The Arabs and the End of History

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, Francis Fukuyama told us that the history was ending. A unique political and economic system would be imposed worldwide: the capitalist liberal democracy. The fall of Marxism, the democratization of Latin America and Eastern Europe, and the growing liberalization of China show him as being right. The particularities of large third world areas, particularly in Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia seemed to be just places where sooner or later these ideas will be implemented.

Al Qaeda's attack took a heavy blow to the international perception of this theory. Anti-democratic forces could carry out an attack to the economic and military center of the only superpower. History still has many lines to be written.

The conflict between the Arab world and the West has a long history. From the fall of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War, Middle East was part of the booty to be distributed among the various powers of turn. Its political disintegration facilitated foreign powers to support governments suitable for their own interest. The creation of the State of Israel was the culmination of this intervention, depriving a whole nation from the birthplace of their parents.

The Arab reaction was often violent. Wars and terrorism culminated the separation of the West from the Arab world. Its rulers were perceived as tyrannical and corrupt, and its people as backward and barbaric. The terrorist attacks in the '72 Olympics, the aircraft hijackings and bombings in the next decade did not more to reinforce this image. The attacks on the Twin Towers were the final corollary of this confrontation of cultures. This vision was strongly supported by the media. There was no action movie, the 70s onwards, where the antagonist was not a cruel and sadistic Arabic. It isn’t a myth that media control by the Jewish community did much to reinforce this image, beyond the fact that the birth of the state of Israel was originated in terrorist acts as much or even crueler as those committed by Arabs. However, the media managed to put Israel in proximity to the values ​​of West, as opposed to "others", in this case, the Arab world. 

Many Protestant fundamentalist see the creation of the State of Israel as the fulfillment of biblical promises, providing religious support to an alliance between American conservatives and Zionism.

 
In this context, the turmoil in the Arab world produced, at least, perplexity in the Western world. Change movements in Tunisia and Egypt were led by young people who use Internet to communicate. There are no clear visible leaderships, but they are social movements in the purest sense of the word. Groups of incumbent opponents, like the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, are observers or, at best, partakers of events on which they don’t have any leadership. 

The initial pro-establishment Tunisian French support, the fears expressed by the Israeli government about the possibility of a change of the government in Egypt, and the doubts of the entire international community to support Kaddafi’s opponents in Libya are examples of how difficult has been to the Western world to forget the archetypes and prejudices it has built on the Arab people. 

The events are far from being consolidated. In Egypt, military have not yet delivered the power to a democratically elected Government. The Civil War in Libya was close to see the fall of opponents, prevented only by the effective intervention of the international coalition. The opposition in the wealthy Gulf countries and Syria are suffering strong repression by their governments, while the royal Saudi house buys the loyalty of his people with packages of billionaire subsidies. Yemen seems to follow the Egyptian model. We are in one of those rare moments when, as occurred in Latin America in the '80s, autocratic regimes throughout a whole region are falling like dominoes. But we know that in the best case, this leads to a large variety of scenarios. We cannot say that the democratic transition in Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Chile and Mexico have followed similar paths, but certainly in all Latin American countries the political situation has made significant progress over the last quarter-century. 

Sooner or later people will discover in the Arab world, beyond the curiosity in the West about their customs and rites, communities with the same desire for freedom and prosperity that encourage all men. For the Arabs, success of their democracies can do much more for their historical claims than terrorism. The freedom flotilla that tried to take humanitarian aid to Gaza last year was a greater contribution in the struggle to regain usurped land to Palestinians than years of rockets and suicide bombings. The fight will be won in the field of values, when democracy and freedom consolidates in the Arab world, which may end up backing Fukuyama´s theory.

Egyptian Protests and Chilean Transition to Democracy

By the end of 1982 a huge finantial crisis weakened the Chilean economy. Augusto Pinochet was President since 1973, and by the end of that decade the concept of "chilean economic miracle" was widely spread. Indeed the miracle was sustained in foreign debt. When the credit facilities abroad were reduced by an increase in the interest rate in the U.S, at the begining of Reagan's era, all the pieces of the model colapsed. During 1983 the Chilean GDP falled by 13% and unemployment reached close to 30%. 

The world finantial crisis impacted also the political side of the regime. By 1983 the oposition was silenced by almost a decade and political parties were forbidden. At the beggining of that year Copper unions called for the first protest. Soon political opposition joined them. The country realized that it was an opposition and that the regime had a week side. Silent whispers become loud voices, just from one day to the other.

The paralelism with the present situation in Egypt is evident. A President that is running the country for many years and a economic crisis that derived in masive protests. The civil society start the movement, and political parties just came after observing that the it has a real impact.

Indeed, after 1983, Pinochet was allowed to run the country for 6 years more, permiting the democratic transition to develope under the rules designed by his government, that included elections just in 1989. What were the mistakes of the opposition that allowed this to happen?

When the crisis became evident, Pinochet made his first big move. He appointed Segio Onofre Jarpa  as interior minister (political chief of government). He was an old styled polititian, with good relations with opposition. Pinochet allowed Jarpa to start talks with the opposition. This conversations took place mostly during 1983. Oposition was inflexible asking that Pinochet should leave and transition should be accelerated. The government didn't accepted this and continued the chat for as long as it could. At the beggining of 1984 the goverment closed conversations, saying that the transition will be done as originally schedulled, because opposition only aim was to destroy the regime and came back to old practices. Protests continued, but their impact was reduced in time, as economy started to recover (particularlly after 1985) and also as violentist groups started to increase their activity, including an attack with heavy wepons to Pinochet, that failed by just a bit.

The main reason why the opposition was not able to produce a bigger political impact was just because their demands started (and not ended) with the resignation requirement of Pinochet. They lost the opportunity to modify important political laws, like those that rules elections and political parties, because they put at first the resignation demand. In the whole or nothing bet, they lost.

The end of the story in Chile is that the government respected the results of the 1989 elections,as originally designed in the Constitution, and the new democratic government had to run under the laws written by Pinochet, with just a few modifications. They had to accept that Pinochet continued as the Army Chief Comander for other 8 years.

The lesson for Egyptian leaders is evident. The first tasks must be to generate a political system that can sustain democracy in the long run. Mubarack resignation is just an step. Couple of months are not as relevant as the new political design that should be created in order to ensure free elections, multipartidism, representativity and human rights. Ohterwise may be Egypt might be obliged to suffer someting worst than the permanence of Mubarak until september: the persistance of it's regime under just a new face.

A Schizophrenic Approach to China

The Nobel Peace Prize 2010 was awarded to Liu Xiaobo "for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China". Liu is now imprisoned in China for "inciting subversion of state power", and Chinese government has seen this award as a western attack to their regime and way of living.

China adopted some free market institutions as a tool to overpass underdevelopment after the failure of the Cultural Revolution in times of Mao. The adoption of economic reforms was defined as a shortcut to Communism, rather than a recognition of the bankruptcy of the old system. For western people is misleading to believe that China has changed its values by adopting market institutions, as its leaders see them just in a pragmatic way, without the intention of changing the basement of the system. Western democracy is not a goal in the eyes of Chinese rulers.

The violation of human rights has lead many democratic governments to produce sanctions against dictatorships. Indeed this is not valid when the country we are talking about is a world economic leader. We want to make democracy and human rights respect a must, but we are not prompt to lose both the market for our goods in the most populated country of the world, and the financial source to balance the deficit of western economies. Is this wrong? 

China will be the real test for the validity of human rights as absolute values. Its economy is leading the recovery of the world after 2008 recession, and continues growing vigorously. Millions Chinese people are getting into the market economy every year, running out of underdeveloped agricultural structures in the country midlands. The government keeps, indeed, a strong control of the political arena. Open economy is making lots of rich Chinese people and enlarging, year after year, the middle class. Having this people fulfilled their basic needs; they will go for higher aspirations. Within those higher level needs, political rights will be eventually asked for a larger majority. Tiananmen events were just the prologue of what will come in the future. 

Surely this is not the point of view of Communist Party in China. Political control in order to reach communism is a must in its standpoint. Market economy and capitalism are still controlled in many aspects, and the rulers believe that they can change the direction of the vessel just moving the wheel. But as Chinese people get wealthier, underlying forces will make impossible to turn round. This will be the real test for human rights.

In the midterm, democratic countries should take a schizophrenic approach to China. They must allow the time for change to come, accepting the ruling authorities, but they should also demonstrate the importance of human rights as often as they can. Western extreme pressure will not produce changes. On the contrary, Chinese authorities may feel threatened their positions and take backwards steps. But an absence of concern about human rights will lead Chinese democrats alone, allowing for further prosecutions against them. 

Cynicism is an essential part of politics and, with regards to China, must be with us for a long while.

Derechos Humanos en Cuba y la UE

El Canciller español Miguel Angel Moratinos anunció la liberación paulatina de medio centenar de disidentes cubanos, que sufren prisión u otras medidas de restricción desde el año 2003. Esto ocurre después del fallecimiento en el mes de febrero pasado de Orlando Zapata y del deterioro progresivo de salud de Guillermo Fariña, en ambos casos por causa de la huelga de hambre que mantuvieron en protesta por las violaciones a los derechos fundamentales de que son objeto. Junto a anunciar el acuerdo, Moratinos plantea la necesidad de eliminar la "Posición Común" asumida por los miembros de la Unión Europea en relación a Cuba.

La "Posición Común" consiste en una política obligatoria para todos los miembros de la Unión Europea (UE) adoptada en 1996 a partir de una iniciativa del entonces gobierno conservador español de José María Aznar, y adoptada por la unanimidad de los miembros de dicha Unión. La iniciativa manifiesta que el principal objeto de las relaciones de la UE con Cuba es la de favorecer un proceso de transición hacia una democracia pluralista y el respeto de los derechos humanos y libertades fundamentales, al tiempo que valora la apertura económica entonces naciente en la isla, y señala su intención de participar en ella. No contempla medidas o sanciones específicas, mas allá de expresar por distintas vías diplomáticas la necesidad de que exista una adscripción por parte de Cuba a los derechos humanos. Expresa su intención de mantener la cooperación económica y humanitaria con la isla. Es, en todo sentido, una declaración sin medidas coercitivas y que plantea una estrategia cooperativa para obtener cambios graduales en la situación de derechos humanos en Cuba, lo que contrasta con la posición frontal en las sanciones impuestas por Estados Unidos, que son ampliamente conocidas. La Posición Común exige una revisión de la situación de la isla semestralmente.

En 2003, ante el encarcelamiento de 75 opositores y la condena a muerte de 3 cubanos que secuestraron una barco para huir de la isla, la UE implementó sanciones. Ellas decían relación con un incremento de la participación de disidentes en actos en las embajadas en Cuba y una política mas activa en relación a la difusión de la situación de derechos humanos, como asimismo algunas medidas bastante tímidas de restricción de la cooperación cultural y los contactos políticos de alto nivel. Estas medidas fueron suspendidas en 2005 y abandonadas definitivamente en 2008, pese a mantenerse las razones que les dieron origen.

Luego del anuncio de liberación de los presos políticos por parte del Gobierno de Cuba tras negociaciones tripartitas con la Iglesia de Cuba y el canciller españos Miguel Angel Moratinos, éste anunció que consideraba innecesario mantener la Posición Común por parte de la UE. Con la liberación de los presos políticos encarcelados, el ahora socialista gobierno español logró evitar la imposición de sanciones mas drásticas a Cuba, justo en el momento en que corresponde hacer la revisión semestral de sus resultados, y en que aquél Madrid debe dejar la presidencia de la UE. De paso intenta desarmar la Posición Común, sentida como una camisa de fuerza heredada del gobierno de Aznar.

Las simpatías de los gobiernos socialistas con los hermanos Castro parecen hacer olvidar que Cuba es el último régimen totalitario del Hemisferio Occidental. La libertad de 52 presos políticos no impiden señalar que las leyes bajo las cuales fueron encarcelados siguen vigentes. La represión ejercida por el Estado Cubano sigue siendo brutal. Las libertades de asociación e información no constituyen derechos para los ciudadanos. La libertad ambulatoria es un principio por el que aun siguen muriendo quienes intentan salir de la isla. La libertad de educación queda subordinada al adoctrinamiento marxista en las escuelas y la libertad religiosa es también seriamente limitada.

La liberación de los presos de conciencia es una muestra de debilidad del régimen comunista ante el inminente incremento de sanciones por parte de la UE. En este estado de cosas lo que cabe es reforzar la presión internacional para obtener cambios permanentes que den paso a una democracia representativa y en pleno respeto de los derechos humanos. El Canciller Moratinos debe comprender que ni los intereses de las empresas españolas avecindadas en Cuba, ni la animadversión personal por las políticas del anterior gobierno del Partido Popular, pueden ser excusas para avalar la subsistencia del último régimen totalitario en América.

German Soccer team: A lesson on the value of Immigration

When Argentine and German soccer teams entered the field in the quarter-finals of the World Cup held in Southafrica, a group of kids came with them with a flag with the legend "say no to racism". This politically correct phrase was a real value for the German team. About one third of the members of its team were immigrants or sons of immigrants. You can see in among them Turkish, Spanish, Brazilian, and Polish names.

Despite this crisol of races, the team played the same way as all previous selections from that country: Tactical discipline, speed and force were actual values for this selection, the same way it was for previous ones, as those who won the World Cup in Germany in 1974 and in Italy in 1990. But something changed this time. These values were complemented with spots of the technical virtuosism that usually came from Southamerican teams. Beautiful combinations and improbable passes among its forwarders were a refreshing breeze in a World Cup that was dominated by conservative teams.

It is impossible not to link these two realities. We are in front of a real German team, with the enrichments of new sport values given by newcomers to their country. Germany is still Germany, but a better one. This is a prosaic example of what immigrants can do for their host countries. Historic cases can be found by hundreds.

In the south of Chile the immigration of German and Swiss families in the mid XIX century lead to a huge development of the industry in the area that soon became an example for the rest of the country. At the end of the same century and at the beginning of the following one, the Arab immigration helped the development of the textile industry and trade. At the same time in Brazil, German, Italian, Arab and Japanese immigration created in the south of the country a strong industrial pole. The United States was formed by immigrants coming first from the Netherlands and England, and afterwards from Italy, Ireland, China, Latin-America and, of course, from Africa.

Examples on the opposite side also exist. At the end of the XV century Spain was unified under the kings Fernando and Isabel. They defeated the last Arab positions in the country. Spain became shortly the most powerful country in Europe because of the wealth found in America. Indeed, Isabel ordered that all Islamic and Jewish people should abandon the country. Loosening these people probed to be a mistake. Spanish power diminished as Jewish and Arab took with them trade and industrial capabilities that weren't fulfilled for the next 400 years.

Mario Gomez Garcia is a German player. His father probably never realized when he lived in Granada that one of his sons will play for the German team. Indeed he is a 100% German player, and Germany is taking full advantage of his capabilities. Immigration is a benefit for the recipient country. It is fair to regulate it, but you can't and you shouldn't stop it.

El Reconocimiento de Honduras

El golpe de estado de Honduras de 2009 puso término al gobierno de Manuel Zelaya, que buscaba perpetuarse en el poder a través de una reelección prohibida por la constitución de su país. El golpe puso en el poder a Roberto Micheletti.

El nuevo gobierno concitó la unánime desaprobación de la comunidad internacional. La OEA rechazó el golpe de Estado y trató infructuosamente de reestablecer en el poder a Zelaya. Se abrieron instancias de diálogo indirectas, conducidas por Oscar Arias, que fracasaron. Ante la imposibilidad de obtener frutos del diálogo, el Gobierno de Micheletti sigue con su cronograma original y convoca a elecciones, que gana el candidato oficialista Porfirio Lobo el 30 de noviembre de 2009.

Las elecciones fueron validadas por observadores internacionales, pese a cuestionarse su legitimidad de origen por algunos países. Muy pronto la comunidad internacional, incluyendo Estados Unidos, Europa y casi todos los países centroamericanos, reconocieron al gobierno de Lobo. Sin embargo, los países del ALBA, encabezado por Venezuela, mantienen el rechazo. Esta posición es seguida por casi todos los países sudamericanos, incluido Chile. La OEA no ha readmitido a Honduras en su asamblea, cuya participación suspendió al asumir Micheletti.

El reconocimiento de un gobierno, según la doctrina, debe darse cuando este ejerce efectivamente su autoridad en su territorio, y cuando además este declara que cumplirá sus obligaciones internacionales. Ambas situaciones se dan en el caso hondureño. En adición, su gobierno ha sido legitimado por elecciones claramente democráticas. ¿Cuál es la razón para seguir desconociendo su gobierno?

Los trascendidos señalan que Sudamérica ha condicionado el reconocimiento del gobierno hondureño al levantamiento de los cargos criminales y órdenes de captura que pesan sobre Zelaya. Nos parece ilegítimo que la comunidad sudamericana esté capturada por la situación personal del ex-presidente. La vigilancia de la vigencia de los derechos fundamentales en Honduras puede ser garantizada por la comunidad internacional a través de la Corte Interamericana, a la que podrá recurrir Zelaya si los siente vulnerados. La presión realizada por Sudamérica no sólo resulta inútil, sinó que también contraproducente, al mantener alejada a Honduras de la comunidad interamericana, y también ilegítima, a oponer asuntos internos de carácter judicial a la legalidad internacional.

Sin duda que el alineamiento político en Sudamérica se encuentra en el fondo de este asunto. Los compromisos de los países del ALBA con Zelaya son conocidos, a los que se ha sumado el importante apoyo de Brasil, que busca tener un rol internacional relevante. Sin embargo, Chile no tiene nada que ganar con esta posición, excepto algo de buena voluntad de algunos de nuestros vecinos, que dudosamente se concretará en hechos concretos. El mantenerse en esta posición sólo consigue mantener el predominio del dudosamente democrático gobierno Venezolano en Sudamérica, en perjuicio de una nación pequeña y pobre, pero cuyo gobierno exhibe credenciales democráticas claras.

Nuestro gobierno no debe tardar en reconocer al gobierno de Lobo. Es lo que el Derecho manda y lo que la prudencia política recomienda.

Immigration: A new Issue?

The immigration law in Arizona has raised an intense debate about how to deal with this situation as is seen related to crime, unemployment and drugs. Indeed, immigration is as old as humankind. The rise and fall of many civilizations are associated to this phenomenon.

The most well known historic effect of immigration has been documented in the fall of the Roman Empire. Barbarians push into the northern frontiers of the empire looking for better places to live in. Indeed, the common idea of Romans fighting in the frontier against barbarians is false. When the Roman Empire started growing through the Mediterranean it gave the nationality to many of the people living in the conquered countries. First all Italy got the Roman filiation, and afterwards most of the citizens of the Empire. Romans themselves adopted much of the values of Greek and Egyptian cultures. While getting into other countries, they expanded these values to those places: language, law, architecture, etc.

Sharing the Roman Nationality with conquered countries was not a philanthropic attitude. They needed an alliance with other people in order to keep their power. Spreading the Roman Civilization through the Mediterranean was a way to consolidate its superiority.

Indeed, the strategy had a limit. The first German tribes arriving to the borders of the Empire were used as a shelter to protect Roman territories from other non Romanized tribes. These allied were granted with lands within the Empire and adopted the Roman Civilization. But the process continued, and new tribes arrived, everyday fiercer. Once shared its culture with almost all the Mediterranean, the value of Rome itself was diminished, and that ended with its political fall, but not of its culture.

Could have Rome survived longer if it would have kept the nationality for just Romans? Surely not. Its alliances politicies allow them to get superiority over all the Mediterranean and further, just coming from a small country village. A confrontation and isolation strategy would have never allowed them to acquire the empire on the size it got.

After World War II, the USA raised as the dominant country in the world. It shared this position with the URSS until late ‘80s. Indeed, American history is filled up with immigration waves that increased the power of the Country. The first colonies were founded by protestant immigrants. Soon African slaves were forced to get in. After the independence waves of Irish, Chinese, Italians, European Jewish, Latin-Americans, and many others came in. All made an specific contribution to the wellfare and power of the country.

In the last years it has been highly documented the impact of immigrants in the Armed Forces fighting in the Middle East. The participation of immigrants in low quality jobs is highly known. 10 years ago I visit a meat processing plant in Iowa. I was surprised as almost all workers, except for senior management, were Latin-Americans. Very few of them speak English (and very few of senior Management speak Spanish). Indeed, highly qualified immigration workers are also part of the story. American Universities retain third world professors in their classrooms; American firms hire highly qualified professionals.

Is it possible to keep highly qualified people and exclude the low level ones? America can choose to become a fortress. American sons can fill the places in the Army. They can also choose to have a more expensive way of leaving paying higher for low quality jobs, as to be of interest for Americans. May be it is feasible, but probably this will cause the final end to the American superiority in the world.

When Rome faced the last years of its superiority, it excluded from the ruling elites some German origin generals because politicians didn’t trust them. Probably this was the final reason for the fall. The only way that the prevalence of American culture continues is that it shares it and spread it through the world.

ISRAEL ATTACKS, AMERICA PAYS THE BILL

Israel has attacked a Turkish fleet with humanitarian help in its way to Gaza. Together with the goods, this fleet intended to make a pacific resistance to the blocking imposed by Israel to the Palestinian territories. In doing that, Israel has challenged many objectives of the American foreign policies:

1. Turkey is a NATO member, and a very strategic one. It has helped significantly American interests in the Gulf war, and is one of the eastern territories composing that Treaty.

2. The convoy was unarmed, and was showing a pacific resistance to Israel blocking. By attacking the fleet Israel reinforces the power of extremist within the Palestinian cause.

3. The attack itself was done in international seas, with no prior provocation. This action may justify attacks to ships of any nationality in open seas. This is very questionable as may be compared to the piracy acts held in Africa in the last few years, and to the last Korean crisis.

4. People in the fleet came from close to 40 different countries, including several US citizens. This put the U.S. in contradiction with its own public opinion and other countries one.

If any other Country would have done such aggression, the international community, and the countries potentially affected, would have reacted fiercely, demanding the immediate restoration of law and the freedom of people imprisoned by Israel. Indeed, the reaction was mild. Traditionally, the U.S. has supported Israel, blocking the demands of the international community for the restoration of law in its relations with neighbors and Palestinians.

Historical, social and political reasons have determined the U.S. governments to act in defense of Israel:

1. The U.S. was one of the main promoters of the creation of the State of Israel. This situation makes America obligated to secure its viability as an own task.

2. The large Jewish community in the U.S.is a crucial political factor for whatever policy is implemented in the middle-east.

3. The role of Israel during the cold war. Israel was an important ally of American interest during it. An important part of its neighbors were aligned with the URSS, in that period, like Egypt, Iraq and Syria. From this point of view, Israel was seen as a military platform for the U.S. in the area.

4. The role of some fundamentalist churches in America, that see the creation of the state of Israel as the fulfilling of prophesies.

5. The cultural closeness between Israel and the West. After all, Jewish came mostly from Europe and America to Israel, so they manage western codes, dressing way, culture. An American, in this way, seems to have much more in common with them than with Arabs, who have been caricaturized by the media in the last century.

Indeed, the financial and military support given to Israel has many costs to the US. The main aspects we can mention are:

1. The support to Israel grants the U.S. a massive disapproval in the Middle East, which is the main source of the world energy.

2. The pressure that Israeli actions put on important military alleys, like Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

3. The relativization of American democratic values due to the underestimation of the local democracies, like Iran, Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories.

4. The policy of avoiding the proliferation of nuclear weapons is jeopardized under the publicly known situation of Israel as a nuclear power.

5. The huge costs of the direct support to Israel, together with the war costs derived from wars held in the last decades, and their financial consequences.

Some of the reasons why America accepts this are cultural and social, as said above, but a minimum rationale analysis shows that for taxpayers continuous support to Israel has been one of the moist expensive challenges for American policies in the last decades. Moreover, Israel plays the game, gambling with U.S. authorities that may challenge this unconditionality. President Obama suffered this situation in his first visit to Middle East.

But people should notice that the cold war is ended. There is no need to challenge another superpower. Israel is not needed in this aspect. Indeed, America is facing new kind of challenges. In the last decades, the U.S. has fight wars that are very difficult to win. If it wants to prevail, a new strategy of approximation and closeness to the east is needed. America can’t ask Arab and Islamic countries to believe in it, with a background of distance and opposition. A new deal can be made, but America should take the challenge of winning the heart of the east if it wants to succeed. It is in the benefit of its own taxpayers.