Noticias (News)

The Palin syndrome, teenage mothers, and the other side of the coin

    Well, the sex life of Republican Vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s 17 year old daughter should not be a topic for the press, nor should race nor a lot of other things blot out the bread and butter issues. But....

    Bristol is going to have a baby and according to Sarah she is going to marry her sweetheart and the mother, governor of Alaska, says she is proud of her daughter’s decision. What is interesting about this issue are the blatant contradictions involved.

    Palin has frequently opposed sex education in schools. She opposes a women’s right to decide, is adamantly against abortion, even in cases of rape, and her super conservative followers applaud her loudly--perhaps due to their luke warm acceptance of many of Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s supposedly "moderate" positions. It comes down to a question of "decision," "choice," "choosing," say the rightwingers. Women should not have the right to decide whether or not to have babies, they say, and then you could add a handful of other issues that sets Palin in the hands of the Christian rightwing: she  opposes embryonic stem-cell research and other scientific initiatives that might give sick people the option of choosing treatments that could cure them or at least allow them to treat their ailments; she opposes physician-assisted suicide and other procedures that might allow terminally-ill people to make choices about whether to end their suffering; she opposes same-sex marriage and other protections for loving couples that chose to secure their relationships and legally protect their families. And she has supported efforts to put in place constitutional amendments that narrow the definition of marriage and ban benefits for the same-sex partners of public employees; she opposes decriminalization of marijuana – although she admits to some toking in her younger years -- and other drug-law reforms that would allow Americans to choose whether to consume recreational drugs.

    But she strongly backs President George Bush’s "preventive wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, wants to exploit Alaska’s rich oil deposits to free the country from dependency on oil imports from the Middle East, and like most of her fellow conservatives is a strong defender of the right to bear arms. In fact, she is fond of hunting wild animals in Alaska. In fact, she appears to hold positions much closer to those of President Bush that of her running mate.

    A non conservative in any event finds it difficult to comprehend certain attitudes that sound contradictory. For example, the notion of "preventive warfare" does not seem to appear anywhere in the Bible--an inspiration for most conservatives; the redefinition of torture by the Bush Administration to allow hard-fisted treatment of prisoners does not seem to fit with the notion of "do onto others as you would want them to do onto you;" the concern in churches about the poor and hungry is reflected in support for great tax reductions that favor big business and the rich; and sex education in the schools is a naughty word, yet what happens if a girl knows nothing about it and gets pregnant? She must get married and have the baby.

 

 

Storms and pregnancy subjects for presidents-to-be?

Taking into consideration the role the mass media has traditionally played during presidential elections, it is not at all strange that issues such as the alleged pregnancy of the Republican vice-presidential candidate's 17-year old daughter and the threatened devastation of a katrina type hurricane should emerge as distracting factors just as the John McCain and Barack Obama ready their heavy amunition for the Novermber election.

What does the alleged pregnancy of an unmarried teenager have to do with the issues the American people want to discuss: the unending wars in Irak andAfghanistan, the downhill slump of the economy, financial scandals, the possibility of a revamping of health care, how to deal with illegal immigrants, electronic spying...? Why is it than so often unseamy personal affairs end up displacing the big questions? The discussion of the political backfiring set off by the high speed winds threatening areas neighboring on those attacked by the Katrina blast is perhaps a bit closer to the point in view of the nearly universal recognition of the inadequate management of that crisis by the conservative government of George Bush.

Perhaps there has been no more biting comment on this situation than what Michael Moore published in his online page on Sunday August 32st., 2008, under the suggestive title of "An Open Letter to God, from Michael Moore," which we take the liberty of publishing:

 "Dear God,

The other night, James Dobson’s organization asked all believers to pray for a storm on Thursday night so that the Obama acceptance speech outdoors in Denver would have to be canceled.

I see that You have answered Dr. Dobson’s prayers -- except the storm You have sent to earth is not over Denver, but on its way to New Orleans! In fact, You have scheduled it to hit Louisiana at exactly the moment that George W. Bush is to deliver his speech at the Republican National Convention.

Now, heavenly Father, we all know You have a great sense of humor and impeccable timing. To send a hurricane on the third anniversary of the Katrina disaster AND right at the beginning of the Republican Convention was, at first blush, a stroke of divine irony. I don’t blame You, I know You’re angry that the Republicans tried to blame YOU for Katrina by calling it an "Act of God" -- when the truth was that the hurricane itself caused few casualties in New Orleans. Over a thousand people died because of the mistakes and neglect caused by humans, not You.

Some of us tried to help after Katrina hit, while Bush ate cake with McCain and twiddled his thumbs. I closed my office in New York and sent my entire staff down to New Orleans to help. I asked people on my website to contribute to the relief effort I organized -- and I ended up sending over two million dollars in donations, food, water, and supplies (collected from thousands of fans) to New Orleans while Bush’s FEMA ice trucks were still driving around Maine three weeks later.

But this past Thursday night, the Washington Post reported that the Republicans had begun making plans to possibly postpone the convention. The AP had reported that there were no shelters set up in New Orleans for this storm, and that the levee repairs have not been adequate. In other words, as the great Ronald Reagan would say, "There you go again!"

So the last thing John McCain and the Republicans needed was to have a split-screen on TVs across America: one side with Bush and McCain partying in St. Paul, and on the other side of the screen, live footage of their Republican administration screwing up once again while New Orleans drowns.

So, yes, You have scared the Jesus, Mary and Joseph out of them, and more than a few million of your followers tip their hats to You.

But now it appears that You haven’t been having just a little fun with Bush & Co. It appears that Hurricane Gustav is truly heading to New Orleans and the Gulf coast. We hear You, O Lord, loud and clear, just as we did when Rev. Falwell said You made 9/11 happen because of all those gays and abortions. We beseech You, O Merciful One, not to punish us again as Pat Robertson said You did by giving us Katrina because of America’s "wholesale slaughter of unborn children." His sentiments were echoed by other Republicans in 2005.

So this is my plea to you: Don’t do this to Louisiana again. The Republicans got your message. They are scrambling and doing the best they can to get planes, trains and buses to New Orleans so that everyone can get out. They haven’t sent the entire Louisiana National Guard to Iraq this time -- they are already patrolling the city streets. And, in a nod to I don’t know what, Bush’s head of FEMA has named a man to help manage the federal government’s response. His name is W. Michael Moore. I kid you not, heavenly Father. They have sent a man with both my name AND W’s to help save the Gulf Coast.

So please God, let the storm die out at sea. It’s done enough damage already. If you do this one favor for me, I promise not to invoke your name again. I’ll leave that to the followers of Dr. Dobson and to those gathering this week in St. Paul.

Your faithful servant and former seminarian,

Michael Moore
[e-mail]
MichaelMoore.com

P.S. To all of God’s fellow children who are reading this, the city of New Orleans has not yet recovered from Katrina."

 

Tit for tat, McCain tabs a woman, Obama an foreign policy expert

There is a bit of tit for tat in the U.S. presidential race. When the liberal afro-american candidate Barack Obama named Joseph Biden for his vice-presidential candidate, he was responding to conservative criticism that he had no experience in foreign affairs; when Republican John McCain fired back by naming a woman, Sarah Palin, as his second there was no doubt that he had in mind a plan to neutralize liberal criticism that he  lacked interest in the situation of women. This politics of response rather than generation of genuine options is a result of the tradition of duality in the U.S. political system.

In high school children are taught that a two party system makes democracy healthy and efficient, while a multiple party system makes it awkward and confusing; Hollywood expressed it in terms of the (good) cowboys versus the (bad) indians; in the churches it becomes good against evil, God versus the devil; during the Cold War it was Communism versus democracy (capitalism);other dualities: big business versus workers, tax reduction versus tax increases, preventive wars versus bring the troops back home.

This heads versus tails vision of the world is augmented by the role of the mass media: most cities and towns in the U.S. are lucky to have two major newspapers and one usually leans towards the Democrats, one towards the Republicans, but frequently both are in the hands of the same owner. TV and radio stations reflect a similar but more complex pattern. Those who do not acceept this duality are outsiders or "independents" whose opinions are taken into account mainly at election times.

(to be continued)

Las lágrimas de Marcelo Tinelli espera el desalojo de 30 familias Mapuches

  “Me pregunto qué danza tendremos que hacer los Mapuches y campesinos para que nos devuelvan las tierras,” escribe Lic. Marisa Burlastegui, de la Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, (Argentina) sobre el programa del locutor Marcelo Tinelli (“Bailando por un Sueño” ) en canal 13 de Buenos Aires.En una nota enviado por e-mail agrega: “Es tan conmovedor ver a Tinelli cuando se emociona ante algún caso de injusticia social. Se le llenan los ojos de lágrimas y mira hacia las cámaras.” Después pregunta: ¿Si los indígenas se presentaran en su show podrían conseguir algo de respeto a sus derechos naturales? ¿Saben que es ’Trafipan 2000’?

 

Ella contesta su propia pregunta:

 

“Marcelo Tinelli, conductor-empresario televisivo que compró miles de hectáreas en la provincia sureña de Chubut, necesita desalojar 30 familias mapuches para construir un megaproyecto turísticos.Moira Millán, integrante de la Comunidad Pillán Mahuiza y del Frente de Lucha Mapuche y Campesinos en el marco de la lucha por la defensa del Agua y la Tierra aseguró a radio Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, que le dicen rotundamente ¡No! a cualquier megaproyecto que pretenda ’arrasar  con nuestro entorno a cualquier precio’. “

 

Sucede que la dirigencia indígena denuncio que el megaproyecto turístico que pretende construir Marcelo Tinelli “es sobre la vivienda de 30 familias       Mapuches y, casualmente, lleva nombre mapuche, Trafican 2000, cuando para llevarlo a cabo, necesita de su desalojo.”

 

La Lic. Buarastegui finaliza su comentario:

.
“Cuanta más gente se entera, más nos ayuda para conseguir el apoyo de las autoridades para poder conservar nuestras tierras’.” Y apela a los medios de comunicación no oficiales para romper lo que ella llama “el silencio de los medios oficiales.”

 

Cabe agregar que en el bello sur argentino hace mucho tiempo suceden un sin número de atropellos, no sólo contra la comunidad indígena: empresarios y personas influyentes de otros países compran hermosos terrenos, incluso en los parques nacionales, prácticamente no paguen impuestos y traban entrada de argentinos a sus aposentos.

Obama and change...will it really happen? (An opinion)

      Will anything really change if Barack Obama wins the U.S. presidency? That is a moot question, especially in the wake of the ticking of Senator Joseph Biden as vice-presidential candidate. Political flip-flops are the order of the day, as any experienced observer recognizes,  as the moment approaches when lady power waves wantonly, just around the corner.

     Obama, true, has a record of opposition to the invasion of Irak, and has advocated a number of other innovations, a revamping of medical care, a new way of doing politics, innovation in alternative fuels... But Biden, the Senator from Delaware and the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, helped push through the resolution President George Bush sent to Congress authorizing the invasion of Iraq. True, he later had second thoughts about his own decision but...and you've got to give politicians the chance to review their own actions...but...

     Biden, 65, is a long time establishment figure, having served with more than three decades in the Senate, and the fourth longest serving Democratic senator in Congress. Obama has frequently come under fire from conservatives and from Republican candidate McCain, for his alleged lack of experience. So, naming Biden as vice-presidential candidate is like saying: "Don’t worry! I’m not opposed to the system. Look who I’ve named to help me! A guy who has been in Washington for years."

Does that guarantee change? Change is a very strange fellow, commonly talked about by most politicians (who are not in power). But we should ask whether it is really well intentioned individuals who bring about change, or whether political, economic systems accept change as a way of ensuring their own survival.

You might also have read that Obama recently made it clear that for him getting out of Iraq means getting more involved in Afghanistan, where he says the war on terrorism should have been focused in the first place. Curious. Due to the recent bombings of allied forces in that country, causing numerous civilian deaths, the president, a firm ally of the U.S., is having second thoughts about how the foreign troops are waging the war against alleged terrorists in Afghanistan.

Well, foreign affairs isn’t everything, is it? Yet whoever wins will have to take charge of a country not only at war, but which has been involved in wars during most of its existence--from the Westward Movement, the war against Mexico, the war over the Spanish colonies (Cuba and the Philippines), the first and second world wars, the frequent invasions of Latin American countries, the Cold War...) Can the country free itself of this endless series of conflicts? Can it conceive of another way of doing its foreign affairs?

The question remains: will there be a real change of foreign policy, of internal economic policy, of social security, of health, of the policies related to immigration? Or will there be balancing acts aimed at introducing just enough change to satisfy those who demand it and enough backsliding to pacify the  vested interests? Bringing about a change in any one of these areas supposes the strong opposition of vested interests. After years of tax reductions, for example, will giant corporations accept paying more to bail out an economy zig-zagging with inflation, unemployment, and financial scandals?

Didn’t President Bill Clinton want to introduce important change in the medical care programs? What happened? Didn’t President John F. Kennedy want to end racial discrimination, alter relations with the Soviet Union? What happened? Any change in any significant area of activity will necessarily lean on the support of the country's citizens. But how free are they to decide complicated issues? How influenced are they by the opinions of the mass media and the image makers?

Change is a nice word for politicians to tally during elections, because there are lots of people who really want it and need it. The problem is what happens when somebody who talks about change gets into the seats of power. Real power appears to be elsewhere, not in the faces of those people who occupy the seats where it says: "president."

Human Rights Watch reveals conditions at Guantanamo prison

While U.S. presidential candidates debate the country’s future foreign policies, several hundred detainees of the Bush Administration’s “war on terrorism” continue to languish in the Guantanamo prison without charges nor trials.Although according to data by Human Rights Watch the detainee population has declined significantly from 680 in May of 2003, some 270 prisoners remain at the prison—most of whom have been in US custody without charges for more than six years.

The first prisoners were housed in an open air and barbed wire camp, but now most have been placed in more modern and restrictive facilities. The Human Rights group has made public the conditions at the remaining camps, whose descriptions according to HRW are the following:

“At the outset, in early 2002, detainees arriving at Guantanamo were held in the open air, barbed-wire-enclosed Camp X-ray—a site that became the iconic image of Guantanamo.  But Camp X-ray closed that April, and was replaced by a series of much less makeshift and generally more-restrictive prison facilities.

In February 2003 the military opened Camp 4 in an effort to ease restrictions and allow detainees who do not pose disciplinary problems to congregate more freely.  Designed to resemble a prisoner-of-war lockup, Camp 4 includes 10-cot bunkhouses, communal showers and toilets, a soccer field, and a common outdoor area where detainees eat, pray, and play games together.  Movies are regularly provided as entertainment; select news is posted on bulletin boards in common areas; and some detainees have reportedly been given the opportunity to attend Pashto, Arabic, and English classes.

Camp 4 has space for approximately 175 detainees, but was virtually emptied in May 2006 after a group of detainees reportedly attacked the guards with improvised weapons, including broken pieces of light bulbs, and caused significant damage to the facility. Three suicides followed a month later.  Now some 50 detainees are housed there.

 

 

 Camp 3

Opened in 2002, and temporarily closed in 2006, Camp 3 now reportedly serves as a punishment unit.  Detainees are held in single cells that are 8 feet long, 6 feet 8 inches wide, and 8 feet tall.  Cell walls are partially constructed of metal mesh material that lets in filtered light and air, with a steel roof.  Each cell has its own flush-toilet and sink.

Detainees report that they spend at least 22 hours a day in their cell, that they are not housed adjacent to one another so cannot speak to each other.  A giant “noise machine”—presumably a generator—reportedly runs all day long, making it impossible for them to communicate with each other even by yelling.  Between that and the sound of soldiers walking by on metal planks, they say they can hear little else.  Detainees are allowed a Koran in their cell but virtually nothing else.  They are reportedly taken out alone for their recreation time so that their isolation from each other is complete.

Approximately six detainees are believed to be held in Camp 3.

Camp 5

Opened in May 2004 and modeled after a maximum-security prison design used in the United States, Camp 5 is a 100-bed high-security detention unit designed for those “deemed to be the highest threat to themselves, other detainees or guards.”⁸  Detainees generally spend 22 hours a day in 12-feet-long, 8-feet-wide, and 8-feet-tall concrete cells, furnished with a combination toilet-sink and a sleeping shelf, and with small opaque window slits.  Meals are slid through slots in the cell doors and eaten alone. Lights are kept on 24 hours a day, and detainees are constantly monitored by guards who peer in through the windows of the floor-length steel cell doors.  Detainees are given eye masks so that they can sleep in spite of the lights.

Recreation—up to two hours a day—takes place either in individual 8-by-20-feet pens, or in 20-by-20-feet recreation areas that are sometimes used to hold two detainees at a time.  At least one detainee has told his lawyers that even in the larger pens they are forbidden from physically interacting with each other.

 

Detainees in Camp 5 also report that they are often only offered recreation opportunities at night.  A JTF-GTMO official told Human Rights Watch that there is simply not enough time to bring all the detainees out during the day, and that often detainees do not want to go out for recreation in the middle of the day as it can be brutally hot.

Approximately 60 detainees are currently housed in Camp 5.

Camp 6

Completed in November 2006, Camp 6 is a $37 million high-security detention unit with a maximum capacity of about 160 detainees.  Modeled after a county jail in Lenawee, Michigan, it was originally designed as a medium-security facility where detainees could mingle in communal eating and recreation areas.  It was refitted in June 2006, however, following three suicides and the reported attack on guards in Camp 4.  Recreation areas were divided into individual cages; the communal eating area was declared off limits; and additional security provisions were installed.

Most detainees in Camp 6 now spend at least 22 hours a day in windowless  6 feet 8 inch-by-12 feet concrete and steel cells, with solid steel doors, that contain a single bed and a combination sink-toilet.  They eat all their meals in their cells, and are only allowed out for individual recreation (up to two hours a day, often at night), showers, interrogations, and attorney, medical, or ICRC visits.

Detainees have told their lawyers that the walls around the recreation areas are approximately two stories high, meaning that they rarely receive direct sunlight, even if they are taken out for recreation during the day. 

Several detainees have reported that when they are offered recreation during the night, which happens frequently, they are often discouraged from taking it.  Detainees have also said that, depending on the guard who is on duty, they may be punished for touching each other through the chain-link fences that enclose their recreation pens.  They can only communicate with each other at recreation time or by yelling at each other through the gaps in their cell doors.

Camp 7

Very little is known about Camp 7, which houses the so-called high-value detainees who were transferred to Guantanamo from the custody of the Central Intelligence Agency (including 14 who were transferred in September 2006).  To judge by the little information that is available, however, conditions at Camp 7 are even more restrictive than those at Camps 5 and 6.

Approximately 15 detainees are believed to be held at Camp 7.

*          *          *

In addition, another 15 or so detainees live in shed-like buildings in Camp Echo that were previously used as interrogation and isolation units, but are now primarily used to house detainees deemed unsuitable for communal living in Camp 4.  Doors to the sheds have reportedly been replaced with bars that allow in natural light, and detainees are reportedly allowed to move freely between the cell, shower area, and small interrogation room in each shed.

An additional 25 or so detainees are reportedly housed in Camp 1, which is similar in construction to Camp 3, with wire mesh cell walls that let in fresh air and light.  Unlike in Camp 3, detainees are housed in adjacent cells and can communicate with each other.  Guantanamo military officials report that most detainees prefer Camp 1 to Camps 5 and 6, even though some have complained about the total lack of privacy in the cells.

While conditions vary significantly from unit to unit at Guantanamo, some restrictions apply to all prisoners.  Most importantly, none of the men currently held at Guantanamo has ever been allowed to receive a visit from a family member or friend, and few have even been allowed to make a phone call home.

The consequences for family relationships are devastating.  Except for censored letters (which are not much comfort to illiterate detainees), detainees have been cut off from their families for years, having almost no contact with wives, children, parents, and other loved ones.  Some detainees have children whom they have not seen or spoken to since their birth, or whom they only saw years ago as infants.  The policies on family contact at Guantanamo are even more restrictive than those at the detention center at the US air base in Bagram, Afghanistan—which has for the past several months allowed detainees to communicate with their families by video conference calls.

The inability to make phone calls also undercuts the ability of military commission defendants to build relationships with their attorneys, and participate in and help control their own defense.  While attorneys can write their clients, an exchange by mail can take several weeks—time that cannot always be spared as filing deadlines approach.  The lack of phone access, coupled with the logistical difficulties of traveling to Guantanamo, has no doubt contributed to problems in establishing trusting attorney-client relationships, as evidenced by the high number of commission defendants who have at some point fired their attorneys.

When Ibrahim al-Qosi, a 47-year-old Sudanese man accused of serving as Osama bin Laden’s driver and bodyguard in Afghanistan, appeared before a military commission on May 22, he told the judge that he wanted to hire a civilian attorney, as allowed under the military commission rules (so long as the attorney is a US citizen and passes the security clearance).  When the military judge asked if al-Qosi had a particular civilian lawyer in mind, al-Qosi explained, “I’ve been in prison here for six and a half years.  I’ve had no contact with the outside world.  I have no information about that.”  He asked to be allowed to call his family so they could help him find a civilian lawyer through the Sudanese Bar Association.  The court ordered the government to arrange the call by no later than July 1—the first opportunity al-Qosi will have had to speak to his family in his six-plus years in Guantanamo.

Another common factor is a dearth of useful activities—rehabilitative or educational programming—with the exception of language classes provided to detainees in Camp 4.  Even access to reading material is limited to just one book at a time.  The Department of Defense claims that Guantanamo’s library now holds approximately 5,000 books, including several books in Arabic and other languages spoken by detainees.  Yet several lawyers for non-Arabic-speaking prisoners have complained that, at least in the past, their clients have had very inadequate access to books in a language they can read.  In addition, many detainees are illiterate, marginally literate, or able to read in only one language.  The one-book-at-a-time policy means that detainees cannot keep both a dictionary and another book in their cell at the same time, making it very difficult for detainees to teach themselves or progress to another reading level.

In general, detainees who follow the rules are allowed certain comfort items, including a thermal shirt, pen, paper, and library privileges, in addition to the basic items that all detainees are provided.  Detainees who do not follow the rules can be punished with the removal of these comfort items.  (They are allowed to keep a copy of the Koran.)  One detainee—a self-styled poet—told his lawyer it was nearly impossible to write poetry anymore because the prison guards would only allow him to keep a pen or pencil in his cell for short periods of time.

The Department of Defense claims that detainees are placed in Camp 5 and Camp 6 based on their behavior, and cites a range of misconduct, including throwing “cocktails” of feces and urine at guards, head-butting guards, and staging riots, as the basis for detainees’ placement in the high-security units.  JTF-GTMO officials also say detainees could earn their way to Camp 4 or other less-restrictive living environments if they were to behave properly.  But whereas JTF-GTMO officials describe a “vetting process” involving multiple prison staff providing input about a particular detainee, there is no regular review process by which detainees are informed of their status, no set time period for the reviews, andnoset rules or guidelines informing detainees of what they need to do, or how long they must exhibit good behavior before earning additional privileges.  Several detainees have told their lawyers that they do not know why they were moved to Camp 5 or Camp 6 and believe they have little hope of moving elsewhere.

The Department of Defense also notes that these detainees at Guantanamo are not technically in solitary confinement because they can yell at each other through the gaps underneath their cell doors, they can talk to one another during recreation time, and they are allowed periodic ICRC and lawyer visits.  The US government points to the fact that detainees are housed in cells that contain an arrow pointing to Mecca and provided regular, high-calorie meals that all meet the halal dietary requirements as evidence that the detainees are treated with sensitivity and care.  It also claims that they pray under the guidance of a detainee chosen to lead prayers.

But while these measures are positive accommodations to detainees’ needs, they cannot themselves equate to “humane” treatment in view of the isolation imposed.  The reality is that these men live in extreme social isolation, with little outside stimuli, and little to do all day but stare at the walls.  And despite claims to the contrary, the facility has not had an imam since September 2003; and while Guantanamo officials allow detainees in Camps 5 and 6 to pray in unison, led by a chosen detainee representative, all of the detainees still remain locked in their cells.

Some military officials at Guantanamo recognize the problems inherent in limiting detainees’ social interaction, recreation time, and educational opportunities, and have told Human Rights Watch they intend to make improvements within the year.  Specifically, one Guantanamo official told Human Rights Watch that he would like to change the way Camp 6 operates so that detainees can congregate in the pods between their cells, and are provided additional recreation time as well as language classes and other educational opportunities.  Ultimately, he would like to create a tiered detention system, with much more regular and formalized reviews, and a “step-down program” modeled after federal prisons, whereby detainees could earn their way from Camp 5, to a modified Camp 6, to Camp 4.  But the official warned that it would be too dangerous to allow detainees and guards to mix freely in the open pods between the cells, and that JTF-GTMO first needed to construct a safe space (presumably a catwalk) whereby guards can monitor the detainees without being at risk of attack.

In the interim, most Guantanamo detainees remain locked in their cells 22 hours a day, with little in the way of recreational, vocational, or educational outlets.

1. Some are being protected from repatriation because of legitimate fears that they will be subject to torture or serious abuse upon return; while others are willing and eager to return home, but are waiting for the United States and their home country to work out repatriation arrangements.  Walter Pincus, “With Other Nations Refusing Guantanamo Detainees’ Return, ‘We Are Stuck With Guantanamo,’ Gates Says,” Washington Post, May 26, 2008; William Glaberson, “Hurdles block move to release Guantanamo detainees,” International Herald Tribune, August 9, 2007.

2. JTF-GTMO reports that several previously illiterate detainees can now read.  Human Rights Watch telephone interview with staff judge advocate for JTF-GTMO (name withheld), May 15, 2008.  But the deputy director at the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs, who in April visited Omar Khadr, the 21-year-old Canadian who is now being held at Camp 4, reported that the facility does not currently have any language teachers.  Steven Edwards, “US guards call Khadr ‘good kid’: Report,” CanWest News Service, June 2, 2008.  A JTF-GTMO official denied the accuracy of this report, and stated that all language classes are supported by “real live teachers.”  Email communication from staff judge advocate for JTF-GTMO (name withheld), June 4, 2008.

3. No servicemen were reported injured in the riot, other than minor scrapes and bruises.  Kathleen T. Rhem, “Skirmish With Guards, Two Suicide Attempts Test Guantanamo Procedures,” American Forces Press Service, May 19, 2006.  See also Tim Golden, “The Battle for Guantanamo,” New York Times Magazine, September 17, 2006; Carol Rosenberg, “Reward for the Obedient: World Cup: Amid World Cup ‘football’ and legal wrangling, media coverage has resumed in the aftermath of last month’s suicides of detainees at the Guantanamo prison,” Miami Herald, July 5, 2006.

4. James Risen and Tim Golden, “3 Prisoners Commit Suicide at Guantánamo,” New York Times, June 11, 2006.

5. Human Rights Watch interview with Department of Defense official (name withheld), Washington, DC, May 14, 2008.  For security reasons, the Department of Defense has declined to give Human Rights Watch an exact count of how many detainees are in each unit, but has instead provided approximations.

6. Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Zachary Katznelson, attorney for several Guantanamo detainees, including Shaker Amar, who is currently held in Camp 3, May 19, 2008; Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Stephen H. Oleskey, attorney for Saber Lahmar, who is currently held in Camp 3, May 19, 2008.

7. Ibid.

8. Joint Task Force Guantanamo, “Mission,” undated, http://www.jtfgtmo.southcom.mil/mission.html (accessed June 6, 2008).

9. Carol Williams, “Dispatch from Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; A day in a detainee's life; Predictability, covert communication and isolation are hallmarks,” Los Angeles Times, March 28, 2008.

10. Department of Defense officials, cited in Correction to Carol Williams, “Dispatch from Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; A day in a detainee's life; Predictability, covert communication and isolation are hallmarks,” Los Angeles Times, March 28, 2008.

11. Joint Task Force Guantanamo, “Camp 5 video,” video report, undated, http://www.jtfgtmo.southcom.mil/virtualvisit/Camp5/JDG-Virtual%20Visit-Camp%205.wmv (accessed June 6, 2008).

12. Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Suhana Han and Michael Cooper, attorneys for Tunisian detainee (name withheld), May 9, 2008.

13. Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Matthew O’Hara, attorney for Guantanamo detainee Walid (full name withheld at attorney’s request), May 7, 2008; Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Suhana Han and Michael Cooper, May 9, 2008; Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Zachary Katznelson, May 20, 2008.

14. Human Rights Watch telephone interview with staff judge advocate for JTF-GTMO (name withheld), May 14, 2008.

15. Human Rights Watch interview with Department of Defense official, May 14, 2008.

16. Joint Task Force Guantanamo, “Mission.”

17. Neil Lewis, “Guantánamo Detention Site Is Being Transformed, U.S. Says,” New York Times, August 6, 2005 (quoting the construction chief for the Guantanamo command stating that Camp 6 would “have more concern for the quality of life” than the existing prisons at Guantanamo); Amnesty International, “USA: Cruel and inhuman: Conditions of isolation for detainees at Guantanamo Bay,” AI Index: AMR 51/051/2007, April 5, 2007, pp. 1-2.

18. Joint Task Force Guantanamo, “Mission”; Michelle Shephard, “The view from Guantanamo Bay,” The Toronto Star, February 4, 2007.

19. Ibid.

20. Amnesty International, “USA: Cruel and inhuman: Conditions of isolation for detainees at Guantanamo Bay,” pp. 1-6; Carol Williams, “Dispatch from Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; A day in a detainee's life; Predictability, covert communication and isolation are hallmarks,” Los Angeles Times, March 28, 2008.

21. Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Sarah Havens, attorney for Ali Yahya Mahdi al Raimi and Abdul Khaled Ahmed Sahleh al Bedani, May 22, 2008; United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit, Huzaifa Parhat, et. al. v. Robert M. Gates, Case No. 06-1397, Declaration of Sabin Willet, January 20, 2007, paras. 22 and 24, (copy on file with Human Rights Watch); Amnesty International, “USA: Cruel and inhuman: Conditions of isolation for detainees at Guantanamo Bay,” AI Index: AMR 51/051/2007, April 5, 2007, p. 5.

22. Email communication from George Clarke, attorney for Anvar Hassan (“Ali”) and Dawut Abdurehim, to Human Rights Watch, May 22, 2008; Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Zachary Katznelson, May 19, 2008.

23. Email communication from George Clarke to Human Rights Watch, May 18, 2008; Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Jason Pinney, attorney for several Guantanamo detainees, May 13, 2008; United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit in, Huzaifa Parhat, et. al. v. Robert M. Gates, Case No. 06-1397, Declaration of Sabin Willet, January 20, 2007, para. 22, (copy on file with Human Rights Watch); Amnesty International, “USA: Cruel and inhuman: Conditions of isolation for detainees at Guantanamo Bay,” p. 5.

24. Human Rights Watch telephone interview with George Clarke, May 8, 2008; Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Seema Saifee, attorney for Abdulghappar Turkistani, May 8, 2008; Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Buz Eisenberg and Jerry Cohen, attorneys for Mohammad Abd Al Qadir and Farhi Said bin Mohammed, May 12, 2008.

25. Human Rights Watch interview with Department of Defense official, May 14, 2008.

26. Prior to arriving in Guantanamo, while in CIA custody, these detainees were reportedly subject to prolonged periods of extreme isolation and other abuse.  See Human Rights Watch, Ghost Prisoner: Two Years in Secret CIA Detention, vol. 19, no. 1(G), February 2007, http://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/us0207/, pp. 13-23.

27. Carol Rosenberg, “‘Platinum’ captives held at off-limits Gitmo camp,” Miami Herald, February 6, 2008; “Web Extra: A prison camps primer,” Miami Herald, February 6, 2008, http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/story/102770.html (accessed June 6, 2008).  Camp 7 is reportedly in a secret location at Guantanamo and operated by a separate military command from the other prison units.

28. Human Rights Watch interview with a Department of Defense official, May 14, 2008; Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Zachary Katznelson, May 19, 2008.

29. Email communication from staff judge advocate for JTF-GTMO (name withheld)to Human Rights Watch, May 19, 2008; Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Zachary Katznelson, May 19, 2008.

30. The only prisoner known to have been allowed a visit at Guantanamo was David Hicks, the one-time Australian kangaroo skinner who returned to Australia last year.  His family visited Guantanamo for a military commission hearing in August 2004 and was reportedly granted a 15-minute visit with him just before the beginning of his trial.  Scott Higham, “Australian Pleads Not Guilty to War Crimes,” Washington Post,August 26, 2004.

31. Carlotta Gall, “Video Link Plucks Afghan Detainees from Black Hole of Isolation,” New York Times, April 13, 2008.

32. As of this writing, all but two of the 13 detainees who have been arraigned by the military commissions authorized by the US Congress have rejected their lawyers at some point in the process.

33. Human Rights Watch, which has been granted observer status at the military commissions, was present in Guantanamo at this hearing.

34. Joint Task Force Guantanamo, “Mission”; Department of Defense officials, cited in Correction to Williams, “Dispatch from Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; A day in a detainee's life; Predictability, covert communication and isolation are hallmarks,” Los Angeles Times.

35. Human Rights Watch telephone interviews with George Clarke, May 8, 2008; Jason Pinney, May 13, 2008; and Seema Saifee, May 8, 2008; United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit, Huzaifa Parhat, et al. v. Robert M. Gates, Case No. 06-1397, Declaration of Sabin Willet, January 20, 2007, para. 18 (copy on file with Human Rights Watch).

36. Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Zachary Katznelson, May 19, 2008.

37. Human Rights Watch telephone interview with staff judge advocate for JTF-GTMO (name withheld), May 15, 2008; Williams, “Dispatch from Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; A day in a detainee's life; Predictability, covert communication and isolation are hallmarks,” Los Angeles Times.

38. Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Seema Saifee, May 8, 2008.

39. Human Rights Watch telephone interview with staff judge advocate for JTF-GTMO (name withheld), May 23, 2008.

40. Human Rights Watch telephone interviews with staff judge advocate for JTF-GTMO (name withheld), May 15, 2008; Matthew O’Hara, May 7, 2008; and Stephen H. Oleskey, May 19, 2008.

41. Mark Buzby, “Guantanamo Is a Model Prison (Really),” Wall Street Journal, June 4, 2008; Email communication from Zachary Katznelson to Human Rights Watch, June 6, 2008.

42. Human Rights Watch telephone interview with JTF-GTMO official (name withheld), May 23, 2008.

The Olympic Games, where hard working cyclist Curuchet finally saw glimmering gold

     Juan Esteban Curuchet is a young-old bike magician who, at 43 years of age, has an olympic gold medal hanging happily from his sinuous neck. He is shouting inside whispers of sheer joy and amazement at his deed, achieved alongside fellow Argentine Walter Pérez. For years Juan had been dreaming of this moment, but had practically given way to fate, destiny or age. At 43 a gold medal at the Olympic games in China? Who would have imagined such a feat?

      You can think what you want to about these games, but situations like this burst ideologies and stereotypes and backslapping and charges of this and charges of that: in the background, merging to the foreground are men and women from all over the world displaying their love for their sport, the exuberance of their bodies and the patience that has embued them and carried them to feats of unexpected achievement.

    Juan had tried in the Los Angeles Olympic games of 1984 (fifth place), then again in South Korea 1988 (fifth place), still again in Atlanta 1996 (16th) and in Sidney 2000 (nineth). Wasn’t it time to give up? NO! He said and decided to go for the medal, for the last time before retirement in the Beijing games. At first it didn’t seem his dream would come true. But at least he was giving it all he could.

    Then, somehow, who knows how, a spark seemed to light inside him and in his brain a message seemed to ring, saying: "you can do it! You can do it." And he did it. The final stretch was a neck to neck race with Spain. It was a beautiful sight. The body enmeshed with the bycycle, as if it were one, like a gaucho merged with his horse. A sprint here, a sprint there. You could almost hear the breathing as the wheels burned down the pavement.

    Victory came, almost unexpectedly, almost as a surprise, but as the result of long years of dedication and believe in the impossible. There they were, Curuchet and Pérez, their bikes together, weaving and waving in the midst of the victory celebration. Alongside the light blue and white Argentine flags waving...and then the loud speakers booming out the Argentine national anthem...Juan’s hands covered the tears rolling down his face with his hands when he stepped forward to receive the sparkling gold medal: his tears only ceased to the tune of his country’s national anthem.

Will the next U.S. president revamp the Bush administration's policy on abusive interrogation of prisoners?

Will either U.S. presidential candidates dare change the Bush administration’s policy on abusive interrogation of prisoners suspected with links to terrorism? It doesn’t seem likely. The Republican candidate, John McCain seems bent on reaffirming most of President Geroge Bush’s notions on foreign policy, particularly the so-called "war against terrorism." The Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, has expressed his desire for a revamping of treatment of prisoners, but...considers that for practical considerations that will have to be put off, maybe even until a possible second term in office.

As long ago as last April the Democratic candidate seemed to be kicking the issue to the wind: "If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated," he said on this campaign trail, adding "I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of the Republicans as a partisan witch hund, because I think we’ve got too many problems to solve." (As quoted in Salon Newsletter August 5th)

Power has its way of pushing and dragging would be reformers to the center, or at least to a position that safely avoids any direct confrontation with those who occupy the real positions of influence. Just two U.S. examples: President John F. Kennedy was shot in the midst of attempts to promote civil rights and start talks with the Soviet Union; President Clinton’s ambitious medical care reform never got off the ground.

In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks against the Twin Towers, the Bush Administration not only declared "war" against terrorism but managed to legally introduce changes in the definition of torture and abuse of prisoners, so that practices such as "waterboarding", sleep prevention and the utilization of extremely high music for long hours were not considered "torture." Many of these practices have been denounced in the press, especially with respect to the detainees at the U.S. Guantánamo military base.

Probably a first step towards clarifying this issue will be taken by means of an investigation of a Congressional commission charged with determining the extend of abusive practices and those government functionaries implied in them. The road to alleged prosecution appears filled with thorns. The Justice Department approved the use of abuse and Congress changed the War Crimes Act in 2006 to make prosecutions more difficult. It appears likely enough that the Bush administration might attempt to obtain end-of-term presidential pardons for those likely to be accused or torture or other abuses.

As in the case of the commission called to investigate the assassination of President Kennedy, or the September 11 attack, any commission on the issue of abuse of prisoners would probably first focus on strictly getting the truth. That could include information concerning the detention, torture and extraordinary rendition, or the practice of sending detainees to a third country (known to be lax on civil rights) for abusive interrogations.

It is reasonable to assume that should such a commission be formed it would attempt to debunk the claims of top Bush administration officials that the utilization of abusive interrogations worked, saved lives and resulted in significant intelligence gains.

But there are strong vested interests that will certainly pressure against airing this issue too much. One of them: Newsweek. A recent article by Stuart Taylor Jr. went so far as to suggest that Bush "pardon any official from cabinet secretary on down who might plausibly face prosecution" for torture during the Bush administration. Theoretically that would encourage them to testify freely in front of any truth commission that might appear in the next administration.

An underlying debate, however, is not only whether torture was used and by whom but also whether it in fact is an effective tool for information gathering; whether it might backfire to contaminate the notion of justice itself; whether in a situation such as the present struggle against terrorism it is valid for government to resort to arguments such as "the ends justify the means"...? Likewise, questions might be raised concerning a more over-riding issue: the tactics of counter-insurgency and anti-terrorism advocated and taught by the Pentagon.   

 

.

 

 

 

Journalist Mary Hamilton 71, has been awarded the "Best Journalism/Mass Communication History Book of 2007" for   "Rising from the Wilderness," a history of the independent U.S. newspaper, "The York Gazette and Daily." The book is a biography of J.W. Gitt, the newspaper’s publisher.

"Mary Hamilton’s biography of J.W. Gitt is an outstanding contribution to the history of progressive American press," says Peter Schumacher, retired journalist-photographer, author and former European Correspondent for "The Guardian." Schumacher added:"With no less determination than his somewhat better-known contemporaries like Izzy Stone and George Seldes, J.W. Gitt wrote hundreds of enlightening editorials in his Pennsylvania-based Gazette and Daily."

The American Journalism Historians Association chose Hamilton’s book among 14 others under consideration.

"I’m flummoxed," said Mary excitedly when notified she had been given the award. Jaquematepress published an exclusive interview with Hamilton on February 3, 2008.

 

 

Brave New World and Beyond

"Brave New World," that novel about the dehumanization of man, seems to loom its mechanical head morbidly at today’s world and blink its bloodshot eyes as if it were to say: "I told you so!"

In a more practical vein, one might glance at this morning’s "New York Times" and wonder about the significance of President George Bush’s naming of Mike McConnel as mastermind of the nation’s 16 spy agencies, squeezing U.S. intelligence efforts under a single leadership, under direct presidential supervision.

Two juicy side effects:

1) The move to centralize intelligence gathering is apparently a smashing blow to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), long the symbol of U.S. interventionism abroad. Or has it just been given a face-lifting?

2) An important number of Republicans in Bush’s own party were less than happy about the reshuffle: six Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee walked out of Mr. McConnel’s briefing on the revision of Executive Order 12333--which appeared amid strong controversy concerning the unclear role of intelligence gathering related to the September 11 terrorist attack against the Twin Towers.  

The Republicans protested because they had received the 40 page revised order only minutes before the briefing. The walkout was led by Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, who told the Times that "This is a pattern...It makes it impossible to do effective oversight." The Republicans appeared to be upset about the executive power's ruses to get controversial issues approved with the deadline ticking away.

The new structure of intelligence leaves the CIA in charge of carrying out covert action overseas..."unless the president determines that another agency is more likely to achieve a particular objective." Apparently its activities would be better coordinated, yet there is still room to wonder who would authorize, for example, the questioning of prisoners at secret locations in other countries, as denounced in major newspapers over recent months.

What is suggestive of the Brave New World is the increased centralization of the intelligence effort under the scrutiny of the executive power. Does not this move give excessive power to the executive branch? Does it not imply a meshing of spying efforts inside and outside the country, with the latent threat to the civil liberties of citizens? Although the government pretends to act in defense of the nation and its citizens, might not this concentration of spying power suppose a potential threat of abuse should the chief executive be tempted to use this intelligence information in an inscrupulous fashion?

 

América Latina, un niño que nace, un abuelo que se despierta de una larga siesta

Hay hechos que señalan, hay caminos que se rompen, pero en América Latina, como en pocos lugares de este mundo "globalizado" hay procesos que apuntan a cambios largamente postergados.

° El gobierno de Ecuador notificó anteayer oficialmente a Washington su decisión de terminar este mes el acuerdo por el cual tropas estadounidenses operan desde hace una década en la base de Manta, supuestamente para operaciones antidrogas.

Ahora los Estados Unidos tendría que buscar otro destino para reubicar el contingente de 475 militares. Según Washington la no renovación del contrato es un golpe en la lucha contra el tráfico de drogas, pero el gobierno se Presidente Rafael Correa no quiere la presencia de tropas extranjeras en su territorio.

 El "amigo" más fuerte en la zona, Colombia, ha descartado la posibilidad de instalar una base militar--y Bogotá es el mayor receptor de ayuda militar norteaméricana en sudamérica.

Otra posibilidad es Perú, cuyo gobierno compete con Colombia por los favores de Washington. Según la prensa una zona probable sería en la zona de Ayacucho, donde actualmente hay desplegados unos 120 soldados en un supuesta misión humanitaria. Fue una de las zonas de mayor actividad de la guerrilla maoista de la década pasada. Washinfton explica oficialmente su interés en mantener bases como la de Manta como una parte esencial de la lucha antidrogas, pero la mayor parte de los observadores entienden que de igual importancia ha sido la vigilancia política sobre movimientos políticos y sociales  y la llamada lucha "anti-terrorista."

° Finalmente el Papa Benedicto XVI ha tenido que otorgar una dispensa especial y restituir la condición de laico al obispo católico Fernando Lugo, de tendencia progesista, que asumirá la presidencia de Paraguay el 15 de agosto próximo.

Molesto por su participación en la elección presidencial, lo había suspendido "a divinis." Pero parece que cuando Lugo venció el 20 de abril a la candidata del partido Colorado, con 40% de los votos, el Vaticano comenzó a tomar otra actitud. La victoria de Lugo fue muy importante porque terminó con 61 años de poder del partido Colorado, de ellos 36 bajo la dictadura de Alfredo Stroessner--1954-1989--uno de los muchos dinosaurios anticomunistas que poblaban el continente durante la Guerra Fría entre los Estados Unidos y la ex Unión Soviética. Ahora el Vaticano tendría que ver cómo desarrollar las relaciones dipolmáticas con un gobierno dirigido por un ex obispo que no se opone, por ejemplo, a la despenalización del aborto.

° En Uruguay se acercan las elecciones presidenciales de 2009 y el Frente Amplio, de centro izquierda, tendría que decidir entre el actual ministro de economía, Danilo Astori, una de las figuras más conservadores en la agrupación, y el Senador José "pepe" Mujica, uno de los políticos más populares en el Movimiento de Participación Popular, grupo mayororitario del FA, y uno de los fundadores del movimiento guerrillero Tupamaro.

Mujica siempre ha defendido la integración del Mercosur, la redistribución de la renta y otras políticas populares que Astori y los sectores conservadores han cuestionado. Mujica cayó preso bajo el gobierno de Presidente José María Bordaberry en 1972, y luego fue utilizado por la Junta Militar como "rehén" para controlar las actividades de los Tupamaros. Mujica estuvo 13 años preso, tres años incomunicado en un pozo, donde "mi única compañía eran las hormigas...aprendí que esos insectos gritan. Lo pude comprobrar al acercarlas al oído," (Crítica, 28 de julio 2008)

 

 

 

Profesor opina sobre el conflicto entre el gobierno argentino y los productores agrarios

 Múltiples interpretaciones suscita el reciente y prolongado enfrentamiento entre el gobierno de la Presidenta Argentina y productores agrícolas y la oposición.

 Nos llamó poderosamente la atención una opinión crítica publicada el 29 de julio en Página 12, un diario que mantiene una posición cercana al gobierno.

 En una nota titulado “Vencedores y vencidos,“ el economista Claudio katz, profesor de la Universidad de Buenos Aires, señaló que “el bloque conservador se impuso primero en la calle y con esta presión extraparlamentaria definió el voto en el Senado.”

(El gobierno peronista de Cristina Kirchner intentó durante más de tres meses imponer un incremento para las retenciones agrícolas mediante un esquema móvil según suben o bajan los precios en el mercado internacional. La medida apuntó especialmente a la soja, un producto de tal rendimiento en el mercado internacional que ha comenzado a desplazar a otras actividades rurales.)

 “El ruralismo ganó,” dice Katz, “porque canalizó un giro de la clase media que comenzó con Blumberg, se reforzó con el triunfo de (Mauricio) Macri (en el gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires) y ha desembocado en una revuelta conservadora embanderada en la rentabilidad.

 “La ideología derechista se comprobó en los cacerolazos de teflón que enaltecieron a ‘la patria’ y repudiaron a ‘los tiranos’, bajo una cobertura televisiva que descubrió cuán legítimo es cortar las rutas cuando hay gringos y tractores.”

 Señala a continuación que a diferencia del pasado, la crisis no incluyó catástrofes financieras ni hiperinflación. Por lo tanto la coyuntura económica abre cierto espacio de reconstitución del Gobierno, en el cual la derecha piensa insertarse.

 “El Gobierno se jugó a todo o nada y soportó una cachetada mayúscula. Ha perdido base electoral, popularidad, control parlamentario y dominio sobre varios gobernadores.”

 Se refiere a la derrota de un proyecto de ley presentado en el Congreso y rechazado gracias al voto negativo del vicepresidente Cobos, cuyas simpatías están con la Unión Cívica Radical--partido dividido entre sectores que apoyan y se oponen al gobierno de Cristina.

 Para Katz “el retroceso de los Kirchner (Néstor Kichner era el presidente anterior a Cristina, su esposa) es atribuido a la obcecación, el capricho y el autismo….Durante la confrontación, el Gobierno osciló entre la concesión económica y la provocación política. Desplegó gestos autoritarios mientras aceptaba todos los pedidos de sus adversarios, con excepción de la emblemática resolución 125 (sobre las retenciones).”

 El profesor concluyó que “la principal causa del fracaso oficial fue la negativa a incentivar una movilización popular fuera del marco regimentado del justicialismo, la CGT (Central General de Trabajadores) y las organizaciones cooptadas.”

 Aquí Katz encuentra la razón que explicaría la supuesta derrota del gobierno: “jamás se distanció de los banqueros e industriales que exigieron poner fin a la confrontación. Esta alianza impide la proclamada redistribución del ingreso.”

 La Presidenta proclamó una y otra vez durante el conflicto que iba a emplear los aumentados ingresos para efectuar una redistribución de los ingresos--todavía muy diferenciados entre los que más ganan y la masa de pobres y marginados.

 Luego Katz agregó otro elemento de la derrota: “el triunfo derechista se consumó por la desconfianza popular hacia los discursos divorciados de la práctica que emite el Gobierno. El olfato popular percibe que las trampas del INDEC (institución a cargo de establecer los índices de aumento en los precios) apuntan contra la movilidad de los salarios y no sólo contra la renta de los títulos indexados. La impronta enemista del tren bala tampoco pasa inadvertida y la conversión de estrechos aliados en repentinos enemigos acentúa esa falta de credibilidad.”

 En una crítica fuerte, afirma que “el transfondo del problema es el agotamiento del peronismo como movimiento popular. Esa estructura permite ganar elecciones y manejar el Estado, pero ya no despierta entusiasmo.”

 El carácter netamente conservador del movimiento contra las retenciones, según Katz, fue expresado a través de las demandas por eliminar un impuesto a la renta agraria, los protagonistas (la Sociedad Rural) y los métodos de la protesta (mediante lockout empresarial). Pero “los peones trabajaron mientras sus patrones cortaban rutas, reclamando mayores ganancias y no mejores salarios. Los denominados ‘pequeños productores’ constituyen en realidad un segmento capitalista, que jerarquizó sus intereses comunes con los grandes propietarios y contratistas, al exigir la anulación de las retenciones móviles.”

 Lamenta el profesor que durante los cuatro meses que duró el enfrentamiento el país quedó polarizado pero no emergió una tercera alternativa de rechazo del ruralismo conservador y crítica al Gobierno.

 “Un cúmulo de confusiones políticas impidió la gestación de esa opción. Pero nunca es tarde para gestar esa alternativa al nuevo escenario que ha dejado el conflicto.”

La justicia, la tortura y el General Luciano Benjamín Menéndez

 

Uno de los máximos exponentes en Argentina de la tortura como instrumento útil en la lucha contrainsurgente, el ex General Luciano Benjamín Menéndez, podrá volver una y otra vez sobre sus teorías, hasta el día de su muerte, en una cárcel común.

Antes de la sentencia leída por el Tribunal Oral Federal de Córdoba, el condenado logró decir a los jueces que “tenemos el dudoso mérito de ser el primer país en la historia que juzga a sus soldados victoriosos.” (Página 12, 25 de julio) 

Y defendió las acciones de la dictadura de la cual formó parte mencionando los decretos de Isabel Perón, la presidenta anterior a la toma de poder, que en su opinión “ordenaron el aniquilamiento de la subversión,” agregando que “los marxistas ensangrentaron al país y nosotros estamos siendo juzgados.”

La condena de la justicia responsabilizó al general con el secuestro, la tortura y el asesinato a fines de 1977 de Hilda Flora Palacios, Humberto Brandalisis, Carlos Laja y Raúl Cardozo, militantes del Partido Revolucionario de los Trabajadores. 

Más allá de la condena de Menéndez, lo que llama la atención es un concepto que subyace en el pensamiento de los dictadores anticomunistas de la época, e incluso ahora en el Pentágono: que la aplicación de abusos, maltratos y tortura contra los presos políticos son actos justificables ya que los subversivos pretendían “revolucionar nuestro modo de vida” para “asaltar el poder e instrumentar un régimen comunista” (Menéndez) o, en opinión de Washington, sirven para salvar las vidas de personas inocentes.

¿Hay realmente alguna circunstancia que puede justificar la tortura—en forma sistemática y cruel o más blando en el caso de la actual “guerra con el terrorismo?” ¿Puede un gobierno democrático emplear tales tácticas sin subvertir sus propios valores esenciales? ¿Es confiable la tortura como método de conseguir datos útiles en la lucha contra el enemigo?

Salió un nuevo diario en Argentina--de distribución gratuíta

Se llama "El Argentino," y su editor responsable es Sergio Szpolski, el jefe de redacción Alberto Emaldi. Incluye notas periodísticas muy cercanas al pensamiento del gobierno argentino, las infaltables fotos de modelos y actores de moda, importante cobertura deportiva, datos económicos, y mucho color.

"El principal desafío de los medios gratuitos es lograr un sano equilibrio entre la facilidad de acceso que le aseguran al lector y la calidad periodística que cualquier medio gráfico debe brindar," escribe Gustavo Martínez Pandiani, decano Cs Comunicación (USAL), en una nota con título, "Diarios gratuitos," el 23 de julio, en el número 3 del diario.

En marzo de 1999 el diario argentino, "La Razón" comenzó a entregar el diario en forma gratuita en los subtes y trenes de Buenos Aires--ciudad en donde circulan más de 10 millones de habitantes. Luego de un año pasó de una tirada de alrededor de 7.000 ejemplares a 230.000. Existe en la ciudad además un diario gratuito redactado en inglés, "The Argentimes," que sale esporadicamente.

Gerencia Comercial:  4776-1779 int 150. e-mail: [e-mail]

 

El hambre y el sobrepeso, dos caras de una misma moneda

 

La producción y venta de alimentación parece ser el nuevo refugio financiero de quienes manejan las grandes corporaciones y grupos financieras. Entonces, no debe sorprender el dato publicado por Raj Patel meses atrás en "Stuffed & Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World Food System," a saber: alrededor del mundo mil millones de personas sufren del exceso de peso, en tanto 800 milliones subyacen con el hambre.

Este comentario no pretende dar a conocer ningún dato secreto. Argentina, un país conocido por su producción de granos y vacas, todavía tiene gente durmiendo en las calles y pidiendo dinero para comprar pan. Ha habido revueltas y choques violentos causados por el hambre en diferentes partes del mundo, según informan los diarios, desde Haití hasta el norte de Africa.

También están las explicaciones: que en la India y en la China la gente come más, el cambio climático que afecta la producción agrícola, la utilización de productos como la soja y el maíz para la producción de combustibles, la falta de recursos o tecnología, las demoradas reformas agrarias...pero está claro que el nuevo rumbo de especulación--luego de la crisis con el petróleo y las hipotécas--está en los precios siempre en alza de los productos básicos de la mesa.

Como la globalización intenta concentrar la producción, el procesamiento y la venta de los productos alimenticios, no hace falta ser un experto para opinar sobre el tema. En el caso Argentino llama poderosamente la atención que la soja gana terreno rápidamente a expensas de productos tales como vegetales, frutas y hasta leche y sus derivados, invadiendo bosques naturales y poniendo en pelígro los suelos y el agua debido al uso excesivo de fertilizantes y químicos... 

Volviendo al tema del comentario, cabe agregar que el sobrepeso expresa una dieta deficiente y a la vez puede esconder una alimentación igualmente deficiente, pues los pobres en los países "ricos" consumen junk food, en tanto que los sectores de menores ingresos en América Latina, Asia y Africa frecuentemente organizan su dieta en base a los productos más económicos, fuertes en grasas y carentes de minerales y proteinas esenciales.

Obama quiere salir de Irak...para intensificar la guerra en Afganistán

Vamos a comenzar este comentario con lo que el lector pudo haber leído sobre las propuestas de Barack Obama, el candidato presidencial del Partido Demócrata de los Estados Unidos. Habrá leído que el candidato  podría representar una interesante alternativa para terminar la interminable "guerra contra el terrorismo" de la Administración de George Bush.

Después Usted leyó en algún diario que lo que propone es salir lo más rápido posible de Irak...para mandar más tropas a Afganistan y presionar al vecino, Pakistán, a los efectos de intensificar la guerra en esa zona. Un dato más--gracias a The Nation, 15 de Julio--pues Obama redactó con un colega una propuesta de ley para triplicar la ayuda no militar a Pakistán...Eso más allá del flujo de enormes paquetes de ayuda militar a Pakistán...

Habrá leído un informe de la Cruz Roja Internacional según la cual más de 100 personas no militares fueron muertas (por "error") por las fuerzas de NATO de las de los Estados Unidos en Afganistán el mes pasado incluyendo 50 en una boda el 6 de Julio.

Tal Usted habrá preguntado: "Hmmm. ¿No será que el objetivo de los Estados Unidos, bajo Bush o Obama o el candidato Republicano McCain, es en realidad Irán? No sería una casualidad que Irán, el principal productor mundial de petróleo, tiene fronteras con ambos países, es decir, con Irak y Afganistán.

Si Usted figura entre los que suponen que motivos económicos casi siempe subyacen las guerras, podrá pensar también que Afganistán también tiene potencialmente grandes cantidades de petróleo--más si uno toma en cuenta las grandes reservas en los vecinos al norte del país, ex repúblicas soviéticas...

Usted habrá pensado luego que a lo mejor, como sucede una y otra vez en la historia, los cambios se anuncian para no cambiar nada.

Obama pretende que algunas unidades militares más pequeñas se queden en Irak para proteger a los ciudadanos estadounidenses, proseguir la formación de las fuerzas de seguridad iraquíes y para luchar contra los terroristas de Al Qaida.

(La mayoría de los miembros del gobierno iraquí han manifestado su escepticismo sobre esos planes.)

Buscando mejorar su "imagen" en política exterior, Obama había visitado Afganistán, habló con jefes militares y representantes del gobierno de Afganistán, adonde quiere trasladar el foco central de la campaña militar estadounidense contra el terrorismo internacional.

Tal vez el lector con conocimientos de historía podría preguntarse por qué los Estados Unidos ha tenido una serie interminable de guerras, la guerra contra Cuba y las colonias españolas, la guerra contra México, después de la primera y segunda guerra mundial, las guerras de la Guerra Fría, la guerra contra Correa, contra Vietnam, las invasiones a la república Domicana, la invasión a Panamá...

Parece que durante el último siglo la guerra--sea cual fuera--es un aspecto común de la vida de lo que es hoy la principal potencia en este mundo global. Quizás hayas pensado también que la lucha por los recursos naturales es y siempre ha sido un ingrediente importante en esa escala interminable de guerras.

Empate, desempate y gol en contra de Cobos

        

         A veces la pelota tiene ese hábito de comportarse con su propia lógica, burlándose  del pie del jugador. Entonces, antes de ensayar un comentario sobre el partido entre el gobierno argentino y la avalancha opositora, partido raro en el cual el gobierno pensó ganar con comodidad, comenzamos por los títulos:

 

 “EL SATANICO DOCTOR NO” (Página 12, diario progresista, cercano al oficialismo)

 

“CRISIS POLÍTICA: COBOS VOTÓ “NO” Y FRACASÓ LA LEY” (Clarín, diario zigzagueante de oposición)

 

“DRAMÁTICO DEBATE EN EL SENADO: HABRÍA EMPATE Y DEFINIRÍA COBOS” (La Nación, diario conservador de oposición,)

   

El gobierno argentino jugó fuerte con su intento de subir las retenciones a la exportación de granos, y ayer  perdió una batalla largamente peleada en las calles, en los medios de comunicación y en el Congreso.

La intención del gobierno de Presidenta Cristina Kirschner apuntaba a la intruducción de un mecanismo que facilitaría la tarea de mantener los precios internos a bajos niveles, limitar la expansión desenfrenada de la soja y lograr ingresos para iniciar obras públicas y pagar la abultada deuda externa.

 

La votación en el Senado llegó a 36/36 cuando a las primeras horas de la madrugada, luego de 15 horas de debate,  el Vicepresidente, Julio Cobos, tomó la decisión menos querida y menos esperada por el gobierno: votó en contra el proyecto de ley presentada por la presidenta Cristina Kirschner.

 

Los más de 100 días de marchas, contra marchas y acusaciones aireadas por voceros de ambos rostros de la disputa dejo una secuela de temores e inseguridades; pero al mismo tiempo sembró las semillas de un futuro más abierto al diálogo y a la negociación.

 

El desarrollo del conflicto desnudó claramente varios aspectos de fragilidad en la democracia argentina, todavía muy joven. El sistema político, y por extensión el funcionamiento económico, vive todavía bajo la sombra de dictaduras, gobiernos autoritarios, innumerables crisis sociales y un mamarracho legal.

 

Con la intención de abordar el tema sin ataduras sujetivas, tomamos la libertad de señalar algunos pasos en falso del gobierno y algunos aciertos y desaciertos de la polifónica oposición.

--A pesar del fuerte desafío organizado por los productores--mediante bloqueo de rutas y freno al envío de mercancías a los mercados--hubo una notable falta de represión y un claro respecto por parte del gobierno al derecho de protesta de los grupos contrarios, a pesar del efecto claramente negativo de las protestas sobre la economia (incremento de los precios debido a los disturbios en la cadena de comercialización de los productos del campo).

--En los medios de comunicación la protesta del campo fue bautizado como un "paro" pero en realidad fue un "lockout," ya que fue iniciada por los empresarios agrícolas. Cabe preguntar hasta qué punto un sector vital, como el campo, puede justificar una acción que pone en jaque el derecho de la población a un servicio tan vital como la comida.

 

--El estilo de este gobierno peronista, como sucedió también con la presidencia del Néstor Kirschner (esposo de Cristina y jefe del partido Peronista)  no incluye mecanismos de transparencia pública, como las conferencias de prensa, tal vez a causa de la desconfianza del gobierno en la objetividad de la prensa. Además, las actividades de los ministerios se oscurecen tras la omnipresente sombra de la figura presidencial.

 

--Como ha sucedido demasiado en otros gobiernos, el recurso al decreto (avalado por una ley de “urgencia y emergencia”) substituye al debate y aprobación en el Congreso. De haber enviado el proyecto al Congreso, y de haber iniciado un debate público sobre el tema, el gobierno pudo haber evitado más de tres meses de enfrentamientos. Y el proyecto hubiera tenido más posibilidades de ser aprobado.

 

--El país no tiene y no ha tenido nunca una política agraria integral, ni lo que uno podría llamar reforma agraria. Las políticas de retención tienen una vieja historia en el país, pero no representan una política agraria. También ha habido y hay fuertes retenciones para los productores de leche y de carne.

 

--El incremento record para los productos de soja ha sido un facto de mucho peso en la recuperación económica del país, prácticamente quebrado luego de la crisis económica, política y social del año 2001. Durante cuatro años el gobierno de Néstor Kirschner (esposo de Cristina)  intentó  mantener el país a flote con los inflados ingresos del agro y mantuvo la tasa de cambio alta para abaratar el precio de los productos exportados.

 

--Sin bien los gobiernos Kirschner han hablado a favor de una redistribución de la riqueza, en la práctica la distancia entre los que más ganan y la más de pobres y marginados no ha registrado ninguna mejora significativa. Este hecho quizás motivó el intento de Cristina Kirschner, mediante el Ministerio de Economía, de subir las retenciones desde alrededor del 35% a un esquema móvil (según los precios internacionales) a porcentajes variables superiores al 45%.

 

--El decreto no sólo salió sin consulta alguna: no tomó en cuenta la situación de los pequeños y medianos productores (hasta el momento cuando el proyecto fue presentado al poder legislativo). Hace años los pequeños productores han sido corridos por las grandes corporaciones, con las cuales difícilmente puedan competir. Sin ofrecerles importantes compensaciones, el gobierno no les dejo otra opción que apoyar los reclamos de las corporaciones, la Sociedad Rural, y otras entidades del campo tradicionalmente conservadoras y opuestas al poder central. Además, las clases medias y media bajas en las ciudades y pueblos se identificaron con la lucha de los productores, porque dependen económicamente de la actividad en el campo.

 

--Si bien el gobierno insistía una y otra vez en su intención de emplear los ingresos de las retenciones para mejorar la distribución de ingresos y de encarar obras públicas (hospitales, viviendas y caminos), no pudo vencer la desconfianza del campo y de la opinión pública en general (pues la corrupción y el incumplimiento de promesas tiene largo dato en el país).

 

--Los productores afirmaban con razón que el dinero de las retenciones es captado por el gobierno federal y no vuelve a las zonas de producción. El sistema de “co-participación” impositiva favorece fuertemente a la administración central y dispara  una encarnizada lucha política en torno al reparto de la torta. Cambiar ese tipo de reparto injusto y ha de figurar en el agenda política.

 

--Los productores exigieron una reducción al 35% de las retenciones, la tasa vigente antes de la promulgación de la Resolución 125. En cambio, algunos pidían  la implementación de un impuesto progresivo a las ganancias. El problema: la colección, pues en argentina la evasión impositiva tiene largo dato.

 

--Los pueblos originarios y los más pequeños productores apoyaron el proyecto de retenciones a los efectos de impedir el avance de la soja sobre sus tierras y los bosques nativos. Debido a los precios de la soja, y la facilidad de siembra y la utilización de semillas genéticamente modificadas, la soja ha desplazado rápidamente otros granos- Se considera la falta de rotación de cosechas  un peligro latente—como también la utilización extensiva de pesticidas. Las grandes corporaciones dispersan los químicos sobre los campos desde aviones y esa práctica contamina los suelos y el agua.

 

--Si bien es imposible prever los futuros pasos del gobierno o de la oposición, hay varios elementos positivos que pueden surgir:

Habrá más diálogo público sobre temas esenciales y habrá un reagrupamiento político, en las filas del peronismo y también entre los muchos grupos que se unieron contra el gobierno, muchos de ellos sin lazos ideológicos con los líderes de la protesta.

El voto contra el gobierno del vicepresidente, plantea dudas relacionadas con la conformación de una alianza de facto con sectores del partido Radical de Cobos, pero no supone necesariamente una factura. Ya que insiste en no renunciar, su figura podría crecer. En general los vicepresidentes son meramente decorativos.

La izquierda e incluso el peronismo quedaron fuertemente divididos a raíz del conflicto.

Mientras el partido Comunista y el Humanismo y muchos intelectuales apoyaron críticamente al gobierno--asustados por el avance de lo que consideraron un proyecto de derecha--otros grupos de izquierda, incluyendo el Maoísmo, apoyaron abiertamente al campo.

Los muy fuertes contrastes y divisiones políticas entre quienes ayoparon cada sector en la disputa podría provocar una honda reflexión en el interior de cada agrupación. En lo inmediato no se vislumbra una crisis institucional.

Si bien en el panorama económico y político habrá nubarones, no se espera una fuerte recesión, ya que los precios de los productos agrícolas van a seguir subiendo en el mercado internacional. Sin embargo, el gobierno tiene que pensar cómo hacer las obras públicas que prometió en medio de las protestas, y cómo hacer frente a sus obligaciones con menos dinero en caja, cómo seguir pagando la deuda externa...

 

El escenario golpista que parecían ver algunos políticos cercanos al gobierno parece muy exagerado; lo más probable es un escenario en el cual los sectores más conservadores intenten debilitar al gobierno por todos los medios posibles,  para lograr progresivamente un cambio, especialmente en la política económica.

 

La derecha argentina, al igual que sus pares en el resto del mundo, busca recortar los impuestos a la producción para favorecer a los más grandes y más "eficientes" y verá con mucha satisfacción un ablandamiento en la política de derechos humanos, y dará la bienvenida a vínculos comerciales más favorables con los Estados Unidos y más distantes al MERCOSUR y la intención del gobierno de ir hacia la formación de una unión sudamericana. Por eso, la lucha del gobierno para mantener sus fuertes contactos con Brasil, Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador y Nicaragua podría ser cada vez más intrincada.

As Congress ponders, the protagonists take to the streets

Who said that democracy is carried out exclusively within congressional walls, by that special breed called politicians? In Argentina the street is also the place where issues are debated. Perhaps not as coldly, not with such long winded speeches.

That’s what happened yesterday. The government probably made a big mistake when it tried to impose a resolution increasing export duties for grains. It should have studied the question a bit more thoroughly. It should have called for an open debate on the issue.It should have contemplated the effect of the measure on small grain producers, taken into account the difference in soils from one area to the next. Sure of itself, it just went ahead...until in ran into and amazingly complex stumbling block.

If soybean on the international market has become a bonanza, why not ask for more taxes to pay for social programs, the foreign debt, and, well for those things that opponents call pocketing the people’s money. (Not only now, rarely have Argentines believed the sincerity of their rulers). Also: what better way to prevent the soybeanization of the country? Indigenous groups and small farmers complain that the big corporations have invaded native forests, and the use of pesticides has begun to wreck havoc with the environment.

But the traditional "Rural Society" wasn’t willing to pay a cent more. Very rapidly they got the support of small producers, and middle class residents in small rural towns--who depend on agricultural activity for their well being. So the countryside began building up its own arguments:

--The high rate of export taxes (varying from around 50% to nearly 90% according to international prices) would drive them out of business, they said, and destroy the country’s traditional position as an agricultural exporter.

--The taxes would be and are all absorbed by the national government to subsidize the unemployed or fill up other black holes in the economy--rather than returning to the provincial localities.

--It would be better to erect a progressive profit tax, stimulating the small producers and inviting the rich to help the less fortunate. (This avoids the touchy question of how exactly to impose and collect such a tax, not very easy in Argentina)

So, farm entities have been blocking roads and resorting to diverse means of protest over the past 100 days or so. The government, under strong pressure, finally agreed to take the issue to Congress. Today it will be passed or rejected in the Senate.

A defeat would be a strong blow for government supporters. The agrarian protesters insist that they will continue direct action, should the measure be approved. In any event, the whole question will come under review again before the end of the year.

What the country certainly needs is a complete review of its agricultural policies and a reform that sets the limits for diverse kinds of activities in the very diverse provinces.

Curiously enough, the numerous leftwing groups divided themselves between those such as Maoists and some socialists and picketeers, who supported the farm protesters, and the Communists and others who sided with the government, in defense of what they considered to be a rightwing pinzer movement. The Trotskyists, as usual, went their own way, not supporting either side. Not very well hidden from view was the traditional anti-peronism (latent in the rural upper classes) and an unmentioned but clear questioning of the administrative ability of Cristina Kirchner, the country’s first female president.

The Fleet is approaching! (a tongue-in-the-cheek account)

It’s the fleet! They’re navigating towards Latinamerica again! Up there in the White House they say the purpose of the mission is humanitarian. Oh.

Does that mean the navigators will not be interested in gathering information on the estimated 33 billion barrels of petroleum waiting off Brazil’s shores to be exploited?

Does that mean the Pentagon’s ulta-tech detection and spying devices will not take note of the situation in the deforestation of the Amazons by local and multinational lumber companies, or spy on guerrilla communications in Colombia, or intervene the cryptic messages of drug dealers or try to get an insight into the struggle in Bolivia between the government and provincial leaders demanding autonomy...or take note of that waged by the agricultural businesses in Argentina against export taxes? 

This fleet, to tell the truth, is a bit more advanced in technology than that of Christofer Colombus! Tehnology has certainly accompanied the corporate dream of globalization. Yet there remains a certain lingering similarity between the concept of "preventive wars," embraced by Washington, and the more explicit term for the Spanish "Conquest."

Los agrocombustibles, un pelígro para el medio ambiente...

    Los incrementos en los precios de los productos alimenticios, en Argentina y en el mundo, se deben a muchos factores, como la especulación, los cambios climáticos y la utilización de granos para la fabricación de biocombustibles.

    Los agrocombustibles (también conocidos como biocombustibles) son combustibles liquidos, como biodiesel y bioetanol. Son derivados de la soja, aceite de colaza, caña de azúcar y aceite de palma. Hay una segunda generación, en proceso de desarrollo, que utiliza residuos agrícolas, árboles (especialmente sauce y eucalipto) y paja/tallos secos.

    Al respecto la organización "Amigos de la Tierra Internacional" declaró recientemente que siente honda preocupación por que el rápido desarrollo y producción de agrocombustibles aumente los ya serios problemas ambientales y sociales, incluyendo el riesgo de empeorar el cambio climático.

    La preocupación se debe a que la producción de agrocombustibles puedan:

   1) aumentar la pobreza y el hambre--especialmente en el sur--al aumentar el precio de los alimentos y la tierra usada para combustibles en lugar de alimentos, algo que a su vez tiende a destruir el estilo de vida de las familias granjeras, el uso primario de la tierra agrícola para servir al mercado energético en detrimento de la producción agrícola.

   2) violar los derechos humanos, incluyendo los derechos a la tierra de las comunidades indígenas, como las comunidades locales que son expulsadas--generalmente en forma violenta--de sus tierras para las pantaciones de monocultivos por parte de las corporaciones agrícolas.

   3)  afestar la biodiversidad y los ecosistemas, al intensificar la agricultura para satisfacer las nuevas demandas, por ejemplo, mediante el aumento de monocultivos y plantaciones genéticamente modificadas. Además se fuerza a la agricultura a expandirse a zonas sensibles de rica biodiversidad, como las selvas y las sabanas, convirtiéndoas en tierras marginales.

   4)  aumentar la presión sobre valiosos recursos naturales como el agua y la tierra.

   5)  contribuir al cambio climático al destruir las selvas o secar los bañados, y mediante el excesivo uso de fertilizantes y consumo de enrrgía para la producción y destribución.

   6) exacerbar el ya insostenible comercio de productos agrícolas que depende en la explotación de los países del hemisferio sur para satisfacer las necesidades del rico hemisferio norte.

   7)  distraer a los gobiernos de tomar medidas reales para frenar la crisis climática y energética.

   La declaración concluye que "la certificación de agrocombustibles no proveerá ninguna garantía de sostentabilidad ni solocionará ninguno de los problemas mencionados. Nos preocupa seriamente la demanda guiada políticamente de los agrocombustibles, especialmente al ver la cantidad de evidencia de problemas sociales y ambientales, y la creencia de que la certificación ressolverá estos problemas."

   Quienes desean más información sobre este tema pueden comunicarse con EcoLaPaz, que integra la Federación Amigos de la Tierra Argentina: [e-mail]