Entrevista coletiva à imprensa por ocasião da visita do Chanceler da Argentina

Papa adere à campanha por solução negociada sobre soberania das Malvinas

 islas-malvinas-3
 19/08/2015 23h04 Buenos Aires
Monica Yanakiew – Correspondente da Agência Brasil/EBC

O papa Francisco aderiu a uma campanha que pede ao Reino Unido que aceite dialogar com a Argentina sobre a posse das Ilhas Malvinas – ou Falkland Islands para os britânicos. O remoto arquipélago, no Atlântico Sul, é motivo de disputa entre os dois países há dois séculos.

Os argentinos reivindicam a soberania das ilhas, que herdaram da Espanha e foram ocupadas pelo Reino Unido. A Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU) considera o arquipélago um território em disputa e há 50 anos emitiu a Resolução 2.065, instando os dois países a buscarem uma solução negociada.

Mas, o Reino Unido considera que o futuro das ilhas deve ser decidido pelos próprios moradores, reivindicando o princípio de autodeterminação dos povos. A Argentina diz que o princípio só se aplica a uma população nativa e os moradores das Malvinas são descendentes dos colonos britânicos.

A disputa resultou numa guerra, em 1982, quando os militares argentinos tentaram recuperar o arquipélago e foram derrotadas pelas Forças Armadas britânicas. Mas, a Argentina continua reivindicando a soberania das ilhas. Este ano, no cinquentenário da Resolução 2.065, foi lançada uma campanha pedindo diálogo entre os dois países para dar por encerrada a questão.

Sete ganhadores de Prêmio Nobel endossaram a campanha. E o papa – que é argentino – tirou uma foto com o cartaz que diz: É tempo de diálogo entre a Argentina e o Reino Unido pelas Malvinas. A presidenta da Argentina, Cristina Kirchner, divulgou a foto pelas redes sociais nesta quarta-feira (19).

Edição: Aécio Amado

Guerra do Paraguai – 150 anos

500 ANOS O BRASIL – IMPÉRIO NA TV – GUERRA DO PARAGUAI – EP. 06

Argentina denuncia incremento militar británico en Malvinas

malvinas-argentinas2.jpg_1718483346

El Gobierno afirma que Reino Unido esgrime de pretexto una supuesta e inverosímil amenaza argentina, “con el sólo objetivo de intentar justificar una presencia militar digna de una potencia colonial”. El canciller de Argentina, Héctor Timerman, denunció este lunes el injustificado aumento del gasto militar británico en las Islas Malvinas mediante notas enviadas a organismos internacionales como la Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU), la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA), la Unión de Naciones Suramericanas (Unasur), entre otros.

Argentina señala en el comunicado que el Reino Unido alega una supuesta e inverosímil “amenaza” argentina, “con el sólo objetivo de intentar justificar una presencia militar digna de una potencia colonial”.

Asimismo señala que frente a la disposición de encontrar una solución a la controversia (respecto de Malvinas y otras islas del Atlántico sur), el Reino Unido confirma con su anuncio que apuesta “al armamentismo y al belicismo”.

“Muy por el contrario, la República Argentina sostiene que sólo el diálogo y la negociación, con apego al derecho internacional, deben primar para resolver las controversias internacionales y poner fin a esta situación colonial anacrónica que lleva más de 182 años”, resumió el comunicado de la Cancillería.

Timerman convoca al Reino Unido a sentarse a la mesa de negociaciones, “tal como lo establece la Resolución 2065 (XX) aprobada hace 50 años por la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas y reiterada por más de 40 resoluciones de la propia Asamblea y su Comité Especial de Descolonización”. La nación suramericana envió notas al secretario general de la ONU y al presidente del Comité Especial de Descolonización de esta organización; a los secretarios generales de la OEA y de la Unasur y al ministro de Exteriores de Uruguay, en su carácter de presidente del Comité Permanente de la Zona de Paz y Cooperación del Atlántico Sur. También al ministro de Exteriores de Ecuador, cuyo país ejerce la presidencia pro témpore de la Comunidad de América Latina y el Caribe (Celac); al ministro de Exteriores de Brasil, país que ejerce la presidencia pro témpore del Mercosur y al representante Permanente de Sudáfrica ante las Naciones Unidas, en su carácter de Presidente del Grupo de los 77 y China.

Fonte: Telesur

EU Takes Aim at Brazilian “Tax Advantages” in WTO Dispute

The EU filed a formal WTO complaint against Brazil in late December, targeting a series of tax measures that it claims provide unfair advantages to the South American country’s manufacturing sector.

In the request for consultations (DS472) – the first stage of WTO dispute settlement proceedings – the EU highlighted a series of tax measures and charges that Brazil has imposed in the automotive sector over the past two years.

This began in September 2011 with a 30 percent tax increase on motor vehicles, with an exemption for domestically produced cars and trucks. This was then followed by a new tax regime called “Innovar Auto,” launched in 2012 and set to expire in 2017. The EU also flagged tax measures affecting the electronics and technology industry, along with goods produced in Free Trade Zones, and tax advantages that Brasilia provides for exporters.

Brussels claims that these measures impose a higher tax burden on imported goods than on their domestic equivalents, while conditioning tax advantages to the use of locally produced goods. These policies have, the EU says, harmed their exporters while providing Brazilian producers with unfair advantages.

For their part, Brazilian officials say that their policies are in line with WTO obligations, with Foreign Minister Luiz Alberto Figueiredo insisting that his government has “solid arguments” in its favour.

Some of the EU’s largest car manufacturers have launched or expanded their manufacturing operations in Brazil in order to take advantage of the tax system, a fact that analysts say could pose difficulties for Brussels. BMW, for instance, has publicly spoken out in support of the Brazilian “Inovar Auto” regime in the past.

The complaint comes as the EU and Mercosur – a group of which Brazil is a member – continue their efforts to wrap-up their long-running trade negotiations. The talks, which also involve Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela, have proven famously difficult since their launch nearly 15 years ago. Officials say that this new dispute is unlikely to have any ramifications on the EU-Mercosur process.

The EU is one of Brazil’s main trading partners, accounting for one-fifth of the South American country’s total trade in 2012. Brazil, meanwhile, is the EU’s eighth largest trading partner, making up just over 2 percent of the bloc’s total trade.

Parties to a WTO dispute have 60 days to conduct consultations to resolve their differences. If this fails, the complainant may then request that a panel be established to hear the case.

ICTSD reporting; “EU Enters Trade Battle with Brazil Over High Taxes: Daily,” THE RIO TIMES, 19 December 2013; “EU takes Brazil to WTO over ‘protectionist’ taxes,” REUTERS, 19 December 2013.

Fonte: http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/bridges/news/eu-takes-aim-at-brazilian-tax-advantages-in-wto-dispute

Matheus Luiz Puppe Magalhaes

Colonization by Bankruptcy: The High-stakes Chess Match for Argentina

abutres

By Ellen Brown

If Argentina were in a high-stakes chess match, the country’s actions this week would be the equivalent of flipping over all the pieces on the board.

David Dayen, Fiscal Times, August 22, 2014

August 27, 2014 “ICH” – Argentina is playing hardball with the vulture funds, which have been trying to force it into an involuntary bankruptcy. The vultures are demanding what amounts to a 600% return on bonds bought for pennies on the dollar, defeating a 2005 settlement in which 92% of creditors agreed to accept a 70% haircut on their bonds. A US court has backed the vulture funds; but last week, Argentina sidestepped its jurisdiction by transferring the trustee for payment from Bank of New York Mellon to its own central bank. That play, if approved by the Argentine Congress, will allow the country to continue making payments under its 2005 settlement, avoiding default on the majority of its bonds.

Argentina is already foreclosed from international capital markets, so it doesn’t have much to lose by thwarting the US court system. Similar bold moves by Ecuador and Iceland have left those countries in substantially better shape than Greece, which went along with the agendas of the international financiers.

The upside for Argentina was captured by President Fernandez in a nationwide speech on August 19th. Struggling to hold back tears, according to Bloomberg, she said:

When it comes to the sovereignty of our country and the conviction that we can no longer be extorted and that we can’t become burdened with debt again, we are emerging as Argentines.

. . . If I signed what they’re trying to make me sign, the bomb wouldn’t explode now but rather there would surely be applause, marvelous headlines in the papers. But we would enter into the infernal cycle of debt which we’ve been subject to for so long.

The Endgame: Patagonia in the Crosshairs

The deeper implications of that infernal debt cycle were explored by Argentine political analyst Adrian Salbuchi in an August 12th article titled “Sovereign Debt for Territory: A New Global Elite Swap Strategy.” Where territories were once captured by military might, he maintains that today they are being annexed by debt. The still-evolving plan is to drive destitute nations into an international bankruptcy court whose decisions would have the force of law throughout the world. The court could then do with whole countries what US bankruptcy courts do with businesses: sell off their assets, including their real estate. Sovereign territories could be acquired as the spoils of bankruptcy without a shot being fired.

Global financiers and interlocking megacorporations are increasingly supplanting governments on the international stage. An international bankruptcy court would be one more institution making that takeover legally binding and enforceable. Governments can say no to the strong-arm tactics of the global bankers’ collection agency, the IMF. An international bankruptcy court would allow creditors to force a nation into bankruptcy, where territories could be involuntarily sold off in the same way that assets of bankrupt corporations are.

For Argentina, says Salbuchi, the likely prize is its very rich Patagonia region, long a favorite settlement target for ex-pats. When Argentina suffered a massive default in 2001, the global press, including Time and The New York Times, went so far as to propose that Patagonia be ceded from the country as a defaulted debt payment mechanism.

The New York Times article followed one published in the Buenos Aires financial newspaper El Cronista Comercial called “Debt for Territory,” which described a proposal by a US consultant to then-president Eduardo Duhalde for swapping public debt for government land. It said:

[T]he idea would be to transform our public debt default into direct equity investment in which creditors can become land owners where they can develop  industrial, agricultural and real estate projects. . . . There could be surprising candidates for this idea: during the Alfonsin Administration, the Japanese studied an investment master plan in Argentine land in order to promote emigration.  The proposal was also considered in Israel.

Salbuchi notes that ceding Patagonia from Argentina was first suggested in 1896 by Theodor Herzl, founder of the Zionist movement, as a second settlement for that movement.

Another article published in 2002 was one by IMF deputy manager Anne Krueger titled “Should Countries Like Argentina Be Able to Declare Themselves Bankrupt?” It was posted on the IMF website and proposed some “new and creative ideas” on what to do about Argentina. Krueger said, “the lesson is clear: we need better incentives to bring debtors and creditors together before manageable problems turn into full-blown crises,” adding that the IMF believes “this could be done by learning from corporate bankruptcy regimes like Chapter 11 in the US”.

These ideas were developed in greater detail by Ms. Krueger in an IMF essay titled “A New Approach to Debt Restructuring,” and by Harvard professor Richard N. Cooper in a 2002 article titled “Chapter 11 for Countries” published in Foreign Affairs (“mouthpiece of the powerful New York-Based Elite think-tank, Council on Foreign Relations”). Salbuchi writes:

Here, Cooper very matter-of-factly recommends that “only if the debtor nation cannot restore its financial health are its assets liquidated and the proceeds distributed to its creditors – again under the guidance of a (global) court” (!).

In Argentina’s recent tangle with the vulture funds, Ms. Krueger and the mainstream media have come out in apparent defense of Argentina, recommending restraint by the US court. But according to Salbuchi, this does not represent a change in policy. Rather, the concern is that overly heavy-handed treatment may kill the golden goose:

. . . [I] n today’s delicate post-2008 banking system, a new and less controllable sovereign debt crisis could thwart the global elite’s plans for an “orderly transition towards a new global legal architecture” that will allow orderly liquidation of financially-failed states like Argentina. Especially if such debt were to be collateralized by its national territory (what else is left!?)

Breaking Free from the Sovereign Debt Trap

Salbuchi traces Argentina’s debt crisis back to 1955, when President Juan Domingo Perón was ousted in a very bloody US/UK/mega-bank-sponsored military coup:

Perón was hated for his insistence on not indebting Argentina with the mega-bankers: in 1946 he rejected joining the International Monetary Fund (IMF); in 1953 he fully paid off all of Argentina’s sovereign debt. So, once the mega-bankers got rid of him in 1956, they shoved Argentina into the IMF and created the “Paris Club” to engineer decades-worth of sovereign debt for vanquished Argentina, something they’ve been doing until today.

Many countries have been subjected to similar treatment, as John Perkins documents in his blockbuster exposéConfessions of an Economic Hit Man. When the country cannot pay, the IMF sweeps in with refinancing agreements with strings attached, including selling off public assets and slashing public services in order to divert government revenues into foreign debt service.

Even without pressure from economic hit men, however, governments routinely indebt themselves for much more than they can ever hope to repay. Why do they do it? Salbuchi writes:

Here, Western economists, bankers, traders, Ivy League academics and professors, Nobel laureates and the mainstream media have a quick and monolithic reply: because all nations need“investment and investors” if they wish to build highways, power plants, schools, airports, hospitals, raise armies, service infrastructures and a long list of et ceteras . . . .

But more and more people are starting to ask a fundamental common-sense question: why should governments indebt themselves in hard currencies, decades into the future with global mega-bankers, when they could just as well finance these projects and needs far more safely by issuing the proper amounts of their own local sovereign currency instead?

Neoliberal experts shout back that government-created money devalues the currency, inflates the money supply, and destroys economies. But does it? Or is it the debt service on money created privately by banks, along with other forms of “rent” on capital, that create inflation and destroy economies? As Prof. Michael Hudson points out:

These financial claims on wealth – bonds, mortgages and bank loans – are lent out to become somebody else’s debts in an exponentially expanding process.  . . . [E]conomies have been obliged to pay their debts by cutting back new research, development and new physical reinvestment. This is the essence of IMF austerity plans, in which the currency is “stabilized” by further international borrowing on terms that destabilize the economy at large. Such cutbacks in long-term investment also are the product of corporate raids financed by high-interest junk bonds. The debts created by businesses, consumers and national economies cutting back their long-term direct investment leaves these entities even less able to carry their mounting debt burden.

Spiraling debt also results in price inflation, since businesses have to raise their prices to cover the interest and fees on the debt.

From Sovereign Debt to Monetary Sovereignty

For governments to escape this austerity trap, they need to spend not less but more money on the tangible capital formation that increases physical productivity. But where to get the investment money without getting sucked into the debt vortex? Where can Argentina get funding if the country is shut out of international capital markets?

The common-sense response, as Salbuchi observes, is for governments to issue the money they need directly. But “printing money” raises outcries that can be difficult to overcome politically. An alternative that can have virtually the same effect is for nations to borrow money issued by their own publicly-owned banks. Public banks generate credit just as private banks do; but unlike private lenders, they return interest and profits to the economy. Their mandate is to serve the public, and that is where their profits go. Funding through their own government-issued currencies and publicly-owned banks has been successfully pursued by many countries historically, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Germany, China, Russia, Korea and Japan. (For more on this, see The Public Bank Solution.)

Countries do need to be able to buy foreign products that they cannot acquire or produce domestically, and for that they need a form of currency or an international credit line that other nations will accept. But countries are increasingly breaking away from the oil- and weapons-backed US dollar as global reserve currency. To resolve the mutually-destructive currency wars will probably take a new Bretton Woods Accord. But that is another subject for a later article.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books, including the best-selling Web of Debt. In The Public Bank Solution, her latest book, she explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her 200+ blog articles are at EllenBrown.com.

Fonte: International Clearing House