Este é um espaço fundamentalmente dedicado a indexar notícias relacionadas a política na América Latina e Caribe. Para o debate de questões relativas a Ciência Política e a Política Internacional e para promoção de uma cultura integracionista latino-americana. Um meio também de divulgação da pesquisa e produção acadêmica do autor deste blog.
sexta-feira, 10 de outubro de 2014
terça-feira, 7 de outubro de 2014
Política externa: o que está em jogo na eleição?
Enquanto o programa do PT prevê um Brasil altivo, PSB e PSDB querem o País gravitando ao redor dos Estados Unidos. Por Sebastião Velasco
As cartas estão na mesa. Mais do que em 2010, mais do que em 2006 – e provavelmente bem mais do que em qualquer outra depois do longo recesso do pós-1964 – as diferenças programáticas no tema da política externa estão muito claras na campanha presidencial deste ano.
A posição da candidatura oficial não reserva surpresas: com as adaptações necessárias para ajustar-se aos dados sempre cambiantes da conjuntura internacional, com esta ou aquela correção de rumo, o programa de Dilma não se distingue essencialmente daquele que vem pautando, desde o início, as ações de seu governo. O qual, por sua vez, segue pelo caminho aberto oito anos antes pela política de Lula, “ativa e altiva” na fórmula feliz do ministro Celso Amorim.
O que há de novo é o espaço dedicado ao tema da política externa nos pronunciamentos oficiais da oposição, e os pontos de vistas expostos nesses documentos. Deixando de lado artigos de circunstância e entrevistas, são dois os documentos mais importantes: o Programa da coligação “Unidos pelo Brasil” (Marina-Beto Albuquerque), e uma longa entrevista publicada pela revista Política Externa, a que responderam os dois candidatos de oposição (na época, Aécio e Eduardo Campos). As respostas de Dilma foram publicadas posteriormente, em número que acaba de sair.
Chama atenção a grande semelhança entre o programa das duas candidaturas. Elas coincidem em sua retórica – ao se apresentarem como restauradoras da autonomia do Itamaraty, supostamente sacrificada aos interesses e aos preconceitos ideológicos do partido dominante. Convergem na defesa da adesão brasileira aos grandes acordos comerciais ora em negociação sob patrocínio dos Estados Unidos com países latino-americanos e asiáticos (a Parceria Comercial Trans-pacífica), com a União Europeia (o Acordo Transatlântico de Comércio e Investimento), e com ambos: o Acordo sobre Comércio em Serviços. Fazem coro na crítica ao estado presente do Mercosul, e na proposta de flexibilização de suas regras para dar margem de liberdade maior ao Brasil na condução de sua política de comércio exterior. Estão afinadas também na defesa de uma aproximação maior com os Estados Unidos e de uma postura abertamente crítica face a (alguns) governos apontados como responsáveis por violações de direitos humanos.
No plano mais geral, ambos os programas contemplam a transformação do sistema internacional, no sentido de uma distribuição mais equilibrada de poder, e advogam para a diplomacia brasileira o exercício de um papel construtivo no redesenho de seus mecanismos de governança. Apesar dessas e outras similitudes, há algumas diferenças entre as duas propostas, como veremos logo a seguir.
Mas seguir é preciso? Não seria melhor indicar logo essas diferenças, de resto adjetivas, e deixar aos eleitores – a essa altura bem instruídos – o encargo de escolher entre os programas, de acordo com suas preferências e seu juízo?
Seria assim se os programas políticos fossem translúcidos. Mas não são. Usualmente, eles ocultam, tanto quanto revelam – e quando prestamos atenção a esse jogo de claro escuro vemos que eles informam mais do que os seus autores imaginavam.
Tome-se, por exemplo, o caso da integração regional e a adesão aos acordos comerciais promovidos pelos Estados Unidos. Embora avaliem muito criticamente o Mercosul, ambas as candidaturas falam em reformulá-lo, sob liderança brasileira, para lhe dar maior flexibilidade e, no final das contas, revigorá-lo. Ora, do ponto de vista estritamente comercial, é evidente que a celebração, com economias desenvolvidas, de acordos com cláusula de eliminação de tarifas retira a razão de ser do Mercosul. O leitor está autorizado, portanto, a depreciar os protestos de compromisso com a integração regional. Fazendo eco a anos de propaganda negativa da grande imprensa, a opção preferencial dos dois programas é pelos ricos.
Mas os acordos em questão não se restringem a remover barreiras tarifárias, nem é este o seu maior objetivo. Do contrário, não haveria muito o quê negociar entre a Europa e os Estados Unidos, pois suas tarifas já são muito reduzidas. O que esses acordos pretendem é harmonizar regras para uma gama enorme de temas tradicionalmente objeto de regulamentação pelos Estados nacionais: serviços, investimento estrangeiro, propriedade intelectual, compras governamentais, para citar apenas alguns.
Ao fazer isso, esses acordos não inovam. No final do século passado, vários desses temas passaram a ser disciplinados por regras estabelecidas em negociação multilateral, que desde então vêm sendo aplicadas pela OMC. O meio natural para reformá-las seria também a negociação multilateral no âmbito desta organização. É a inexistência de consenso sobre o que mudar, e sobre própria direção da mudança que leva os Estados Unidos e seus aliados a optarem pelo caminho da negociação secreta entre “iguais”.
É desnecessário insistir no que significa essa escolha do ponto de vista do sistema multilateral de comércio. O argumento para aderir a esses acordos deixa isso muito claro: “não podemos correr o risco de ficar de fora, e sermos obrigados a nos sujeitar depois a normas decididas por outrem”. O suposto é claro: os outros definirão novas regras, independentemente de nossa vontade – e, no caso, o coletivo indicado pelo pronome vai muito além de nós, brasileiros. Se a regra de ouro do regime em vigor é a mudança por consenso (ou, em última instância, pelo voto da maioria), o que prevalece nos referidos acordos é a lógica excludente da oligarquia: os pares decidem; aos demais resta a opção entre aceitar o que foi decidido, ou ficar à margem.
Agora, o que há de tão especial nessas “novas regras”? Seus defensores usam termos sedutores quando se referem a elas. Seriam mais “ambiciosas”, ou mais “avançadas” – quem vai insistir em manter regras “modestas” e “atrasadas”? Mas há um ardil nessa linguagem: esses adjetivos não se aplicam com propriedade às regras, mas aos interesses sociais que as promovem e são por elas beneficiados. Em detrimento de outros interesses, naturalmente, mas sobre isso é melhor não dizer nada.
Os dois programas apresentam tais mudanças como respostas aos imperativos da economia industrial, que se organizaria hoje em cadeias produtivas globais. Nesse contexto, as normas precisariam ser harmonizadas, sob pena de entravar a atividade das firmas. Quando se abre a caixa preta (o que acontece por vezes, quando o segredo que cerca a negociação desses acordos é quebrado por um bisbilhoteiro mal intencionado qualquer), a desconfiança nos assalta. As regras propostas conferem amplas prerrogativas às corporações multinacionais e limitam severamente os graus de liberdade dos poderes públicos. E quando vemos que países participam das negociações desses acordos – nenhum dos BRICS, para início de conversa –, e quem fica fora delas, concluímos com facilidade: o que se pretende é a integração subordinada nessas ditas cadeias – que funcionariam efetivamente como tais, liames aprisionando os anseios de desenvolvimento econômico e social de nosso País.
Até aqui, os dois programas vão de mãos dadas. Mas em alguns momentos eles se separam (não muito, é verdade). Os documentos da chapa encabeçada por Marina são bem mais incisivos na condenação a governos acusados de violar direitos humanos – por coincidência, todos eles na lista negra dos Estados Unidos –, mas não dizem uma palavra sobre as crises humanitárias provocadas pelas intervenções militares da superpotência e seus aliados, ou sobre as violações crônicas que prevalecem em muitos de seus Estados clientes.
E há a denúncia do princípio das “responsabilidades comuns, mas diferenciadas”, que sempre orientou o Brasil nas negociações sobre o clima. Essa noção serviria de escudo para os novos grandes poluidores globais, e o governo a estaria usando para fugir às nossas obrigações como membros solidários da humanidade, ameaçada pelo desastre que ronda o nosso planeta. Imbuído desse espírito generoso, no capítulo dedicado à matéria, o programa de Marina estabelece metas “ambiciosas” para o Brasil em futuro próximo e distante: redução das emissões de CO2 per capita em 70% até 2050. O fato de os Estados Unidos responderem, sozinhos, por cerca de 17 % das emissões globais de carbono, enquanto a contribuição do Brasil não passa de 1,5%, não conta. Somos todos responsáveis, e temos de contribuir igualmente na resolução do problema.
Chegamos, enfim, ao tema da multipolaridade. Como se sabe, o conceito é central na política exterior do Brasil desde o início do governo Lula. Àquela época, o mantra nos estudos em Relações Internacionais era a unipolaridade. No mundo do pós Guerra-Fria haveria apenas uma única hiperpotência, um único pólo. E daí a falar em império global era um passo – que muitos deram celeremente, durante os preparativos da invasão do Iraque, e pouco depois. Como se sabe também, o Brasil se opôs a essa operação militar, pela voz de seu presidente Lula – para grande escândalo dos comentaristas que integram o que poderíamos denominar de “Partido Americano do Brasil”.
Outros tempos, outras palavras. Agora, a fórmula “um mundo multipolar” entrou na moda. Mas entre o significado dela no discurso oficial e no léxico da oposição há uma diferença flagrante. Para o primeiro, ao promover a integração sul-americana o Brasil contribui para a constituição de um pólo a mais no sistema internacional; para o segundo, o sistema tende a assistir à afirmação de outros pólos de poder, mas o Brasil deve continuar gravitando na órbita do mesmo astro de sempre.
*Sebastião Velasco é professor titular da Universidade Estadual de Campinas e membro do Grupo de Reflexão sobre Relações Internacionais (GR-RI)
Fonte: http://www.cartacapital.com.br/blogs/blog-do-grri/politica-externa-o-que-esta-em-jogo-na-eleicao-883.html
Mercedes Sosa Song Proposed as UNASUR Anthem
The song All Voices, immortalized through the voice of Mercedes Sosa, may become the anthem of the Union of South American Nations.
Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa has proposed All Voices by Argentine singer-songwriter Mercedes Sosa as the anthem of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR).
The regional body will move to new headquarters in Quito, Ecuador in December.
Correa believes that the renowned Argentine poem by Armando Tejada and Cesar Isella, entitled Song with all, immortalized through the voice of Sosa, is perfect for the regional organization.
“We propose this Argentine song All Voices as our UNASUR anthem,” Correa said.
The poem has become one of the most emblematic songs in Latin America and was also adopted as the anthem of the All Voices Festival that brought dozens of musicians together for the first time in the capital city of Quito in 1996.
“I take a walk along the Cosmic Belt of the South. I stroll through tangled plants of wind and light. On my walk I feel America’s skin as my skin. In my blood flows a river rushing into my voice,” says the first stanza of the poem.
“Sun of Peru`s highlands, Bolivia’s face, tin and solitude, a green Brazil, my Chile kisses copper and minerals. I climb from the South to the belly of America that gives rise to a shout destined to grow and explode.”
Sosa, who died October 4, 2009, is considered one of the major voices of Latin American music and the most representative of Argentine folk music.
UNASUR was founded in 2008 at the initiative of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and its members are Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Surinam, Colombia, Guyana, Chile, Brazil and Peru.
Fonte: http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Mercedes-Sosa-Song-Proposed-as-UNASUR-Anthem-20141007-0008.html
Uruguay Enhances Intra-MERCOSUR Mobility in EU-like Move
The Uruguayan government has enacted a new immigration law—effective later in October—that will offer expedited 30-business-day processing of permanent residence permits and accompanying work authorization to MERCOSUR nationals. It is expected to issue implementing regulations and specify application requirements within the next several weeks. Residence permit applications, which will be less burdensome, can be filed with the Uruguayan Ministry of Foreign Affairs or at a Uruguayan consulate abroad.
MERCOSUR, which is a Spanish-language acronym for Southern Common Market, is a Latin American trade bloc composed of the member states Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname and Venezuela. Under the new law, those who were born in a member state and carry a valid passport from that country are eligible for the expedited processing.
It is expected that MERCOSUR nationals will be able to apply for permanent residence immediately upon arrival in Uruguay. This is a drastic acceleration compared to the current law, which requires MERCOSUR applicants to reside in Uruguay for two years while holding a MERCOSUR temporary residence permit. Moreover, applicants will no longer need to reapply for travel permits or renew their local identification card (cédula) annually. This beginning of relaxed border controls within the MERCOSUR bloc is reminiscent of a younger European Union, which later gave birth to the Schengen Area.
Also included in the change are the legal or de facto spouse, sibling, parent or grandchild of a Uruguayan citizen born abroad, making it easier for certain immediate relatives to be together in Uruguay.
segunda-feira, 6 de outubro de 2014
ALADI agasaja a Estela de Carlotto designándola Ciudadana Ilustre de América Latina
Este jueves 02 de octubre la Asociación Latinoamericana de Integración (ALADI) realizó una sesión solemne en homenaje a la argentina Estela de Carlotto, Presidenta de Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo, en la que fue designada como "Ciudadana Ilustre de América Latina".
La resolución unánime del Comité de Representantes en homenaje a Carlotto se hizo en reconocimiento a la perseverante tarea en la promoción y el respeto irrestricto de los Derechos Humanos así como a su permanente lucha por la Memoria, Verdad y Justicia, en los casos de violaciones a los derechos humanos que se verificaron durante la última dictadura militar argentina (1976-1983).
La Presidenta del Comité de Representantes, la Embajadora Aida García Naranjo inició la ceremonia apuntando que este homenaje es parte de un “tributo a una mujer, madre y abuela que nos representa en toda Latinoamérica y en el mundo entero”.
Por su parte, el Secretario General de la ALADI, el argentino Carlos "Chacho" Álvarez destacó su "lucha por la Verdad y Justicia" y como sus acciones fueron fundamentales en el “fortalecimiento de la democracia y la paz” nunca buscando “la revancha y la violencia”.
Luego, en su alocución el Canciller uruguayo, Luis Almagro destacó lo significativo de que este reconocimiento se realizara en Uruguay, “es un ejemplo para Uruguay, por las luchas que aún están pendiente, que fue parte de la mentira (…) necesitamos Verdad y Justicia”.
En la ocasión, el actor argentino Juan Leyrado y la exvicecanciller uruguaya, Belela Herrera, leyeron dos cartas escritas por Carlotto a su nieto desaparecido durante la dictadura, cuando cumplió 18 y 33 años, en momentos en que aún no lo conocía. De la misma forma, se hizo lectura de un mensaje del Presidente de Uruguay José Mujica y del escritor Eduardo Galeano, quienes no estuvieron presentes en el Homenaje.
Antes de que Estela de Carlotto hiciera el uso de la palabra, los diferentes Representantes Permanentes ante la ALADI manifestaron sus diferentes mensajes a la homenajeada, entre ellos el Embajador argentino Juan Manuel Abal, quien agradeció el apoyo de los países en aprobar la propuesta argentina.
Posteriormente la Presidenta de Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo expresó su agradecimiento y su deseo de seguir encontrando los centenares de nietos, aun desaparecidos. Resaltó diciendo que “lo hecho fue inspirado por el amor”, también indicó que la organización va a cumplir 37 años y aun así “seguiremos, así usemos bastón (…) aún faltan 400 nietos, sin embargo, continuará el relevo, nuestros nietos y familiares, voy a seguir con más fuerza" y culminó diciendo “nunca más”.
El Presidente del Parlamento del MERCOSUR, Rubén Martínez Huelmo, comento al final de la actividad que este fue un“evento sin antecedentes (…) un aliento a Estela de Carlotto por su larga vida de servicio a los derechos humanos y a la democracia continental."
Agencia Parlasur – ma – pb - as
President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner hugs Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff in a file photo.
Opposition avoids espousing preference but touts possible Pacific Alliance links
Brazilians will be heading to the polls tomorrow, but in Argentina, Kirchnerite politicians have decided — President Dilma Rousseff of the Workers’ Party (PT) should win a second term. They clearly see her as the best bet for bilateral relations and the continuity of the Mercosur trade bloc.
In contrast, the opposition has largely chosen to stay on the sidelines but revealed some of their own preferences regarding trade policy — the Mercosur may be a valuable tool but the Pacific Alliance is worth considering for the future.
In Brazil, Marina Silva (Brazilian Socialist Party, PSB) and Aécio Neves (Brazilian Social Democracy Party, PSDB) are fighting neck-and-neck for the second-place slot to make it into a runoff.
And while very few local politicians expressed outright support for any of the challengers, the sympathy with the Pacific Alliance — a trade bloc formed by Chile, Peru, Colombia and Mexico — can be considered an either/or option to the Mercosur, which establishes that its members cannot establish bilateral trade agreements without the involvement of the other member-states of the bloc.
Trade policy has been one of the discussion topics in the Brazilian election with Silva of the Brazilian Socialist Party (PSB) suggesting that her presidency could reorient Brazil away from the Mercosur and drop import tariffs, in line with the position held by the largest of the Sao Paulo industrialists. In turn, Brazilian Trade Minister Mauro Borges last week said that such a liberalization of trade policy would be a “disaster.”
The debate is hardly minor considering 20 percent of Argentina’s total exports and the biggest proportion of added-value exports are sent to Brazil. Argentina’s imports of Brazilian goods also play a significant support for the small and medium-sized producers that would be faced with increased international competitions if import tariffs are reduced.
‘For Argentina’s sake’
In Buenos Aires, former foreign minister and FpV hopeful Jorge Taiana told the Herald that “on top of the personal sympathies that I have for Dilma, I want her to win for Argentina’s sake. The PT is the government that has best understood the process that Argentina is going through, with whom it has been most possible work together with on integration, despite some of the difficulties.”
Concerning Silva, Taiana said that she has a “very interesting record but I think that lately she has leaned toward more orthodox proposals and she is expressing the interests of sectors that are less oriented toward South America and the Mercosur and vouching for the return to international markets such as the United States.”
The former foreign minister was also careful to note that the structural links and the relative strategic importance that the Brazilian and Argentine economies have for each other would mean that even a Silva victory would not mean that the Mercosur would dissolve, but perhaps a Brazilian foreign policy that would resemble a “open regionalism like in the 1990s.”
A source close to Buenos Aires province Governor Daniel Scioli told this newspaper that he clearly favours a Rousseff re-election. The revelation is hardly surprising considering Scioli has met several times and has a good relationship with the former governor of Rio de Janeiro state, Sérgio Cabral of the Brazilian Democratic Movement Party (PMDB). The PMDB has been a coalition partner of the PT dating back to former Brazilian president Luis Inácio “Lula” da Silva’s government.
Lula has also been a determinant voice in the election homestretch, successfully bolstering Rousseff’s numbers after Silva’s rise to prominence following the sudden death of PSB presidential candidate Eduardo Campos in an accident in mid-August.
Defence Minister Agustín Rossi, another staunch Kirchnerite supporter and FpV presidential hopeful, left no room for doubts as he joined the chorus of support for the incumbent, hailing the importance that Brasilia has given to the Mercosur and the Unasur.
“We would undoubtedly support the continuity of the Dilma administration. Both the eight years of Lula and the four years of Dilma have marked a before and after in the country’s history — not only in terms of economic development, making Brazil a world power, but also tackling inequality,” Rossi told the Herald, while also noting that he felt that the leadership of the FpV favours Rousseff.
Yet it was not just Kirchnerites who expressed support for Rousseff. One of the president’s biggest opponents at the provincial level is also rooting for Dilma.
“I’ve been following Brazil’s political process very closely from the time when I was an ambassador (to Brazil during the Carlos Menem presidency). I would clearly vote for Dilma in order to join Lula’s choice, because of the economic and social changes they brought to Brazil,” Córdoba province Governor José Manuel de la Sota told the Herald from Mexico, where he was taking part in a conference against human trafficking. De la Sota is part of a dissident Peronist camp and is actively trying to build a presidential bid.
Regarding Marina Silva’s call to reform Mercosur, De la Sota was pretty clear.
“I would vote for a government that seeks to strengthen Mercosur, not to distance itself from it. Brazil is an inevitable partner for Argentina: we need to go out together to sell food to the world,” he told the Herald.
Mercosur and the Pacific Alliance
Silva’s campaign manifesto supports further integration with the Pacific Alliance and the idea of a two-speed solution for the Mercosur, whereby Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay would sign an free-trade agreement with the European Union, even if Argentina fails to do so.
Months before Silva took over the PSB candidacy she travelled to Buenos Aires upon the invitation of UNEN Senator Fernando “Pino” Solanas as a vice-presidential candidate. Both candidates have deep environmentalist convictions and a recent column by Solanas in the Perfil newspaper made it clear that he supported her as a candidate in favour of “change” and he predicted that a Silva victory would result in reciprocal support in terms of Argentine politics.
Socialist lawmaker and UNEN presidential hopeful Hermes Binner was also present during Silva’s May visit to Rosario but refused to answer whether he favoured her candidacy, only saying that “whomever wins, the situation with the Mercosur isn’t going to change,” adding that the UNEN coalition is keen on increasing a Latin American integration and strengthening the Mercosur. Binner did not comment when asked by the Herald how a Silva presidency could be counted on to strengthen Mercosur.
For some of the candidates consulted about the significance of a potential Silva victory, the Pacific Alliance appeared without prompting. UNEN presidential hopeful Julio Cobos, hinted that the future of Argentine-Brazilian relations depended on the Mercosur “but without prejudice for an eventual approach toward the Pacific Alliance.”
UNEN Senator Ernesto Sanz would not pick a preference either but he has in the past emphasized the importance the party that he chairs, the Radical Party, has held with establishing a strategic relationship with Brazil.
Ful vio Pompeo, responsible for the international affairs side of Mauricio Macri’s presidential campaign, skirted the question about any sympathies or preferences that the PRO leader may have for the candidates. However, a glimmer of the PRO camp’s position shone through when asked about the relative importance of the Mercosur for Argentina, where he added that there is a need to “relaunch the strategic relationship with Brazil through the Mercosur while also looking for convergence with the Pacific Alliance.”
Another source close to Macri pointed out there is no unanimity within the PRO leadership about the candidates, suggesting the issue was not a priority considering they do not foresee any major changes to Brazilian foreign policy.
Renewal Front leader Sergio Massa was in attendance at a luncheon earlier this week during which Uruguayan presidential candidate Alberto Lacalle Pou of the National Party declared that he would be seeking the end of the prohibition on Mercosur members from establishing bilateral free trade agreements on their own. Massa warmly embraced Lacalle Pou during the luncheon but would not be drawn on the Brazilian elections.
His spokesman Claudio Ambrosini told the Herald that Massa “does not usually speak about foreign policy.” When pressed about the importance of the elections for Argentina and Massa’s, Ambrosini argued that said that Massa would say that it would be best for the “Brazilians make that decision.”
Neves left out
Notably, Neves suffered from lower visibility among some of the Argentine politicians currently preparing their 2015 presidential bids. Going in to this election weekend Neves had been in third place for polling, but in recent days has edged much closer to Silva than in the recent weeks (see page 8).
His role as potential kingmaker in a hypothetical run-off did not crop up in conversations with the candidates but if he manages to sneak past Silva into a head-on battle with Rousseff, the local political leadership will have to figure out what it means not only for bilateral relations but their own presidential bids.
Fonte: http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/171364/kirchnerites-staunchly-back-dilma-reelection
sexta-feira, 3 de outubro de 2014
Lacalle Pou: Mercosur should not operate as Customs union
Big business and two prominent opposition leaders welcomed Uruguay’s presidential hopeful Luis Alberto Lacalle Pou (National/White Party, centre-right NP) to the Alvear Hotel yesterday, an occasion at which the candidate declared that the Mercosur bloc should soften the customs union, an approach that’s been strongly rejected by the current Argentine and Brazilian governments.
“We’ll seek a waiver to end the inhibitions (preventing us from signing) bilateral free trade agreements,” Lacalle Pou said before more than 200 business representatives and figureheads.
“It wouldn’t contradict the Treaty of Asunción, since the impossibility of issuing bilateral agreements was established in a 2002 clause that can be disparaged. There is room to do so according the World Trade Organization,” the Uruguayan candidate told journalists later.
Lacalle Pou was the main speaker at an event hosted by the Inter-American Council of Commerce and Production (CICyP), an association presided over by the head of Corporación América, Eduardo Eurnekian, who was abroad yesterday. Alberto Grimoldi hosted in his stead.
Several well-known business tycoons attended the event, including Adrián Werthein, Carlos Bulgheroni, Banco Macro CEO Jorge Brito — who shared a table with opposition leader Sergio Massa — Industrial Union head Héctor Méndez, Buenos Aires Stock Market leader Adelmo Gabbi and bankers Eduardo Escassany and Guillermo Stanley.
Among the Uruguayans who arrived in BA City with Lacalle Pou was the “future” Economy Minister Azucena Arbeleche and vice-presidential candidate Jorge “Guapo” Larrañaga.
Former president Luis Lacalle Herrera’s son and NP founding leader Luis Alberto Herrera’s great-grandson, Lacalle Pou appears to be a serious threat to the ruling Broad Front (Frente Amplio). With centre-left leaning candidate Tabaré Vázquez, 74, likely to win the first round of the country’s presidential elections on October 25, Lacalle Pou, a 41-year-old centre-right representative who plays the zero-confrontation-non-ideological card, is likely to go head-to-head with the former president.
Even though Lacalle Pou received an effusive hug from Massa and talked warmly to UNEN Senator and presidential candidate Ernesto Sanz, he tried to avoid laying down any markers that would have any impact on Argentine politics. Regarding the plea for military help, made by Tabaré Vázquez to US President George W. Bush at the peak of the conflict over the Botnia pulp mill plant in 2007, the opposition candidate only responded: “We didn’t agree with Vázquez on that point.”
Liberalizing Mercosur
With regard the liberalization of the Mercosur for bilateral agreements, also clamoured for by Brazil’s main opposition candidates, Marina Silva and Aécio Neves, Dilma Rousseff’s government sent a clear message last week, when Trade Minister Mauro Borges considered that opening the country to more foreign trade would be a “disaster for Brazilian industry” and lead to the “mexicanization” of the economy. The same line is held by Argentine government, but an electoral victory for Silva or Neves would mean the end of Mercosur as it is known today.
Lacalle Pou exposed a different stance on the current incarnation of the Mercosur when he criticized the Uruguayan government for having supported sanctions against Paraguay when Fernando Lugo was ousted from the presidency by the so-called “alternative coup d’état.”
“It happened according the Paraguayan Constitution,” stressed the Uruguayan candidate.
For his part, Sergio Massa told the assembled journalists that inflation is his main concern: “As it is said in other countries, it’s inflation, stupid!”
“Many decisions must be taken as a whole (to solve the problem) — it’s not a matter of one measure,” he pointed.
The Renewal Front candidate also played along to the music of “zero-confrontation.”
“I go along the central path, between the government and (BA City mayor and presidential candidate) Mauricio Macri. I am where most of people are,” he declared.
Massa also commented on Argentina’s media law, which he considered “out of date”, “ineffective” and declared had “created to tackle an enemy.”
“We must incorporate the convergence of telephony, cable and internet services,” he said. “The problem is not Clarín. There is a principle in Argentina that laws are approved to take on the enemy, and that is wrong.”
Sebastián Lacunza
Fonte: http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/171201/lacalle-pou-mercosur-should-not-operate-as-customs-union
‘Mercosur’s challenge is to increase growth’
Interview with Dilma Rousseff’s special Foreign Affairs adviser Marco Aurélio García
BRASILIA — While the main opposition candidates look to reduce Brazil’s role in the Mercosur, wit in Dilma Rousseff’s government there is talk of strengthening it by moving from a problematic trade phase to a new large-scale industrial complementation phase.
This is what the president’s special Foreign Affairs Adviser and Brazil’s main representative in the Mercosur and South America Marco Aurélio García told Ámbito Financiero.
To make this possible Rousseff must win re-election, a likely outcome judging by the latest polls but something which cannot yet be taken for granted. The following is the main parts of the interview carried out in the government’s headquarters in the Planallto Palace.
All the government members are confident of a victory and some have even gone as far as to say that that it can be achieved in the first round on Sunday. Are you among those who think that?
I am very cautious because one of the characteristics of this election, unlike previous ones, is a certain level of unpredictability.
The electoral scene on August 12 (before the death of PSB candidate Eduardo Campos, replaced by Marina Silva) was different from the one on August 13 and it kept changing since then. Support for the president is growing so maybe if the election were a week later she would be able to win the first round. I am just going to say that she will win.
Let’s suppose Rousseff wins a second term then. Brazil needs to make changes to revive its economy and there is a lot of pressure on the government to modify its ties with Argentina and Mercosur. It has been criticized for having too much patience with my country’s foreign exchange and trade restrictions. Will it be possible to remain patient?
I don’t think we should talk about “patience” because that word has a somewhat subjective connotation. We have been monitoring the economic situation in Argentina because we too have our own problems. In that sense, I think the Brazilian government’s strategy to address these exogenous factors is the right one, because we cannot follow in the footsteps of European economies where workers’ wages and employment has been sacrificed.
In my view, there will be changes in Brazil’s macroeconomic management, but I think they will be moderate ones. We are not going to make wholesale changes because that would mean wasting twelve years of very significant social progress. There will be a new economic team, which is something that the president has already said, and we must obviously keep a very close eye on the international situation as it is still very unclear. In that sense, it is of great importance to maintain a frank discussion within the Mercosur that takes into account the problems of each country.
What will that restructuring be like?
Nothing like the theories that are being thrown around about a flexible Mercosur, because besides being false, they are innocuous, as I don’t think we can at this moment make any bilateral trade agreement outside the Mercosur. Unless, of course, we give up a lot of our sovereign prerogatives, which neither Argentina, Brazil nor other countries are able to do. Regarding the negotiations with the European Union, the bloc already has a proposal.
Part of the Brazilian business sector and political opposition insist that Argentina is hindering the negotiations
No, that’s not true, it’s a lie. It’s quite the opposite. We have done a lot of work in the Mercosur to reach the proposal stage. You know what Angela Merkel said to us right here the day before the German team’s debut in the World Cup? She said: “We don’t have a proposal as it is very difficult for the 28 countries to come to an agreement.” Now, if there are to be offers we have to exchange them at the same time, because we can’t hand ours over for them to analyze and wait for them to tell us what they agree with and what not. The system should be: I give you my proposal and I receive yours, and that’s where the discussion begins.
Let’s return to the question of rethinking the Mercosur. On what grounds would this be?
In my personal opinion, we would have to make an in-depth list of all the difficulties we have. Some, like bilateral ones, we have already discussed. But there are other ones like how we are going to pursue the substitution of regional imports process. Argentina has raised this question a lot, especially in the auto parts sector
Could the transition period in Argentina be an obstacle for the bloc’s revival? Next year there will be elections and a decision on the hedge funds is still pending. And when the new government takes over, my country will most probably need another year to, let’s say, balance things up.
That is what is happening in the whole region. We are also in transition. Our challenge is to increase the low rates of growth we have at the moment, although the paradox is that unemployment is also low. The challenge for the region is to return to high levels of growth.
quinta-feira, 2 de outubro de 2014
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)