde y que éste financió la campaña política del mandatario ecuatoriano Rafael Correa.
b) También le informó que Lucía Morett y los cuatro universitarios mexicanos asesinados eran miembros del grupo alzado. Por ende, su actividad estaba también relacionada con el trasiego de estupefacientes.
c) Las FARC, le hizo saber el mismo aparato, tienen vínculos con grupos guerrilleros mexicanos. Luego, se configura el narcoterrorismo internacional.
Lo cierto es que la verdadera fuente de Fernández Menéndez es el espionaje colombiano, que en México se hace a ciencia y paciencia del gobierno espurio de Calderón. Quien lo provee de datos y “verdades” es la gente de Uribe y no el supercomputador de Reyes.
Fernández subtitula sus colaboraciones, con la palabra “razones”. Pero sus argumentos no son tales, sino burdas incriminaciones.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Armas
