Presidente peruano marcha por víctimas de secuestro en Colombia
El presidente de Perú, Alan García, y parte de su gabinete de ministros acudieron ayer hasta el distrito limeño de Miraflores, donde se desarrolló una marcha de solidaridad con el pueblo colombiano y las personas secuestradas por las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC).
La movilización, que reunió a miles de personas, fue parte de una jornada alrededor del mundo para expresar la solidaridad con el gobierno y pueblo de Colombia.
La marcha, convocada por la embajada de Colombia en Lima, la encabezó García junto a autoridades peruanas como el presidente del Consejo de Ministros, Jorge del Castillo, y el canciller, José Antonio García Belaúnde.
''Agradezco al pueblo del Perú que hoy ha salido a respaldar esa pretensión colombiana de alcanzar la paz y de liberar a todos sus secuestrados[...] Es absolutamente conmovedor ver a un pueblo hermano vibrar con las estrofas del himno de la República de Colombia, con las necesidades del pueblo colombiano'', expresó el embajador de ese país en Perú, Alvaro Pava, citado por AP.
Al distrito limeño de Miraflores también llegaron los ministros de Justicia, Rosario Fernández; de Vivienda, Enrique Cornejo, y la ex ministra de la Mujer, Virginia Borra.
Les siguieron miles de estudiantes, miembros de organizaciones sociales, ex militares impedidos y civiles de todas las edades, en un recorrido de alrededor de 13 cuadras de la céntrica avenida Larco hacia el óvalo central de ese distrito.
Tras la movilización, se organizó en el lugar un espectáculo artístico y un concierto musical que concluiría en horas de la noche.
La convocatoria fue elogiada por el cardenal peruano Juan Luis Cipriani, quien dijo que debe servir también para recordar que ese tipo de violencia afectó por años a la sociedad peruana.
''La marcha es para recordar tantos años de violencia en nuestro país y hoy en nuestro hermano país de Colombia'', señaló.
En representación de Cipriani asistió a la marcha el obispo del Callao, monseñor Miguel Irízar.
La seguridad de los participantes estuvo a cargo de 1,000 policías, 320 miembros del serenazgo (guardias municipales), 70 inspectores encargados de desviar el tránsito de vehículos durante el recorrido, y miembros de sanidad, defensa civil y los bomberos voluntarios.
Obama visita a las tropas en Afganistán
KABUL, Afganistán
El candidato presidencial demócrata, Barack Obama, visitó ayer a tropas de Estados Unidos y a funcionarios afganos en este país en guerra, que es el punto focal de su propuesta estrategia para lidiar con las amenazas a Estados Unidos de ser electo presidente.
El senador, que llegó procedente de Kuwait, viajó a Afganistán como parte de una delegación congresional en una gira que se espera lo lleve a Irak. Obama viajaba ayer en medio de la publicidad y el escrutinio de que es objeto el posible candidato demócrata a presidente antes que un senador de Illinois. La seguridad era estricta y el acceso de la prensa a Obama se vio limitado esta vez, en tanto su itinerario en las zonas de guerra era un secreto muy bien guardado.
Obama y otros miembros de la delegación recibieron un informe en la base de EEUU en Jalalabad de parte del gobernador de la provincia de Nangarhar, Gul Agha Sherzai, un poderoso ex caudillo afgano.
''Obama nos prometió que si se convierte en presidente en el futuro, respaldará y ayudará a Afganistán no sólo en su sector de la seguridad, sino en la reconstrucción, el desarrollo y el sector económico'', indicó Sherzai.
El sargento David Hopkins, un vocero militar norteamericano, dijo que Obama se reunió con soldados.
Es el primer viaje de Obama a Afganistán. El senador por Illinois dijo que hay que enviar más soldados a este país, y prestarle más atención, ante el incremento de la acción de la milicia religiosa Talibán.
El candidato presidencial republicano John McCain había criticado a Obama por no visitar las zonas de guerra de Irak y de Afganistán, señalando que mostraba falta de conocimiento en materia de seguridad nacional.
Ayer McCain volvió a fustigar a su rival demócrata por anunciar su estrategia para Irak y Afganistán antes de viajar a estos países para conocer la situación sobre el terreno.
''Aparentemente, confía suficientemente en que no se encontrará con hechos que podrían hacerle cambiar de opinión o alterar su estrategia. Sorprendente'', dijo McCain en su discurso.
Obama prevé también hacer escala en Irak.
Afganistán enfrenta un resurgimiento en la insurgencia casi siete años después de que Estados Unidos invadiera el país y derrocara a la milicia religiosa del Talibán, por negarse a entregar a Osama bin Laden, responsable intelectual de los atentados del 11 de septiembre del 2001.
Robert Gibbs, vocero de la campaña, dijo que Obama llegó a Kabul alrededor del mediodía. Previamente, hizo escala en Kuwait para reunirse con soldados norteamericanos acantonados en ese país, informó Gibbs.
Sultan Ahmad Baheen, portavoz del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Afganistán, declaró que el senador había llegado al país y que se reuniría más tarde con el presidente del país, Hamid Karzai.
''Quiero ver cómo es la situación en el terreno'', dijo Obama a un par de reporteros que lo acompañaron en su partida el jueves de la Base Aérea Andrews. ''Deseo, obviamente, hablar con los comandantes y darme una idea tanto en Afganistán como en Bagdad de cuáles son las mayores preocupaciones''. Además, Obama indicó su deseo de ``agradecer a nuestras tropas la heroica labor que están llevando a cabo''.
Ortega dice no necesita permiso para hablar con FARC
MANAGUA
El presidente Daniel Ortega insistió el sábado en su disposición de dialogar con las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) porque "para luchar por la paz no tenemos que pedirle permiso a nadie".
"Yo he encontrado disposición del secretariado de las FARC de trabajar por la paz y yo les digo a los hermanos de las FARC, que estamos dispuestos a dialogar, a conversar para trabajar por la paz en Colombia, porque bien se la merece ese pueblo", dijo Ortega al clausurar las celebraciones del XXIX Aniversario de la Revolución Sandinista.
Las FARC solicitaron recientemente platicar con Ortega sobre la "paz y la guerra en Colombia".
"Yo he sido bien claro, para luchar por la paz, no tenemos que pedirle permiso a nadie, y sobre todo cuando esa lucha por la paz se vuelve imperiosa por que está en riesgo la seguridad de la región", agregó.
El mensaje sería una contestación a la posición expresada por el gobierno de Colombia el jueves de que "no autoriza, ni avala, gestión alguna que pretenda adelantar el señor Ortega en relación con una organización terrorista, en este caso las FARC".
El gobierno de Colombia argumenta que ello "constituiría una violación al principio de la no injerencia en los asuntos internos de los Estados" y que "cualquier actividad que se desarrolle en tal sentido, tiene que contar con la aprobación del gobierno de Colombia".
En esta capital se rumoraba sobre la presencia de presuntos representantes de las FARC que habrían llegado al país para platicar con Ortega, aprovechando las celebraciones del triunfo revolucionario.
La jefa de la policía nacional dijo que actuaría conforme a la ley respecto a cualquier persona sobre la cual la Interpol tuviera en su lista de requeridos internacionalmente. Los miembros de las FARC son considerados terroristas.
Durante el acto, Ortega presentó a una de las guerrilleras colombianas sobrevivientes del ataque del ejército de Colonbia contra un campamento de las FARC en Ecuador donde murió el segundo jefe de esa guerrilla, Raúl Reyes.
"Acérquense, que la Interpol no las esta deteniendo. Ya quisiera el gobierno colombiano detenerlas o asesinarlas, pero ya lo hemos denunciado", dijo Ortega.
El mandatario dijo que el ataque al campamento fue "un acto de terrorismo de Estado".
Al mismo tiempo pidió al gobierno de Colombia "respetar" una resolución de la Corte Internacional de Justicia de La Haya, respecto a un viejo diferendo territorial con Nicaragua en aguas del Mar Caribe.
"Respeten la soberanía de Nicaragua y tendremos paz y tendremos estabilidad", dijo.
Ortega rindió homenaje a cinco "hermanos cubanos" prisioneros en Estados Unidos acusados de terrorismo, porque "los terroristas están en Washington", señaló.
Culpó al capitalismo del proceso inflacionario que afecta al mundo y dijo que su gobierno ha invertido 205,5 millones de dólares en proyectos sociales.
Al acto asistieron miles de sandinistas que portaban banderas del partido de Ortega, el Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional.
En el mismo participaron el presidente de Venezuela, Hugo Chávez; el presidente de Honduras, Manuel Zelaya; el vicepresidente de Cuba, Estaban Lazo; el presidente electo de Paraguay, Fernando Lugo; Aleyda March, viuda de Ernesto "Che" Guevara, quien recibió la Orden de la Independencia Cultural Rubén Darío.
Ortega otorgó la Orden Agusto C. Sandino, de manera póstuma, al finado presidente de Chile Salvador Allende, la cual recibió su nieto, Gonzalo Meza Allende.
También fueron condecorados con la misma Orden, la hija de Guevara, Aleyda Guevara March; Margot Honnecker, esposa del ex presidente de Alemania del Este, Erick Honnecker; y el filósofo, Francois Houtart, sacerdote católico y sociólogo marxista belga.
The Hispanic vote
¡Voten por mi!
Latino voters are turning away from John McCain. That’s a symptom of a bigger problem for Republicans
ONE of the dilemmas facing those who spoke at the National Council of La Raza this week was how to pronounce the Hispanic activist group’s name. The first syllable of the word raza (race, or people) requires a tricky, un-English tongue movement. Some of the anglophone speakers who tried it sounded as though they were about to choke. John McCain made no attempt at all, pronouncing the “R” like the last letter of “Budweiser”. Barack Obama, by contrast, breezed through the word as if he had grown up eating sopaipillas. Then, to show off, he did it again.
Although less numerous than black voters, Latino voters may tip this year’s presidential election. They make up 12% of the electorate in Colorado and Nevada, 14% in Florida and 37% in New Mexico (see map). In 2004 George Bush won all four of those states by five percentage points or less, and all four of them are regarded as key battlefields this time around. Florida, as the fourth-biggest state in the union and electorally one of the closest, is a place where the large Hispanic vote could well prove decisive: Jeb Bush, the president’s brother and the governor of Florida at the time of the 2000 and 2004 elections, has a Hispanic wife and helped boost the Republican’s share of the Latino vote there. But he is now gone.
Across the border states and beyond, Spanish-language radio stations are pushing listeners to become citizens and register to vote, apparently to some effect. Last week the Department of Homeland Security revealed that 122,258 Mexicans became citizens in 2007—up 59% from 2005.
Another difference between Hispanic and black voters (who the candidates also addressed this week, at a meeting of the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People) is that neither party can depend on them. George Bush keenly courted Latinos, in part by appealing to their socially conservative instincts. He won at least 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004. “I know how powerful this community is,” said Mr Obama on July 13th. “And, by the way, so does John McCain.”
Until recently it seemed as though the latter might be able to match or even exceed Mr Bush’s haul. A series of unpatriotic, much-televised statements by Mr Obama’s pastor had greatly offended a group that came to America willingly. Hillary Clinton had won the great majority of Hispanic votes in the Democratic primaries. Mr McCain represents a heavily Hispanic state and has often called for America’s roughly 12m illegal immigrants to be treated sensibly and humanely.
Unfortunately, though, Mr McCain is a Republican. Hispanics share the general current contempt for Mr Bush’s party, and have a few grievances of their own. It was, after all, Republicans who wrecked a bill last year that would have allowed most illegal immigrants to become citizens. It was Republicans who ran television ads in 2006 comparing labourers who stole across the Mexican border to terrorists. As the other candidates tacked to the right during the primaries, the Arizona senator at first hesitated and then seemed to follow. In January he was asked whether he still supported the immigration bill he had helped craft. No, he said.
McCain’s mountain to climb
These days pollsters put Mr Obama 30 points ahead of Mr McCain among Hispanic voters. Largely because of them, he has opened a small lead in Colorado and New Mexico (plus a huge one in solidly Democratic California). Latinos have even helped Mr Obama close to within ten points in the Republican redoubt of Texas. Mr McCain had the chance to reverse the slide this week—the third time in just over a fortnight that he had addressed a big Hispanic organisation. He not only failed to do so, but at times seemed to concede the Latino vote. “I know many of you are Democrats, regrettably,” he told 2,000 listeners in San Diego.
Whereas Mr Obama promised quick action on immigration reform, the Arizona senator simply asked the audience to trust that he would get around to it once the border has been secured, which everyone knows will take a long time if it ever happens at all. He expressed sympathy for illegal immigrants in the vaguest terms (“We cannot forget the humanity God commands of us”). He answered an anguished question about workplace immigration raids by explaining, rather loftily, that this was a symptom of a broader problem rather than a problem in itself.
The crowd, which had cheered Mr Obama, listened politely. That may not worry the Republican candidate. He was not just addressing Latinos—and nor was he simply trimming to the nativists who lurked outside with signs condemning “Juan McAmnesty”. The average white American grudgingly concedes that it is neither possible nor wise to deport 12m people. But he is angry with illegal immigrants for flouting the law, and wants the border fixed. So do many Latinos, particularly those (like Florida’s Cubans) whose right to live in America has never been questioned.
In his pursuit of Hispanic voters, Mr Obama is straying to the left of mainstream opinion. His speech on July 13th hinted at a distaste for workplace raids and did not mention the many illegal immigrants who have committed crimes. During the primary race he expressed support for a plan by Eliot Spitzer, then the governor of New York, to allow illegals to apply for driving licences. This is the sort of thing that rattles independent voters and fires up the Republican base.
Yet Mr Obama’s strength among Hispanic voters does not just have to do with his position on immigration. Nor does Mr McCain’s weakness have to do with his stance on the subject. Much of the talk at the National Council of La Raza was about issues like foreclosure, school dropout rates and health insurance. Downstairs, in the convention hall, one of the busiest stalls offered advice on diabetes. Latinos worry more than most about these things, but they are not the only people who worry about them. Mr McCain’s real problem is that he has so far failed to convince Americans, Hispanic or otherwise, that he can come up with solutions to their rather ordinary problems.
The coming days
The week ahead
An effort to breath life into the Doha round of trade talks, and other news
•TRADE ministers, hoping to make a breakthrough in the interminable Doha round of global trade talks, will gather at the World Trade Organisation’s headquarters beside Lake Geneva, on Monday July 21st. Their aim is to agree on a plan for liberalising trade in farm products and industrial goods, and to look for signs of compromise on services. The WTO’s director-general, Pascal Lamy, reckons the odds of success are more than 50%. That, regrettably, is probably an over optimistic assessment.
For background see article
•INDIA’S battered coalition government faces the challenge of a vote of confidence in parliament on Tuesday July 22nd. The vote is the result of the desertion from the ruling coalition of Manmohan Singh of Communists who are opposed to a deal struck with America that would have supplied civil nuclear technology to a country desperate to boost its power-generating capacity. The Communists reckon that the deal hands too much control of Indian infrastructure to “imperialists”. The vote is set to be close: a loss for the government would spark an early general election.
•AMERICA’S treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, will seek approval from Congress for the extension of the Treasury’s credit lines to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. On Wednesday July 23rd the House of Representatives will vote on a bill expected to include help for the pair. He might even seek to buy shares in the two American mortgage giants, which have suffered a loss of confidence that has sent their share prices tumbling. The authorities hope that confidence can be restored and are keen to avoid nationalisation, which would bring the whole of Fannie’s and Freddie’s debt onto the federal government’s balance sheet.
For background see article
•THE Chinese government has ordered the closure of 40 factories in Tianjin, a port city just east of Beijing, from Friday 25th July to September 20th in a bid to improve air quality in the capital ahead of the Olympic games. Tangshan, an industrial city also east of Beijing, will this month shut nearly 300 factories and Beijing’s authorities have also introduced a scheme to cut traffic by allowing cars with odd and even number plates to use the city’s roads on alternate days.
Commentary by Caroline Baum
July 18 (Bloomberg) -- ``When I picked up my newspaper yesterday, I thought I woke up in France,'' said Senator Jim Bunning, Republican from Kentucky, who in a former life threw curve balls from the mound as a professional baseball player.
Bunning was conveying his reaction to learning that the U.S. Treasury extended a lifeline to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Sunday evening, before Asian markets opened.
``It turns out socialism is alive and well in America,'' Bunning said in his opening statement at a July 15 Senate Banking Committee hearing.
He has a point. The Banking Committee was gathered to hear testimony from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on the state of the economy (not good) and, immediately following, more testimony from Bernanke, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Securities and Exchange Committee Chairman Chris Cox on the latest developments in financial markets (also not good) and regulators' latest initiatives to make them better.
Cox told the committee he was launching a jihad against rumor-mongers and short-sellers. The SEC subpoenaed internal communications from Wall Street firms and hedge funds to determine if there was any hanky-panky going on in connection with the dive in the share prices of Bear Stearns Cos. earlier this year and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
The securities industry regulator introduced new requirements for anyone looking to sell short the stock of 19 financial companies. The new measures will expire in 30 days if not extended. (Everyone who thinks they won't be extended, raise your hand. Good. We can move on.)
Shoot the Speculators
Cox's initiative followed, by a few weeks, a series of congressional investigations into evil oil speculators, whose machinations were said to be responsible for the 50 percent increase in crude oil prices this year.
``Congress wanted to go after the oil companies,'' says Gerry O'Driscoll, senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington. ``But they found that the public wanted them to pump more oil.''
No wonder Bunning thought he was in France. The U.S. is supposed to be a beacon of capitalism for the rest of the world. Our leaders preach the merits of free markets to developing countries looking to emerge from poverty. They look askance when foreign monetary authorities, such as Hong Kong and Taiwan, intervene to support their domestic equity markets. Government ownership of private companies, Asian ``crony capitalism'' and European-style corporatism, with business and state interests aligned, are frowned upon.
Case-by-Case Capitalism
``We want free-market mechanisms as long as everything is doing fine,'' says Jim Glassman, senior U.S. economist at JPMorgan Chase & Co. ``In times of crisis, we want to keep market mechanisms in check. If shorting a company is a bad idea, reality will prove it wrong.''
A week ago, with the shares of Fannie and Freddie trading in single digits, down as much as 80 percent since the start of the year, the U.S. government proposed emergency measures to rescue the two government-sponsored enterprises, which own or guarantee $5.2 trillion of the $12 trillion of mortgages in the U.S.
The GSEs gained access to the Fed's discount window (always room for two more). They got bigger, albeit unspecified, lines of credit from the Treasury, a source of contention with Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, who wants something in return for the ``blank check.'' And if the going gets really tough, Treasury can buy stock in the two companies.
Epistles are already being written about the death of capitalism. Liberals are saying I-told-you-so, brandishing examples of market failure.
More Regulation
How do we know the market failed if we don't allow it to work? Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin.
The U.S. has spent the last 30 years dismantling some of the onerous regulations enacted during the Great Depression. Entire industries have been deregulated. The Glass-Steagall Act separating commercial and investment banking was repealed. Where rules still existed, financial innovation -- the Eurodollar and Eurobond markets -- found a way around them.
It's a foregone conclusion that the country is headed back in the other direction. The only question is how far. The Nasdaq bubble gave us Sarbanes-Oxley. Now that the housing collapse has devastated construction and finance industries, government can take up some of the slack. (Who better to staff new regulatory agencies than out-of-work Wall Street types, who know the ins and outs of the rules?)
The Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008, which is now in a House-Senate conference committee, establishes ``a new independent regulator'' for the GSEs that would set capital standards and beef up risk management.
Conflict of Interest
What if said regulator finds the GSEs inadequately capitalized? One alternative would be to shrink their huge balance sheets.
But wait! Congress needs Fannie and Freddie to gobble up all the mortgages banks are willing to make to prevent a complete implosion in the housing market. (That new regulator is being unnecessarily tough on poor Fan and Fred.)
Maybe Treasury should start a taxpayer-funded sovereign wealth fund and buy all the bad loans -- even foreclosed homes -- no one wants. In retrospect, the Resolution Trust Corp., created in 1989 to dispose of savings and loans' bad assets, looks like a model of efficiency compared with some of the proposals being bandied about today.
And no, none of them are solutions for a market failure. You can't whine about the death of capitalism when government is putting a gun to its head.
July 20 (Bloomberg) -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki hasn't endorsed any specific plan for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, a government spokesman said, a day after a magazine report that he backed Barack Obama's proposal.
Al-Maliki supports a ``general vision'' of U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq and has not backed a plan by Obama, the presumptive U.S. Democratic presidential candidate, for a 16- month withdrawal window, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said in an e-mailed statement in Baghdad today.
Al-Maliki was quoted in an interview with Germany's Der Spiegel magazine published on its Web site yesterday as saying Obama's plan is ``the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.''
Comments al-Maliki made to the magazine were ``misunderstood and mistranslated'' and were not ``conveyed accurately,'' al- Dabbagh said in the statement.
Remarks made by the prime minister or any member of the Iraqi government ``should not be understood as support to any U.S. presidential candidate,'' the statement said.
Obama, 46, has said he would remove U.S. combat troops from Iraq by mid-2010, shifting some brigades to Afghanistan. The Illinois senator will visit Iraq this week for the first time since 2006 as part of an overseas trip aimed at countering criticism from Republican rival John McCain that he lacks national-security experience.
150,000 Soldiers
McCain, his party's presumptive presidential nominee, opposes Obama's timetable for withdrawal. McCain, who was critical of President George W. Bush's early management of the Iraq war, supported the increase in U.S. troops ordered by Bush more than a year ago. Obama opposed putting more troops into the country.
The U.S. has cut its presence to about 150,000 troops in Iraq from more than 160,000 at their peak late last year. The intensity of fighting has waned since March while the number of U.S. soldiers who died in Iraq in May was 19, the lowest monthly total since the start of the war.
``The only reason that the conversation about reducing troop levels in Iraq is happening is because John McCain challenged the failed Rumsfeld strategy in Iraq and argued for the surge strategy that is responsible for the successes we've achieved and which Barack Obama opposed,'' McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said yesterday in an e-mailed statement, referring to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Bush and Maliki have agreed that a ``general time horizon'' is needed for the reduction of U.S. combat troops in Iraq, according to the White House. The two leaders, speaking July 18 by video conference, agreed that improving conditions in Iraq should permit setting goals for further drawdowns of U.S. forces, spokeswoman Dana Perino said in a statement that day.
McCain adviser Gramm leaves campaign
Former lawmaker from Texas resigns after 'nation of whiners' comment
NEW YORK - Former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm resigned Friday from his role as Republican presidential candidate John McCain's campaign co-chairman, hoping to quiet the uproar that followed his comments that Americans had become a "nation of whiners" whose constant complaints about the U.S. economy show they are in a "mental recession."Gramm, a past presidential candidate, made the remarks more than a week ago. McCain immediately distanced himself from the comments, but they brought a steady stream of criticism just as McCain is trying to show he can help steer the country past its current financial troubles.
Gramm said in a statement late Friday that he is stepping down to "end this distraction."
"It is clear to me that Democrats want to attack me rather than debate Senator McCain on important economic issues facing the country," Gramm said. "That kind of distraction hurts not only Senator McCain's ability to present concrete programs to deal with the country's problems, it hurts the country. To end this distraction and get on with the real debate, I hereby step down as co-chair of the McCain campaign and join the growing number of rank-and-file McCain supporters."
Gramm made the comment to The Washington Times and later explained that he was talking about the nation's leaders not the American people. Democrats claimed at the time that the Gramm comments showed that McCain is out of touch with voters' concerns over high gas prices, the struggling housing industry and the shaky economy in general.
The campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Gramm's departure will make little difference to McCain's economic policies.
"The question for John McCain isn't whether Phil Gramm will continue as chairman of his campaign, but whether he will continue to keep the economic plan that Gramm authored and that represents a continuation of the policies that have failed American families for the last eight years," said Obama campaign spokesman Hari Sevugan.
By Tarek Al-Issawi
July 20 (Bloomberg) -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki hasn't endorsed any specific plan for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, a government spokesman said, a day after a magazine report that he backed Barack Obama's proposal.
Al-Maliki supports a ``general vision'' of U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq and has not backed a plan by Obama, the presumptive U.S. Democratic presidential candidate, for a 16- month withdrawal window, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said in an e-mailed statement in Baghdad today.
Al-Maliki was quoted in an interview with Germany's Der Spiegel magazine published on its Web site yesterday as saying Obama's plan is ``the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.''
Comments al-Maliki made to the magazine were ``misunderstood and mistranslated'' and were not ``conveyed accurately,'' al- Dabbagh said in the statement.
Remarks made by the prime minister or any member of the Iraqi government ``should not be understood as support to any U.S. presidential candidate,'' the statement said.
Obama, 46, has said he would remove U.S. combat troops from Iraq by mid-2010, shifting some brigades to Afghanistan. The Illinois senator will visit Iraq this week for the first time since 2006 as part of an overseas trip aimed at countering criticism from Republican rival John McCain that he lacks national-security experience.
150,000 Soldiers
McCain, his party's presumptive presidential nominee, opposes Obama's timetable for withdrawal. McCain, who was critical of President George W. Bush's early management of the Iraq war, supported the increase in U.S. troops ordered by Bush more than a year ago. Obama opposed putting more troops into the country.
The U.S. has cut its presence to about 150,000 troops in Iraq from more than 160,000 at their peak late last year. The intensity of fighting has waned since March while the number of U.S. soldiers who died in Iraq in May was 19, the lowest monthly total since the start of the war.
``The only reason that the conversation about reducing troop levels in Iraq is happening is because John McCain challenged the failed Rumsfeld strategy in Iraq and argued for the surge strategy that is responsible for the successes we've achieved and which Barack Obama opposed,'' McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said yesterday in an e-mailed statement, referring to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Bush and Maliki have agreed that a ``general time horizon'' is needed for the reduction of U.S. combat troops in Iraq, according to the White House. The two leaders, speaking July 18 by video conference, agreed that improving conditions in Iraq should permit setting goals for further drawdowns of U.S. forces, spokeswoman Dana Perino said in a statement that day.
July 20 (Bloomberg) -- Home sales in the U.S. probably declined in June as the housing slump headed for a third year, undermining the economy and prompting businesses and consumers to trim spending, economists said before reports this week.
Combined sales of new and existing homes dropped 1.3 percent last month, according to the median estimate of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News. Orders for durable goods, products meant to last several years, probably fell 0.3 percent.
The biggest housing recession in a generation, now being exacerbated by a tightening in credit as financial losses spread, threatens to stall economic growth. The surge in raw-material costs and slowing demand will likely prompt companies to keep reducing investment in a bid to protect profits.
``Stress in financial markets and curtailment in lending are going to make it more difficult to buy homes,'' said David Resler, chief economist at Nomura Securities International Inc. in New York. ``Manufacturers that produce for homebuilders or homeowners are being hurt by the slump in housing.''
The National Association of Realtors' report on sales of existing homes is due July 24. Purchases declined to a 4.93 million annual pace from 4.99 million in May, according to the survey median. Sales reached a 4.89 million pace in April, the fewest since comparable records began in 1999.
A day later, the Commerce Department is forecast to report that sales of new houses dropped to an annual pace of 503,000 from 512,000 in May, according to survey estimates. Sales of existing and new homes are down 35 percent from their July 2005 peak.
Construction Drops
Reacting to the weak sales, builders in June began work on the fewest single-family homes since 1991, the Commerce Department reported last week. That signals that home construction will continue to weigh on the economy after subtracting from growth since the first quarter of 2006.
More Americans are walking away from their homes as property values tumble and borrowing costs on adjustable-rate mortgages reset higher. Bank seizures increased a record 171 percent from a year ago and foreclosure filings rose 53 percent in June, RealtyTrac Inc., a seller of default data, said July 10.
Stricter lending regulations and the drop in home prices make it harder for Americans to tap home equity for extra cash. Consumer spending in the first quarter grew at the slowest pace since the 2001 recession and is likely to keep slowing later this year, according to economists surveyed this month by Bloomberg.
Bernanke's View
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke last week abandoned his June assessment that the threat of an economic downturn had diminished, telling lawmakers in semiannual testimony in Washington that there were ``significant downside risks to the outlook for growth.''
The index of leading economic indicators may have fallen in June for the first time in four months, economists forecast a report tomorrow will show. The Conference Board's gauge dropped 0.1 percent after increasing by the same amount in May, signaling growth is likely to slow over the next three to six months.
The report on durable goods, due from the Commerce Department on July 25, is also projected to show that orders excluding transportation equipment fell 0.2 percent in June, according to the Bloomberg survey.
Carmakers in particular have been battered. Sales of cars and light trucks fell to an annual pace of 13.6 million units in June, the lowest since 1993, according to industry figures.
General Motors Corp., buffeted by three years of losses, will hasten reductions in truck production and planned closings of four truck plants, Chief Operating Officer Fritz Henderson said on July 15.
``Lack of demand warrants'' accelerating the cutbacks, he said in a press conference in Detroit. ``The market is even softer'' than GM projected in June, when the reductions were first announced. ``We need to act now.''
Also on July 25, the University of Michigan/Reuters final survey of consumer sentiment for July may show confidence dropped to a 28-year low.
Bloomberg Survey
=================================================================
Release Period Prior Median
Indicator Date Value Forecast
=================================================================
LEI MOM% 7/21 June 0.1% -0.1%
Initial Claims ,000's 7/24 20-Jul 366 380
Cont. Claims ,000's 7/24 13-Jul 3122 3190
Exist Homes Mlns 7/24 June 4.99 4.93
Exist Homes MOM% 7/24 May 2.0% -1.2%
Durables Orders MOM% 7/25 June 0.0% -0.3%
Durables Ex-Trans MOM% 7/25 June -0.8% -0.2%
U of Mich Conf. Index 7/25 July F 56.6 56.3
New Home Sales ,000's 7/25 June 512 503
New Home Sales MOM% 7/25 June -2.5% -1.8%
=================================================================
July 20 (Bloomberg) -- Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson predicted the Bush administration will prevail in its effort to convince Congress to pass legislation that would allow the government to rescue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
``I'm very optimistic that we're going to get what we need from Congress,'' Paulson said on the CBS News ``Face the Nation'' program. ``Congress understands how important these institutions are.''
Paulson is pushing Congress to authorize the Treasury to purchase equity stakes in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which account for about half of the $12 trillion mortgage market, and expand government-backed credit lines to them. He also said he wants the legislation to include a measure that gives ``real teeth'' to the companies' regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.
``We're very close to getting reform,'' he said in a separate interview on CNN's ``Late Edition'' program. ``These are very important organizations -- they have a very important role to play -- and we need to make sure that they have access to adequate capital to get through this period.''
The economy is in a ``challenging time'' and probably will have ``slow growth'' for ``months'' as higher oil prices prolong the slowdown, Paulson said on CBS. The banking system is ``sound'' and regulators are being ``vigilant,'' though some banks are starting to struggle, he said.
Speech on U.S. Economy
The Treasury secretary is scheduled to spend the next two days in New York for meetings with executives from financial services companies and to give a speech July 22 on the condition of the U.S. economy and capital markets.
Regulators are aiming to resuscitate investor confidence in the firms after their shares this month fell to the lowest in more than 17 years on concern they may have insufficient capital to survive the collapse of the housing market.
``Their regulator has said they have adequate capital,'' Paulson told CNN. ``There's some worry, some concern in the capital markets, and that is why we came in with a plan to assure the markets that there will be adequate capital for them to meet all their needs.''
Under Paulson's proposal, Treasury would increase Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's credit lines from $2.25 billion each, buy shares in them if needed and give the Federal Reserve a role in setting their capital requirements.
`Central Role'
President George W. Bush, in his weekly radio address, yesterday said the two play a ``central role'' in the housing system and are needed to continue providing credit ``during this time of stress in the financial markets.''
Lawmakers from both parties have sought to put constraints on the plan on concerns it may put American taxpayers at risk while giving Treasury unprecedented authority.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, last week said he intends to tie the Treasury plan to the federal debt limit, capping the amount of taxpayer funding officials could use to help finance the mortgage firms.
Senate Banking Committee member Charles Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, sent a letter to Paulson last week asking why taxpayers should extend ``an unlimited line of credit'' to the companies while their chief executives ``continue to make multimillion dollar salaries and bonuses?''
Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd, 49, was paid $11.6 million in salary, stock awards and other compensation last year. Freddie Mac Chief Richard Syron, 64, received $18.3 million in total pay last year.
House Democrats plan to include in their bill a measure that would grant almost $4 billion to communities to purchase foreclosed homes, a measure Bush has threatened to veto.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
La crisis tributaria en Argentina
por Mary Anastasia O'Grady
Mary Anastasia O’Grady es editora de la columna de las Américas del Wall Street Journal.
La semana pasada se registraron episodios de violencia en Buenos Aires donde manifestantes que protestaban por la escasez de alimentos y la inflación fueron atacados por partidarios de la presidenta Cristina Kirchner armados con palos. Los atacantes eran liderados por un enemigo declarado del sector privado que trabajó con el gobierno del ex presidente Néstor Kirchner.
"Lo único que me mueve", dijo Luis D'elía, después de que su ataque a un manifestante fue grabado por las cámaras y sus acciones fueron justificadas por el jefe de gabinete de Kirchner, "es odio contra la puta oligarquía". Luego anunció que él y sus hombres patrullarán las calles para defender su visión de que los productores del país son inmorales. La policía nacional, que responde a la presidenta, no hizo nada para detener la violencia.
Desde 2003, Argentina ha estado creciendo rápidamente, más de 8% al año. Pero esto ha sido principalmente el resultado de la combinación de un repunte natural después de su colapso y el auge global de los commodities. Mientras tanto, hirviendo justo por debajo de la superficie se mantiene la contradicción fundamental que provocó la crisis de 2001. Aunque un peso fuerte hizo que los argentinos prosperaran en los 90, este era incompatible con la economía rígida y cerrada del país. La situación es la misma hoy: O se abre la economía, se hacen flexibles los mercados laborales y mejora el clima financiero o el gobierno se aferra a una política de un peso débil como una forma de compensar por un modelo económico poco competitivo y permite que la inflación regrese.
Al escoger la segunda opción, los Kirchner han ganado el apoyo del segmento de la economía leal a los principios de Juan Perón, el fascista argentino del siglo pasado. Estos incluyen a los sindicalistas militantes, burócratas del gobierno, la máquina política peronista y gente como D'elía, cuyos matones actúan como la policía informal de Kirchner. Pero al generar inflación y provocar escasez, la economía de Kirchner está alimentando un descontento general.
Los problemas recientes no comenzaron en Buenos Aires, sino en las provincias, en donde la agricultura es la principal actividad económica. Los agricultores se rebelaron a principios de este mes, cuando el gobierno anunció un incremento en los impuestos a la exportación de productos agrícolas. Las denuncias de que las nuevas tasas de retención del gobierno, es decir impuestos a la exportación, son casi una expropiación no están alejadas de la realidad.
Tomemos por ejemplo el caso de la soya. El nuevo impuesto a las exportaciones será incrementado de 35% a 44%. Pero ya que los agricultores también tienen que pagar un impuesto de 35% sobre sus ganancias, la tasa impositiva efectiva es significativamente mayor. "El agricultor termina pagando esencialmente un impuesto de 63% sobre sus ingresos brutos", dice Pablo Guidotti, decano de la escuela de gobierno de la Universidad DiTella. Si el precio de la soya sube, agrega Guidotti, la "tasa de retención" se incrementa hasta que el gobierno pueda tomar hasta 95% de cualquier incremento marginal en los ingresos brutos de los agricultores.
En respuesta a los aumentos de impuestos, los agricultores bloquearon las carreteras en cerca de 300 lugares en todo el país, prometiendo que no permitirían que los bienes llegaran a los mercados. Los efectos de esta decisión se han sentido en la capital, en donde manifestantes se han tomado las calles para apoyar a los agricultores y en contra de lo que dicen que es la arrogancia del gobierno. La huelga ya entraba a su tercera semana.
Kirchner dice que el aumento de impuestos es un mecanismo de redistribución, sugiriendo que los cultivadores y rancheros tienen que ser forzados a compartir más de su buena fortuna con otros. Pero la principal motivación detrás de este aumento impositivo es la inflación.
Según parece, el gobierno hará cualquier cosa para reducir la inflación excepto aquello que resolvería el problema: permitir que el peso se fortalezca. Ha impuesto controles de precios a los negocios, congelado y luego subsidiado los precios de la energía y prohibido las exportaciones de carne. El año pasado, despidió a la directora de la agencia estatal de estadísticas de inflación porque se rehusó a manipular las cifras. Incluso así, los precios subieron aproximadamente 20% en 2007 y las expectativas para este año se mantienen altas. Eso podría explicar la nueva ronda de impuestos confiscatorios. Al desalentar a los agricultores a enviar alimentos al extranjero, el gobierno cree que puede aumentar el suministro interno y ponerle freno a los precios.
Además de enfurecer a los agricultores y reducir el incentivo a producir, esto no hace nada para enfrentarse a las causas de la inflación, las cuales son la expansión monetaria y el fracaso de la economía de atraer inversión y expandir la capacidad de producción. Un peso fuerte y un compromiso del gobierno para respetar la propiedad privada es lo que se necesita para confrontar el alza en los precios.
En cambio, como buenos secuaces sin cerebro, desesperados por abrir hoyos a un dique que gotea, el equipo económico de Kirchner está moviéndose rápidamente, tratando de compensar por los múltiples errores de política de Kirchner sin liberar a la economía. La crisis de inflación es tan sólo el fiasco más reciente. Los subsidios para compensar a los nuevos impuestos a las exportaciones no deben tardar en aparecer.
Pero no importa. El poder de Kirchner no yace en un modelo económico racional. La idea de los Kirchner de dirigir una economía es imponer impuestos, prohibir, regular y subsidiar, si no es micro gestionar cada aspecto de la vida argentina para que ninguna decisión sea tomada sin consultarlo primero con ellos. Ellos son, en el fondo, autoritarios recalcitrantes al estilo de los que hubieron en los años 70.
Si le queda alguna duda, considere el hecho de que Néstor Kirchner invirtió los últimos cinco años desmantelando el sistema institucional de pesos y contrapesos para que cuando llegara este momento, todo el poder estuviera en el palacio presidencial. Él y su esposa ahora controlan al sistema judicial, la legislatura, el banco central, la policía nacional y los gastos discrecionales en las provincias. El único camino que queda para expresar descontento es la desobediencia civil.
Como vimos la semana pasada, ese camino puede estar cerrándose ahora que los Kirchner tienen su propio ejército en las calles de Buenos Aires, liderado por D'elía. La ira y la envidia detrás de la furia de esta multitud es lo que el kirchnerismo ha sembrado desde 2002. Aquellos que se atrevan a discrepar probablemente serán tratados con más salvajismo.
El gobierno de Cristina Fernández de Kirchner parece haber llegado a una encrucijada. El desgaste político derivado de su polémica con el sector agropecuario en particular y, con la oposición en general, ha quedando en evidencia.
El gobierno de Cristina Fernández de Kirchner parece haber llegado a una encrucijada. El desgaste político derivado de su polémica con el sector agropecuario en particular y, con la oposición en general, ha quedando en evidencia. La última manifestación convocada en la capital el martes 15 de julio, así lo demostró. La derrota oficialista en el senado terminó de confirmarlo. El voto del propio vicepresidente, Julio Cobos, inclinó la balanza evitando convertir en ley un decreto presidencial a contra pelo del sentido común. Con su actitud, el representante revalorizó el concepto de lealtad, marcando un hito en la historia.
Luego de una seguidilla de convocatorias que movilizaron a decenas de miles de simpatizantes por varias zonas del país, la confrontación final en Buenos Aires, un día antes de la votación, sirvió para resaltar las debilidades del aparato dirigido por Néstor Kirchner. Unas cien mil personas asistieron al acto que organizó frente al Congreso. El ex presidente, se dedicó a reiterar una vez más las demagógicas acusaciones de su discurso.
Simultáneamente, a seis kilómetros de allí, en Palermo, se reunió una multitud de más de doscientas treinta mil personas. Clamaban por la derogación de las detracciones aplicadas a la producción agropecuaria y al mismo tiempo, por un cambio de criterios en la conducción de la nación. Es la primera vez en la historia que el campo “invade” la capital. Y es la primera vez que la ciudadanía le brinda su respaldo de manera espontánea y fraternal.
No hubo enfrentamientos y ambas manifestaciones se desarrollaron con total normalidad. Argentina parece haber comenzado a reconocerse.
Es interesante observar la evolución de la organización ruralista, que en apenas cuatro meses logró un poder de convocatoria pocas veces visto. La existencia de un ideal común y el poder de las nuevas tecnologías, han contribuido a acortar las distancias y los tiempos. Internet y la telefonía celular, sumadas a las ganas de mucha gente, parecen haber sorprendido a los estrategas peronistas. Es que llevaban muchas décadas aplicando las mismas tácticas de bombo, prepotencia y hostigamiento que hoy, han quedado obsoletas y en evidencia.
Movilizadas por el kirchnerismo, unas cincuenta mil personas se habían congregado el 18 de junio, en Plaza de Mayo, para respaldar al gobierno. Un ejercicio de rutina para sus organizadores y hasta ese momento, un capítulo más en el largo enfrentamiento con el campo.
En esa ocasión, la presidenta habló unos veinte minutos. Lo más destacado de su discurso quedó plasmado en la frase: "En nombre de la Constitución y de las leyes, liberen las rutas y dejen que los argentinos volvamos a producir y trabajar". Hacía referencia a los cortes que los productores de todo el país sostuvieron durante algún tiempo, como medida de protesta contra los impuestos confiscatorios decretados por el gobierno.
Curiosamente, hace alrededor de dos años que piqueteros argentinos impiden el paso vehicular por los puentes internacionales que unen a ese país con Uruguay. La excusa alegada para mantener el bloqueo, en algún caso permanente, es la instalación de una planta de celulosa en territorio uruguayo. Así protestan por el supuesto efecto contaminante que esa industria podría llegar a tener. Bajo la misma Constitución y las mismas leyes aludidas en su discurso, el gobierno de Cristina Fernández, al igual que el de su antecesor, su marido, Néstor Kirchner, tolera y de hecho respalda, la insólita medida. Es difícil encontrar un ejemplo más cínico de “doble discurso”.
El venezolano Carlos Rangel, en su libro “Del Buen Salvaje al Buen Revolucionario”, comenta en referencia al peronismo desarrollado en los años cincuenta, lo siguiente: “Juan Domingo Perón asumió el control de la Argentina en un momento cuando ese país había acumulado un excedente de recursos y de reservas monetarias, por exportaciones en brusco ascenso (…) En lo esencial, Perón se dedicó a liquidar ese excedente, y además creó en un tiempo asombrosamente corto un déficit (…) Los sectores recreadores de riqueza de esa economía, que seguían (y siguen) siendo básicamente las actividades agropecuarias, fueron castigados con severos gravámenes (en la peor tradición mercantilista hispánica) para financiar el aumento en los salarios reales de los trabajadores industriales y a la vez un descabellado proyecto de autarquía industrial. En general toda la estructura costos-precios de la economía fue trastornada artificialmente para dar satisfacciones inmediatas, psicológicas y materiales, a los ‘descamisados’…”
Como si el tiempo no hubiera transcurrido, el análisis anterior podría aplicarse para definir, a grandes rasgos, la idea política que orienta en la actualidad al matrimonio Kirchner- Fernández, más de medio siglo después.
Latinoamérica, en plena era democrática, avanza inexorablemente hacia la realidad. Formada desde un principio en las prácticas mercantilistas coloniales, dos siglos de independencia no alcanzaron para cambiar la forma de razonar de muchos representantes y representados. La mentira está instalada y la promesa fácil, alimentada por una ambición de poder sin límites, ha degradado la región hasta niveles de asombro. Una maraña legal de molde positivista y ambigua interpretación, hace imprescindible el visto bueno estatal para el desarrollo de cualquier actividad privada. En general, la libertad económica brilla por su ausencia. Con mayorías obtenidas a fuerza de populismo, se hace muy difícil cumplir con los ofrecimientos. En la práctica, los objetivos se vuelven confusos y las expectativas populares irracionales.
Basta con recordar que en setiembre de 1955, un golpe de estado terminó con el gobierno peronista de la época. Las movilizaciones, que habían sido habituales, continuaron a su manera. Comenta Rangel que “…los ‘descamisados’ hicieron algunas débiles manifestaciones a favor del dictador derrocado. Su consigna era lamentable: ‘Ladrón o no ladrón, queremos a Perón’ ”.
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario