Tè Tremblé—The Haitian Earth Trembled

By Amy Goodman

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti—Tè tremblé is Haitian Creole for “earthquake.” Its literal translation: “The earth trembled.” After the massive earthquake that devastated Haiti, the stench of death is everywhere. At General Hospital, bodies had been stacked 4 feet high near the morgue. In the community house called Matthew 25, doctors laid out a plastic tablecloth to perform a kitchen-table amputation, aided by headlamps. The injured Haitian man in his 20s might be considered fortunate: He was among the minority of injured people getting medical attention. And, unlike many amputations being performed elsewhere in Haiti, the doctors who arrived Monday were using anesthesia they had brought.

While this grim amputation was happening, an unexpected delivery of food aid arrived. Matthew 25 House typically accommodates 35 guests. Now more than 1,000 are there, camped out in the adjoining soccer field. There has been much reporting on the concerns about possible riots and violence that aid distribution might provoke. We witnessed the polar opposite, because an established community group was empowered to distribute the food. People lined up and got their supplies, leaving undisturbed the difficult surgery being conducted nearby. This has been typical as we’ve traveled through the catastrophe: People with nothing—hungry, thirsty, seeking their loved ones, burying their dead, caring for their injured—have shown fortitude, civility and compassion despite their quiet desperation.

We went to the home of Myriam Merlet, the chief of staff of the Haitian Ministry of Women. She helped draw international attention to the use of rape as a political weapon and worked with playwright and activist Eve Ensler on the V-Day movement to help end violence against women. We found her house, indeed the entire surrounding community, destroyed. “We have just pulled her body out,” they told us Sunday, five days after the earthquake. There is no telling when she died, or whether she might have been rescued. Her sister Eartha brought us to her fresh grave.

We ventured beyond Port-au-Prince, to the earthquake’s epicenter, past Carrefour to Léogâne. A United Nations assessment put the level of destruction in Léogâne at 80 percent to 90 percent of structures destroyed, with no remaining government buildings. On the way, a young man hailed our car, saying: “Please, we see some helicopters overhead, but they don’t stop here. We have no aid. We have no food.”

One man covered in dust was using a mallet to break the cement that had entombed his grandfather. A father nearby had just dug out his 1-year-old baby, dead in his playpen. According to Agence France-Presse, the U.N. warned it cannot “extend their aid operation to outlying areas until security there can be confirmed.” Traveling to Léogâne, we felt no threat; we only saw people in dire need of help. While we were in Léogâne, a missionary helicopter landed, then inexplicably lifted off again, and the crew began hurling loaves of bread to the ground. Young Haitian men grew incensed. One cried, tearing up the rolls and yelling, “We are not dogs for you to throw bones at!”

We spoke with the mayor of Léogâne, Alexis Santos, who seemed almost helpless before the near-total destruction around him. I asked him, in light of the unified front offered by the U.S. government, with President Barack Obama naming former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush to lead the U.S. response, what he thought about the offer of Jean-Bertrand Aristide—the ousted former president of Haiti—to return to Haiti from exile in South Africa to stand with Haitian President Rene Preval, a united front to help the recovery. Santos, by no means an Aristide supporter, told me he thought it would be a good idea.

Back at Matthew 25 House (named after the biblical verse “Whatever you do for my least brothers and sisters, you do for me”), I spoke with one of the surgeons. Dr. Jennifer Bruny, who flew down with other doctors from Children’s Hospital in Denver, performed the amputation earlier. The nature of the disaster, with thousands of crushing injuries, and the lack of care for so much time make amputation one of the only means available now to save lives. “This amputation should not have been necessary,” she told me. “This could have been easily treated earlier. These people needed help sooner.”

Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.

Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 800 stations in North America. She is the author of “Breaking the Sound Barrier,” recently released in paperback and now a New York Times best-seller.

© 2010 Amy Goodman

Distributed by King Features Syndicate

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/tegrave_trembleacute_--_the_haitian_earth_trembled_20100119/

Climate Discord: From Hopenhagen to Nopenhagen

By Amy Goodman

Barack Obama said, minutes before racing out of the U.N. climate summit, “We will not be legally bound by anything that took place here today.” These were among his remarks made to his own small White House press corps, excluding the 3,500 credentialed journalists covering the talks. It was late on Dec. 18, the last day of the summit, and reports were that the negotiations had failed. Copenhagen, which had been co-branded for the talks on billboards with Coke and Siemens as “Hopenhagen,” was looking more like “Nopenhagen.”

As I entered the Bella Center, the summit venue, that morning, I saw several dozen people sitting on the cold stone plaza outside the police line. Throughout the summit, people had filled this area, hoping to pick up credentials. Thousands from nongovernmental organizations and the press waited hours in the cold, only to be denied. On the final days of the summit, the area was cold and empty.

Most groups had been stripped of their credentials so the summit could meet the security and space needs for traveling heads of state, the U.N. claimed. These people sitting in the cold were engaged in a somber protest: They were shaving their heads. One woman told me, “I am shaving my head to show how really deeply touched I feel about what is happening in there. ... There are 6 billion people out there, and inside they don’t seem to be talking about them.” She held a white sign, with just a pair of quotation marks, but no words. “What does the sign say?” I asked her. She had tears in her eyes, “It says nothing because I don’t know what to say anymore.”

Obama reportedly heard Friday of a meeting taking place between the heads of state of China, India, Brazil and South Africa, and burst into the room, leading the group to consensus on “The Copenhagen Accord.” One hundred ninety-three countries were represented at the summit, most of them by their head of state. Obama and his small group defied U.N. procedure, resulting in the nonbinding, take-it-or-leave-it document.

The accord at least acknowledges that countries “agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science ... so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius.” For some, after eight years with President George W. Bush, just having a U.S. president who accepts science as a basis for policy might be considered a huge victory. The accord pledges “a goal of mobilizing jointly 100 billion dollars a year by 2020” for developing countries. This is less than many say is needed to solve the problem of adapting to climate change and building green economies in developing countries, and is only a nonbinding goal. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refused to specify the U.S. share, only saying if countries didn’t come to an agreement it would not be on the table anymore.

Respected climate scientist James Hansen told me, “The wealthy countries are trying to basically buy off these countries that will, in effect, disappear,” adding, “based on our contribution to the carbon in the atmosphere, [the U.S. share] would be 27 percent, $27 billion per year.”

I asked Bolivian President Evo Morales for his solution. He recommends “all war spending be directed towards climate change, instead of spending it on troops in Iraq, in Afghanistan or the military bases in Latin America.” According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2008 the 15 countries with the highest military budgets spent close to $1.2 trillion on armed forces.

Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth, one of the major NGOs stripped of credentials, criticized the outcome of the Copenhagen talks, writing: “The United States slammed through a flimsy agreement that was negotiated behind closed doors. The so-called ‘Copenhagen Accord’ is full of empty pledges.” But he also applauded “concerned citizens who marched, held vigils and sent messages to their leaders, [who] helped to create unstoppable momentum in the global movement for climate justice.”

Many feel that Obama’s disruption of the process in Copenhagen may have fatally derailed 20 years of climate talks. But Pica has it right. The Copenhagen climate summit failed to reach a fair, ambitious and binding agreement, but it inspired a new generation of activists to join what has emerged as a mature, sophisticated global movement for climate justice.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/climate_discord_from_hopenhagen_to_nopengagen_20091222/

The War Condolences Obama Hasn’t Sent

By Amy Goodman

U.S. Army Reserve Spc. Chancellor Keesling died in Iraq on June 19, 2009, from “a non-combat related incident,” according to the Pentagon. Keesling had killed himself. He was just one in what is turning out to be a record year for suicides in the U.S. military.

In August, President Barack Obama addressed the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, saying, “[T]here is nothing more sobering than signing a letter of condolence to the family of [a] serviceman or -woman who has given their life for our country.” To their surprise, Jannett and Gregg Keesling, Chance’s parents, won’t be getting such a letter. Obama does not write condolence letters to loved ones of those who commit suicide in the theater of combat. [After making inquiries, the Keeslings discovered that this was not because of an oversight. Instead, it’s because of a longstanding U.S. policy to deny presidential condolence letters to the families of soldiers who take their own lives.]

Jannett told me: “Chancellor was recruited right out of high school, and this was something he was passionate about, joining the military. I wanted him to go to college, but he said that he wanted to be a soldier.” Gregg added: “We had doubts about him joining. ... When the war broke out in 2003, when many of us were trying to retreat, Chancy decided, ‘This is my duty.’ ... But once he did his first tour ... his marriage broke up during that deployment.”

Chance was very troubled during his first tour of duty in Iraq, although he performed admirably by all accounts. At one point he was put on a suicide watch and had his ammunition taken away for a week. After Iraq, Chance declined a $27,000 reenlistment bonus and transitioned to the U.S. Army Reserves, hoping to avoid another deployment. He sought and was receiving treatment at a Veterans Affairs facility. Gregg said, “We sat down as a family, and we said, ‘President Obama is going to be elected, and President Obama will end this war, and you won’t have to go.’ ” But then his son’s orders to deploy came again.

Current laws prevent transfer of mental health information from active-duty military to the reserves, so Chance’s commanders did not know of his previous struggles. Last June, troubled again, he sent his parents a dire e-mail, mentioning suicide. Jannett recalled: “I spoke to Chancellor the night before he died for about four minutes. And as always, he wore a really tough exterior. ... But what he did tell me that night is that he was going to have a very long, difficult day. His conversation was quite brief. Normally he would say that he loves me, and he would say goodbye. But this time he simply hung up.”

The next morning, Gregg said, Chance “locked himself in the latrine and took his own life, with his M-4 ... our grief is deep. The letter won’t stop [our pain]—we’ll still be hollow inside for the rest of our lives, but the acknowledgment from the president that our son gave his life in service to the causes of the United States is important to us.”

The Pentagon admits to a mounting suicide crisis in its ranks. Numbers of acknowledged suicides have steadily climbed, from fewer than 100 in 2005, by one report, to nearly 200 in 2008, with a like number among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. Gregg Keesling said that when he and Jannett went to Dover Air Force Base to greet Chance’s coffin, a master sergeant encouraged him to speak out, saying: “I’m greeting a suicide body almost every day. There’s something going on.”

The Keeslings credit Maj. Gen. Mark Graham with helping them through their grief, and working to reduce the stigma of suicide within the military. One of Graham’s sons committed suicide in 2003, while studying as an Army ROTC cadet in college. His other son, also in the Army, deployed to Iraq months later and was killed by a bomb not long thereafter. But the GI Rights Hotline, which advises active-duty soldiers on options for leaving the military, says outside psychological professionals can help suicidal soldiers obtain a medical discharge: “The military wants to know whether the patient can perform their duties without causing trouble, embarrassment or expense. His or her welfare is distinctly less important.”

The United States is engaged in two intractable, massive military occupations, with no end in sight. Obama should certainly write letters of condolence to the Keeslings and to others whose loved ones have found that the only sure way to end the living hell of war, or to escape the horror of its aftermath, is to kill themselves. But an immediate withdrawal from the wars Obama inherited is the only way to stem the bleeding.

Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.

Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 800 stations in North America. She is the author of “Breaking the Sound Barrier,” recently released in paperback.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20091027_the_war_condolences_obama_hasnt_sent/

Let Us Not Become the Evil We Deplore

By Amy Goodman

On Sept. 14, 2001, the U.S. House of Representatives considered House Joint Resolution 64, “To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.” The wounds of 9/11 were raw, and the lust for vengeance seemed universal. The House vote was remarkable, relative to the extreme partisanship now in evidence in Congress, since 420 House members voted in favor of the resolution. More remarkable, though, was the one lone vote in opposition, cast by Barbara Lee of San Francisco. Lee opened her statement on the resolution, “I rise today with a heavy heart, one that is filled with sorrow for the families and loved ones who were killed and injured in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania.” Her emotions were palpable as she spoke from the House floor.

“September 11 changed the world. Our deepest fears now haunt us. Yet I am convinced that military action will not prevent further acts of international terrorism against the United States. ... We must not rush to judgment. Far too many innocent people have already died. Our country is in mourning. If we rush to launch a counterattack, we run too great a risk that women, children and other noncombatants will be caught in the crossfire.”

The Senate also passed the resolution, 98-0, and sent it on to President George W. Bush. What he did with the authorization, and the Iraq War authorization a year later, has become, arguably, the greatest foreign policy catastrophe in United States history. What President Barack Obama will do with Afghanistan is the question now.

On Oct. 7, the U.S. enters its ninth year of occupation of Afghanistan—equal to the time the United States was involved in World War I, World War II and the Korean War combined. Obama campaigned on his opposition to the war in Iraq, but pledged at the same time to escalate the war in Afghanistan. On his first Friday in office, Commander in Chief Obama’s military fired three Hellfire missiles from an unmanned drone into Pakistan, reportedly killing 22 people, mostly civilians, including women and children. He has increased U.S. troops in Afghanistan by more than 20,000, to a total numbering 61,000. This does not count the private contractors in Afghanistan, who now outnumber the troops. The new U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, is expected to ask for even more troops.

This past August was the deadliest month yet for U.S. troops in Afghanistan, with 51 killed, and 2009 is by far the deadliest year, with 200 U.S. troops killed so far. These statistics don’t count the soldiers who commit suicide after returning home, nor those injured, and certainly don’t include the number of Afghans killed. The attacks also are increasing in sophistication, according to recent reports. So it may be no surprise that more comparisons are now being made between Afghanistan and Vietnam.

When asked about the comparison, Obama recently told The New York Times: “You have to learn lessons from history. On the other hand, each historical moment is different. You never step into the same river twice. And so Afghanistan is not Vietnam. ... The dangers of overreach and not having clear goals and not having strong support from the American people, those are all issues that I think about all the time.”

According to a recent CNN/Opinion Research poll, 57 percent of those asked oppose the U.S. war in Afghanistan, reportedly the highest level of opposition since the war began in 2001. Among those polled, 75 percent of Democrats opposed the war, which might explain statements recently from key congressional Democrats against sending more troops to Afghanistan. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last Thursday, “I don’t think there’s a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan in the country or in the Congress,” echoing Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Obama said in his health care speech before the joint session of Congress, “The plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years—less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.”

President Lyndon Johnson escalated the war in Vietnam and ultimately decided not to run for re-election. But he also passed Medicare, the revered, single-payer health insurance program for seniors. Barbara Lee presciently compared the invasion of Afghanistan to Vietnam in her speech back in 2001 and closed by quoting the Rev. Nathan Baxter, dean of the National Cathedral: “As we act, let us not become the evil that we deplore.”

Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.

Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 750 stations in North America. She is the co-author of “Standing Up to the Madness: Ordinary Heroes in Extraordinary Times,” recently released in paperback.

A Coup for Lobbyists at the White House

By Amy Goodman

Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, ousted in the middle of the night just over a month ago, enjoys global support for his return, with the exception of the Obama White House. Though Barack Obama first called the Honduran military’s removal of Zelaya a coup, his administration has backpedaled. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Zelaya’s attempt to cross the Nicaraguan border into Honduras “reckless.” Could well-placed lobbyists in Washington be forging U.S. foreign policy?

Lanny Davis was special counsel to President Bill Clinton from 1996 to 1998, functioning as lawyer, crisis manager and spokesman through Clinton’s various scandals. Davis has developed a lucrative specialty as a partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, offering a “unique ‘Legal Crisis Communications’ practice,” helping people embroiled in investigations or scandal. According to recent congressional filings, Davis is lobbying for the Honduran chapter of the Latin American Business Council. Zelaya had recently increased the Honduran minimum wage.

Davis testified before Congress on July 10, saying his clients “believe the best chance for a solution is the dialogue between Mr. Zelaya and President [Roberto] Micheletti, mediated by President [Oscar] Arias, that is now ongoing in Costa Rica.” That is, until the Arias sessions resulted in a call for the return of Zelaya. Coup spokesman Cesar Caceres said, “The mediation has been declared a failure.”

Davis continued before Congress, “No one wants bloodshed, and nobody should be inciting violence.” Yet a number of Zelaya supporters have been killed, and there has been a crackdown on independent media, making information hard to obtain.

I reached Zelaya by phone in Nicaragua, near the Honduran border, and asked about Obama’s reluctance to use the word coup. He told me, “Everyone in the world—governments, international organizations, all the lawyers and judges in the world—have called the fact of capturing a president at 5 a.m. without trying him, shooting arms, that’s a coup d’etat. No one doubts that that’s a coup d’etat.”

Bennett Ratcliff, another Clinton White House connection, was a key adviser to the coup leader, Micheletti, during the Costa Rica negotiations. According to Ratcliff’s firm’s bio, he “created TV and radio advertisements for President Bill Clinton’s 1992 and 1996 Presidential campaigns.” Firm partner Melissa Ratcliff “worked as communications strategist for The White House during the Clinton Administration.” Their firm promises “access to key decision makers and influencers.”

With similar anti-Zelaya goals comes lobbyist Roger Noriega, George W. Bush’s assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs and former staff member of Sen. Jesse Helms. Noriega is lobbying on behalf of the Honduran Association of Maquiladoras, owners of low-wage factories that export goods, principally to the U.S.

Both Noriega and Davis represent business interests that benefit from “free trade” with the U.S. Zelaya, elected originally with the support of the Honduran business community, has shifted to more populist policies. He recently joined the emerging Latin American trade bloc ALBA, organized by countries like Venezuela and Bolivia to counter the economic dominance of the United States.

During Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, Davis repeated the charge that Obama would not be capable of handling a crisis “call at 3 a.m.”

In his recent visit to Africa, Obama declared the importance of democracy. Yet here in his own backyard is a genuine coup d’etat that his administration has done little to reverse. Obama will be in Mexico to meet President Felipe Calderon and Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada on Aug. 9. Honduras is expected to be on the agenda. The 3 a.m. call has come—who will have Obama’s ear? Democracy, or the special interests’ hired guns, against whom Obama promised change?

Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.

Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 750 stations in North America. She is the co-author of “Standing Up to the Madness: Ordinary Heroes in Extraordinary Times,” recently released in paperback.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_coup_for_lobbyists_at_the_white_house/

Obama’s Military Is Spying on U.S. Peace Groups

By Amy Goodman

Anti-war activists in Olympia, Wash., have exposed Army spying and infiltration of their groups, as well as intelligence gathering by the Air Force, the federal Capitol Police and the Coast Guard.

The infiltration appears to be in direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act preventing U.S. military deployment for domestic law enforcement and may strengthen congressional demands for a full-scale investigation of U.S. intelligence activities, like the Church Committee hearings of the 1970s.

Brendan Maslauskas Dunn asked the city of Olympia for documents or e-mails about communications between the Olympia police and the military relating to anarchists, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) or the Industrial Workers of the World (Dunn’s union). Dunn received hundreds of documents. One e-mail contained reference to a “John J. Towery II,” who activists discovered was the same person as their fellow activist “John Jacob.”

Dunn told me: “John Jacob was actually a close friend of mine, so this week has been pretty difficult for me. He said he was an anarchist. He was really interested in SDS. He got involved with Port Militarization Resistance (PMR), with Iraq Vets Against the War. He was a kind person. He was a generous person. So it was really just a shock for me.”

“Jacob” told the activists he was a civilian employed at Fort Lewis Army Base and would share information about base activities that could help the PMR organize rallies and protests against public ports being used for troop and Stryker military vehicle deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 2006, PMR activists have occasionally engaged in civil disobedience, blocking access to the port.

Larry Hildes, an attorney representing Washington activists, says the U.S. attorney prosecuting the cases against them, Brian Kipnis, specifically instructed the Army not to hand over any information about its intelligence-gathering activities, despite a court order to do so.

Which is why Dunn’s request to Olympia and the documents he obtained are so important.

The military is supposed to be barred from deploying on U.S. soil, or from spying on citizens. Christopher Pyle, now a professor of politics at Mount Holyoke College, was a military intelligence officer. He recalled: “In the 1960s, Army intelligence had 1,500 plainclothes agents [and some would watch] every demonstration of 20 people or more. They had a giant warehouse in Baltimore full of information on the law-abiding activities of American citizens, mainly protest politics.” Pyle later investigated the spying for two congressional committees: “As a result of those investigations, the entire U.S. Army Intelligence Command was abolished, and all of its files were burned. Then the Senate Intelligence Committee wrote the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to stop the warrantless surveillance of electronic communications.”

Reps. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., Rush Holt, D-N.J., and others are pushing for a new, comprehensive investigation of all U.S. intelligence activities, of the scale of the Church Committee hearings, which exposed widespread spying on and disruption of legal domestic groups, attempts at assassination of foreign heads of state, and more.

Demands mount for information on and accountability for Vice President Dick Cheney’s alleged secret assassination squad, President George W. Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program, and the CIA’s alleged misleading of Congress. But the spying in Olympia occurred well into the Obama administration (and may continue today). President Barack Obama supports retroactive immunity for telecom companies involved in the wiretapping, and has maintained Bush-era reliance on the state secrets privilege. Lee and Holt should take the information uncovered by Brendan Dunn and the Olympia activists and get the investigations started now.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090728_obamas_military_is_spying_on_us_peace_groups/

Mr. Obama and Mr. Medvedev

Editorial (New York Times)

By the time President George W. Bush left office, Russian-American relations had deteriorated alarmingly. Russia bore a good part of the blame, harassing opponents, stifling a free press and bullying its neighbors. But Mr. Bush both enabled former President Vladimir Putin’s worst impulses and ignored his occasionally legitimate complaints.

With President Obama scheduled to meet President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia in Moscow on Monday, both sides say they are eager to “reset” the relationship. One welcome sign: Officials said on Friday that Russia had agreed to let American planes fly over Russian territory to re-supply forces fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.

There are certainly a lot of other difficult issues that need their joint attention.

We are especially eager to see them make progress on reducing their nuclear arsenals — Mr. Bush disdained arms-control negotiations and treaties. Two decades after the fall of Communism, the two countries — astonishingly and frighteningly — still have more than 20,000 nuclear weapons.

In five months, the 1991 Start I treaty — which contains the basic rules for verifying the size and location of each others’ nuclear forces — expires. It must be extended. We, along with the rest of the world, are also eager to see the two leaders commit to further reductions in the number of deployed weapons.

Under the 2002 Moscow treaty — Mr. Bush’s only arms-reduction treaty — the two sides agreed to go down to between 1,700 and 2,200 deployed warheads. There is talk that they are now looking to reduce that ceiling to 1,500 warheads.

We think 1,000 would send an even clearer message to Iran and North Korea — and others who have been far too tolerant of their nuclear misbehaviors — that the world’s two main nuclear powers are placing a lot less value on their nuclear weapons.

Instead of waiting for a treaty, both sides could demonstrate their good will right now, and make the world a lot safer, by jointly committing to taking their entire arsenals off hair-trigger alert. And they should pledge to quickly destroy all of their short-range weapons. The United States has 200 to 300; Russia has at least 3,000. These weapons are not covered by any treaty, and they are too vulnerable to theft.

The two leaders should not let their disagreements over American plans (left over from Mr. Bush) to build a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic stand in the way of an agreement.

We are skeptical that the technology is anywhere near ready for prime time. We are also certain that the system, which Mr. Obama says is intended to stop Iranian missiles, poses no threat to Russian security. A healthy dialogue is clearly in order.

Russia was pivotal in winning recent approval of tougher United Nations Security Council sanctions on North Korea. But it has been less helpful with Iran. Moscow has strong economic ties with Tehran. But Mr. Obama must do all he can to persuade Mr. Medvedev that he is playing with fire.

The biggest challenge for Mr. Obama will be finding a balance between enlisting Russia’s support on international issues without appearing to endorse its anti-democratic behavior at home or its ongoing threats to neighbors, most notably Georgia. Mr. Bush never managed that. Mr. Obama needs to do better.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/04/opinion/04sat1.html?ref=opinion

La apropiación de Obama por las derechas

Este artículo denuncia el oportunismo mostrado por las derechas españolas y catalanas al querer adueñarse de la imagen del Presidente Obama, oponiéndose a la vez al desarrollo en España de políticas promovidas por el Presidente de EEUU en aquel país, tales como el aumento muy notable del gasto público, el aumento de los impuestos a las rentas superiores, el incremento de los servicios públicos y el reforzamiento de los sindicatos.

La popularidad del Presidente Obama explica que varios partidos políticos en España hayan intentado apropiarse de su figura, asignándole una pertenencia a su familia política. Incluso el Partido Popular intentó en su momento presentarse como la versión española del Obamismo. El intento más reciente es el de CIU, a través de un artículo que su diputado en el Parlamento, el Sr. Francesc Homs i Molist, escribió hace unos días en la revista semanal El Siglo (por cierto, una de las revistas semanales más interesantes que se publican hoy en España). Criticaba el autor al Presidente Zapatero por intentar adueñarse de la figura de Obama, recordándole que, en realidad, “Obama forma parte de la familia demócrata, que en el parlamento Europeo está representada por el ALDE (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe), precisamente el grupo donde residen los eurodiputados de CIU y del PNV.”.

El Partido Demócrata de EEUU, sin embargo, no pertenece a ninguna Internacional, ni tampoco a la Liberal. Y lo sé de primera mano. En el año 1988, siendo yo consejero del candidato a la Presidencia de EEUU por parte del Partido Demócrata, el Reverendo Jesse Jackson Sr., tuve la oportunidad de conocer por casualidad la relación que el Partido Demócrata tenía con la Internacional Liberal. Fue durante la Convención del Partido Demócrata en Atlanta (al final del proceso de las primarias del Partido Demócrata para elegir el candidato de tal Partido a la Presidencia de EEUU), cuando Jesse Jackson y sus asesores (entre los cuales me encontraba yo) y el Gobernador Dukakis y sus asesores nos reunimos para pactar las bases sobre las cuales Jackson (que había conseguido el 40% de los delegados elegidos en las primarias) apoyaría a Dukakis (que consiguió el 60%). En un descanso de las negociaciones, Jackson me pidió que le representara en una fiesta que se daba a invitados de otros países, y cuál sería mi agradable sorpresa cuando vi a Trias Fargas, al cual conocía de Barcelona por el apoyo que había dado, a pesar de ser liberal y banquero, a las izquierdas catalanas en la lucha clandestina de la cual yo había formado parte. Cuando le pregunté a qué se debía su visita al Congreso Demócrata, me indicó que estaba allí en representación de la Internacional Liberal, que tenía una relación privilegiada con el Partido Demócrata. Tenía yo gran estima y aprecio a Trías Fargas, pero esta estima no se extendía al Partido Liberal. De manera que, cuando volví a la reunión de trabajo, se lo comuniqué a Jesse Jackson (un socialdemócrata convencido), que hizo suya la causa de distanciar al Partido Demócrata de la Internacional Liberal. Y así se lo pidió a Dukakis, añadiendo este distanciamiento como una condición más del apoyo de Jackson a Dukakis, condición que éste aceptó. A partir de entonces, el Partido Demócrata no tiene un trato preferencial hacia la Internacional Liberal, pues también ha extendido su relación a la Internacional Socialista y a la Internacional Democrática Centrista. Su contrapunto europeo incluye partidos pertenecientes a todas estas sensibilidades políticas habiendo aclarado que es su deseo tener una relación con un amplio espectro político y no sólo el liberal (véase la web del National Democratic Institute). Me alegra haber contribuido a este hecho.

En realidad, el Partido Demócrata es un enorme paraguas en el que hay una gran variedad de sensibilidades políticas. Grandes sectores de las bases (lo que se llama grassroots) como sindicatos, movimientos sociales, movimientos de derechos civiles, movimiento feminista (Now) y movimientos ecológicos, son de orientación socialdemócrata, orientación que se diluye en la medida que se sube en el aparato del Partido (algo semejante a lo que ocurre con la socialdemocracia española). La cúspide del Partido Demócrata adopta frecuentemente posturas de centro y centroderecha, en parte debido a la influencia de los grandes grupos empresariales y financieros que pagan las campañas electorales del Partido Demócrata. A ello se debe que en su grupo parlamentario haya políticos (los Blue Dog Democrats) que están claramente a la derecha (predominantemente aquellos que proceden del Sur).

De ahí que exista una distancia muy elevada entre las bases del partido y su dirección, lo que explica el gran enfado de las bases, su abstención y su gran deseo de cambio, deseo que el candidato Obama supo muy bien capitalizar. Como he indicado en varios artículos, no fue Obama el que creó un movimiento, sino que fue el movimiento de desapego y hastío con la situación política, resultado de la enorme influencia de los grupos económicos en la vida política de Washington, lo que hizo un Obama posible.

Las políticas de Obama reflejan esta polivalencia que existe en el Partido Demócrata, lo que explica que sea fácil que personas de distintas sensibilidades políticas puedan identificarse con él. En la política de recuperación de la Banca, por ejemplo, ha seguido muy de cerca las políticas promovidas por la propia Banca, políticas muy poco populares. Ahora bien, en el plan de estímulo económico (que ha sido la mayor causa de la gran popularidad que tiene) ha seguido políticas keynesianas de clara orientación socialdemócrata, opuestas, por cierto, a las propuestas que han hecho los partidos conservadores y liberales españoles, PP, y catalanes, CIU. Obama ha incrementado sustancialmente el gasto público (un 5% del PIB), financiándolo a base de aumentar el déficit del Estado (hasta un 13% del PIB) y aumentando los impuestos de las rentas superiores, eliminando a la vez gran número de agujeros fiscales que beneficiaban precisamente a estas rentas. CIU y PP están precisamente en contra de cada una de estas intervenciones en España.

Apoyé la elección del candidato Obama, y deseo que su Administración cumpla con las promesas que hizo como candidato. Este apoyo no está carente, sin embargo, de críticas, que creo necesarias, sobre todo en Europa, donde se ha idealizado bastante la figura de Obama. Ahora bien, me parece de un excesivo oportunismo político que las derechas, que se han opuesto a que se realice en España cada uno de los pasos que ha dado Obama en EEUU, ahora se presenten como su colega y hermano político.

Una última observación. La cultura política estadounidense es muy distinta a la europea y española. Incluso la terminología política es distinta. En EEUU un liberal es un político como, Jesse Jackson, o un economista, como Paul Krugman, que están a favor de políticas públicas redistributivas, de un aumento del gasto público, de un incremento de los impuestos de carácter progresista, de un mayor protagonismo del sector público y de una mayor presencia de los sindicatos (políticas identificadas con la tradición socialdemócrata), precisamente al revés de lo que significa ser un liberal en Europa y en España. El hecho de que los medios de información raramente hagan tal aclaración refiriéndose, por ejemplo, al economista Krugman como “un liberal”, crea una gran confusión, sobre la cual aparecen todo tipo de malentendidos.

Publicado en el diario digital ELPLURAL.COM, 3 de Julio de 2009
http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=88113

Paying for Universal Health Coverage

For Congress and the administration to keep the promise of comprehensive health care reform, they will have to find the political will to pay for universal coverage and other investments that are needed right away but will not produce quick savings. The cost could reach $1.5 trillion over the next decade.

resident Obama, who had already proposed some $634 billion in new taxes and spending cuts, endorsed additional ideas last week. But Congressional Democrats will almost certainly need to come up with a lot more money — and that is likely to mean new taxes.

There are at least two easy ways to duck the problem should Congress choose to be imprudent. One way out would be to abandon the goal of universal coverage until after costs have been controlled. That would be unfair to the 46 million uninsured Americans, who often suffer health damage because they are reluctant to seek treatment until their plight becomes desperate.

Another way out would be to finance universal coverage by adding to the deficit, the path that George W. Bush took to pay for his tax cuts for the wealthy. With deficits already at high levels, Mr. Obama has reasonably insisted that health care reforms have to be “deficit neutral” over a 10-year period, meaning that any upfront costs must be fully paid for through cost reductions or new revenues by the end of a decade.

Mr. Obama’s budget experts have proposed short-term savings of more than $300 billion in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. They would eliminate unjustified subsidies given to private plans that participate in Medicare and reduce payments to home health care providers, drug companies and many hospitals.

Last week, Mr. Obama said he would work with the Senate to find $200 billion to $300 billion more in Medicare and Medicaid savings. He endorsed one way to ensure that cuts would actually be made — saying he was open to giving an obscure panel, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, enormous power to set Medicare payment rates. That would insulate Congress from lobbying by every group whose income might be reduced.

Mr. Obama said he was receptive to proposals that would require most Americans to take out health insurance and most employers, except for small businesses, to share the cost. Both would pump money into the system and help defray the costs of reform.

Virtually all experts agree that more revenues will be needed. Mr. Obama’s proposal to limit itemized deductions by wealthy Americans met with a cool reception but ought to remain on the table. Significant money could be raised by increasing taxes on sugared drinks, alcohol, tobacco and other products that are bad for one’s health. But more taxes will probably be needed.

Even the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities suggested last week that Congress is unlikely to be able to pay for universal coverage unless it takes the unpopular step of limiting the tax exclusion for the value of the health insurance provided by an employer. It is the nation’s costliest tax subsidy, and some experts believe it encourages overuse of medical services.

Congress has heavy lifting ahead. It must foster reforms that are apt to reduce costs in the long-run (past the 10-year mark) and find a mix of short-term savings and tax increases to put us on course without driving up the deficit.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/opinion/07sun1.html

Obama Outlines Coordinated Cyber-Security Plan By David E. Sanger and John Markoff

WASHINGTON — President Obama declared Friday that the country’s disparate efforts to “deter, prevent, detect and defend” against cyber attacks would now be run out of the White House, but he also promised that he would bar the Federal government from regular monitoring of “private sector networks” and the Internet traffic that has become the backbone of American communications.

Mr. Obama’s speech today, which was accompanied by the release of a long-awaited new government strategy, was an effort to balance America’s response to a rising security threat with concerns – echoing back to the warrantless wiretapping debates of the Bush years – that the government would be regularly dipping into Internet traffic that knows no national boundaries.

One element of the strategy clearly differed from the one Bush administration issued in January 2008: Mr. Obama’s approach is described in a 38-page document being distributed to public and to companies that are most vulnerable to cyber attack; Mr. Bush’s strategy was entirely classified.

But Mr. Obama’s policy review was not specific about how he would turn many of the goals into practical realities, and he said nothing about resolving the running turf wars between the Pentagon, the National Security Agency, the Homeland Security Department and other agencies over the conduct of defensive and offensive cyber operations.

The White House approach appears to place a new “cybersecurity coordinator” over all of those agencies. He did not name the coordinator on Friday, but the policy review said that whomever the president selects will be “action officer” inside the White House during cyber attacks, whether they are launched on the United States by hackers or governments.

In an effort to silence critics who have complained that the official will not have sufficient status to cut through the maze of competing Federal agencies, he said the new coordinator would have “regular access to me,” much like the coordinator for nuclear and conventional threats.

For the first time, Mr. Obama also spoke of his own brush with cyber attacks during the Presidential campaign. “Between August and October,” he said, “hackers gained access to e-mails and a range of campaign files, from policy position papers to travel plans,” describing events that were known, though sketchily, at the time.

“It was a powerful reminder: in this information age, one of your greatest strengths – in our case, our ability to communicate to a wide rage of supporters through the Internet – could also be one of your greatest vulnerabilities.”

Mr. Obama’s speech delved into technology rarely discussed in the East Room of the White House: He referred to “spyware and malware and spoofing and phishing and botnets,” all different approaches to what he called “weapons of mass disruption.”

Although the president did not discuss details of the expanding role for the military in offensive and pre-emptive cyber operations, senior officials said on Friday the Pentagon plans to create a new cyber command to organze and train for digital war, and to oversee offensive and defensive operations.

A lingering disagreement has been how to coordinate that new command with the work of the National Security Agency, home to most of the government’s expertise on computer and network warfare. One plan now under discussion would put the same general in charge of both the new cyber command and the N.S.A. Currently, the N.S.A. director is Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander, who would be expected to be the leading contender for the new, dual position.

Industry executives were generally supportive, though cautious, of the initiative announced by Mr. Obama.

“There was nothing I was disappointed in,” said Mark Gerencser, a cybersecurity executive at Booze Allen Hamilton, a consulting firm that deals extensively in the government’s cyber-security strategy. He noted that the United States has separated defense and offense in the cybersecurity arena, while its opponents – including Russia and China -- have a more fluid strategy. “It’s like we’re playing football and our adversaries our playing soccer.”

Russell D. Vines, another computer-security expert, said he was pleased that President Obama recognizes the need for a comprehensive strategy. Too many people do not even like to discuss computer security because “it’s kind of like going to the dentist,” Mr. Vines said on Friday in a telephone interview from White Plains, N.Y. “But there’s no going back.”

The president said those who describe the computer-driven era as “a virtual world” are not quite right. “Make no mistake: this world — cyberspace — is a world that we depend on every single day,” he said. “It’s our hardware and our software, our desktops and laptops and cell phones and BlackBerrys, that have become woven into every aspect of our lives.”

“So cyberspace is real,” the president said, “and so are the risks that come with it.”

White House officials say Mr. Obama has not yet been formally presented with the Pentagon plan..

“Waves of cyberthieves trolling for sensitive information” is how President Obama described the vandals of the computer age. Implicit in his remarks was the message that computer hackers cannot be regarded as mere mischief-makers in a new world where computers are central to the country’s security and prosperity, and the health and happiness of its citizens.

“It’s also clear that we’re not as prepared as we should be, as a government or as a country,” he said, declaring that an uncoordinated, ad hoc approach to cybersecurity will not do.

As for the military cybercommand, officials said the president would sign a classified order creating it in the weeks ahead. The development is a recognition that the United States already has a growing number of computer weapons in its arsenal and must prepare strategies for their use — as a deterrent or alongside conventional weapons — in a wide variety of possible future conflicts.

Officials said that in addition to the unclassified strategy paper released by Mr. Obama on Friday to accompany the announcement of the new security position, a classified set of presidential directives is expected to lay out the military’s new responsibilities and how it coordinates its mission with that of the N.S.A., where most of the expertise on digital warfare resides today.

It is still unclear whether the military’s new command or the N.S.A. — or both — will actually conduct this new kind of offensive cyberoperations.

The White House has never said whether Mr. Obama embraces the idea that the United States should use cyberweapons, and the public announcement on Friday focused on defensive steps and the government’s acknowledgment that it needs to be better organized to face the threat from foes attacking military, government and commercial online systems.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has pushed for the Pentagon to become better organized to address the security threat.

Initially at least, the new command would focus on organizing the various components and capabilities now scattered across the four armed services.

Officials declined to describe potential offensive operations, but said they now viewed cyberspace as comparable to more traditional battlefields.

“We are not comfortable discussing the question of offensive cyberoperations, but we consider cyberspace a war-fighting domain,” said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman. “We need to be able to operate within that domain just like on any battlefield, which includes protecting our freedom of movement and preserving our capability to perform in that environment.”

Although Pentagon civilian officials and military officers said the new command was expected to initially be a subordinate headquarters under the military’s Strategic Command, which controls nuclear operations as well as cyberdefenses, it could eventually become an independent command.

“No decision has been made,” said Lt. Col. Eric Butterbaugh, a Pentagon spokesman. “Just as the White House has completed its 60-day review of cyberspace policy, likewise, we are looking at how the department can best organize itself to fill our role in implementing the administration’s cyberpolicy.”

The creation of the cyber czar’s office inside the White House appears to be part of a significant expansion of the role of the national security apparatus there. A separate group overseeing domestic security, created by President George W Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks, now resides within the National Security Council. A senior White House official responsible for countering the proliferation of nuclear and unconventional weapons has been given broader authority. Now, cybersecurity will also rank as one of the key threats that Mr. Obama is seeking to coordinate from the White House.

The strategy review Mr. Obama discussed on Friday was completed weeks ago, but delayed because of continuing arguments over the authority of the White House office, and the budgets for the entire effort.

It was kept separate from the military debate over whether the Pentagon or the N.S.A. is best equipped to engage in offensive operations. Part of that debate hinges on the question of how much control should be given to American spy agencies, since they are prohibited from acting on American soil.

“It’s the domestic spying problem writ large,” one senior intelligence official said recently. “These attacks start in other countries, but they know no borders. So how do you fight them if you can’t act both inside and outside the United States?”

John Markoff contributed reporting from San Francisco and Thom Shanker and David Stout from Washington.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/us/politics/30cyber.html?_r=1&nl=pol&emc=pola1&pagewanted=all

Predicar y dar trigo

CARLOS MENDO
Predicar y dar trigo

Los problemas, sean nacionales o internacionales, están perfectamente enunciados y son de todos conocidos dentro y fuera del país. Sólo falta que las partes se pongan de acuerdo en su enfoque y posterior solución. Pero, como está comprobando el presidente Barack Obama cada vez que intenta abordar alguna de sus promesas electorales para intentar resolver un problema específico, una cosa es predicar y otra, dar trigo. El cierre de Guantánamo, la supresión de las comisiones o tribunales militares, la publicación de fotos sobre la intensidad de los interrogatorios de la CIA son sólo las primeras muestras de que la cruel realidad política siempre acaba imponiéndose a los mejores deseos, sobre todo en un país, como Estados Unidos, donde los controles y equilibrios entre los tres poderes del Estado permiten poco margen de maniobra para adoptar decisiones que no hayan sido previamente consensuadas entre el Ejecutivo y el Legislativo. El escándalo montado en torno a la polémica entre la speaker (presidenta) de la Cámara de Representantes, la demócrata Nancy Pelosi, y el director de la CIA, Leon Panetta, designado por Obama, sobre si Pelosi conocía el famoso ahogamiento simulado (waterboarding) de los prisioneros, que ella niega, es de los que hacen historia en Washington. Podría seguir con los próximos disgustos cantados que los demócratas del Congreso van a proporcionar a su presidente en los temas de energía limpia y similares. Lo dejaremos para cuando se produzcan.

La actualidad demanda que ahora tratemos de analizar la esperada entrevista del pasado lunes entre Obama y el primer ministro israelí, Benjamín Netanyahu, que, aunque ya se conocían como ciudadanos privados, se veían por primera vez en sus capacidades de presidente y jefe del Gobierno de Israel. Pude ver en directo, a través de CNN, el breve turno de preguntas y respuestas que los dos mandatarios permitieron a los medios después de la photo-op (sesión fotográfica) reglamentaria. El método Ollendorf presidió la minirueda de prensa. Ya saben, "¿Qué tal van las cosas?", "Pues Chicago opta a capital olímpica". En términos futbolísticos podríamos decir que el partido terminó con un claro 1-0 a favor de Netanyahu, sin perjuicio del resultado que arrojen los próximos playoffs. El israelí venía dispuesto a no hacer la más mínima concesión en los dos temas capitales para Obama, el establecimiento de un Estado palestino y la congelación de los asentamientos en Cisjordania. Su línea argumental fue simple y directa: para Israel las ambiciones nucleares iraníes significan un peligro inmediato para Oriente Próximo mayor que el conflicto palestino-israelí. Sí, está dispuesto a reanudar inmediatamente las conversaciones con los palestinos sobre temas económicos y de seguridad. Pero silencio sepulcral en torno a un Estado. En cuanto a la congelación de los asentamientos, ese mismo día se daban los primeros pasos para la construcción de uno nuevo, Maskiot, a orillas del Jordán, el primero en casi 30 años. En cuanto al tema de Irán, he leído que Obama se negó a poner plazo para las negociaciones con Irán. Dijo eso, es verdad, para añadir a continuación que antes de final de año se vería si Teherán respondía favorablemente a las iniciativas diplomáticas patrocinadas por EE UU y el resto de la comunidad internacional. ¿No es eso poner un plazo? Es evidente que la confianza de Israel en una solución diplomática al problema iraní es nula. Tres resoluciones del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU han sido incapaces de conseguir que Teherán detenga su programa de enriquecimiento de uranio y de desarrollo de proyectiles balísticos. Por eso, la diplomacia israelí se esfuerza en convencer a los llamados Estados árabes moderados -Egipto, Jordania, Arabia Saudí- de la amenaza que supondría para toda la zona un Irán con capacidad militar nuclear. Los árabes están de acuerdo. Pero, como Obama, reclaman antes el cumplimiento de la hoja de ruta fijada en Annapolis.

El conflicto palestino-israelí y la situación en todo Oriente Próximo van a poner a prueba más que ningún otro problema internacional la capacidad de liderazgo de Barack. A su favor cuenta, por primera vez, con la buena voluntad de la opinión pública árabe que, según una reciente encuesta, tiene más confianza en él que en EE UU. Y su disposición a recuperar desde los primeros meses de su Administración los ocho años perdidos durante la presidencia de Bush, que curiosamente fue el primer presidente que habló de la solución de los dos Estados en 2001. En cuanto a Israel habrá desacuerdos. De hecho, ya los ha habido en la primera reunión. Pero que nadie sueñe con un enfrentamiento y, mucho menos, con una ruptura entre Washington y Jerusalén. Como el propio Obama, entonces aspirante a la nominación demócrata, declaró en junio del año pasado ante el AIPAC, el más influyente lobby judío-americano, "la seguridad de Israel es sacrosanta y no negociable".

Fuente: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Predicar/dar/trigo/elppgl/20090522elpepiint_5/Tes

¿Cuántas ojivas nucleares quedarán por fuera antes de la cumbre de Medvédev con Obama?

Andrei Fediashin, RIA Novosti.

A pesar de que parece ser lo mismo, el deseo de hallar un compromiso y la capacidad de aceptarlo, en realidad son cosas muy diferentes.

Lo anteriormente dicho tiene aplicación directa a las propuestas de reducir el arsenal estratégico nuclear de Rusia y Estados Unidos.

Lo primero (el deseo) en la mayoría de las veces no permite lograr lo segundo (el compromiso), porque los métodos y la aritmética empleada para contabilizar la correlación de las fuerzas nucleares de ambos países es una labor muy complicada.

A juzgar por los resultados de las primeras consultas entre expertos en formato completo de EEUU y Rusia para la redacción de un nuevo tratado de reducción del arsenal estratégico nuclear (STAR) celebradas en Moscú el 19 y 20 de mayo, ambas partes tienen el "deseo" de lograr un compromiso, pero a cada uno de los bandos le falta un poco de "disposición".

Y no es extraño. Situaciones semejantes ya ocurrieron en negociaciones similares anteriores, ya que ese tipo de obstáculos son predecibles especialmente en la etapa inicial de cualquier tipo de negociaciones de desarme.

Además, nadie ha dicho ni pudo decir que la reducción del armamento estratégico nuclear de Rusia y EEUU es un asunto fácil y rápido.

No es suficiente que a diferencia de Bush que no habló de reducciones, Obama se diga de repente, "propongo reducir", establezca incluso el nivel mínimo de hasta 1.000 ojivas y piense que el asunto se resolverá únicamente viajando a Moscú.

Por lo visto, los expertos rusos y estadounidenses todavía tendrán que trabajar muy seriamente en la elaboración del nuevo tratado de desarme nuclear. Existen puntos afines, pero hay asuntos que todavía no encuadran, así que todavía faltan más rondas de negociaciones, y probablemente, serán más que una.

El término "formato completo" empleado más que todo por EEUU, quiere decir que en la delegación participan expertos del Departamento de Estado (política), del Pentágono (contabiliza el arsenal nuclear y aspectos militares) y el Ministerio de Energética encargado de producir y guardar las ojivas nucleares, como también la verificación y control de su destrucción.

Ahora, en base a las posturas expuestas en las consultas de Moscú las partes negociadoras preparan un informe para la cumbre Medvédev-Obama del 6 al 8 de julio en Moscú y los presidentes, en base a este informe, decidir la cantidad y la forma en que se reducirá el arsenal nuclear estratégico de EEUU y Rusia.

En términos generales, se puede afirmar que Rusia y EEUU lograrán un compromiso en relación al tratado que debe sustituir el tratado START-1 firmado en 1991, en vigor desde 1999, y cuya vigencia caduca el 5 de diciembre del presente año.

Ambos gobiernos están obligados a hacerlo, pues si no se aprueba un tratado de reemplazo, se verán ante la extraña situación de quedar sin mecanismos jurídicos para controlar el número de ojivas nucleares en poder de cada una de las partes.

Más o menos, está claro cuál será el nivel mínimo de reducción del arsenal nuclear estratégicos de Rusia y EEUU. Según los términos establecidos por el START-1 su nivel es de 6.000 ojivas y 1.600 portadores para cada una de las partes.

Ahora, las partes están de acuerdo en reducir sus ojivas nucleares hasta 1.500 unidades cada uno, ya que es muy poco probable que se logre cumplir la propuesta hecha por Obama en Praga el pasado mes de abril, cuando dijo que las potencias deberían reducir sus arsenales atómicos hasta 1.000 ojivas para cada uno.

Y no porque sea imposible, o porque esa reducción debilite la seguridad de ambos países.

Simplemente frente a una reducción tan radical, EEUU deberá renunciar a uno de los componentes de su "tríada nuclear", los misiles balísticos de emplazamiento en tierra, los misiles emplazados en submarinos o los miles trasportados por aviones estratégicos de la Fuerza Aérea.

Para cada una de tríada nuclear estadounidense, será muy problemático el mantenimiento de una cantidad reducida de ojivas nucleares y la liquidación de una de ellas por "baja rentabilidad", enfrentará a Obama contra el Pentágono, la Armada o la Fuerza Aérea, sectores influyentes del complejo industrial militar e incluso el Congreso.

A diferencia de la Administración Bush que nunca abordó este tema, los estadounidenses ahora están dispuestos a negociar también reducciones en la cantidad de los portadores nucleares.

Según informó la jefa de la delegación estadounidense, la asesora de la Secretaria de Estado para asuntos de comprobación y control de acuerdos sobre armamento Rose Gottemoeller, en las negociaciones de Moscú se habló de reducciones de misiles balísticos intercontinentales de emplazamiento en silos, misiles en submarinos nucleares y misiles nucleares instalados en bombarderos estratégicos

Por el momento, los negociadores estadounidenses no están dispuestos a incluir en el sistema de registro y control las ojivas nucleares que se encuentran guardadas en arsenales, y sólo aceptan que las ojivas instaladas en los correspondientes portadores se tengan en cuenta en los procesos de control y verificación.

Para Moscú esto supone un serio obstáculo, sin embargo aún es posible lograr un compromiso.

Para la parte rusa otro obstáculo importante son los planes de los estadounidenses de emplazar cargas convencionales en misiles balísticos estratégicos, porque en este caso, se complica el proceso de identificación, verificación y control de este tipo de cohetes (cómo distinguir el que lleva carga nuclear y cual no), pero incluso en este asunto, también es posible encontrar una solución adecuada para las partes.

En general, la situación se encuentra en el punto en el que ambos bandos quieren llegar a serios compromisos.

Independientemente del punto de vista, el nuevo acuerdo de desarme nuclear es más importante para Rusia que para EEUU.

En cuanto a armamento convencional, nosotros ya estamos rezagados con respecto a EEUU, y esa misma situación impera en los procesos de modernización del armamento nuclear a todos los niveles y actualmente, tenemos una cantidad menor de ojivas nucleares.

Según las últimas estimaciones, para 2009 Rusia cuenta con 3.909 ojivas nucleares y 814 portadores, mientras que EEUU posee 5.576 ojivas y 1.198 portadores. A partir de estas cifras, es evidente que cualquier reducción será ventajosa para Moscú.

En cualquier caso, EEUU tendrá que reducir una cantidad mayor de ojivas nucleares. Además nosotros no tendremos que gastar una cantidad colosal de recursos en la producción de ojivas nuevas, y a pesar de que debemos modernizar nuestro armamento, con el nuevo tratado STRAT ganaremos más.

Por esta razón, es poco comprensible la obstinación que demuestra la parte rusa al insistir que la firma de cualquier nuevo tratado de reducción nuclear estratégica debe tener en cuenta el programa de defensa antimisiles de EEUU (DAM) en Polonia y la República Checa y los programas para la militarización del cosmos.

Al mantener esta postura, nosotros mismos nos acorralamos y le damos ventajas a Washington al elevar el "monto" de nuestras exigencias con el DAM que todavía no se ha emplazado.

En el caso de que ocurra una ruptura en las negociaciones, Moscú perderá más que Washington, entre otras cosas, en plano de su imagen.

Actualmente, la prensa occidental difunde la opinión de que para Rusia no tiene sentido apresurarse con la firma del el tratado, porque puede entorpecer su programa para la modernización de su armamento nuclear, y que la aparición de obstáculos que impidan la firma del mencionado documento es más favorable al Kremlin.

A juzgar por la escasa información filtrada de las consultas celebradas en Moscú, las partes, o bien en la cumbre Medvédev- Obama o un poco más tarde, los presidentes adoptarán una solución intermedia mediante la firma de un acuerdo marco que sirva de base para que continúe el trabajo sobre el nuevo tratado en 2010.

Un acuerdo de intenciones ya es algo, y siempre será mejor si no se firma nada, aunque queda la esperanza de que estamos hablando de pronósticos equivocados.

Fuente: http://sp.rian.ru/analysis/20090521/121694913.html