terça-feira, 9 de julho de 2013

La recolonización de los territorios en la globalización neoliberal



enelvolcan.com

Ponencia para el Coloquio Huellas y nuevos derroteros del patrimonio cultural, a efectuarse los días 11, 12 y 14 de junio, Delegación INAH-Morelos, Cuernavaca.

 Pablo González Casanova ha insistido en que vivimos un proceso renovado de dominación y reapropiación del mundo; una recolonización a través de la ocupación integral de nuestros países, estructurada en el ámbito nacional mediante reformas constitucionales y legales,  y a través de disposiciones de hecho, realizadas todas ellas sin consultar a la sociedad y a los ciudadanos en particular.  En el caso de México, se destacan, como ejemplos dentro de las primeras, la reforma al artículo 27 de la Constitución y sus leyes secundarias, que pusieron en venta las tierras ejidales y comunales, abrieron los territorios a corporaciones extranjeras y constituyen, en los hechos, la ruptura de la alianza social y el pacto político producto de una revolución armada que da lugar a la Carta Magna de 1917 y que costó al país un millón de muertos. De las segundas, tenemos al Tratado de Libre Comercio (TLC), la Alianza para la Seguridad y la Prosperidad de América del Norte (ASPAN), y la Iniciativa Mérida, que dañan gravemente la soberanía económica y política de la nación, sin que estos tratados y mecanismos injerencistas hayan sido sancionados por el Congreso de la Unión, ya ni que mencionar nuevamente a la ciudadanía afectada por los mismos.
Estas políticas, acciones y transformaciones legalizadas o fuera de la ley, impuestas por los gobernantes, al profundizar y extender la ocupación, han refuncionalizado nuestras naciones, sus territorios, sus recursos naturales y estratégicos, así como al patrimonio cultural de nuestros pueblos, al proyecto transnacionalizador y hegemónico del “imperialismo colectivo” encabezado por Estados Unidos [1] ,  sus fuerzas dominantes y los sectores que dentro de nuestros países establecen gobiernos de traición nacional [2]que Marx identificaba como aquellos que ante una invasión extranjera, sacrifican el deber nacional por el interés de clase.
Por su parte, Camilo Valqui, en su libro Marx vive: Derrumbe del capitalismo, complejidad de una totalidad violenta, propone el conceptoimperialización para describir esta reconfiguración mundial que conlleva la transnacionalización neoliberal. Esta imperialización es definida como el predominio económico, político, ideológico y militar del capital monopólico transnacional, que se extiende y profundiza: 1) en los recursos naturales y estratégicos del globo, 2) en la mega producción y los mega mercados, 3) en los flujos financieros, 4) en la investigación científica y tecnológica, 5) en las armas de destrucción masiva, 6) en los medios de comunicación masiva y 7) en las organizaciones internacionales, como el Consejo de Seguridad de la Organización de Naciones Unidas (ONU), por ejemplo. Pero, paralela y dialécticamente a este predominio, también debemos tomar en cuenta su contraparte, esto es,  el carácter pluridimensional de la crisis capitalista actual: económica, social, militar, política, geopolítica, moral, epistémica, cultural, intelectual, de alimentos, de materias primas, de energía y del ambiente.
Esta imperialización mantiene una dimensión militar, que en un trabajo reciente de mi autoría, Estudiando la contrainsurgencia de Estados Unidos: manuales, mentalidades y uso de la antropología, denominó como terrorismo global de Estado [3] para caracterizar la política de violencia perpetrada por aparatos estatales imperialistas en el ámbito mundial contra pueblos y gobiernos con el propósito de infundir terror y en violación de las normas del derecho nacional e internacional. Sostengo que en el estudio y análisis del terrorismo se ha enfatizado el terrorismo individual y el de grupos clandestinos de todo el espectro político, obviando y dejando a un lado el papel del imperialismo estadounidense y los estados capitalistas en la organización del terrorismo interno y en el ámbito internacional. El terrorismo global de Estado violenta los marcos legítimos, ideológicos y políticos de la represión 'legal' (la justificada por el marco jurídico internacional) y apela a 'métodos no convencionales', a la vez extensivos e intensivos, para aniquilar a la oposición política y la protesta social a nivel planetario.
Valqui considera que la devastación mundial de seres humanos y naturaleza es propia del capitalismo desde su surgimiento, pero que en pleno siglo XXI, con la transnacionalización actual, se ha exacerbado exponencialmente la violencia sistémica y el anti humanismo que le caracteriza; sostiene que los procesos de reproducción del capital y su búsqueda insaciable por la ganancia son incompatibles con la vida tanto humana, como de la propia naturaleza, que este sistema destruye de manera integral. Así, el capitalismo transnacional es descrito como expoliador, despótico, depredador, genocida y terrorista, y se vive como una verdadera tragedia social, como lo podemos constatar en nuestro país. Esto es, el capitalismo en esencia fue, es y será violencia sistémica [4]. En esa dirección, las descripciones que hace Valqui del extractivismo minero, con su destrucción del medio ambiente, ríos, lagunas, flora, fauna, vida humana, biodiversidad, para el caso del Perú, México, Chile, etcétera, constituyen un material riquísimo para fundamentar las luchas contra la minería abierta que, como en Morelos, amenaza los territorios, especialmente los indígenas, acorde a las investigaciones realizadas por nuestro colega Eckart Boege [5].
La imperialización, por otra parte, constituye una forma nueva de reparto del mundo entre Estados Unidos, Japón, Alemania, Rusia y China que puede llevar a guerras inter-imperialistas. No obstante, Estados Unidos, como poder hegemónico, ha instaurado en todo el planeta la barbarie como proceso devastador del género humano y la naturaleza. El terrorismo global de Estado o terrorismo trasnacional, cuenta con la complicidad de la ONU y los gobiernos supuestamente democráticos, que establecen, paradójicamente, una democracia despojada de todo contenido participativo, con violaciones permanentes a los derechos humanos, lo que viene a demostrar que históricamente capitalismo y democracia son incompatibles. La democracia tutelada por el capitalismo establece, asimismo, como principal soporte ideológico, una dictadura mediática, que impone un pensamiento único y un imaginario social que estimulan la reproducción de consumidores compulsivos, gente dócil y opacada, obediente, competitiva, conformista, individualista, narcisista.
En el análisis de esta reconfiguración mundial existen coincidencias con Valqui en otros rubros: por ejemplo, considerar al crimen organizado, a la economía mafiosa, ilícita, criminal, como otras formas de acumulación del capital trasnacional parasitario, a la que se le atribuye el 5 % del PIB global. El dinero denominado sucio va a parar a los grandes megabancos y empresas financieras. En el trabajo mencionado, he destacado que el narcotráfico es un arma contundente de recolonización y de imposición del terrorismo del imperialismo mundial, por otras vías distintas a las guerras neocoloniales. Por ello, estamos de acuerdo en asumir lo que Valqui denomina dialéctica de la totalidad capitalista, para descifrar como se entroncan las lógicas de acumulación de los capitales trasnacionales del narcotráfico con los grandes intereses geopolíticos de las oligarquías imperialistas en estas guerras de recolonización, como en los casos de Afganistán e Irak [6] . También, hemos venido insistiendo en la participación de la CIA, la DEA, y otros organismos de inteligencia, en el tráfico de drogas.
La reconfiguración mundial otorga un papel preponderante al Estado. En el ámbito de la metrópolis capitalistas, como instrumento de la oligarquía para mantener el complejo militar-industrial imperialista, los ejércitos, arsenales atómicos, bacteriológicos, químicos, sísmicos, genéticos, electrónicos, informáticos, complejos de seguridad, inteligencia, espionaje, fuerzas policiales, grupos paramilitares y comandos de despliegue rápido para enfrentar guerras de intensidad diferenciada, entre las que no se pueden excluir, reitero, conflictos militares entre súper potencias occidentales, y con China y Rusia, en competencia. En el nivel local del proceso de imperialización, si bien los Estados nacionales son reducidos en el ejercicio de su soberanía, no desaparecen, como afirman los ideólogos sistémicos. Estos simplemente ajustan su actuación para prestar un servicio más eficiente a las corporaciones transnacionales. El imperialismo actual produce en escala planetaria democracias subalternas puestas en manos de oligarquías locales.
Pilar Calveiro hace también importantes aportaciones a la comprensión de este proceso de recolonización, especialmente en su libro Violencias de Estado, la guerra antiterrorista y la guerra contra el crimen como medios de control global, (Siglo XXI editores, 2012). Aquí sostiene que vivimos en la actualidad una reorganización hegemónica planetaria basada en una violencia estatal que se despliega principalmente a través de dos grandes combates, definidos como guerras contra el terrorismo y contra el crimen; ambas habilitan el escenario bélico que requieren las dominaciones autoritarias, facilitando las formas más radicales de la violencia represiva. La guerra anti-terrorista permite mantener y expandir el nuevo orden global, mientras la llamada guerra contra el crimen “recurre a una reorganización jurídica y penitenciaria que conduce al encierro creciente de personas, en especial jóvenes y pobres, en aras de la supuesta seguridad interior de los estados. Ambas guerras se entrelazan, se construyen y se dictan desde los poderes centrales –ya sean estados-nación u organismos estatales supranacionales, y son instrumentos útiles para la reorganización global.”
Los rasgos más sobresalientes de esta reorganización hegemónica son, según Calveiro: el pasaje de un modelo bipolar a otro global, ambos con un fuerte componente autoritario; en lo económico, acumulación y concentración neoliberal dentro de un mercado globalizado; en lo político, debilitamiento de la autonomía del Estado-nación y el desarrollo de redes de poder estatal-privadas de carácter transnacional, así como la instauración de democracias procedimentales; en lo social, la incorporación de tecnología –en especial de comunicación- que modifica tiempo y espacio; en lo subjetivo, una individualidad blanda, aislada, en retracción hacia lo privado, como esfera de consumo de bienes y de cuerpos, todo ello con un uso importante y diferenciado de la violencia, que se articula con las nuevas formas de lo político, social y subjetivo.
Esta autora mantiene que las guerras sucias del siglo XX, prefiguran ciertos modos represivos del mundo global actual, con Estados Unidos a la cabeza, y con la imposición de un estado de excepción que articula una red represiva legal con otra ilegal, y en la que se va conformando un Estado criminal.
“Ganar la guerra sucia –afirma Calveiro-- fue una precondición para tener alguna posibilidad en la nueva fase de acumulación. Así fue como se invirtieron todos los recursos necesarios para asegurar la derrota de cualquier proyecto alternativo en América, una derrota que fue no sólo militar sino también política. Se selló entonces el triunfo de una nueva forma de organización nacional, acorde con la reorganización hegemónica global, que supuso: el vaciamiento de las economías mediante la imposición del modelo neoliberal, el vaciamiento de la política con la implantación primero de dictaduras de shock, pero enseguida de democracias formales e incluso autoritarias, producto de la eliminación de todas las formas de organización y liderazgo alternativos, y por último, el vaciamiento del sentido mismo de la nación y de la identidad Latinoamericana con la incrustación de nuevas coordenadas de sentido individualistas, mercantiles y apolíticas.” [7]. 
Es en este contexto global que hemos expuesto, que el patrimonio cultural, en su significado amplio: natural, tangible e intangible (lenguas, conocimientos o saberes, técnicas y diversas prácticas culturales de pueblos indígenas y heterogéneas culturas locales y regionales, las más de las veces subalternas), los monumentos y vestigios arqueológicos prehispánicos, los históricos coloniales y postcoloniales, los artísticos muebles e inmuebles, considerados bienes de dominio público y uso común; todo este legado que constituye la memoria de las naciones, de sus pueblos y componentes nacionales, regionales y locales, soporte también de sus identidades, está siendo agredido y amenazado por las privatizaciones, concesiones, aprovechamientos y disposiciones de particulares, empresas, corporaciones, desarrolladores urbanos, turísticos, delincuencia organizada, grupos de poder regional, nacional o trasnacional, que buscan su control, dominio y apropiación. En particular, se busca  destruir elpatrimonio comunitario que da cohesión a mecanismos colectivos que pretenden el interés general y el bien común, y que constituyen la última línea de defensa y resistencia de los pueblos frente a la acometida del capital.
La transnacionalización corporativa neoliberal, reiteramos, trata de imponer su mensaje unidireccional a través del dominio de los medios masivos de comunicación, la informática y las llamadas industrias culturales que intentan homogeneizar y uniformar a la humanidad a partir de su modelo de vida y la mediatización de la fecunda creación nacida del imaginario popular y del rico patrimonio étnico-lingüístico-cultural de nuestros países.
Los medios de comunicación masiva conforman, metafóricamente, las “tropas ideológicas” que intentan someter a la opinión pública con la desinformación, la contra información y la propaganda abiertamente sistémica; se transforman en tribunales de facto en los que comunicadores, locutores, editorialistas, expertos y analistas políticos condenan sumariamente toda oposición al orden establecido. A esto se ha denominado “dictadura o terrorismo mediáticos”, y a los mercenarios de los medios, “sicarios mediáticos”.
Ese modelo de la globalización excluyente requiere de una humanidad indiferenciada, sujeta a las leyes del mercado, al individualismo competitivo que proclama la ley del más fuerte (darwinismo social), alienada por el consumismo y el egoísmo posesivo. El capitalismo neoliberal necesita también de la propagación generalizada de un cosmopolitismo que erosione y destruya, si es posible, la identidad nacional [8] , la defensa de la soberanía, el derecho a la autodeterminación, la salvaguarda de los recursos estratégicos y naturales, las autonomías indígenas, las democracias participativas; todo ello en aras de alcanzar el “paraíso terrenal” que significa la sociedad del mercado proyectada como el ideal a realizar por una sociedad de consumidores desclasados, apátridas y apolíticos. Se pretende que el mundo que ofrece la mundialización neoliberal en sus variantes estadounidense y europea sea el único posible, sin alternativa viable, y que la única opción realista debe ser el conformismo social y la resignación política.
En el V Congreso Internacional de Cultura y Desarrollo, efectuado en La Habana, se destacó:
“Nueva expresión de la violencia, la corriente homogenéizante amenaza con ahogar la diversidad cultural y con borrar el rostro de las naciones y de los múltiples sectores que conviven en ellas...En el día de hoy, defender la diversidad cultural equivale a contribuir a preservar el futuro de la humanidad” (V Congreso Internacional de Cultura y Desarrollo. En defensa de la diversidad cultural. La Habana, Cuba. 11 A 14 de junio de 2007http://www.lacult.org/docc/Informe_Cult_y_Des_esp.pdf p, 1.)
Pese a esta maquinaria militar, policial, económica, cultural, ideológica y política desplegada por las fuerzas del mercado y sus asociados en el Estado y los poderes fácticos, tiene lugar en el ámbito planetario —y también en nuestro país— la resistencia de los explotados: pueblos originarios, afro descendientes, mujeres, homosexuales, jóvenes, obreros y aun sectores intermedios que conforman el pueblo nación, se manifiestan contra los efectos depredatorios del neoliberalismo.
En cada uno de nuestros países latinoamericanos, se han ido constituyendo los pueblos-nación a través de la participación de los distintos agrupamientos étnico-clasistas, objetivamente explotados y oprimidos, en las respectivas contiendas independentistas, contra las intervenciones extranjeras, luchas liberadoras, anti dictatoriales y de transformación social que fueron conformando a su vez una cultura nacional popular, por ende, representativa del cúmulo de rebeldías e insumisiones. Esta cultura nacional popular es el sedimento de las resistencias y del afán por un futuro donde la diversidad cultural sea patrimonio de la humanidad [9] .
Sin duda, el complejo de paradojas capitalistas que sustenta, fragua y perpetúa la violencia de la totalidad capitalista es una verdadera bomba de tiempo de proletarios y pueblos que estallará y barrerá a los que dominan el mundo actual. Seguramente, se articularán todas las formas de lucha, revueltas, protestas, descontentos, agravios, paros, huelgas, movilizaciones, redes sociales, fuerzas anti sistémicas, insurgencias y movimientos revolucionarios; se promoverán transformaciones sociales y reformas importantes para acumular fuerzas estratégicas entroncadas con la revolución.
En esta dirección, compartimos la crítica afilada de Valqui cuando se refiere a los supuestos marxistas que esperan el fin natural del capitalismo y el triunfo también natural de la revolución y del socialismo, haciendo abstracción de los sujetos históricos y de la crítica de las armas, con un marxismo de cátedra, con los circos electorales como esperanza sexenal, el cretinismo parlamentario, en suma, la conciliación de clases de una república amorosa. Valqui, y coincido con él, no da lugar a ilusionismos reformistas a partir de su crítica a las izquierdas sistémicas que una vez en el gobierno sirven a las transnacionales, optando por capitalismos subalternos nacionalistas, por capitalismos moderados, o capitalismos de “rostro humano”, que en realidad constituyen mascaras útiles para encubrir la verdadera catadura de la claudicación a las ideas de trasformación social, como fue el caso de Lula, en el Brasil, y el Partido de la Revolución Democrática, que con su firma del Pacto por México, no sólo legitimó un gobierno impuesto por el mercado electoral y los poderes facticos, sino que está avalando otras contrarreformas neoliberales, como la laboral y la mal llamada “reforma educativa”.
En los ámbitos de la academia, me sumo a la crítica de quienes han renunciado a la teoría marxista del imperialismo, los llamados por Valquiespadachines ilustrados de la burguesía transnacional, y a quienes han abandonado los rigores de los análisis de clase, pero siguiendo cabalmente las advertencias de González Casanova en cuanto formular las redefiniciones de los conceptos fundamentales. Por ello, él destaca que no podemos quedarnos en el concepto tradicional de lucha de clases que conserva un sentido fabril y economicista del que no logra desprenderse. El concepto de explotación tampoco es suficientemente comprensivo. Ambos conceptos, el de clases y el de explotación, requieren ser complementados o superados por el de dominación y apropiación del excedente y de la riqueza a costa de los trabajadores y de los pueblos, en procesos de apropiación del plusvalor y del capital acumulado, y en procesos de distribución y apropiación inequitativa del excedente y de la riqueza. Ambos conceptos vinculan el poder político, represivo, informático, cultural y social con las relaciones de producción. Asimismo, no podemos quedarnos en el concepto de imperialismo sin señalar que en la etapa de la globalización las demarcaciones de las “fronteras”, de lo “externo” y lo “interno” (que a los nacionalistas les sirvieron para ocultar las contradicciones internas atribuyendo todos los males a las externas) se ha confirmado cada vez más a lo largo del mundo. En el interior de las naciones está lo exterior. En cada Estado nación se dan los vínculos y redes con otros Estados-nación, con el capital multinacional y transnacional, con el Estado global incipiente y con sus asociados locales. Las luchas tienen que darse en lo local, lo nacional y lo global, privilegiando unas y otras en forma práctica. Y sin descuidar ninguna [10].

Conclusión
La defensa del patrimonio cultural pasa, entonces, por tomar conciencia del significado totalizador de esta recolonización que afecta las bases de reproducción de los pueblos y la sobrevivencia misma de la especie humana.  Las dimensiones de la ocupación afectan todas las esferas de la vida humana y ponen en peligro los fundamentos materiales y territoriales de las formas colectivas de convivencia, exacerbando al máximo la polarización social y profundizando las condiciones de pobreza de millones de seres humanos.

Considero importante conocer a fondo el sistema de explotación-dominación que enfrentamos, pero es también fundamental confiar en la capacidad y voluntad de los pueblos para desarrollar estrategias de lucha que combinen creatividad con eficiencia, centralidad con autonomía, principios éticos con construcción de alternativas.
La izquierda actual, después de las experiencias traumáticas de la burocratización del socialismo real y la institucionalización de la izquierdas dentro de los esquemas de la democracia tutelada, se define en función de que tanto es capaz de mantener una posición de congruencia ética y coadyuvar a construir poder popular en formas de democracia participativa que impidan la utilización de aparatos políticos para el encumbramiento y ascenso social de unos pocos.
Nuestros enemigos son poderosos pero no invencibles. Si está en juego la sobrevivencia misma de la especie humana, confiemos en que las fuerzas de la vida y el valor de la dignidad prevalecerán por sobre la maquinaria capitalista de muerte y destrucción.

 Notas:
[1] Ver: Pablo González Casanova: “Los indios de México hacia el nuevo milenio”. La Jornada, México, 9 de septiembre de 1998. También: Grupo Paz con Democracia. Llamamiento a la Nación MexicanaLa Jornada, 16 de noviembre de 2007.[2] Marx usa este término en el Manifiesto del Consejo General de la Asociación Internacional de los Trabajadores sobre la guerra civil en Francia en 1871, para referirse al gobierno de Thiers, que ante la insurrección de la Comuna de París, no duda en inclinarse por el interés de clase por sobre el deber nacional frente al invasor prusiano. Marx-Engels-Lenin. La Comuna de Paris. Madrid: Ediciones Akal, 2010, p. 6.
[3] Gilberto López y Rivas. Estudiando la contrainsurgencia de Estados Unidos: manuales, mentalidades y uso de la antropología. México: Ocean Sur, 2013.
[4] "Marx vive: Derrumbe del capitalismo, complejidad de una totalidad violenta. Tomo II", de Camilo Valqui Cachi, México: UAG, UACM, 2012.
[5] Ver: Eckart Boege. “La minería industrial en territorios bioculturales de los pueblos indígenas. El  despojo de los indígenas de  sus territorios en el siglo XXI.”  Rebelión, 4 de junio del 2013
[6] Notable en el caso de Irak, además del genocidio, el desplazamiento forzado de población y la virtual destrucción de toda la infraestructura estatal, es la devastación y el saqueo de su patrimonio cultural por las tropas de ocupación, mercenarios y coleccionistas, durante estos diez años de guerra.
[7] Pilar Calveiro. Violencias de Estado, la guerra antiterrorista y la guerra contra el crimen como medios de control global, Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI editores, 2012
[8] En el debate que se suscitó en torno a los libros de texto gratuito Mi libro de historia de México, para Cuarto, Quinto y Sexto grados de educación primaria en el año 2003, varios autores analizamos los intentos de omisión, distorsión o tergiversación de la historia de nuestro país para socializar a las nuevas generaciones en la amnesia y la asepsia de nuestra “identidad nacional”, la cual en estos libros es obra de las élites, criollos, intelectuales, poetas y literatos, con interpretaciones hispanistas, eufemismos y el intento obvio de minimizar al máximo toda mención de Estados Unidos que pudiera ser considerada ofensiva. Para ello, se omiten y falsean datos de las relaciones entre los dos países, marcadas por la guerra de conquista (1846-48) y sus despojos territoriales, las agresiones armadas filibusteras, como las de William Walker a Baja California y Sonora, y las efectuadas por las fuerzas armadas estadounidenses, como la ocupación de Veracruz en 1914 y la incursión a Chihuahua persiguiendo a Francisco Villa en 1916. Ver: Gilberto López y Rivas, “La amnesia conveniente; los libros de historia frente a los Estados Unidos” en Secuestro de la memoria. Un debate sobre los libros de texto gratuito de historia de México,  México: Delegación D-II-1A-1, Sección 10, SNTE-Colegio Mexicano de Antropólogos, A. C., 1993. Pp. 95-100.
[9] Estas ideas y conceptos -pueblo-nación, cultura nacional popular, étnico-nacional, etcétera-- constituyen un aspecto importante de la llamada Cuestión Nacional que he desarrollado en otros textos: Gilberto López y Rivas. Nación y Pueblos Indios en el NeoliberalismoMéxico: Plaza y Valdés, 1995, 1996; Alicia Castellanos Guerrero y Gilberto López y Rivas. El Debate de la Nación, Cuestión Nacional, Racismo y Autonomía.México: Claves Latinoamericanas1992; Gilberto López y Rivas. Antropología, Minorías Étnicas y Cuestión Nacional. México: ENAH-Aguirre y Beltrán, 1998.[10] Pablo González Casanova. De la sociología del poder a la sociología de la explotación. Pensar América Latina en el siglo XXI. Antología e introducción por Marcos Roitmann. CLACSO Coediciones-Siglo del Hombre Editores. Bogotá, 2009.

Gilberto López y Rivas es Doctor en Antropología, profesor investigador de la delegación del INAH en Morelos.

Fuente:
 http://enelvolcan.com/jun2013/262-la-recolonizacion-de-los-territorios-en-la-globalizacion-neoliberal

El crecimiento de las desigualdades de rentas: causas y consecuencias



Sistema Digital



Una característica de lo s tiempos presentes en la Eurozona es el crecimiento de las desigualdades en la distribución de las rentas en la mayoría de países que constituyen esta unión monetaria. Varios informes se han publicado recientemente que detallan y muestran este crecimiento, que también ha ocurrido en un gran número de países de elevado nivel de desarrollo económico (ver World of Work Report 2008. Income Inequalities in the Age of Financial Globalization. International Labour Organization, ILO, y Growth and Inequalities: Distribution of Revenues and Poverty in OECD countries. OECD. 2008).
En este crecimiento de las desigualdades, los fenómenos más acentuados han sido:
  1. e l enorme crecimiento de las rentas del capital a costa d el de las rentas del trabajo;
  1. d entro de las ren tas del capital, el gran crecimiento de las rentas derivadas de las actividades financieras a costa de las rentas derivadas de la inversi ó n en actividades de la econom í a productiva. Las primeras han crecido mucho m á s r á p idamente que las segundas. Y,
  1. dentr o de las rentas del trabajo, los elevados salarios de los gestores del capital (y en especial de los gestores del capital financiero) y de personal altamente especializado han crecido mucho m á s r á p idamente que la mayor í a de salarios y muy en particular que los bajos salarios. Este diferencial entre los salarios ha ido en sentido contrario al crecimiento de los receptores de los salarios. Es decir, los trabajadores y empleados con salario bajo han aumentado, en n ú m ero, mucho m á s r á p idamente que los empleados con salarios altos. Ello ha acentuado todav í a m á s el abanico salarial y la desigualdad de los salarios de aquellos pa í s es.
Esta situación ha sido particularmente acentuada en los países PIGS (Portugal, Irlanda, Grecia y España), también llamados países p eriféricos de la Eurozona. España es hoy uno de los países más desiguales en la Eurozona, con salarios más bajos, por un lado, y remuneración más alta a los altos dirigentes, por el otro. Una de las causas de esta situación es el enorme poder político que tiene el capital financiero y la organización de la gran patronal, junto con su gran influencia sobre los medios de mayor difusión, lo cual explica la escasa visibilidad mediática de estos hechos. Hoy, los medios están enfatizando (a través de sus editoriales y páginas de opinión) la necesidad de bajar todavía más los salarios medios y bajos a fin de aumentar la competitividad de la economía española. En este énfasis, se olvida, se ignora o se oculta qué otros factores y precios de producción (además de los salarios) contribuyen a definir el coste del producto. Entre ellos destacan los beneficios del capital (de las grandes empresas) que están entre los más altos de la Eurozona y que han dado pie a que incluso el Banco Central Europeo señalara que eran excesivos.
Estas políticas de devaluación de los salarios están incrementando las desigualdades en España, empeorando todavía más la situación económica. El descenso de las rentas del trabajo (muy acentuado en España, donde, por primera vez durante el periodo democrático, 1978-2013, las rentas del trabajo –que en los países de la Eurozona en promedio representan un porcentaje del total de rentas superior al de las rentas del capital- han sido sobrepasadas por las rentas del capital) contribuye al gran déficit de la demanda doméstica, una de las causas de la recesión, mientras que el crecimiento de las rentas del capital sobre el total de las rentas (en una situación de escasa rentabilidad en la economía productiva resultado de la baja demanda doméstica) estimula las inversiones especulativas. Esta es la situación en España, de la que apenas se habla en los medios de mayor difusión.
Rebelión ha publicado este artículo con el permiso del autor mediante una licencia de Creative Commons, respetando su libertad para publicarlo en otras fuentes.

El atentado del Imperio contra Bolivia y el silencio de la midia


Filtros y colonialismo

La Pupila Insomne


El lenguaje es siempre sorprendente. En estos días la prensa occidental acuña la palabra “filtrador” para definir a Snowden. Filtrador, sustantivo masculino, filtro-tamiz-colador, según el diccionario. Hay que separar para esconder mejor, decía el descuartizador. Porque una vez que la palabra se instala de esta manera esconde un hecho clave: Estados Unidos, -las empresas monopólicas que gobiernan Estados Unidos-, espían incluso a sus aliados. O será más justo decir a sus lacayos: los gobiernos de Europa que están recibiendo las migajas del banquete necrófilo imperial (el adjetivo necrófilo puede ser una tautología). Pero hay banquetes de vida como son los inmensos avances sociales y hacia el socialismo en America Latina. Y el imperio ha desatado una ofensiva brutal contra los pueblos soberanos.No me gustan los espías ni siento especial devoción por los conversos, pero el caso de este joven espía y converso tiene un interés especial porque desnuda la zona oscura del trabajo de control y manipulación tan caro al imperio. Ya sabíamos que espían, pero este nuevo caso aporta más pruebas . Y también aporta algo sobre la zona oscura de la conciencia del ciudadano medio europeo, del ciudadano de eso que se llama “occidente” y a veces “civilizado”, es decir supuestamente partícipe de la vida civil. Sin embargo, esa zona oscura, esa zona creyente que no civilizada, es una estación repetidora de mensajes del amo. Es y padece la enfermedad colonial. Decía el querido Fanon, que el colonizado repite el mensaje colonial, está atravesado por esa ideología y ni siquiera es conciente de que lo está . Y es lo que sucede hoy en Europa .
Millones de muertos lo atestiguan. Muertos en las últimas y actuales guerras coloniales, presentadas como cruzadas democráticas. Yugoslavia, Irak, Afganistán, Libia, Siria y la eterna guerra contra Palestina. Guerras atroces en las que la conciencia del “mundo civilizado” no hizo sino rizar el rizo de los no- pero- si. Voces que se levantaron tardíamente, voces que no consiguieron detener la maquinaria letal de la OTAN, votada en referéndum en España aquel día aciago en que un pueblo decidió ingresar al círculo del crimen para garantizar su pertenencia a la “Europa democrática”. Qué bochorno.
Hay muchas pruebas acumuladas e inolvidables como son el bloqueo criminal e ilegítimo a Cuba, el asesinato del presidente libio, el armamento para los terroristas sirios, los diversos atentados en América Latina, los golpes civico- militares, Guantánamo, etc. etc. La lista criminal es inmensa. Y las pruebas del informático de la CIA, sólo evidencian una vez más el aparato totalitario del sistema capitalista que necesita controlar a sus estaciones repetidoras que son los ciudadanos de occidente en estado crítico. En posible estado de hundimiento del sistema, pero sólo en la medida en que su voluntad política despierte.
Y es preocupante que después del atentado del imperio contra el presidente de Bolivia, las estaciones repetidoras siguen en silencio. No sólo los grandes medios del sistema, que evidentemente cumplen con su función de desinformar, sino y lo que me importa resaltar es cómo la conciencia del ciudadano europeo sigue entrampada en la conciencia colonial, silenciosa o abotargada. Discutiendo detalles absurdos sobre al pureza o impureza de tal o cual proceso de las democracias en tránsito al socialismo, pero no en la calle o en las redes, o donde se pueda, reclamando y exigiendo justicia. Ejercitando su derecho democrático contra la impunidad de sus gobiernos títeres. Reclamando actos concretos contra la impunidad de los gangsters. El silencio es cómplice y esa es la conciencia colonialista que necesita el imperio para seguir siendo impune. Y ahora como nunca es necesario que los pueblos de Estados Unidos y Europa despierten del sueño colonial y de las migajas cada día más escuetas que el imperio lanza a los lacayos que han secuestrado a la democracia en nombre del derecho financiero y militar. Sólo eso: migajas, no vida y menos aún dignidad para vivirla.
No es posible seguir mirando a estas dictaduras del capital como si fueran democracias. Las dictaduras del capital cuentan con la complicidad de una masa de esclavos, con una masa atemorizada por el miedo a perder la condición de esclavos. Los que controlan, permanecen en la sombra para hacer mejores negocios mientras invocan una serie de principios democráticos que nunca respetaron. Las tecnologías contemporáneas sólo varían el modo de espiar, porque el imperio siempre ha controlado, espiado y tergiversado, para garantizar la confusión mental necesaria que sostiene su ilegítima y criminal existencia. Por eso la palabra “filtrador” sólo supone reforzar la impunidad. Ni transparencia ni democracia, saben y consienten ser espiados, y el enojo es sólo retórica, porque la Unión Europea vuelve a tender la mano mendiga al amo, para firmar el Tratado de Libre comercio Trasatlántico y recibir la paga de 119.000 millones de euros por su silencio y complicidad. El caso del filtrador se puede entender como un a paso previo, una prueba de sumisión y de hasta dónde son capaces de llegar en su mafiocracia, antes del desembolso. Así funciona el colonialismo. Así opera el imperio.
Y no es casual que un empleado de Aznar, una figura de la ultraderecha, amiga de la ultraderecha latinoamericana, visitante asiduo del partido golpista venezolano Primero Justicia, miembro de la FAES y promotor de golpes antidemocráticos, el embajador de España en Viena, Carnero, (valga su nombre como redundancia), fuera el que intentó entrar a “requisar” el avión del presidente de Bolivia en el aeropuerto de Viena, violando todos los códigos. El presidente Evo Morales no lo dejó entrar al avión, por supuesto. Tampoco podrán entrar ni torcer el rumbo de nuestra América soberana y antiimperialista.
Fuente: http://lapupilainsomne.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/filtros-y-colonialismo/

Snowden y la cloaca cibernética orwelliana


de rebelion.org



Infielesbombaántrax… Es muy posible que al escribir estas palabras haya activado algunas claves del software de Windows, y que, a partir del acuerdo que desde 2007 tiene Microsoft con la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional de Estados Unidos (NSA, por sus siglas en inglés), algún inquisidor burócrata dedicado al fisgoneo y la recolección de datos en el complejo aparato policial y de espionaje mundial masivo de la administración Obama me haya clasificado como una amenaza para la seguridad de la superpotencia y, como advirtió Edward Snowden, literalmente esté observando cómo formulo mis ideas mientras tecleo esta nota.Desde el pasado 6 de junio, cuando los diarios The Guardian y The Washington Post develaron que la NSA y otras agencias de la comunidad de inteligencia de Estados Unidos tienen acceso directo a contenidos de usuarios de redes sociales y programas de los sistemas de Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo!, AOL, Skype, YouTube y PalTalk, fue surgiendo un alud de información y filtraciones sobre lo que muchos sabían y la mayoría sospechaba. De lo revelado por Snowden a ambos periódicos, lo novedoso fue el nombre PRISMA del programa ultrasecreto de la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional (especializada en espionaje electrónico y vigilancia de servicios de comunicación, y vinculada al Cibercomando del Pentágono establecido en 2009, que dirige el general Keith Alexander, también jefe de la NSA), su alcance planetario y la fecha de inicio: 2007.
Poco a poco fueron saliendo a la luz pública datos que comprueban la complicidad colusiva entre la Casa Blanca y los poderes Legislativo y Judicial a espaldas de la ciudadanía estadunidense, así como los acuerdos secretos ciberorwellianos entre el gobierno de Barack Obama y su aparato militar y de seguridad con los servidores de los nueve grandes proveedores de Internet, lo que a partir de sofisticados proyectos no identificados (The New York Times develó que algunas empresas cooperan con los programas de vigilancia del gobierno y accedieron a desarrollar medios técnicos más eficientes para compartir los datos personales de los usuarios extranjeros), permiten al Gran Hermano registrar los nombres, direcciones, fotografías, audios, videos, historial de comunicaciones y archivos completos de mensajes electrónicos de millones de personas en el orbe.
PRISMA es un programa relativamente menor de un esfuerzo mucho más amplio de recopilación de información electrónica, que incluye satélites, submarinos, drones y al avión experimental X-37. La propia NSA fue autorizada por el gobierno de George W. Bush a conectarse de manera furtiva con los cables de fibra óptica que entran y salen de Estados Unidos, y sin autorización de orden judicial alguna viene monitoreando las conversaciones telefónicas privadas de los estadunidenses, sus correos electrónicos, conferencias por video, chats, blogs, páginas de Internet y transacciones bancarias.
En marzo, The Wall Street Journal reportó que el gobierno estaba promoviendo un proyecto de ley que ampliaría el acceso de los servicios de inteligencia a los datos bancarios de los ciudadanos en caso de amenaza a la seguridad nacional. Según un documento del Departamento del Tesoro, la Red de Combate al Crimen Financiero (Fincen, en inglés), podría obligar a las compañías a informar sobre clientes sospechosos de lavado de dinero.
En abril pasado, el juez Roger Vinson, del Tribunal de Vigilancia de Inteligencia Extranjera, exigió a la compañía telefónica Verizon entregar a la NSA datos diarios de los registros de llamadas entre Estados Unidos y el exterior, incluyendo conexiones locales de millones de personas, sin tener en cuenta si han cometido algún delito. Decenas de reporteros y editores de la agencia noticiosa Associated Press (Ap) y la cadena FoxNews fueron espiados, en flagrante violación a la libertad crítica de la prensa protegida por la Constitución.
Se supo que además de Verizon, la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional tiene acceso a los registros de llamadas de las otras dos mayores compañías telefónicas de Estados Unidos, AT&T y Sprint. Según The Wall Street Journal, AT&T cuenta con 103.7 millones de usuarios de móvil y 31.2 millones de clientes con líneas fijas; Verizon tiene 98.9 millones de clientes de móvil y 22.2 de fijo y Sprint 55 millones de clientes en total. El rotativo consignó además que la NSA ha establecido relaciones similares con compañías proveedoras de tarjetas de crédito.
La actual maquinaria proto-orwelliana de vigilancia neototalitaria global tiene su génesis en la Agencia de Proyectos de Investigaciones Avanzadas de Defensa (DARPA), progenitora de Internet, y a partir del abuso criminal de la tecnología, viene a configurar lo que John Pilger describe comouna forma moderna de fascismo.
Todo lo anterior se suma a los nexos que la NSA, la Agencia Central de Inteligencia (CIA) y la Oficina Federal de Investigación (FBI) tienen con firmas israelíes ligadas al Mossad, como Verint y Narus (hoy subsidiaria de Boeing), y del complejo tecnoindustrial cibernético de Virginia –Blackwater digital, lo bautizó el ex director de la NSA, Michael Hayden− como Booz Allen Hamilton, la empresa para la que trabajó Snowden, hoy controlada por el Grupo Carlyle, y viene a configurar el panóptico anticipado por Jeremy Bentham en el siglo XVIII y descrito por Foucault en Vigilar y castigar (1975).
La militarización del ciberespacio por el Pentágono alude a un campo en disputa donde actúan las élites mercantilistas, políticas y militares mundiales, pero donde también están presentes redes y proyectos que resisten al capitalismo y proponen proyectos liberadores, y varios gobiernos agrupados en Unasur, como los de Evo Morales, Rafael Correa y Nicolás Maduro. México no escapa a esa lógica. Sólo que Enrique Peña milita en las filas de los mandatarios dependientes y serviles de Washington, amén de que estaría aplicando aquí el software spyware contra periodistas y activistas.
Fuente: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2013/07/08/opinion/021a1pol

Americans need turn to British newspapers

The Hero's Reward and the Judgment of History

The Emperor Strikes Back

by ANDREW LEVINE
Governments abhor transparency, and governments lie.  To keep them (comparatively) honest, an engaged and informed citizenry is indispensable.
That requires media that are aggressive and probing, and that are not afraid to speak the truth.  We have precious little of that in the United States today.
Government media policy, bought and paid for by corporate interests, has done the cause of transparency incalculable harm.  The Internet driven decline of print media hasn’t helped either.
Investigative reporting is now on the ropes, along with almost every other facet of genuine journalism.
Feature writing on apolitical subjects fills some of the void.  It keeps our “quality press” from becoming useless. But mind-numbing fluff, long the stock and trade of the Fourth Estate, is the media’s currency of choice.
At the same time, however, more hard information than ever is out there; and it is available around the clock.  For that, ironically, we also have the Internet to thank.
But effective ways to put it together and to spread the word are becoming increasingly rare.
To find them and learn from them requires effort.  Metaphorically, therefore most people nowadays share the plight of the Ancient Mariner: “water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink.”
And to make matters worse by orders of magnitude, we have the Obama Administration’s war on leakers – not their own of course, only the ones who cause them embarrassment.
By subjecting whistle blowers like Bradley Manning to punishments that exceed anything that the words “cruel and unusual” suggest, they do their best to intimidate anyone who might have something useful to reveal.  They strike fear in the press corps as well.  This, more than anything else, is what has chilled investigative journalism almost into non-existence.
Like so many of Obama wars, his war on leakers – and on government transparency generally — is undeclared.  It is also well disguised.  To hear him speak, one might almost imagine that he is on the other side.
In thinking about Obama, it is always timely to remember one of the epigrammatic German War Primer poems Bertolt Brecht wrote as World War II unfolded:
When the leaders speak of peace
The common folk know
That war is coming.
When the leaders curse war
The mobilization order is already written out.
What holds for war holds for media freedom too, but with a certain qualification.  Obama and Company are not against freedom of the press per se; just against the conditions for its possibility.
This is why it is perilous to speculate about what, for example, Obama’s government is doing to strike back at Edward Snowden.  Those who know, won’t talk; and those who talk, don’t have a clue what they are talking about.
The only sure thing is that the Administration is in full-fledged disinformation mode.
It is also plain that Obama and his inner circle, along with the military and national security establishment bigwigs whose offenses to democracy risk exposure, are mad as hell, and determined to get Snowden, no matter what.
Historians will eventually figure out what is going on.  It will be especially interesting to learn what No Drama Obama is doing to lean on friend and foe alike.
A particularly odious example was the closing of French air space to the plane on which Bolivian President Evo Morales was returning home from Moscow – because, maybe, Snowden was onboard.
French “Socialists” are a notoriously dastardly lot, but this is low even for them.
Could it be that the French are now determined to justify the Bush-era name change of “French fries” to “freedom fries?”
Or did Boss Obama make them an offer they couldn’t refuse?  The answer is obvious, but the devil, as it
were, is in the details; and we won’t know much about them any time soon.
This is because what passes for a quality press these days is all but useless, along with public radio and television.  What they are good for is passing on the government’s line.  The cable news networks are even worse.
At least there is a Guardian.  Glenn Greenwald and the people helping him bring Snowden’s revelations to light are heroes, almost as much as Snowden himself.
There is a certain irony in Americans needing to turn to British newspapers for good old-fashioned muckraking; in the Anglophone world, that used to be an American thing.
The post-9/11 world is full of similar ironies.  Remember how demonstrators used to greet police with chants of “Sieg Heil,” and how anything that seemed authoritarian – Arizona’s “papers, please” laws are a recent example – were associated if not with the Third Reich then at least with the Teutonic penchant for Ordnung.
Remember when “the American way” meant freedom from authoritarian nonsense?   Evidently, old stereotypes die hard; they outlive the circumstances that occasioned them.
By now, Germany, in comparison with the United States, not only is, but is also widely perceived to be, a paragon of liberal protections and civil rights, just as surely as The Guardian has taken up the kind of reporting for which The Washington Post and The New York Times used to congratulate themselves – and incongruously sometimes still do.
But The Guardian can only do so much, and without the kind of homegrown media that is essential for democratic governance, it can be hard to figure out what is really going on.
But we can discern general patterns.  The Obama Administration’s anti-Snowden crusade reveals several.
  • *
Because governments cultivate secrecy, they have always abhorred (unauthorized) leakers, and they have always gone after them to the degree that political circumstances allow.  The Obama Administration is the most recent in a long line.
There is a difference however: Obama has ratcheted up the level of repression – enough to make a mockery of formerly sacrosanct Constitutional constraints on government intrusions into individuals’ lives and behaviors, including First Amendment protections for freedom of the press and Fourth Amendment protections against “unreasonable” searches and seizures.
Surely, Obama knows what he is doing.  An intelligent man who taught Constitutional law in another life could hardly fail to have noticed how over the top his persecution of whistle-blowers is.
Over the top, but not out of the blue.  American governments have been guarding secrets zealously – and sometimes lawlessly – for as long as they have had secrets to guard.
In times of war, they at least had a plausible rationale: “lose lips sink ships” – a tight rein  on information that the enemy might exploit is a military necessity.
To the extent that they believe their own propaganda, it is therefore understandable that the Obama Administration would fall into the “loose lips” line.
Al Qaeda may hardly compare with the Axis powers or the late Soviet Union, and the so-called War on Terror may have more to do with projecting imperial power than traditional warfare.  But no matter: the steward of the empire must be ever vigilant.
Moreover, Obama has a public image to maintain – for running a tight ship.  And he has a legacy to protect.  It is not a pretty one, but he has made it his own.
He got into it late, and his contribution may never quite measure up to George Bush’s or Dick Cheney’s.  But Obama has left his mark on our post-9/11 perpetual war regime; and, before events get out of control and the empire splinters apart, he wants to make sure that the world will not forget.
Too bad for him, therefore, that the loose lips line rings hollow.  For reasons that hardly need repeating here, the most egregious examples of Obama-style repression have nothing to do with anything that might lead to sinking ships.
There is no plausible construal of “espionage” according to which Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden or, before them, whistle-blowers like Thomas Drake are spies; quite the contrary, like Julian Assange and other Obama targets, their goal is and always has been only to inform “we, the people.”
Despite an avalanche of government lies, and despite the corporate media’s efforts to shape public opinion to accord with the government’s designs, there is no way to disguise the fact that what the Obama Administration is doing vastly exceeds the bounds of reasons of state.
There is no way to justify its machinations.  And, at this point, with the public kept so much in the dark, there is not even any way to make sense of it, beyond what should be obvious to students of pop psychology.
Readers of, say, Parade Magazine will see right away that Obama and Co. are insecure; that would account for their hyper-secretiveness.  It would even go part way towards explaining their hostility towards those who embarrass them by showing them disrespect or, worse, by revealing their foul deeds to the world.
They take that as an affront, and they take it personally.
Affront the emperor, and feel his wrath.  Obama, more than other Presidents before him, is like a parent who is outraged when his children act out.  He lacks the wisdom to wait them out, and his anger overwhelms him.  His instinct is to kick them out the door.
The difference is that with whistleblowers, there is no analogue to the parent-child bond, and therefore no reason to expect an eventual reconciliation.
In his interview with Glenn Greenwald, Snowden was eloquent in describing how powerless whistle blowers are when offended superpowers set out to do them in.  He was right.
At first, it looked like he might nevertheless outwit the world’s most powerful security services.  That could still happen; it is hard to say because the government and the media make finding out what is going on nearly impossible.
Not unrelatedly, they are also doing their best to obscure some longstanding features of American foreign policy that cohere seamlessly with Obama’s insecurities.
In his dealings with domestic whistle-blowers, Obama is off the charts.  But when it comes to dealing with the empire’s wayward dependents, acting like a foolish, offended parent is the norm.
A case in point: before exiles from revolutionary Cuba became a force to be reconciled with in southern Florida and, from there, in national politics, Eisenhower and Kennedy targeted that former semi-dependency of the American imperium and the American gangster class.
Cuba’s crime, at first, was not Communism; that happened later, partly in reaction to American hostility.  It was the island’s rebelliousness that drew the empire’s wrath.  How dare they!
Wiser and more mature politicians, serving the same class interests, would have indulged the rebels, and even respected their rebelliousness.  They would have realized that, in time, the old dependencies could probably be restored in ways that would redound to the empire’s advantage.  Witness, for example, how Charles de Gaulle dealt with victorious Algerian revolutionaries.
To be sure, imperial powers cannot appear vulnerable; bullies never can.  Successful defiance is therefore always a threat.  But there are wiser – and, not incidentally, also kinder — ways to bring rebels back into the fold than the ones Americans habitually fall into; and they are generally more effective.
However, our political class is dense; changing course for strategic reasons is beyond their ken.  And so our politics vacillates between more and less awful – typically, though not always consistently, along party lines.
This is why the United States treats countries that won’t get with the program the way Obama treats Manning and Snowden; why it does the diplomatic equivalent of kicking them into the street and writing them out of the will.
There is, of course, one conspicuous exception: no matter what it does, American governments let Israel have its way.  This is not because, like a favored child, Israel tugs at our leaders’ heartstrings.   It is because the Israel lobby has Congress and the White House – and the shapers of opinion in the corporate media and the education establishment — in its grip.
Still, it is extraordinary how shamelessly the Netanyahu government plays the President of the United States – and how brazenly it humiliates Obama’s deputies and the President himself.
Perhaps the most extreme example was the announcement in March 2010, in ample time for the mid-term elections, of new settlement construction in the Occupied Territories, just as Vice President Joe Biden, the most abjectly pro-Israel politician in the Administration, arrived to try (for a change) to restart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.  Other recent examples are nearly as egregious.
It is telling, though, that, despite trying since 1987, neither the Israeli government nor the Israel lobby have been able to get the United States to free Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard from the American prison system.
Evidently, the feelings of the “intelligence community” trump all.
And when they and an insecure Commander-in-Chief, full of pent up rage, are in league, the combination can be terrifying.
Edward Snowden educated himself about the nature and timbre of transparency’s – and therefore democracy’s — enemies before he decided that he was morally and politically obligated to reveal to the American people, and to the world, what the American government makes of what has long been considered a priceless right, the right of privacy.
And so he blew the whistle on NSA surveillance.
According to many accounts, he was especially cognizant of what the American government is doing to Bradley Manning; and aware of what would be in store for him too, if he too did the right thing.
He went ahead anyway.  For this, the entire world is in Edward Snowden’s debt.
But the hero’s reward, if Obama et. al. get their way, will be terrible to contemplate.
That, for now, is the price one pays for folding back the empire’s veil of secrecy, calling down upon the emperor some of the shame that is his due.
But times change.  The whistle-blower’s consolation is the judgment of history; there is no doubt what that will be.
ANDREW LEVINE is a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What’s Wrong With the Opium of the People. He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park.  He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

Snowden - Corporate Media shown to be Rank Propaganda Arms

Corporate Media shown to be Rank Propaganda Arms

What the Snowden Affair Reveals About US Journalism

by DAVE LINDORFF
It’s little wonder that despite his disclosure of an unprecedented KBG-like or Stasi-like spying program targeting all Americans, fully half of all Americans polled are saying that National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden is a “spy” or “traitor” who should be brought to justice.
Why would this be, when a solid majority also say they oppose the spying program?
A major reason would be that the politicians and other Washington leaders like Armed Forces Chief of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey are lying, claiming that Snowden has damaged US national security. Another would be that the corporate media are pushing the line that Snowden is not a civil-liberties motivated whistle-blowing patriot, but rather a traitor or a spy.
Take the Philadelphia Inquirer. A couple of days ago, this once-respected paper in one of America’s major cities ran a piece about Snowden, calling him a “spy” in the headline, though there was no mention of the word spy in the article itself. Without any sense of irony, the paper ran another article that day on the same page about the anger in Europe over the NSA’s spying on Europeans and their governments — supposedly America’s allies — and while that article was about spying by the US government, the headline eschewed using the word “spy.”
I called the paper’s city desk to complain and was told by a seemingly sympathetic editor on the desk that the head of the copy desk would call me, but of course, he never did. Nor did the paper deign to publish a letter I sent in criticizing the decision to use the word “spy” to describe Snowden.
Then today, the Inquirer did it again. This time it was an AP article on page two of the paper reporting on comments made by Gen. Dempsey on CNN’s “State of the Union” program. Again, the Inquirer’sheadline was “Dempsey: Spy has harmed relations.” But the piece, which refers to Snowden as a “leaker,” never does call Snowden a “spy.” Nor does Gen. Dempsey, at least as quoted in the article. The “spy” terminology is purely the work of the paper’s editors.
That’s not to say Gen. Dempsey isn’t also messing with the truth in this case. He stated on the CNN program that Snowden’s disclosure about global surveillance programs targeting allies in Europe and elsewhere had “undermined US relationships with other countries” and affected what he called “the importance of trust.” As Dempsey put it, “the US will have to work its way back. but it (the disclosure by Snowden) will set us back temporarily.”
Think about that a minute — something the writer of the article clearly didn’t bother to do, and which, sadly, most CNN viewers and newspaper readers probably won’t do either: Was it Snowden’s revelations of the NSA’s spying on friendly countries and millions of their citizens that undermined trust in the US, or was it the spying itself?
The article goes on to quote a couple of congressional blowhards calling for tough sanctions against countries in Latin America that might offer asylum to Snowden (currently Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua have offered to help him with sanctuary). House Intelligence (sic) Committee Chair Mike Rogers (R-MI), told the same CNN program that if Snowden is issued travel documents to allow him to fly to one of those countries (the US has revoked his passport, making it hard for him to get a flight out of Moscow), the US should “look at” trade agreements with the nations offering asylum “to send a very clear message that we won’t put up with this kind of behavior.” He was joined by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), who said, “Clearly, such acceptance of Snowden to any country is going to put them directly against the United States, and they need to know that.”
Again, no context is offered. We’re not told that Venezuela only a few years ago experienced a failed coup against its late democratically elected leader Hugo Chavez (who was captured and taken hostage), which the Bush administration almost immediately endorsed and recognized (it failed when the army and people massively stood by Chavez). Nor are we told that the Obama administration refused to accept the last internationally monitored and certified election of Chavez successor Nicolas Maduro. No wonder Venezuela would want to offer asylum to Snowden, whom Maduro has said, correctly, of Snowden, “He is a young man who has told the truth, in the spirit of rebellion, about the United States spying on the whole world.”
As for Nicaragua, its president, Daniel Ortega Saavedra, was a leader of the Sandinista popular front which ousted hereditary dictator Anastasia Somosa Debayle, only to have to endure years of military assault by the US and the brutal “Contra” forces it illegally armed and organized from neighboring Honduras. Returned to the presidency by popular election, Ortega understandably is sympathetic to an American citizen on the run from the great imperialist aggressor to the north that so tormented his nation.
Finally, there’s Bolivia, whose popular elected president Evo Morales had his plane barred from flying home from a summit meeting in Russia by conniving US officials who convinced French, Portuguese and Spanish governments to deny him access to their air space, and who was then forced to suffer the indignity of an illegal search of his plane in Austria, where he was forced to land when fuel ran low on the plane.
This blatant violation of the long-recognized and legally accepted standard of absolute diplomatic immunity of national leaders, under US pressure, prompted a group of angry Latin American leaders to rush to La Paz to stand in solidarity with Morales when he finally made it home. Morales was quick to offer Snowden asylum “in retaliation” for the US aggression against his country–a stance that, if Americans were informed about it honestly, most would agree was totally understandable.
One searches in vain in the US media to find an explanation that under the Vienna Convention, and under the terms of a US law signed by President Gerald Ford in 1976, heads of state have absolute immunity when they travel outside their country. One searches in vain too for an explanation that even if Morales had been transporting Snowden on his presidential jet back to Bolivia (he was not on the plane), he would have been entirely within his rights as a head of state to do so.
The failure of the US corporate media, and specifically of articles like those cited in the Philadelphia Inquirer or CNN’s “State of the Union,” to make all this clear, and to simply parrot the self-serving and misleading statements of US officials, is nothing short of journalistic malpractice.
It shows the national corporate media to be little more than unofficial propaganda arms of the US government.
DAVE LINDORFF is a founding member of ThisCantBeHappening!, an online newspaper collective, and is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).
 

In Egypt the Military is Supreme

How to Thwart Democracy?

from counterpunch

In Egypt the Military is Supreme

by ESAM AL-AMIN
The Generals have done it again!
Egypt’s president, Mohamed Morsi, was deposed one year after being democratically elected by the Egyptian people. For those opposed to Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), the move by the military is seen as supporting a popular uprising and a belated effort to revive or restore the Egyptian revolution that ousted Hosni Mubarak more than two years ago. But for Morsi’s supporters or those who simply had any respect for democratic governance and the rule of law, the action by the army is nothing short of a brazen though soft military coup d’état.
Which one is it? Here are the facts.
The military in Egypt has always enjoyed a privileged and autonomous status and is tacitly considered the power behind the throne. For decades, political power was concentrated in the hands of an elite yet mostly corrupt political and business class that monopolized power and looted the country’s resources. But the revolution that toppled Mubarak was in essence a rejection not just against the dictator, but also his entire corrupt regime. One of the major demands of the revolution was to get rid of dictatorship and repression and uphold the principles of democracy and the rule of law.
Over the next two years, the political process that followed Mubarak’s overthrow allowed for the will of the Egyptian people to be expressed numerous times through free and fair elections and referenda. The people in Egypt went to the polls at least six times: to vote for a referendum to chart the political way forward (March 2011), to vote for the lower and upper house of parliament (November 2011-January 2012), to elect a civilian president over two rounds (May-June 2012), and to ratify the new constitution (December 2012). Each time the electorate voted for the choice of the Islamist parties to the frustration of the secular and liberal opposition.
To the discontent of the Islamists, all their gains at the polls were reversed by either the Mubarak-appointed Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC) or the military. The lower house of parliament, of which the Islamists won seventy three percent of the seats, was dissolved by the SCC a year ago, while the military has just suspended the new constitution, while ousting the democratically-elected president.
Undoubtedly, the MB committed colossal mistakes. For example, they reneged on several promises to their secular and liberal coalition partners, including to not contest the majority of parliamentary seats, field a presidential candidate, or exclude others in the composition of the Constitution Constituent Assembly. Perhaps, their gravest mistake was to ally themselves closely with the Salafist groups during the process of writing the constitution, thus alienating many of the secularists, liberals, as well as Christians even though the MB did not care much about the constitutional ideological battle. Their motivation was not to be outflanked by the Salafis on the Islamic identity of the state. To accomplish this objective, they lost most of the others.
In addition, Morsi and the MB did not adhere to their promise of full partnership in governance. Many of the youth and opposition groups felt that the president and MB leadership were not genuine in their outreach and only sought their participation for cosmetic reasons. Even their Islamic partners such as the Salafist Al-Noor Party complained that the MB wanted to monopolize the major power centers in the state. It did not matter that the MB did not control the military, the intelligence, the security apparatus, the police, the diplomatic corps, the banking system, or even the bureaucracy.  But because of the MB’s lack of transparency and openness, the perception was that they were trying to control the major centers of powers in the state and exclude other parties based on ideology while the reality was that such control was non-existent or superficial.
But to the average people on the street what mattered was their security and livelihood. During his one year in power, Morsi faced enormous challenges: deterioration in security and basic services, lack of social justice, and economic decline. It appeared to many as deliberate attempts by the deep state (entrenched elements and bureaucrats loyal to the former regime) to ensure the failure of his presidency. His lack of transparency and openness to his people in favor of presenting an optimistic or upbeat outlook added to public cynicism and the perception of incompetence. Another major mistake by the MB was its failure to separate its socio-religious movement from its political manifestation, the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP). While the public in past times respected the MB for its social services and religious outreach, engaging in politics by its nature is a source of division and rancor. For example when the MB fielded its presidential candidate in March 2012, it was MB’s Guidance Bureau that made the declaration instead of the FJP. In the eyes of the public there was little distinction between the MB and the FJP. So the MB was, correctly or not, held responsible for any political missteps by the FJP.
In part because the 2011 revolutionary partners were sharply divided on ideological grounds, former regime loyalists, politicians, and corrupt businessmen were able to regroup and play an increasing role in the political battles that engulfed the country. Mubarak’s National Democratic Party (NDP), which
esamdominated political life for decades, was the only party in the country capable of organizing nationwide and competing with the MB. But since the public rejected the NDP (and it was banned shortly after Mubarak was deposed), it did not participate in the parliamentary elections in the fall of 2011. However, by June 2012, Ahmad Shafiq, Mubarak’s last Prime Minster, represented the NDP’s interests. As one of the two remaining candidates in the second round of the presidential elections, he ultimately lost by less than two percent.
Morsi took over power by June 30, 2012. When he was not as inclusive as promised in his senior appointments,  the opposition almost immediately turned against him. Two months after he was sworn in, they called for a massive protest on August 24, calling it “The protest to oust the rule of the Brotherhood.” Their hostility and acrimony increased as the writing of the new constitution was finalized. Meanwhile, the new political openness and freedom in the country allowed for the private media, owned and controlled by many of the former regime’s loyalists and supporters, to target Morsi and the MB in an orchestrated campaign to alienate and inflame the public.
By the time the president issued his ill-advised and ill-fated constitutional decree, the opposition was not only united against Morsi and the MB but also determined to dislodge them from power. Morsi argued that his move was necessary to protect the nascent democratic political structures that the courts were dissolving one by one. He eventually reversed course and annulled his decree, even though the opposition rejected all his appeals for political dialogue. However, his objective of having a new constitution, which the opposition vehemently rejected, and replacing the Mubarak-appointed public prosecutor, a demand that the youth and revolutionary groups had called for, were already fulfilled. This single act proved to be a rallying point for all the opposition and the remnants of the former regime (fulool), which united under the National Salvation Front (NSF) in order to confront and defeat Morsi and the MB. They campaigned vigorously to defeat the constitution, which to their dismay, was passed by 64 percent.
Meanwhile, the MB and their Islamist allies aimed at targeting the corrupt elements in the judiciary, which represented not only a major obstacle in delaying or dissolving the new democratic components of the state, but also it reversed the convictions and released all the corrupt elements of the Mubarak regime. Although this was also a revolutionary demand, the opposition, which so far had not fared well at the ballot box, aligned itself with the judiciary and accused the Islamists of attacking an independent branch of government that had reservations, if not outright discontent, about the revolution.
By the spring of 2013, the MB and its supporters were preparing for new parliamentary elections, which they had expected to win. Their strategy was that if they won the parliamentary elections and forced judiciary reform, they would be able to control or influence all branches of government and easily confront the deep state and institute their program. Sensing the danger of this scenario, NSF coordinator Dr. Mohammad ElBaradei met with Shafiq in the United Arab Emirates in March. In an interview last week, Shafiq disclosed that he and ElBaradei had agreed on an elaborate plan to depose Morsi and the MB. He also predicted that Morsi and MB officials would be arrested and tried. Furthermore, Shafiq complained that ElBaradei and the opposition did not fulfill their part of the bargain, which was to promote and support Shafiq and help make him the next president, and that they instead began to distance themselves from him.
Throughout the political power struggle, the youth movements, which spearheaded the 2011 revolution against the Mubarak regime, were marginalized while their grievances were not addressed. Morsi and the MB gave only lip service to their demands and needs. But during his address to the nation last week, Morsi belatedly acknowledged this neglect as he promised to address it. By late April, the youth groups had already come together to form a new movement called Tamarrud or Rebellion. The central theme in their program was to call for early presidential elections by gathering 15 million signatures, a million more than Morsi had received during his presidential run.
During the process, the secular opposition and the fulool embraced Tamarrud’s message, while the latter used the offices of the NSF and held several press conferences at the headquarters of well-known media outlets of Mubarak loyalists. There is also anecdotal evidence that the group received financial support from fulool groups. Meanwhile, the private media started a well-orchestrated campaign and continuous onslaught on the MB in particular and the Islamists in general. The level of hostility and hatred spewed against them was reminiscent of the 1930s Nazi propaganda against the Jews. Dozens of incidents were reported in the past two months, in which supporters of the MB were attacked verbally and physically by strangers because of their purported associations.
Though the campaign against the MB was in full swing, the president and the group did not take it seriously and did not attempt to offer a compromise to the opposition or genuinely address their concerns. They miscalculated badly as they thought that the popular support of Tamarrud’s initiative was thin. In short, the MB was facing a perfect storm. Whether in reality or perception, the MB has alienated its former liberal and secular partners, the youth groups, the judiciary, the media, the general public because of lack of services and rising prices The fulool and their allies within the deep state took advantage of this public discontent.  Many former security officials and wealthy businessmen tied to the former regime were seen organizing and mobilizing for the June 30th protest, the day Tamarrud designated to force Morsi’s ouster. By July 2, the Appellate Court invalidated the appointment of the General Prosecutor appointed by Morsi and returned the Mubarak-appointed corrupt prosecutor, who was dismissed last November. Furthermore, in order to further muddy the political scene, the courts also ordered that Morsi’s Prime Minister, Dr. Hisham Qandil, be arrested and sentenced to one year in prison for not implementing an earlier court order given to a Mubarak-era prime minister.
However, on June 30 an impressive numbers of Egyptians protested against the MB and the president in Tahrir Square and across Egypt. It was reminiscent of the early days of the 2011 protests against Mubarak. Although the protesters did not include Islamist groups, they were diverse. Many youth groups were represented, voicing their frustration of being marginalized and their demands neglected. Many were ordinary citizens alienated because of economic hardship and the lack of basic services. Many were secularists who hated Islamists and wanted to overthrow them by revolutionary means since they could not defeat them at the ballot box. Many were Christians who feared the Islamists and were tacitly encouraged by the Coptic Church to participate. But it was also clear than many were fulool and Mubarak regime loyalists as the picture of the former dictator was prominently raised and hailed in Tahrir Square amid chants in his support. Many were also former and current security officials who showed up in their uniforms. Even two former Interior Ministers who served during the military transitional rule and former regime were leading the protests as revolutionaries, even though they were charged by the youth groups at the time with murdering their revolutionary friends and comrades. Many protesters were also thugs hired by NDP politicians and corrupt business people. In fact, over the three days protest, these thugs raped over 100 women in Tahrir Square including female journalists, according to public officials. Meanwhile, in an orchestrated manner, dozens of buildings that belonged to the MB and the FJP including their headquarters were burned down, torched, or ransacked. More than a dozen members were killed, while hundreds were wounded. Within hours, five cabinet ministers resigned and dozens of senior officials including presidential spokespersons and dozens of diplomats submitted their resignations in an attempt to collapse the state.
Meanwhile, pro-Morsi supporters were also gathering in a different square in Cairo in large numbers. After the MB and its allies saw the massive demonstrations of their opponents on June 30 they called for massive mobilization the following day, holding more than 20 huge protests across the country that also numbered in the millions. With few exceptions, the secular and liberal media ignored these protests.
On the afternoon of June 30, Defense Minister and military chief Gen. Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, who was appointed by Morsi last August, issued an ultimatum to the president and the opposition to reach a compromise within 48 hours or else the military would intervene. In reality, it was an ultimatum to the president to resign since the opposition had in the past rejected all attempts at dialogue or compromise. On July 1, the frustrated president addressed the nation and adamantly rejected the military’s ultimatum, as he called on his people to support his legitimacy as a democratically-elected president. Immediately after the speech, the president’s supporters, who were holding a huge rally in Giza, were attacked by thugs and snipers. Sixteen people were killed and hundreds wounded.
By July 2, it was evident that the army has decided to overthrow Morsi and side with the opposition. As the military reached out to foreign governments, it was clear that many Western governments, especially the U.S. had difficulty accepting the military overthrow of an elected president. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, called their Egyptian counterparts, advising that they should instead either encourage Morsi to resign or keep him as a figurehead.
However, as they officially announced that Morsi was removed from power, the generals surrounded themselves with several civilian and religious leaders, including the head of Al-Azhar, the Coptic Pope, ElBaradei as NSF spokesman, and representatives of Tamarrud and the Salafist Al-Noor Party. It was a brazen attempt to make it seem as if the overthrow of Morsi had broad consensus by civilian and religious leaders.
In essence, Sisi embraced all the demands of the opposition and the fulool. Not only did he depose Morsi and replace him with the head of the SCC, but he also suspended the constitution and dismissed the government. He unilaterally also gave the powers to issue constitutional decrees and legislative authority to the newly- installed president. Within minutes, huge celebrations with full display of festivities and fireworks were taking place in Tahrir Square and in many cities across Egypt. Meanwhile, Morsi’s supporters across Egypt were stunned and angry at the turn of events. They had mistakenly held hope that the army would force some sort of a compromise that would not circumvent the will of the Egyptian people who elected a president and passed a new constitution with a large margin only few months ago.

Immediately after Sisi’s announcement, the new regime began its crackdown on the media that supported the deposed president. Four TV satellite channels that belonged to the MB or the Islamists, as well as two Al-Jazeera channels were suspended and taken off the air.  The pro-Morsi protests across Egypt were also surrounded by the military. TV cameras were removed and the electricity was cut in anticipation of forcefully evacuating the protesters, as food and water were denied.
Meanwhile, MB leaders Mohammad El-Beltagi and Esam El-Erian, who played pivotal roles during the 2011 revolution, called Morsi’s ouster by the military an illegal coup d’état and vowed to oppose it, as they called on their supporters to resist it with all peaceful means even if they lose their lives. Morsi also released an eleven-minute video on the Internet rejecting his overthrow and defying the military’s act, insisting on his constitutional legitimacy as the duly elected president of the country.
Meanwhile, a crackdown against the MB leaders and their supporters was in full force, strongly suggesting premeditation. Within two hours of Sisi’s announcement, Morsi and some of his senior assistants were detained and transferred to the defense ministry. Former speaker and FJP Chairman, Dr. Saad Katatni, , MB leader and General Guide Dr. Muhammad Badie, as well as his deputies Khayrat El-Shater and Rashad Bayyoumi were also arrested. Former presidential candidate and Islamist Hazem Salah Abu Ismail and preacher Safwat Hegazi were arrested and charged with ‘insulting the military.’ Al-Ahram newspaper also reported that over 300 arrest warrants were issued against the MB and their supporters, as dozens were rounded up while all MB and FJP properties, assets, and buildings were being seized and their bank accounts frozen. Moreover, within minutes of the announcement, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Muhammd Bin Zayed of the UAE, the two countries most openly hostile to the MB’s rule, issued statements praising and congratulating the military. Ironically, Bashar Al-Assad of Syria expressed his relief and joy at the ouster of ‘the Islamist regime’ that was threatening his country.
Meanwhile, the Secular and liberal opposition and many youth groups and their supporters argued that their protests followed by the ouster of Morsi by the military was analogous to the overthrow of Mubarak. But this argument conveniently ignores the fact that Mubarak was not a legitimate president or elected by the will of the Egyptian people while Morsi, whether one supports or opposes him, loves or hates him, was duly elected in free, fair, and contested elections that the entire world observed and accepted. Furthermore, Mubarak killed hundreds of youth in order to stay in power, while dozens of youth were killed in the streets defending the legitimacy of Morsi’s presidency. In addition, most of the people and groups who oppose Morsi today after one year in power, never lifted a finger during Mubarak’s 30 year reign. Mubarak’s security apparatus used thugs to terrorize his opponents and oversee fraudulent elections, while the same thugs today attack and terrorize unarmed supporters of Morsi. While official and government media outlets and corrupt businesspeople and judges supported Mubarak for decades, the same government-supported media, businesspeople, and judges attacked Morsi from his first day in office.
Liberals, democrats, and human rights activists have been preaching to Islamists for decades that democracy is the only legitimate system for peaceful political participation and transition of power. In 1992, when the Algerian military intervened and canceled elections after the Islamic Salvation front (FIS) won it, the West, led by the U.S. and France, looked the other way. Meanwhile, Algeria was engulfed in civil strife for over a decade, a conflict that resulted in over two hundred thousand deaths. Two decades later, whether or not one agrees with its political program, favors or despises the MB, there is no doubt that the group played by the rules of democracy and embraced the rule of law. It did not employ or advocate the use of violence. Yet, it is the height of irony that the ones who called for, encouraged, and cheered the military intervention to oust a democratically-elected president are the secular, liberal, and leftist parties and individuals such as ElBaradei, Amr Mousa, Naguib Sawiris, Ayman Noor, and Hamdein Sabbahi, as well as human and civil rights activists who frequently advocate for free media and freedom of political association.
The international community looked the other way when the will of the Algerian and Palestinian people were thwarted when they elected Islamists in 1992 and 2006. This is the third time in two decades Islamists are dislodged from power. It remains to be seen if the West will take a strong stand against the military’s latest attempt to prevent Islamists from holding power. It may indeed define the relationship between Islamist groups and Western governments for the foreseeable future.  The message such stand would send to people around the world will be profound. Either the West stands for democratic principles and the rule of law or it does not. When President Obama called Morsi on June 30, he admonished him that “democracy is about more than elections.” But what is equally essential to recognize is that there is no democracy without respecting and protecting the legitimacy of its results regardless of its outcome.