Dilma out: Brazilian plutocracy sets 54mn votes on fire

Publicado originalmente em: 12/05/2016
Never in modern political history has it been so easy to “abolish the people” and simply erase 54 million votes cast in a free and fair presidential election.

Forget about hanging chads, as in Florida 2000. This is a day that will live in infamy all across the Global South – when what was one of its most dynamic democracies veered into a plutocratic regime, under a flimsy parliamentary/judicial veneer, with legal and constitutional guarantees now at the mercy of lowly comprador elites.

After the proverbial marathon, the Brazilian Senate voted 55-22 to put President Dilma Rousseff on trial for “crimes of responsibility” – related to alleged window dressing of the government’s budget.

This is the culmination of a drawn-out process that started even before Rousseff won re-election in late 2014 with over 54 million votes. I have described the bunch of perpetrators of what Brazilian creativity has termed ‘golpeachment’ (a mix of coup – “golpe” in Portuguese – and impeachment) as Hybrid War hyenas.

Sophisticated golpeachment – supported by what amounts to an Electoral Inquisition College – has propelled Hybrid War to whole new levels.

Hybrid War as applied to Brazil exhibited classic elements of a color revolution. Of course there was no need for no-fly zones or humanitarian imperialism to “protect human rights” – not to mention provoking a civil war. But considering the high resistance level of the victim state, where civil society is very dynamic, Hybrid War designers in this case bet on a mix of capitulation – and betrayal – of local elites, mixed with “peaceful protests” and a relentless mainstream media campaign. Call it ‘Civil War Light.’

That carried with it a fabulous cost-benefit ratio. Now the (immensely corrupt) Brazilian political system and the current executive/legislative/judiciary/mainstream media alignment can be used by the usual suspects for their geopolitical agenda.

Welcome to regime change light – politics, in a nutshell – as war by other means on the BRICS. A new software, a new operating system. Carrying a pathetic corollary; if the US is the Empire of Chaos, Brazil has now gloriously reached the status of Sub-Empire of Scoundrels.

Scoundrels galore

Rousseff may be accused of serious economic mismanagement, and of being incapable of political articulation among the shark pool that is (immensely corrupt) Brazilian politics. But she is not corrupt. She made a serious mistake in fighting inflation, allowing interest rates to rise to an unsustainable level; so demand in Brazil dramatically dropped, and recession became the norm. She is the (convenient) scapegoat for Brazil’s recession.

She certainly may be blamed for not having a Plan B to fight the global recession. Brazil essentially works on two pillars; commodity exports and local companies relying on the teats of the state. Infrastructure in general is dismal – adding to what is described as the “Brazilian cost” of doing business. With the commodity slump, state funds dwindled and everything was paralyzed – credit, investment, consumption.

The pretext for Rousseff’s impeachment – allegedly transferring loans from public banks to the Treasury in order to disguise the size of Brazil’s fiscal deficit – is flimsy at best. Every administration in the West does it – and that includes Clinton’s, Bush’s and Obama’s.

The Operation Car Wash investigation, dragging on for two years now, was supposed to uncover corruption in the Brazilian political system – as in the collusion of oil giant Petrobras executives, Brazilian construction companies, and political campaign financing. Car Wash has nothing to do with the golpeachment drive. Yet these have been two parallel highways converging to one destination: the criminalization of the Workers’ Party, and the definitive – if possible – political assassination of Rousseff and her mentor, former President Lula. 

When golpeachment reached the lower house of Congress – an appalling spectacle – Rousseff was eviscerated by Hybrid War hyenas of the BBC variety; “BBC,” in English, stands for “bullet,”“bible” and “cattle,” where “bullet” refers to the weapons and private security industry, “bible” to pastors and evangelical fanatics, and “cattle” to the powerful agribusiness lobby.

The “BBC” hyenas are members of almost all Brazilian political parties, paperboys for major corporations, and – last but not least – corruption stalwarts. They all benefited from millionaire political campaigning. The whole Car Wash investigation ultimately revolves around campaign financing, which in Brazil, unlike the US with its legalized lobbies, is a Tarantino-worthy Wild West.

The Brazilian Senate is not exactly an “upper” – as in more polished – house. Eighty percent of members are white men – in a country where miscegenation rules. A staggering 58 percent is under criminal investigation – linked to Car Wash. Sixty percent hail from political dynasties. And 13 percent – as alternates – were not elected at all. Among those favoring impeachment, 30 out of 49 are in trouble with the law. Charges include mostly money laundering, financial crimes and outright corruption. Renan Calh1eiros, the president of the Senate – who oversaw today’s impeachment vote – is the target of no fewer than nine separate money laundering/corruption Car Wash lines of investigation, plus another two criminal probes. 

Meet the three Banana Republic, amigos

Rousseff is now suspended for a maximum 180 days while a Senate committee decides whether to impeach her for good. Enter President-in-Waiting Michel Temer – a dodgy, shady operator – who has been branded a “usurper” by Rousseff. And usurper this provincial Brutus certainly is – according to his own words. On March 30 last year, he was tweeting that, “Impeachment is unthinkable, it would create an institutional crisis. There is no judicial or political basis for it.”

His administration is born with the original sin of being illegal and massively unpopular; his approval rating floats between an epic 1 percent and 2 percent. He was already fined last week for violating campaign finance limits. And, predictably, he’s drowning in a corruption swamp – named in two Car Wash plea bargains and accused of being part of an illegal scheme of ethanol buying; he may become ineligible for the next eight years. Almost 60 percent of Brazilians also want him impeached – on the same charges leveled against Rousseff.

Brutus 1 (Temer) would not bask in the glow of his 15 minutes of fame without the shenanigans of Brutus 2 (Brazil’s number one crook, former speaker of the lower house Eduardo Cunha, facing charges of bribery and perjury, holder of illegal Swiss accounts, and now finally sidelined by the Supreme Court). It was Brutus 2 who fast-tracked impeachment as pure vengeance; the Workers’ Party did not cover his back as he was facing a tsunami of corruption charges. Brutus 2 used all his vast powers – he runs a campaign financing scam inside Congress – to obstruct the Car Wash investigation. His replacement, the interim speaker, is also under investigation for bribery.

So meet Temer, Cunha, Calheiros; these three amigos are the true stars of the Banana Republic of Scoundrels/Crooks. 

As if the Supreme Court would be rascal-free. Judge Gilmar Mendes, for instance, is a lowly plutocrat vassal. When an attorney for the government entered a motion to suspend impeachment, he quipped, “Ah, they can go to heaven, to the Pope, or to hell.” Another pompous judge received a request to sideline Cunha as early as December 2015. He only examined the request over four months later, when the whole golpeachment scam was in its decisive phase. And still he argued, “there’s no proof Cunha contaminated the impeachment process.”

Finally, complementing the whole scam, we find Brazilian mainstream media, with the toxic Globo media empire – which lavishly profited from the 1964 military coup – at the forefront. 

All hail the neoliberal restoration

Wall Street – as well as the City of London – could not hide its excitement with golpeachment, believing Brutus 1 Temer will be an economic upgrade. Arguably, he might dare to tweak Brazil’s Kafkaesque tax code and do something about the enormous hole in the pension system. But what that mythical entity – the “markets” – and myriad “investors” are salivating about is the prospect of fabulous rates of return in a reopened-for-speculation Brazil. The Brutus 1 game will be a neoliberal feast, actually a restoration, with no popular representation whatsoever.   

Source: RT


Glenn Greenwald: President’s Impeachment Process in Brazil is a Trojan Horse for Neo-liberalism

Publicado originalmente em: 05/05/2016

SHARMINI PERIES, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. I’m Sharmini Peries coming to you from Baltimore.

The festivities for the arrival of the Olympic Flame in Brazil ahead of the 2016 Summer Olympics was overcast with President Dilma Rousseff’s impeachment proceedings underway in the Senate. The impeachment vote is centered on charges relating to misrepresenting government budgets.

However, a careful analysis of the politicians governing Brazil show that they may have engaged in levels of corruption far greater than anything that the president is accused of. The Canadian newspaper the Globe and Mail reported that 318 of the 594 members of congress face allegations of financial impropriety far greater than anything that the president is charged with, they said.

So, what are we to make of all of this impeachment proceedings underway in Senate? On to discuss this is Glenn Greenwald. He is an award-winning journalist, a constitutional lawyer and author of four New York Times bestselling books on politics and law. His most recent book is “No Place to Hide.” Greenwald is a founding editor of the Intercept.

Good to have you with us, Glenn.

GLENN GREENWALD: Great to be with you. Thanks for having me.

PERIES: Glenn, if the Senate vote to uphold the lower house’s impeachment vote, this would mean that Vice President Michel Temer of the center-right PSDB will take over as president, at least for a period, until the final decision is made. But until recently, he himself was a part of the coalition, but we knew that he was also charged with corruption, or at least allegations of corruption. His political party, PSDB, what do we know about it? Who is he? What is the corruption scandal around him?

GREENWALD: So the PSDB is, as you said, the center-right-wing party that has run four straight elections against the Workers’ Party, which is the party of the current president, Dilma Rousseff, but also her predecessor Lula Da Silva.

Michel Temer is actually is actually in the PMDB party which is kind of this, like, centrist, non-ideological party that often has a lot of people that are elected to the congress and so they’re kind of the kingmaker. They can go to to right and help the right wing form a government, as they did in the early ’90s, or they can go to the left and help the Workers’ Party form a government, as they’ve done for the last 16 years. And, so, they’re kind of this shape-shifting, transactional party.

And there’s no question that his intention, Michel Temer’s intention, if he’s installed as president, and this is somebody who could never, ever get elected president on his own. In fact, almost 60 percent of Brazilians say they want to see him impeached as vice president, let alone put in power, but if he is put in power there’s no question that Brazil, especially in terms of domestic policy and economic policy is going to take a very sharp turn to the neoliberal right. They’re going to slash social programs, impose austerity. They’re going to put into place as economic ministers and key economic advisers the head of Goldman Sachs in Brazil, former World Bank and IMF officials.

And so, the plan very much is to take a set of economic proposals [inaud.] never could get the approval of the Brazilian people economically and impose them by removing the party that has won four straight elections, which is the Workers’ Party, and imposing him.

PERIES: So, turning to the US. On the surface the United States appears to be rather quiet about all of this and they appear to be on the sidelines, but the US, obviously here, is concerned about the instability in Brazil. We know for a fact that the US considered it important enough for the NSA to spy on them, according to the Snowden leaks. So, give us a sense of where you think the US is at on the proceedings underway against Dilma Rousseff.

GREENWALD: So, the context for all this is really crucial. Brazil is a very young democracy. It only became a democracy in 1985, and that’s because in 1964 Brazil had a democratically elected, left-wing government, just like it has now, and there was a military coup that removed the democratically elected president and proceeded to install a very oppressive, brutal, 21-year military dictatorship on the country, this right-wing military dictatorship.

And, for many years, the United States government vehemently denied, in response to suspicions in Brazil, given the US history on the continent, that they were in any way involved in the coup. They said they had no rule in the coup, they really didn’t even know about it until it was reported in the newspapers.

And, as it turned out, documents were released at the late stages of the Johnson administration which proved that not only was the US aware of the coup but participated actively in plotting it with Brazilian military officials, and then they, along with the British, provided huge amounts of support and training for the military dictatorship, including training in various torture techniques. So, there’s obviously a great [inaud.] when you’re talking about removing a democratically elected, left-wing government in Brazil to what role the United States is playing.

And so, certainly, whatever role the United States is playing they’re going to keep very much in the dark, because that would be really volatile for them to appear to have a hand in it. I don’t think there is evidence that, yet, anyway, that the US has a role in impeachment, but there’s no question that they would vastly prefer the economic policies, the austerity, the pro-capital approach that the government would take under Michel Temer as opposed to the Workers’ Party.

PERIES: Now, is it correct to say that Brazil and the US has had good relations? I mean, there’s been visits on the part of Dilma Rousseff and President Obama, visits to the White House. There have been very congenial relations, and even when the NSA spying story broke through the leaks there was an effort to sort of mend those fences and have a closer relationship.

Did President Obama play any role in bringing Brazil closer to its economic relations?

GREENWALD: The relationship between Brazil and the US is a complicated one. They’re the two largest countries [inaud.] hemisphere. They historically have had very close relationships because of the US support for the military dictatorship, and so a good part of the country, the sort of pro-military right [inaud.] capitalists in Brazil [inaud.] very pro-American and continue to maintain really good relationships with American power centers.

But, under President Lula, who became president in 2002 as part of the Workers’ Party, he ushered in this more kind of independent foreign policy. He wanted to align Brazil with the non-aligned states, and it really all came to a head when the US was trying to isolate Iran as part of its effort to secure a better negotiating position with Iran, and instead Lula went with Turkey and negotiated their own side deal with Iran as a way of bringing Iran back into the world community, and it created a lot of anger on the part of the US, and then the NSA revelations that you referenced really damaged relations.

The president, by then Dilma Rousseff, actually canceled the first scheduled state visit in 40 years in anger over the revelations. She denounced the US and President Obama from the podium at the UN while President Obama waited out in hall. But, you’re right. You know, there’s, especially in the wake of the economic crisis, there’s a lot of trade to be done, a lot of economic benefits to be had from the relations between these two countries.

And so, you know, the US never has good a relationship with any really left-wing government, but the government in Brazil is not like other left-wing governments in Latin America. They’re not Chavez, they’re not Bolivia, they’re not Ecuador. They’re much more, sort of, pragmatic, much more centrist, and so they’re willing to do business on the world capital stage, and so the US and the Obama administration has been, I wouldn’t call it friendly, but maybe amiable, and that continues through today.

PERIES: Right. And Glenn, since president Hugo Chávez’s death and Lula’s departure from the presidency we’ve witnessed quite a bit of allegations against leaders and left-leaning leaders of Latin America. Cristina Kirchner is currently under scrutiny and a case is going on against her. In addition to what’s happening to Dilma, President Lula himself is under scrutiny and investigation, and maybe charges would be forthcoming there. What’s happening in terms of the larger picture in Latin America? Will we see a right-wing dominance back in the region?

GREENWALD: Obviously, always lurking over politics and the political dynamic in Latin America is the world’s largest and most powerful country, or at least the world’s most powerful country, hovering not all that far to the North, which is the United States, and of course it’s been US doctrine for over two centuries that dominance in the hemisphere is an intrinsic US right, and there has been this extreme preoccupation with the possibility of left-wing influence in Latin America. Obviously, in the Reagan years it culminated with the covert wars in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Obviously, you know, the Kennedy administration almost brought the US, the world, to nuclear armageddon over the possibility of Russian nuclear weapons in Cuba.

And so, there’s definitely been a strong, systematic effort on the part of the US and their allies to undermine the left-wing evolution here in Latin America but, you know, these countries are democratic. The left-wing leaders, in some of those cases, remain popular. In other cases they remain just popular enough to continue to beat the right-wing faction and so, you know, it’s something that they’re not as strong as they were, say, 10 years ago, but they continue to exert some pretty significant influence, although I think you could say it’s on a downward spiral.

PERIES: But what is your prognosis in terms of the decision being made in the Senate through this committee for impeachment?

GREENWALD: So, there’s a two step process to this committee, to the Senate process. They’re first going to vote on whether or not to accept the impeachment trial, and that only requires a 50 percent plus one vote. That scheduled vote is next week, and it’s almost certain, I would say it is certain that that will pass. And as soon as the Senate accepts the impeachment petition, which means they agree to hold the trial, the president is automatically suspended for 180 days, for six months, and is barred from exercising any of the powers of her office, including through the olympics, so that seems 100 percent certain.

It also seems highly likely that there are enough votes in the Senate to actually remove her from office once there is a trial. I think the only variable, the only significant, unknown variable that could stop that is if people in Brazil who have voted for the PT for 16 years stop focusing only on Dilma and start to look at who’s being empowered, to see the corrupt leaders who are going to take her place, to see the agenda that’s going to be ushered in when she’s removed, and I think there’s a serious, open question about how much instability and street uprising, and the potential for violence, there will actually be, and I think if Brazilian elites perceive that removing Dilma [inaud.] like sustained, serious, threatening unrest, they may have second thoughts about actually removing her, but short of that I don’t see how it would be stopped.

PERIES: And Glenn, it’s difficult to get a sense of the level of support for Dilma Rousseff. I know that much of the western press keep talking about how unpopular she is as a leader, but when you look at the marches in support of her there seem to be a lot of people on the ground, but then we’re weighing that against the millions of people on the right that did show up to protest against her. What’s the real situation on the ground?

GREENWALD: Well, so, the economy in Brazil is horrific. The country is in the middle of a very severe recession. There are tens of millions of people who are now unemployed who weren’t a short time ago. A lot of the gains that were made under the PT party have, I wouldn’t say reversed, but have started to erode. So, you combine that with the fact that Dilma herself is not a very skilled politician, she doesn’t have very much political charisma, she doesn’t have a strong political base, she was kind of handpicked by her predecessor, Lula, who is the one who commands political popularity because he thought she’d be a really effective, technocratic president, but she doesn’t have political skills or a political base. And so, it’s hard for her to navigate through this difficult economic crisis.

And so, she is genuinely unpopular, including among a lot of the supporters of PT who have become very disappointed with the party. At the same, these protests, the pro-impeachment protests, studies have shown, over and over, tend to be much whiter and much richer than the party as a whole. So, they’re basically the same people who have hated PT for the last two decades and who have been voting against it, so the fact that they’re out on the street isn’t very impressive.

There are a lot of people actually in defense of not the government, but what they call democracy. These are people who don’t actually like Dilma and don’t necessarily like PT, but who believe that when you have a democracy and a leader like Dilma wins with 54 million votes, as she just did only 18 months ago, that you don’t just remove her from office because she’s unpopular, that it’s a genuine threat to democracy, a dismantling of democratic institutions.

And so, yes, she is definitely unpopular. There is no doubt about that. She’s very unpopular, mostly due to the economic suffering in this country, but at the same time there’s a growing recognition that you don’t have to support Dilma in order to realize that this country’s very young and fragile and, until recently, thriving democracy is under serious threat, and I think the more people start to think of it that way the more support that there’s going to be for keeping her in place.

PERIES: And today we heard that they might be moving forward with the proceedings against Lula himself once again, because he was also under scrutiny just a few months ago. How serious is that, and do you think that will proceed?

GREENWALD: It’s a huge question about how much they can actually do to Lula. It’s hard to overstate the importance of Lula in the public consciousness, especially among the poor and racial minorities and the working class and the disenfranchised. You know, his back story is, he grew up in a really poor environment. He didn’t learn to read until he was 10. He became a union leader and then he led this remarkable social movement to empower the poor and workers in Brazil who had been treated hideously for centuries and led it to power, and then turned Brazil into a world power, and he left office with an 86 percent approval rating.

There’s definitely some evidence, important evidence, that he has been involved in corruption. But, at the same time, there’s a question about how much the people who have, for so long, revered Lula, are willing to watch him be put into handcuffs and put into a prison and have the party that they’ve been voting for removed from power. That’s why I say that I think the big variable here that Brazilian elites haven’t paid much attention to, although they should, is how much can they really get away with without triggering a really serious backlash.

PERIES: I understand that former president Lula may be able to come back to power by sitting out one term. Is that any part of the discussions?

GREENWALD: That’s a huge part of the discussion and it’s actually really fascinating and will [inaud.] be so ironic which is, they seem pretty set on removing Dilma from office, as we discussed earlier. So, then the question becomes, are they going to get away with being able to put this kind of old, uncharismatic, corruption-tainted, neoliberal, pro-business, non-entity, unpopular Vice President Michel Temer into office and just have the population swallow it, and I think the answer to that is going to be no. I think already you’re seeing a real backlash. Like, how can you tell us that you’re removing Dilma for corruption when you’re replacing her with somebody who also is implicated in corruption?

Which means their only alternative, because the person who’s third in line to the presidency, the head of the lower house, Eduardo Cunha, is the most corrupt of all. He’s the one who got caught with millions of dollars in bribes hidden away in Swiss bank accounts, so he’s a non-option. So the only other option becomes new elections, earlier than Dilma’s term was set to expire, which is 2018, and the huge fear there is that if you have new elections Lula will win again.

He could definitely run. He’s only barred from serving two consecutive terms, not more than two. He’s barred from serving more than two consecutive terms, but not more than two if he has a pause, as he’s had, so he can definitely run again, and there’s a really good chance that Brazilian elites will have torn themselves apart, torn the country apart to get rid of Dilma only to end up with Lula again, and one of the reasons a lot of people believe, and I think it’s certainly true, that they’re so intent on dragging him into this corruption investigation and putting him into prison, is precisely to prevent him from winning another election.

PERIES: All right, I think there’s enough material there for another book, Glenn. Thank you so much for joining us.

GREENWALD: All right, great to talk to you, bye bye.

PERIES: Thank you for joining us on the Real News Network.

Fonte: The Real News

Soros and CIA Suffer Huge Defeat in Brazil

Wayne MADSEN | 28.10.2014 | 00:00

The Central Intelligence Agency and its George Soros-funded «democracy manipulators» in Brazil suffered a major defeat with the re-election as president of Brazil of Workers’ Party standard bearer and ex-Marxist guerrilla Dilma Rouseff. In the hours prior to Rousseff’s handy re-election, the corporate Western media was still reporting that the election was «too close to call» even as exit polling indicated that Rousseff would trounce her CIA- and Soros-backed conservative opponent Aecio Neves by at least 2 percentage points. The New York Times, Globe and Mail, Reuters, and other corporate media outlets were obviously disappointed by Rousseff’s victory, with many of these pro-Wall Street contrivances that masquerade as journalistic enterprises referring to Neves as a «centrist» who «narrowly» lost to Rousseff.

The Associated Press wistfully wrote, «There are not enough outstanding votes left to be counted to allow her [Rousseff] rival [Neves] to catch up with her». And Alberto Ramos, Goldman Sachs’s chief economist for Latin America, warned that Rousseff should abandon her policies that help Brazil’s poor or «market confidence» in Brazil will continue to suffer. Bloomberg News predicted the value of Brazil’s real currency would continue to be weakened with Rousseff’s win and when the markets opened on October 27, Bloomberg’s wishes were realized. The Financial Times of London happily reported that the real slumped 3.1 percent in value against the U.S. dollar and that its performance was worse than that of the Mozambican metical, which also was deflated by the global vulture bankers after the long-governing leftist Mozambique Liberation Front (FRELIMO) won the election against the Soros- and banker-backed and CIA-created Mozambique National Resistance (RENAMO). For the democracy manipulators of Soros and the CIA, the election news from the Lusophone capitals of Brasilia and Maputo was hardly encouraging.

The «usual suspects,» Goldman Sachs, Bloomberg, and The New York Times, all wailed in anger over Rousseff’s decisive win over Neves. The neo-conservative Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal lamented that Brazil had opted to stick with «statism,» which for the Wall Street vulture capitalists who worship the Journal as if it were a Talmudic scroll, is a blasphemy.

Neves was advised on economic policy during the campaign by Arminio Fraga Neto, a former executive for Soros’s Quantum hedge fund and on foreign policy by Rubens Barbosa, the senior director in the Sao Paulo office for former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s Albright Stonebridge Group (ASG).

The reaction of Wall Street and London to immediately devalue Brazil’s currency after Rousseff’s victory indicates the strategy of the global capitalists in dealing with Brazil. Undoubtedly, Brazil is to be subjected to the same type of economic warfare that has been meted out to Venezuela since the re-election victory last year of Venezuelan Socialist President Nicolas Maduro. Venezuela has been pressured by artificially-created shortages of basic commodities and foreign transaction problems as a result of Wall Street’s – and the CIA’s — sabotage of the Venezuelan economy.

The CIA’s and Soros’s heavy interest in defeating Rousseff was aimed at derailing the emerging BRICS economic alliance of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa that threatens to weaken the domination that global bankers and their inherently corrupt World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) contrivances wield over the world economy. The bankers and their CIA centurions believed that with Neves or Marina Silva, a Green Party operative groomed by Soros, in charge, Brazil would withdraw from BRICS and re-enter the global banker community with Brazilian state assets such as the Petrobras oil company being sold off in a «fire sale». Soros and his CIA friends failed to understand that Brazil’s poor owe their relative new social standing to the state-led economic policies of Rousseff and before her, those of Workers’ Party icon Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

With Rousseff now re-elected, the BRICS will continue to develop the New Development Bank (NDB) and its $100 billion currency reserve arrangement (CRA), or currency basket, that member countries can loans draw from, thus weaning themselves away from the Western political controls of the World Bank and IMF. Rousseff’s re-election will also permit BRICS, which faced losing Brazil as a member had Rousseff lost the election, to expand its membership base.

Argentina, which has faced a concerted economic campaign from New York vulture capitalist, right-winger, and committed Zionist Paul Singer to seize Argentine assets, has expressed a strong interest in joining BRICS. Argentine Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman has stated that Argentine intends to join BRICS and recent trade agreements between Argentina on one hand, and China, Russia, and India, on the other, indicate that Argentine would be welcome in the anti-U.S. «club» of emerging economic powerhouses. Iran, Indonesia, and Egypt have also expressed an interest in joining BRICS. Indonesia’s new president Joko Widodo is a member of the party of former president Megawati Sukarnoputri, the daughter of President Sukarno, ousted by the CIA in a bloody 1965 coup d’état aided and abetted by President Barack Obama’s Indonesian stepfather Lolo Soetoro and his USAID/CIA mother Ann Dunham Soetoro. Indonesia’s Sukarnoist foreign policy makes its alliance with BRICS a natural alignment.

The interventionist forces of the CIA and Soros will now look to obtain a consolation electoral victory in Latin America in order to apply pressure on both Brazil and Argentina. Uruguay’s president José «Pepe» Mujica, a former Marxist Tupamaro guerrilla, is barred from running for re-election and his Broad Front’s standard bearer is his predecessor Tabare Vasquez. Winning 45 percent of the vote in the first round election on October 26, the same day of Brazil’s election, Vasquez is now forced into a run-off with right-wing National Party presidential candidate Luis Lacalle Pou, the son of former Uruguayan conservative president Lacalle Herrera, who placed Uruguay under the economic control of the World Bank and IMF. Just as the CIA banked on Neves, the grandson of Brazil’s former elected president Tancredo Neves, who died from a suspicious ailment just prior to being sworn in as president in 1985, the CIA and Soros are now placing their bets on Pou to defeat Vasquez to be able to brag that Latin America’s progressive base of nations is not permanent. Pedro Bordaberry, the third place finisher in Uruguay, who has now endorsed Pou in the same manner that the Soros-financed Silva endorsed Neves in Brazil after losing the first round, is the son of the brutal CIA-installed Uruguayan dictator Juan Maria Bordaberry, arrested in 2005 for ordering the assassination of two Uruguayan legislators.

Ironically, Vasquez, who like Mujica, favors legalization and government regulation of marijuana sales is facing opposition from his Soros-financed opponent who is against marijuana legalization, citing nebulous and unfounded statistics on a rise in crime under the Broad Front presidencies. Soros is on record as favoring the legalization of marijuana. However, Soros compromises on his stance in countries like Uruguay where his and the CIA’s interests dictate opposition to marijuana legalization.

In Brazil and Uruguay, the CIA- and Soros-backed candidates and their major supporters represent reactionary forces who wish to turn Latin America’s clock back to the days of fascist rule. The Brazilian election threw a spanner in the CIA’s and Soros’s works. The November 30 Uruguayan run-off will provide the deadly duo of the CIA’s John Brennan and George Soros with another opportunity to place a roadblock not only in Latin America’s steady march toward steady progressive rule but also in the plans of the BRICS alliance to expand into a permanent economic and political force to challenge the neo-imperialism of the Washington-London-Brussels-Israeli true «axis of evil».

Fonte: Strategic-Culture

Discurso proferido pela Presidenta da República, Dilma Rousseff, na abertura do Debate de Alto Nível da 69ª Assembleia Geral das Nações Unidas (ONU)

Nota nº 198

Discurso proferido pela Presidenta da República, Dilma Rousseff, na abertura do Debate de Alto Nível da 69ª Assembleia Geral das Nações Unidas (ONU) – Nova York, 24 de setembro de 2014

24/09/2014 –
(English version below)
Embaixador Sam Kutesa, Presidente da 69ª Assembleia Geral das Nações Unidas,

Senhor Ban Ki-moon, Secretário-Geral das Nações Unidas,

Excelentíssimos Senhores e Senhoras Chefes de Estado e de Governo,

Senhoras e Senhores,

Para o Brasil – que tem a honra e o privilégio de abrir este debate – é grande a satisfação de ver na Presidência desta Sessão da Assembleia Geral um filho da África. Os brasileiros, somos ligados por laços históricos, culturais e de amizade ao continente africano, cuja contribuição foi e é decisiva para a construção da identidade nacional de meu país.

Senhor Presidente,

Abro este Debate Geral às vésperas de eleições, que vão escolher, no Brasil, o Presidente da República, os Governos estaduais e grande parte de nosso Poder Legislativo. Essas eleições são a celebração de uma democracia que conquistamos há quase trinta anos, depois de duas décadas de governos ditatoriais. Com ela, muito avançamos também na estabilização econômica do país.

Nos últimos doze anos, em particular, acrescentamos a essas conquistas a construção de uma sociedade inclusiva baseada na igualdade de oportunidades.

A grande transformação em que estamos empenhados produziu uma economia moderna e uma sociedade mais igualitária. Exigiu, ao mesmo tempo, forte participação popular, respeito aos Direitos Humanos e uma visão sustentável de nosso desenvolvimento.

Exigiu, finalmente, uma ação na cena global marcada pelo multilateralismo, pelo respeito ao Direito Internacional, pela busca da paz e pela prática da solidariedade.

Senhor Presidente,

Há poucos dias, a FAO informou que o Brasil saiu do mapa da fome.

Essa mudança foi resultado de uma política econômica que criou 21 milhões de empregos, valorizou o salário básico, aumentando em 71% seu poder de compra nos últimos 12 anos. Com isso, reduzimos a desigualdade.

Trinta e seis milhões de brasileiros deixaram a miséria desde 2003; 22 milhões somente no meu governo. Para esse resultado contribuíram também políticas sociais e de transferência de renda reunidas no Plano Brasil Sem Miséria.

Na área da saúde, logramos atingir a meta de redução da mortalidade infantil, antes do prazo estabelecido pelas Metas do Milênio.

Universalizamos o acesso ao ensino fundamental. Perseguimos o mesmo objetivo no ensino médio. Estamos empenhados em aumentar sua qualidade, melhorando os currículos e valorizando o professor.

O ensino técnico avançou com a criação de centenas de novas escolas e a formação e qualificação técnico-profissional de 8 milhões de jovens, nos últimos 4 anos.

Houve uma expansão sem precedentes da educação superior: novas Universidades Públicas e mais de 3 milhões de alunos contemplados com bolsas e financiamentos que garantem o acesso a universidades privadas.

Ações afirmativas permitiram o ingresso massivo de estudantes pobres, negros e indígenas na nossa Universidade.

Finalmente, os desafios de construção de uma sociedade do conhecimento ensejaram a criação de um programa, o Ciência sem Fronteiras, pelo qual mais de 100 mil estudantes de pós-graduação e de graduação são enviados às melhores universidades do mundo.

Por iniciativa presidencial, o Congresso Nacional aprovou lei que destina 75% dos royalties e 50% do fundo de recursos do petróleo e do pré-sal para a educação e 25% para a saúde.

Vamos transformar recursos finitos, não renováveis – como o petróleo e o gás – em algo perene: a educação, conhecimento científico , tecnológico e inovação. Esse será o nosso passaporte para o futuro.

Senhor Presidente,

Não descuramos da solidez fiscal e da estabilidade monetária e protegemos o Brasil frente à volatilidade externa.

Assim, soubemos dar respostas à grande crise econômica mundial, deflagrada em 2008. Crise do sistema financeiro internacional, iniciada após a quebra do Lehman Brothers e, em seguida, transformada em muitos países em crise de dívidas soberanas.

Resistimos às suas piores consequências: o desemprego, a redução de salários, a perda de direitos sociais e a paralisia do investimento.

Continuamos a distribuir renda, estimulando o crescimento e o emprego, mantendo investimentos em infraestrutura.

O Brasil saltou da 13ª posição para a 7ª maior economia do mundo e a renda per capita mais que triplicou. A desigualdade caiu.

Se em 2002, mais da metade dos brasileiros era pobre ou muito pobre, hoje 3 em cada 4 brasileiros integram a classe média e os extratos superiores.

No período da crise, enquanto o mundo desempregava centena de milhões de trabalhadores, o Brasil gerou 12 milhões de empregos formais.

Além disso, nos consolidamos como um dos principais destinos de investimentos externos.

Retomamos o investimento em infraestrutura numa forte parceria com o setor privado.

Todos esses ganhos estão ocorrendo em ambiente de solidez fiscal. Reduzimos a dívida líquida de aproximadamente 60% para 35% do Produto Interno Bruto.

A dívida externa bruta em relação ao PIB caiu de 42% para 14%.

As reservas internacionais foram multiplicadas por 10 e assim, nos tornamos credores internacionais.

A taxa de inflação anual também tem se situado nos limites da banda de variação mínima e máxima fixada pelo sistema de metas em vigor no Brasil.

Senhor Presidente,

Ainda que tenhamos conseguido resistir às consequências mais danosas da crise global, ela também nos atingiu, de forma mais aguda, nos últimos anos.

Tal fato decorre da persistência, em todas as regiões do mundo, de consideráveis dificuldades econômicas, que impactam negativamente nosso crescimento.

Reitero o que disse, no ano passado na abertura do Debate Geral. É indispensável e urgente retomar o dinamismo da economia global. Ela deve funcionar como instrumento de indução do crescimento, do comércio internacional e da diminuição das desigualdades entre países, e não como fator de redução do ritmo de crescimento econômico e de distribuição da renda social.

No que se refere ao comércio internacional, impõe-se um compromisso de todos com um programa de trabalho para a conclusão da Rodada de Doha.

É imperioso também, Senhor Presidente, pôr fim ao descompasso entre a crescente importância dos países em desenvolvimento na economia mundial e sua insuficiente participação nos processos decisórios das instituições financeiras internacionais, como o Fundo Monetário e o Banco Mundial. É inaceitável a demora na ampliação do poder de voto dos países em desenvolvimento nessas instituições. O risco que estas instituições correm é perder sua legitimidade e sua eficiência.

Senhor Presidente,

Com grande satisfação o Brasil abrigou a VI Cúpula dos países Brics. Recebemos os líderes da China, da India, da Rússia e da África do Sul num encontro fraterno, proveitoso que aponta para importantes perspectivas para o futuro.

Assinamos acordos de constituição do Novo Banco de Desenvolvimento e do Arranjo Contingente de Reservas.

O Banco atenderá às necessidades de financiamento de infraestrutura dos países Brics e dos países em desenvolvimento.
O Arranjo Contingente de Reservas protegerá os países dos Brics de volatilidades financeiras.

Cada instrumento terá um aporte de US$ 100 bilhões.

Senhor Presidente,

A atual geração de líderes mundiais – a nossa geração – tem sido chamada a enfrentar também importantes desafios vinculados aos temas da paz, da segurança coletiva e do meio ambiente e não temos sido capazes de resolver velhos contenciosos nem de impedir novas ameaças.

O uso da força é incapaz de eliminar as causas profundas dos conflitos. Isso está claro na persistência da Questão Palestina; no massacre sistemático do povo sírio; na trágica desestruturação nacional do Iraque; na grave insegurança na Líbia; nos conflitos no Sahel e nos embates na Ucrânia. A cada intervenção militar não caminhamos para a Paz mas, sim, assistimos ao acirramento desses conflitos.

Verifica-se uma trágica multiplicação do número de vítimas civis e de dramas humanitários. Não podemos aceitar que essas manifestações de barbárie recrudesçam, ferindo nossos valores éticos, morais e civilizatórios.

Tampouco podemos ficar indiferentes ao alastramento do vírus ebola no oeste da África. Nesse sentido, apoiamos a proposta do Secretário-Geral de estabelecer a Missão das Nações Unidas de Resposta Emergencial ao ebola. O Brasil será inteiramente solidário a isso.

Senhor Presidente,

O Conselho de Segurança tem encontrado dificuldade em promover a solução pacífica desses conflitos. Para vencer esses impasses será necessária uma verdadeira reforma do Conselho de Segurança, processo que se arrasta há muito tempo.

Os 70 anos das Nações Unidas, em 2015, devem ser a ocasião propícia para o avanço que a situação requer. Estou certa de que todos entendemos os graves riscos da paralisia e da inação do Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas.

Um Conselho mais representativo e mais legítimo poderá ser também mais eficaz. Gostaria de reiterar que não podemos permanecer indiferentes à crise israelo-palestina, sobretudo depois dos dramáticos acontecimentos na Faixa de Gaza. Condenamos o uso desproporcional da força, vitimando fortemente a população civil, mulheres e crianças.

Esse conflito deve ser solucionado e não precariamente administrado, como vem sendo. Negociações efetivas entre as partes têm de conduzir à solução de dois Estados – Palestina e Israel – vivendo lado a lado e em segurança, dentro de fronteiras internacionalmente reconhecidas.

Em meio a tantas situações de conflito, a América Latina e o Caribe buscam enfrentar o principal problema que nos marcou, por séculos – a desigualdade social. Fortalecem-se as raízes democráticas e firma-se a busca de um crescimento econômico mais justo, inclusivo e sustentável. Avançam os esforços de integração, por meio do Mercosul, da UNASUL e da CELAC.

Senhor Presidente,

A mudança do clima é um dos grandes desafios da atualidade. Necessitamos, para vencê-la, sentido de urgência, coragem política e o entendimento de que cada um deverá contribuir segundo os princípios da equidade e das responsabilidades comuns, porém diferenciadas.

A Cúpula do Clima, convocada em boa hora pelo Secretário-Geral, fortalece as negociações no âmbito da Convenção-Quadro.

O Governo brasileiro se empenhará para que o resultado das negociações leve a um novo acordo equilibrado, justo e eficaz. O Brasil tem feito a sua parte para enfrentar a mudança do clima.

Comprometemo-nos, na Conferência de Copenhague, em 2009, com uma redução voluntária das nossas emissões em 36% a 39%, na projeção até 2020. Entre 2010 e 2013, deixamos de lançar na atmosfera, a cada ano, em média, 650 milhões de toneladas de dióxido de carbono por ano. Alcançamos em todos esses anos as quatro menores taxas de desmatamento da nossa história. Nos últimos 10 anos, reduzimos o desmatamento em 79%, sem renunciar ao desenvolvimento econômico, nem à inclusão social.

Mostramos que é possível crescer, incluir, conservar e proteger. Uma conquista como essa resulta do empenho – firme e contínuo – do governo, da sociedade e de agentes públicos e agentes privados. Esperamos que os países desenvolvidos – que têm a obrigação não só legal, mas também política e moral de liderar pelo exemplo, demonstrem de modo inequívoco e concreto seu compromisso de combater esse mal que aflige a todos nós.

Na Rio+20, tivemos a grande satisfação de definir uma nova agenda, baseada em Objetivos de Desenvolvimento Sustentável, aplicáveis tanto a países desenvolvidos quanto aos em desenvolvimento.

Será crucial definirmos meios de implementação que correspondam à magnitude das dificuldades que nós nos comprometemos a superar. Precisamos ser ambiciosos em matéria de financiamento, cooperação, construção de capacidades nacionais e transferência de tecnologias, sobretudo em favor dos países menos desenvolvidos.

Destaco, nesse contexto, a necessidade de estabelecer um mecanismo para o desenvolvimento, transferência e disseminação de tecnologias limpas, ambientalmente sustentáveis.

Senhor Presidente,

Ao lado do desenvolvimento sustentável e da paz, a ordem internacional que buscamos construir funda-se em valores. Entre eles, destacam-se o combate a todo o tipo de discriminação e exclusão.

Temos um compromisso claro com a valorização da mulher no mundo do trabalho, nas profissões liberais, no empreendedorismo, na atividade política, no acesso à educação entre tantos outros. O meu governo combate incansavelmente a violência contra a mulher em todas suas formas. Consideramos o século 21, o século das mulheres.

Da mesma maneira, a promoção da igualdade racial é o resgate no Brasil dos séculos de escravidão a que foram submetidos os afro-brasileiros, hoje mais da metade de nossa população.

Devemos a eles um inestimável legado permanente de riquezas e valores culturais, religiosos e humanos. Para nós, a miscigenação é um fator de orgulho.

O racismo, mais que um crime inafiançável é uma mancha que não hesitamos em combater, punir e erradicar. O mesmo empenho que temos em combater a violência contra as mulheres e os negros, os afrobrasileiros, temos também contra a homofobia. A Suprema Corte do meu país reconheceu a união estável entre pessoas do mesmo sexo, assegurando-lhes todos os direitos civis, daí decorrentes.

Acreditamos firmemente na dignidade de todo ser humano e na universalidade de seus direitos fundamentais. Estes devem ser protegidos de toda seletividade e de toda politização tanto no plano interno como no plano internacional.

Outro valor fundamental é o respeito à coisa pública e o combate sem tréguas à corrupção.

A história mostra que só existe uma maneira correta e eficiente de combater a corrupção: o fim da impunidade com o fortalecimento das instituições que fiscalizam, investigam e punem atos de corrupção, lavagem de dinheiro e outros crimes financeiros.

Essa é uma responsabilidade de cada governo. Responsabilidade que assumimos, ao fortalecer nossas instituições.

Construímos o Portal Governamental da Transparência que assegura, ao cidadão, acessar os gastos governamentais em 24 horas.

Aprovamos a Lei de Acesso à Informação que permite ao cidadão, o acesso a qualquer informação do governo, exceto aquelas relativas à soberania do país.

Fortalecemos e demos autonomia aos órgãos que investigam e também ao que faz o controle interno do governo.

Criamos leis que punem tanto o corrupto, como o corruptor. O fortalecimento de tais instituições é essencial para o aprimoramento de uma governança aberta e democrática.

A recente reeleição do Brasil para o Comitê Executivo da “Parceria para o Governo Aberto” vai nos permitir contribuir também para governos mais transparentes no plano mundial.

Senhor Presidente,

É indispensável tomar medidas que protejam eficazmente os direitos humanos tanto no mundo real como no mundo virtual, como preconiza a resolução desta Assembleia sobre a privacidade na era digital.

O Brasil e a Alemanha provocaram essa importante discussão em 2013 e queremos aprofundá-la nesta Sessão. Servirá de base para a avaliação do tema o relatório elaborado pela Alta Comissária de Direitos Humanos. Em setembro de 2013, propus aqui, no debate geral, a criação de um marco civil para a governança e o uso da Internet com base nos princípios da liberdade de expressão, da privacidade, da neutralidade da rede e da diversidade cultural.

Noto, com satisfação, que a comunidade internacional tem se mobilizado, desde então, para aprimorar a atual arquitetura de governança da internet. Passo importante nesse processo foi a realização, por iniciativa do Brasil, da Reunião Multissetorial Global sobre o Futuro da Governança da Internet – a NETmundial – em São Paulo, em abril deste ano.

O evento reuniu representantes de várias regiões do mundo e de diversos setores. Foram discutidos os princípios a seguir e as ações a empreender para garantir que a internet continue a evoluir de forma aberta, democrática, livre, multissetorial e multilateral.

Senhor Presidente,

Os Estados-membros e as Nações Unidas têm, hoje, diante de si, desafios de grande magnitude. Estas devem ser as prioridades desta Sessão da Assembleia Geral. O ano de 2015 desponta como um verdadeiro ponto de inflexão.

Estou certa de que não nos furtaremos a cumprir, com coragem, com lucidez, nossas altas responsabilidades na construção de uma ordem internacional alicerçada na promoção da Paz, no desenvolvimento sustentável, na redução da pobreza e da desigualdade.

O Brasil está pronto e plenamente determinado a dar sua contribuição.
Muito obrigada.

Fonte: Ministério das Relações Exteriores

Entrevista coletiva da Presidenta Dilma Rousseff após sessão plenária da VI Cúpula do BRICS

Discurso da presidenta Dilma Rousseff na Cúpula dos Brics em Fortaleza

Presidenta Dilma avalia a criação do fundo de reservas e do banco de desenvolvimento do BRICS

Publicado em 16/07/2014

ATIVIDADES DA PRESIDENTA – 16.07.14: No segundo dia de reuniões da 6ª Cúpula do BRICS, a presidenta Dilma Rousseff se reúne com os demais chefes de Estado e de Governo do BRICS e com 11 presidentes da América do Sul. Em entrevista, Dilma Rousseff avaliou positivamente a criação do Banco de Desenvolvimento do BRICS e do Arranjo Contingente de Reservas, um fundo de reserva com valor inicial de US$ 100 bilhões que poderá socorrer países do grupo em caso de dificuldades financeiras. Na ocasião, a presidenta afirmou que o banco terá uma governança compartilhada e que os empréstimos serão avaliados com generosidade. Dilma ainda comentou a relação do Brasil com o Fundo Monetário Internacional (FMI) e os esforços feitos para a realização da Copa 2014.