EM central banks are doing Fed’s dirty work

By Richard Bernstein

US investors are increasingly fearful of inflation. Every cycle has some growth in headline inflation, but there is a big difference between such normal, cyclical pricing pressure and the rising fear that the US economy is somehow mutating into that of a developing markets country.

Ironically, emerging market central banks’ recent monetary tightening is likely to prevent US inflation from getting out of control and could actually prolong the US economic cycle.

“Printing money” is today’s derogatory description of what was once simply called “monetary stimulus”. Some observers, distorting basic monetary theory, argue that monetary stimulus itself causes inflation. In fact, it is only the combustible combination of printing money and creating credit that stokes inflationary fires. With credit growth in the US still moribund, its M2 growth is currently less than 5 per cent.

Monetary theory states that an economy cannot sustain an abnormally high inflation rate without abnormally high credit growth that stimulates abnormal demand. Consider the recent housing bubble.

Abnormal growth in housing-related credit caused abnormal demand for housing, which in turn caused abnormal inflation in home prices. The US might experience some normal, cyclical pricing pressures (indeed, the trough in the headline US consumer price index occurred nearly two years ago), but sustained above-normal inflation seems unlikely unless credit growth begins to expand rapidly to stimulate demand beyond available supply.

It is easy to blame the Federal Reserve for the recent increase in US inflation, but analysis suggests that investors may be faulting the wrong central bank. Whether they realise it or not, US investors’ current inflation fears are more closely related to emerging markets’ loose monetary policies and resulting strong local-market credit growth than to the Fed’s policies and US domestic credit growth.

Abnormal credit and money-supply growth in the major emerging markets have been spurring abnormal inflation exactly as monetary theory would suggest. Monetary growth during the past 12 months in Brazil, Russia, India and China now ranges between 15 per cent and 30 per cent. These are the highest monetary growth rates among the major economies. Very loose credit conditions have boosted excess demand, which has led to significant and rising rates of inflation. In fact, the Bric countries now have among the world’s highest inflation rates. Consistent with theory, high rates of credit growth have overstimulated demand, which has led to high rates of inflation.

Emerging market central banks have been tightening monetary policy to curtail credit growth and slow aggregate demand. If they are successful, the recent uptrend in commodity prices might end. It has been widely accepted that the incremental demand for commodities during the past decade has come from the emerging markets. That incremental demand has been fuelled in part by the easy money and credit conditions noted. However, it might be a mistake to extrapolate from past demand trends, especially in light of emerging market central banks’ increasingly tight policies.

Yield curves are very good forecasters of future economic and profits growth. Whereas the US yield curve remains very steep (with higher interest rates over longer maturities), suggesting robust growth, yield curves in many parts of the world are demonstrably flattening as their central banks’ tightening policies take hold.

India, for example, has one of the world’s flattest yield curves, with the spread between one- and 10-year interest rates now only about 35 basis points. A year ago, that spread was over 250bp. By our estimates, India’s curve might invert over the next several months. Historically, inverted yield curves have consistently signalled significant economic slowdown, if not outright recession.

The emerging markets are increasingly showing characteristics of late cycle economies: inflation ramping up, monetary tightening, yield curves flattening and overly optimistic earnings forecasts (with 45 per cent of emerging market companies reporting negative earnings surprises during the last reporting period).

The US economy, on the other hand, continues to demonstrate early- and mid-cycle traits. For example, growth in US industrial production is now positive in 30 of the 32 industrial categories measured by the Fed.

It appears that the US economic recovery is slowly turning into a broad-based expansion, but instead of welcoming this improvement, investors are growing wary that the Fed will soon embark on a policy of monetary tightening.

If emerging market central banks ultimately succeed in curbing local credit growth and cooling their economies, then the commodity inflation in the US that presently scares so many investors will probably subside. Emerging market central banks are effectively doing the Fed’s dirty work and US assets might be the biggest beneficiaries.

Boi na linha

Miriam LeitaoO JBS-

Friboi não tem condições de garantir que não está comprando boi de fazenda de desmatamento ilegal. A empresa tem apenas condições de garantir que se o pecuarista entrar na lista dos desmatadores ou dos que praticam trabalho escravo sairá automaticamente do grupo de fornecedores do frigorífico. Foi o que me disse o presidente do Conselho de Administração do JBS-Friboi, Joesley Batista.

— O JBS não tem poder de Estado. Não tem o poder de montar o controle. O Estado me dá a lista dos que desmataram ou praticaram trabalho escravo e eu cumpro a minha parte. Se o cara não está na lista, como vou saber se ele desmata ou não? Minha missão não é de polícia — disse.

Recentemente, o frigorífico, maior empresa de proteína animal do mundo, uma multinacional brasileira, foi acusado pelo Ministério Público do Acre de comprar carne de fazenda embargada pelo Ibama ou de fazenda autuada por trabalho análogo ao de escravo. Escrevi sobre isso aqui na coluna, ressaltando o fato de que o BNDES não é apenas financiador, mas sócio do frigorífico, tem 20% das ações. O banco, aliás, é também o gestor do Fundo Amazônia. Difícil entender tanta contradição.

No dia que escrevi a coluna, tentei falar com o frigorífico, como tentei todas as vezes em que tratei de questões relacionadas à empresa. Esta semana, a empresa procurou a coluna. Ontem, conversei longamente com o presidente. As explicações que ele deu não me convenceram, mas conto aqui porque ajudam a esclarecer um pouco a complicada questão da pecuária na Amazônia. Uma empresa que fatura US$ 40 bilhões por ano, como ele me disse, deveria ter um sistema de controle dos seus fornecedores, mas ele considera que isso é função do Estado. No entanto, no pacto fechado entre frigoríficos, ONGs, órgãos governamentais e Ministério Público, o JBS se comprometeu, junto com outros grandes do setor, como Marfrig e Minerva, a garantir exatamente isso: que não comprariam de quem desmata ou pratica trabalho escravo. Ao fim do prazo negociado, eles pediram mais seis meses para cumprir o prometido. Agora, ele me disse que só pode garantir que se a empresa for flagrada pelo governo praticando qualquer dos dois crimes estará fora da sua lista de fornecedores, mas não acha que é seu dever ter controle sobre a cadeia produtiva da empresa.

Sobre a ação do Ministério Público do Acre, Joesley Batista disse o seguinte:

— Foi um equívoco. Temos sofrido com isso. O Ministério Público tem todo o direito de abrir uma investigação, mas abrir um inquérito não quer dizer que provou que houve alguma coisa errada. Mas aí sai a notícia. É apenas um início de investigação. Além do mais, tem que se saber quando houve o fato na fazenda. Eu posso comprar hoje de uma fazenda, ela é autuada amanhã, eu não tenho culpa.

O procurador Anselmo Henrique Cordeiro Lopes, do Ministério Público do Acre, contou que não era um início de investigação, mas uma investigação concluída, e por isso foi proposta a Ação Civil Pública. Disse que eles entraram com a Ação porque verificaram, através das guias de transporte animal, que 14 dos 50 frigoríficos que atuam no estado, entre eles o JBS, tinham comprado carne de fazendas que estavam embargadas pelo Ibama ou tinham sido notificadas por trabalho escravo. Isso, antes da compra da carne.

— A empresa tem sim como saber dos problemas porque mantém relações de longo prazo com seus fornecedores. Então é só conferir se as fazendas estão nas listas do Ibama ou do Ministério Público do Trabalho. A empresa não pode dizer que comprou gado antes de a fazenda entrar na lista. Quando conferimos as guias, temos o cuidado de olhar as datas para ter certeza de que a compra foi feita depois que a fazenda entrou na lista do Ibama ou do Ministério do Trabalho — disse o procurador.

O JBS assinou ontem mesmo um Termo de Ajustamento de Conduta (TAC) para encerrar a Ação Civil Pública do MP do Acre. Ao assinar o acordo, encerra-se a ação. O TAC funciona assim, a empresa se compromete a não adotar mais aquela prática, e a ação é encerrada. Assim, evita-se o processo judicial. A empresa se comprometeu nesse TAC, assinado ontem, a deixar de comprar carne oriunda de áreas embargadas por órgãos de fiscalização ambiental, desde que a informação conste em lista oficial e esteja disponível na internet. Ela se comprometeu também a não comprar boi de terras indígenas. Além do MP do Acre, assinaram o acordo os procuradores de Rondônia, Amazonas, Roraima, Pará, Tocantins, Maranhão e Amapá.

Joesley tinha dito inicialmente na conversa comigo que era “absolutamente falsa” a acusação, depois disse que tinha sido apenas uma abertura de investigação, mas ontem mesmo estava assinando o Termo de Ajustamento de Conduta que, como o nome indica, quer dizer mudar a conduta. Perguntei por que ele havia pedido aos assinantes do pacto pela carne legal, como os supermercados aos quais fornece, mais seis meses para dar a garantia de que seus fornecedores não desmatam. Ele disse que a empresa é muito grande, tem 34 unidades, abate 30 mil bois por dia, seis milhões por ano.

Tamanho deveria dar à empresa mais possibilidade de ter um controle maior sobre sua cadeia produtiva e sobre sua lista de fornecedores. Empresas modernas têm que trabalhar exatamente para garantir ao consumidor que o produto que ele consome é de boa procedência, seja em termos sanitários, ambientais, trabalhistas. Por ser grande, a empresa poderia usar seu poder para ajudar a modernização da pecuária brasileira. Se quisesse.

What Government Does

By DAVID BROOKS

We in the commentariat spend a lot of time reporting on the White House and the U.S. Capitol, but relatively little time reporting on the dozens of federal buildings around them where public policy actually gets executed. We engage in debates about the size of government but spend little time directly observing what government is and isn’t good at.

To help compensate, I spent some time this week at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It is headquartered in a dispiriting 1960s building that is brutalist on the outside and dreary within — 10 stories of basement, as the employees say.

The secretary, Shaun Donovan, was trained as an engineer and is a numbers guy. He learned from his experience as New York City’s housing commissioner that you can’t fight social problems like crime and homelessness unless you have good data. So he helped create a program called HUDStat, which tracks homelessness among veterans and the results of the various efforts to combat it.

I observed a strategy meeting led by Donovan and Scott Gould, the deputy secretary of the Veterans Administration, with about 30 career personnel and political appointees. The purpose of the meeting was to see which regions were doing a good job of getting the veterans treatment and housing vouchers, and which weren’t. (Democrats seem to feel comfortable using vouchers to address housing problems but not education and health care problems.)

The career workers at the meeting were impressive. They made short, highly informed presentations and answered arcane questions about legislative history. They had achieved a herculean task of getting two government agencies to agree on a single data set, a single methodology and a single progress report.

Homelessness touches many government services, from housing to education, and the federal workers presented complicated flowcharts trying to organize overlapping programs into one coherent system. How do you set up services for a homeless female veteran who has a drug addiction, psychiatric problems and is a victim of domestic violence? If a federal agency issues housing vouchers, how should it alert the local housing authority that more residents are on the way?

The HUDStat report is blunt about which state and local departments are efficiently moving veterans into housing (Indiana and Ohio) and which is lagging behind (California).

The career people treated the political people with almost military deference. The career people often spoke about managing the organizational structures and establishing clear rules for case-workers; Donovan and Gould spoke more about the experience of the veterans on the street and probed for ways to move everything faster:

Can we use money from other voucher programs to get the veterans security deposits? Probably not, the accounting issues are too complex. How long does it take between a homeless veteran’s first contact and actually moving in? The norm is 127 days. Can we reduce that wait time to 10 days? No, but maybe 90 is possible. Even though the 2011 budget was passed late, can we use some of that money quickly so legislators will be pleased when budget time comes up again in 2012? Yes.

Unlike some political appointees, Donovan and Gould are deeply involved in the intricacies and are powerfully driving policy. Many government efforts are designed to minimize failure and avert scandal. In this program, each region has a clear numeric definition of success. There are clear standards for how quickly veteran homelessness should be reduced year by year. So far, the program is surpassing its targets by 46 percent.

The big question I had was this: How large is the gap between the neatness of data on a bar chart and the messy reality on the street?

For example, 75 percent of veterans in the program have psychiatric, drug or alcohol problems. Under the old policy, social workers tried to get the veterans treated first and offered free housing as an inducement. Now the Housing First approach prevails: Get them the stability of an apartment, then treat their drinking, drug and mental issues.

That produces good homelessness data, but are ill and addicted veterans off their meds and menacing apartment buildings? Does the approach work as well for the severely ill? Does it work as well in sparsely served areas?

Donovan notes that research supports the counterintuitive Housing First approach. Some studies do, indeed, show modest benefits, but I was struck by the vast difference between the way a government sees the world — numerically and organizationally — and the gritty and unpredictable way the world sometimes looks to, say, a crime reporter or a homeless veteran himself.

Over all, visiting HUD was  tremendously useful. Amid the hot-rhetoric government wars, it was important to see the talent and commitment of real-life government workers running a successful program — and to see the limitations inherent in government planning.

The Intimidated Fed

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Last month more than 14 million Americans were unemployed by the official definition — that is, seeking work but unable to find it. Millions more were stuck in part-time work because they couldn’t find full-time jobs. And we’re not talking about temporary hardship. Long-term unemployment, once rare in this country, has become all too normal: More than four million Americans have been out of work for a year or more.

Given this dismal picture, you might have expected unemployment, and what to do about it, to have been a major focus of Wednesday’s press conference with Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve. And it should have been. But it wasn’t.

After the conference, Reuters put together a “word cloud” of Mr. Bernanke’s remarks, a visual representation of the frequency with which he used various words. The cloud is dominated by the word “inflation.” “Unemployment,” in much smaller type, is tucked in the background.

This misplaced emphasis wasn’t entirely Mr. Bernanke’s fault, since he was responding to questions — and those questions focused much more on inflation than on unemployment. But that focus was, in itself, a symptom of the extent to which Washington has lost interest in the plight of the unemployed. And the Bernanke Fed, which should be taking a firm stand against these skewed priorities, is instead letting itself be bullied into following the herd.

Some background: The Fed normally takes primary responsibility for short-term economic management, using its influence over interest rates to cool the economy when it’s running too hot, which raises the threat of inflation, and to heat it up when it’s running too cold, leading to high unemployment. And the Fed has more or less explicitly indicated what it considers a Goldilocks outcome, neither too hot nor too cold: inflation at 2 percent or a bit lower, unemployment at 5 percent or a bit higher.

But Goldilocks has left the building, and shows no sign of returning soon. The Fed’s latest forecasts, unveiled at that press conference, show low inflation and high unemployment for the foreseeable future.

True, the Fed expects inflation this year to run a bit above target, but Mr. Bernanke declared (and I agree) that we’re looking at a temporary bulge from higher raw material prices; measures of underlying inflation remain well below target, and the forecast sees inflation falling sharply next year and remaining low at least through 2013.

Meanwhile, as I’ve already pointed out, unemployment — although down from its 2009 peak — remains devastatingly high. And the Fed expects only slow improvement, with unemployment at the end of 2013 expected to still be around 7 percent.

It all adds up to a clear case for more action. Yet Mr. Bernanke indicated that he has done all he’s likely to do. Why?

He could have argued that he lacks the ability to do more, that he and his colleagues no longer have much traction over the economy. But he didn’t. On the contrary, he argued that the Fed’s recent policy of buying long-term bonds, generally referred to as “quantitative easing,” has been effective. So why not do more?

Mr. Bernanke’s answer was deeply disheartening. He declared that further expansion might lead to higher inflation.

What you need to bear in mind here is that the Fed’s own forecasts say that inflation will be below target over the next few years, so that some rise in inflation would actually be a good thing, not a reason to avoid tackling unemployment. Those forecasts could, of course, be wrong, but they could be too high as well as too low.

The only way to make sense of Mr. Bernanke’s aversion to further action is to say that he’s deathly afraid of overshooting the inflation target, while being far less worried about undershooting — even though doing too little means condemning millions of Americans to the nightmare of long-term unemployment.

What’s going on here? My interpretation is that Mr. Bernanke is allowing himself to be bullied by the inflationistas: the people who keep seeing runaway inflation just around the corner and are undeterred by the fact that they keep on being wrong.

Lately the inflationistas have seized on rising oil prices as evidence in their favor, even though — as Mr. Bernanke himself pointed out — these prices have nothing to do with Fed policy. The way oil prices are coloring the discussion led the economist Tim Duy to suggest, sarcastically, that basic Fed policy is now to do nothing about unemployment “because some people in the Middle East are seeking democracy.”

But I’d put it differently. I’d say that the Fed’s policy is to do nothing about unemployment because Ron Paul is now the chairman of the House subcommittee on monetary policy.

So much for the Fed’s  independence. And so much for the future of America’s increasingly desperate jobless.

Brazil’s boom masks growing vulnerabilities

By John Paul Rathbone, in Rio de Janeiro

It has been almost 50 years since Astrud Gilberto and Stan Getz recorded the bossa-nova hit “The Girl from Ipanema”. Much has changed in Brazil since they sang of the tanned Rio de Janeiro beauty: “When she walks, she’s like a samba.”

The song has become elevator music and the young girl from Rio’s most famous beach district is now a grandmother. But not all the loveliness has faded. In some ways, those wistful days have returned. Brazil, once more, is enjoying the kind of economic boom it did when the song was first recorded.

In the mid-1960s, Brazil was in the midst of a state-led and debt-financed investment “miracle”. This fantasy of fast growth crashed during the Latin American debt crisis of the 1980s, which gave way to the grinding reforms and stabilisation packages of the 1990s.

Those, helped by the commodity price boom, laid the ground for steady growth during the 2000s. And now things have come full circle, with the overheated Brazilian “miracle” of the 2010s.

Much as when the girl from Ipanema first sashayed across the beach at Ipanema, Brazil’s current prosperity is being partly sustained by an economic model that promotes state-led investment and high debt. How long can this boom last?

It is a question at the forefront of the minds of those attending this year’s World Economic Forum on Latin America – the regional offshoot of its better known Davos cousin – which opened in Rio on Thursday. Set in a bay along from Ipanema beach, it considers the theme “Laying the Foundation for Latin America’s decade”.

That the coming decade might be Latin America’s is a self-congratulatory slogan that has caught on quickly. Like all marketing slogans, it is part truth and part intoxicating dream.

Brazil, like much of the region, sailed through the global financial crisis. Roaring Asian demand for the commodities it exports in such abundance – iron ore, ethanol, soya and other foods – buoyed Brazil’s terms of trade. This huge windfall allowed for a huge surge in imports, but masked growing vulnerabilities.

Plug in 2005 commodity prices, for example, and Brazil’s $23bn trade surplus would become a $20bn deficit. If Chinese demand for commodities were to fall – and it cannot be sustained for ever – Brazil’s growing deficit would explode.

Meanwhile, the government has pursued the state-led mega-projects – most particularly in the oil sector – in which Dilma Rousseff, the president, believes and that are part of a global ideological shift towards bigger government. The echoes with the 1960s and 1970s are eerie – and not just in Rio’s retro-looking buildings and street decor.

The Brazilian real is the most overvalued major currency in the world. Cheaper imports have made Brazilians feel richer, feeding a consumer boom. But domestic manufacturers have appealed for help – and the same kind of tariff protections that characterised the doomed economic model of bygone years.

Finally, to deal with the global financial crisis, the government opened up the taps – and has only just started to withdraw the stimulus. Ultra-low interest rates in the United States, Europe and Japan has flooded the country with capital, pumping up the economy further. Bank credit is now growing at a 20 per cent annual clip.

That has given Brazil’s economy an appearance of strength, but also risked stretching it thin. Typically, Brazilians now spend a quarter of disposable income on debt payments. At the height of the US credit boom, by contrast, American households spent about 15 per cent. If US interest rates were to rise, Brazil’s boom could turn to a sudden bust.

Managing abundance is hard. Economists increasingly warn Brazil and the region of the dangers of complacency and over-exuberance. High foreign exchange reserves provide some protection. But if the coming decade really is to be Latin America’s, more needs to be done: grinding out efficiency from the state, saving part of the commodity bonanza to maintain social programmes when tough times return, improving education and infrastructure to foster lasting productivity gains, all the while maintaining macroeconomic stability.

That is a difficult task. Yet unless it is met, the almost unprecedented current boom – as with so many in the past – will eventually pass Brazil by, just like the girl from Ipanema who when she walked to the sea, looked “straight ahead, not at me”. Ah, what a wasted opportunity that would be.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011. Print a single copy of this article for personal use. Contact us if you wish to print more to distribute to others.

Kissinger, Obama, Chile y los Pingüinos”

ARTÍCULO DEL DR. ALBERTO SEPÚLVEDA ALMARZA, PRESIDENTE DE ACHEI

PUBLICADO POR GLOBAL AFFAIRS DE ESPAÑA Y COMENTARIO DEL ABGDO.

BERNARDINO SANHUEZA PINO

Número 24/abril-junio 2011

En el mes de marzo de 2011 El Presidente de Estados Unidos Barak Obama hará su primera incursión a los países situados al sur de México. Los elegidos fueron El Salvador en Centroamérica, Brasil y Chile en América del Sur. Muchos se preguntan ¿Por que Chile?

En las líneas que siguen trataremos de responder

Tiempo atrás cuando finalizaba la década del 1960, los gobiernos latinoamericanos se reunieron en Viña del Mar, Chile, y acordaron establecer una postura única frente a Estados Unidos. Fue el Canciller chileno, Gabriel Valdés, el encargado de dar a conocer los acuerdos al Presidente Richard Nixon. Y así lo hizo.

En la conversación surgió una áspera réplica del Secretario de Estado, Henry Kissinger , quien señaló a Valdés que la real política de poder se hacía en el norte del planeta y que el sur no pesaba. América Latina era irrelevante.

Posteriormente Kissinger, muy agradado por los planteamientos pro americanos del gobierno militar de Brasil e impactado por el peso geográfico y demográfico de ese país señaló: “Donde se inclina Brasil se inclina América Latina”.

Kissinger no tenía mucho conocimiento e interés por lo que pasaba al sur de Texas y de ahí sus reflexiones. No había percibido las realidades básicas del continente americano.

Existen tres grandes comunidades en el continente americano constituidas por los herederos de los Imperios de España, Inglaterra y Portugal. Los dos últimos generaron países dotados de extensos territorios como Canadá, Estados Unidos y Brasil.

Hispanoamérica se desintegró surgiendo países débiles y atrasados.

Sebastián Piñera Echenique, Presidente de Chile en la ONU. UN Photo/Rick Bajornas

La Historia y el lenguaje son elementos de gran importancia para la estructuración de la cultura, de las visiones de mundo y, en consecuencia, repercuten en la política.

Y entre los herederos de Castilla y Brasil existen diferencias importantes. No hay que olvidar que España y Portugal durante siglos fueron rivales y que ambos casi no tuvieron mayor contacto intelectual. De hecho se dieron las espaldas y miraron para otro lado Y esta rivalidad se traspaso a las tierras americanas.

Ello implica que Brasil puede ser el país más poderoso de América del Sur pero, en la realidad, influye poco en los grandes debates económicos, ideológicos o políticos de los de los países de habla hispana. Brasil nunca ha sido un modelo a seguir y sus pensadores son desconocidos en el resto de América Latina.

Kissinger hizo su tercer comentario: “Chile es una daga que apunta al corazón de la Antártida”. Es decir la marginalidad total. El papel geopolítico de Chile sería despejar los conflictos por territorio de los pingüinos y eventualmente, trazar cartas de navegación a las ballenas.

Y, sin embargo, Obama mira a Chile.

Para enfrentar esta paradoja hay que citar a mi amigo Luis Maira . “Chile tiene un liderato conceptual en América Latina”. Es decir genera ideas que influyen en el mundo de habla hispana y a veces, más lejos aún.

Y esta característica viene del primer tercio del siglo XIX ya que Chile fue capaz de constituir la primera República dotada de un Estado de Derecho, al sur de EEUU .Esta situación dio estabilidad política, orden y paz en un espacio territorial de la convulsionada América que “rezaba a Jesús en español” al decir de Rubén Darío. Y en varias oportunidades Chile fue mirado como un modelo a seguir; en el siglo XIX por su capacidad de gobernarse con eficacia y el XX por sus debates ideológicos.

Es así que el siglo pasado fue el centro de la polémica económica entre partidarios de un Estado planificador y los Chicago Boys. Fenómenos como la “Revolución en Libertad” de Eduardo Frei ,” La transición al socialismo” de Salvador Allende, de una dictadura modernizadora y cruelmente represora, como la de Augusto Pinochet y la “Transición a la democracia” de Patricio Aylwin, generaron partidarios y detractores en los confines del planeta. Es así que los estudiantes iraníes que se oponían al Sha desfilaban y gritan “Pinosha” para mostrar su repudio, o que en Filipinas se golpeaban cacerolas, técnica de la oposición chilena para protestar contra la dictadura de Marcos o que en Portugal, en 1974 la “Revolución de los claveles” se hiciera con el lema “El pueblo unido jamás será vencido”.

Más aún, caído el gobierno de Allende , Enrico Berluinguer, el líder comunista italiano, señaló que los cambios profundos en una sociedad tenían que apoyarse en una mayoritaria coalición política y que tenían que hacerse en democracia. En otras palabras, abjuró de la concepción clásica de la Revolución, preconizada por Lenin y que llevaba a la “dictadura del proletariado” para enfatizar la moderación y el libre juego de las ideas y los partidos. Berluinguer le propuso un “Compromiso Histórico” a la Democracia Cristiana para modernizar Italia, idea que no fructificó y fue el creador del ” eurocomunismo”. Y el trasfondo fue el análisis de la experiencia chilena de la Unidad Popular.

Iniciativas como la “Comisión de Verdad y Reconciliación” desarrollada durante el Gobierno de Patricio Aylwin fueron imitadas en varios países de América Latina, Asia y África .

Durante el Gobierno de George W. Bush la elite política chilena discrepó con las intervenciones militares de EEUU en el Medio Oriente y pronosticó su fracaso. Sin embargo, la Secretaria de Estado, Condoleeza Rice, a diferencia de Kissinger, demostró mayor capacidad para el diálogo y en varias oportunidades le pidió a su colega chileno, Alejandro Foxley una mayor participación de Chile en los asuntos latinoamericanos.

El cuadro global, en nuestros días, es desfavorable para EEUU; tiene problemas económicos graves, hay una revuelta en Oriente Medio que nadie sabe en que terminará, emergen otras potencias como China, India, la Unión Europea, Rusia, Brasil e Irán y el mundo deja de ser “unipolar”, si es que alguna vez lo fue.

Todo ello resalta la importancia de América Latina y Chile es considerado desde una perspectiva de mayor realce que simplemente cuidar a pingüinos y ballenas en la Antártida.

Obama va a Brasil y a Chile a dialogar y abrir espacios para una estrategia de EEUU adecuada a las nuevas realidades de poder, con los pies en la tierra y ya no con ilusiones de una grandeza que ya es parte del pasado de EEUU.

Alberto Sepúlveda
Presidente de ACHEI
Doctor en Ciencias Políticas y Sociología

Global Affairs no es responsable de las opiniones vertidas por sus colaboradores/as, éstas son exclusivas de sus autores/as

COMENTARIO DEL ABGDO.

BERNARDINO SANHUEZA PINO

Una acotación a propósito de “Kissinger, Obama, Chile y los pingüinos”

Alberto Sepúlveda ha esbozado varios temas de interés en el opúsculo que tituló: “Kissinger, Obama, Chile y los pingüinos”, que podrían ser el punto de partida para un interesante debate sobre ellos. Al respecto, y solamente con el objeto de bosquejar algunas preguntas que podrían ser de interés para un intercambio de opiniones, me permito referirme a lo expresado en relación con la existencia de “tres grandes comunidades en el continente americano constituidas por los herederos de los imperios de España, Inglaterra y Portugal” y la constatación que “los dos últimos generaron países dotados de extensos territorios como Canadá, Estados Unidos y Brasil” mientras “Hispanoamérica se desintegró surgiendo países débiles y atrasados.”

Desde luego, las trece colonias que formaron los Estados Unidos de América ocupaban a fines del siglo XVIII un territorio relativamente pequeño del continente americano y la mayor extensión correspondía a la colonización española incluyendo, entre otros, los actuales Estados de California, Texas, Nuevo México y Florida. ¿ Cuál podría ser la razón para que el imperio inglés promoviera la unión de sus colonias independentistas y al contrario no le hubiera sido más conveniente, como sucedió en la caso de las colonias españolas, que formaran Estados independientes?

Los grandes territorios que hoy tienen los Estados Unidos, Canadá y Brasil y también los grandes volúmenes de población que habitan al interior de sus fronteras, ¿no será más bien el resultado de procesos de desarrollo exitosos que en el caso de Estados Unidos le permitió comprar grandes territorios o adquirirlos por la fuerza de las armas?

Como sabemos, en el siglo XIX un porcentaje altísimo de la población de Europa emigró al continente americano. Esta emigración se dirigió preferentemente a los Estados Unidos y Canadá, aunque también a Argentina y Brasil que absorbieron una parte importante de esta migración. El proceso migratorio europeo del siglo XIX y su localización, ¿no explicará en parte importante el nivel de desarrollo de Estados Unidos y Brasil en el siglo XX ?

Los líderes de la independencia de las colonias inglesas tuvieron una visión política que les permitió convencer a sus conciudadanos que desunidos los Estados que habían surgidos del proceso de colonización no tenían porvenir y, al contrario, unidos en una federación podían aspirar a un mayor progreso y bienestar para sus habitantes. Los líderes de la independencia de las colonias del imperio español no tuvieron ni la visión política ni la fuerza suficiente para mantener unidos los Estados que surgieron del proceso de colonización, aunque existieron varios intentos fallidos en este sentido. El éxito de los padres fundadores de los Estados Unidos y el fracaso de los padres de la patria latinoamericanos, cuyas consecuencias se proyectan hasta el día de hoy ¿se pueden explicar diciendo simplemente que eso sucedió porque los exitosos eran herederos del imperio inglés y los fracasados herederos del imperio español?

No debemos olvidar que el gran desarrollo económico que experimentó el mundo a partir de la revolución industrial se dio en el hemisferio norte. Esta localización se acentuó, con sólo dos excepciones, después del término de la segunda guerra mundial. ¿ Esta realidad no podría explicar el éxito de los Estados Unidos más que la herencia del Imperio Inglés ?

Es cierto que los países del hemisferio norte que actualmente son desarrollados supieron aprovechar las oportunidades del desarrollo y no olvidemos que entre las causas de la independencia de las colonias del imperio inglés en América del Norte hubo un fuerte componente económico. La relativamente pequeña extensión territorial de las colonias que formaron los Estados Unidos quizás permitió que los líderes de su independencia pudieran actuar con mayor eficacia que los latinoamericanos unas decenas de años más tarde que tenían que operar en una inmensa extensión geográfica en el cual las comunicaciones eran difíciles y demandaban mucho tiempo. Esta pudiera ser una explicación parcial, no una justificación, para el fracaso de los líderes de la intendencia latinoamericana en conservar unidos los Estados que surgieron después de consumada la independencia del reino de España, lo que hoy podemos decir con certeza que fue la causa principal que esos Estados no alcanzaran los niveles de desarrollo de Estados Unidos, Inglaterra, Francia y Alemania. ¿ Era posible esta unión en los comienzos del siglo XIX ? ¿ Fue el virus nacionalista, importado desde Europa, el que lo impidió? ¿ Dos siglos después, existe conciencia en nuestros pueblos de la ineludible necesidad de la integración para tener un lugar honorable en la vida internacional del siglo XXI ?

Estas son algunas reflexiones que me inspira el interesante opúsculo de Alberto y que puede ser conveniente profundizar en el marco de la elaboración de una política internacional que conduzca a la integración política y económica de los Estados que integran Latinoamérica.

Bernardino Sanhueza Pino

HONG KONG RECUERDA TIANANMEN 1989

COMENTARIO DESDE HONG-KONG DEL CÓNSUL GENERAL DE CHILE

MARIO IGNACIO ARTAZA

05 de Junio del 2011

El presente fin de semana en esta Región Especial Administrativa ha estado centrado principalmente en los preparativos, para celebrar uno de los ritos tradicionales que congrega una gran cantidad público local e internacional, el cual repleta playas y muelles para ver en acción a cientos de deportistas quienes, agrupados en disciplinados y multicolores equipos de remo, compiten en carreras para conmemorar la fiesta del bote del dragón (Duan wu). Esta se realiza en memoria de Qu Yuang (278 a.c.), valiente ministro del Estado Chu quien, en lugar de ceder ante la corrupción y la limitación de los derechos que enfrentaban sus connacionales, optó por arrojarse a un río luego de escribir una celebrada epopeya patriótica.

El calendario para el presente año hizo que durante este mismo fin de semana, unas 100 mil personas (policía cifró la asistencia en unos 80 mil, mientras que los organizadores señalaron que estuvieron unos 150 mil), entre ellos hongkoneses más la presencia de un número no determinado de nacionales chinos quienes, previstos de banderas y pancartas, se trasladaron desde diversas ciudades que bordean con este territorio (Shenzhen y Guangzhou), se congregaran durante unas 10 horas en uno de los principales centros de recreación local – Victoria Park – con el propósito de conmemorar la memoria de otro selecto grupo de líderes que han marcado la historia reciente de la República Popular China: los cientos de estudiantes, trabajadores, funcionarios públicos y hasta militares que participaron hace 22 años en el movimiento que tuvo su climax, un 4 de junio de 1989, en la plaza de Tiananmen, en Beijing, generado aquel día imágenes fotográficas que están dentro de las más memorables del siglo pasado.

Así, con la participación de representantes de partidos políticos, asociaciones gremiales, universidades, jóvenes, comunidades chinas residentes en el extranjero y medios de comunicación de todo el orbe, Victoria Park se iluminó con las decenas de miles de velas que fueron prendidas al son de cánticos y el depósito de ofrendas florales ante una réplica de la estatua de la Diosa de la Libertad, figura emblemática que en su momento fue levantada a metros del mausoleo de Mao Tse-Tung, en 1989. Hubo discursos, muestras de imágenes y videos. La jornada se realizó en perfecto orden y no hubo ninguna señal de violencia ni de intención por alterar el orden público, aún cuando por la gran cantidad de público presente, ciertamente hubiese sido otro el resultado en otras latitudes cuando de este tipo de eventos se realiza.

Una de las principales motivaciones tras el claro éxito, en cuanto a la convocatoria para asistir a la jornada que se realizó en memoria de lo sucedido hace 22 años en Tiananmen, ha sido el hecho que la comunidad hongkonesa – aún sintiendo gran orgullo por ser parte de la República Popular China – está en cierto sentido profundamente frustrada por una marcada tozudez por parte de Beijing, en orden a liberar a disidentes tales como el pintor Ai Weiwei (sus obras están siendo expuestas localmente y hay una campaña visual muy potente en torno a su detención), como también el Premio Nobel de la Paz 2010, Liu Xiaobo. Resulta vital para una población que sustenta su diario vivir en el hecho de poder leer lo que quiera, ver lo que quiera en la televisión y expresar libremente sus opiniones, con el respeto propio de una sociedad euroasiática, ir desde ya marcando una línea de pensamiento, de fuerza comunitaria tras principios que se valoran, protegen y comparten con el resto del planeta, por medio de actos como el presenciado en Victoria Park.

Aunque el gobierno del Chief Executive no fue representado ni tampoco hubo un pronunciamiento formal en torno a lo acontecido en la actividad que conmemoró a quienes han luchado ayer y hoy por ideales universales, éste se encuentra atento y preparándose para la próxima marcha que ya ha sido convocada para el 1ero de julio, en conmemoración del retorno a Hong Kong a la República Popular China. Para entonces, dirigentes de partidos políticos y de asociaciones gremiales ya preparan sus huestes para salir para pronunciarse a favor del voto directo para elegir, en el 2012, al nuevo (a) Chief Executive; soluciones concretas para frenar la brecha en materia de ingresos; acceso a una vivienda propia e inversión en salud pública en un territorio que por sus altos ingresos y reducida población, bien debiera poder enfrentar estos retos con mayor disciplina y resultados que los alcanzados a la fecha, en donde al menos un millón de los siente millones que habitan en estos mil kilómetros cuadrados de territorio, perciben menos de US$2 al día, en circunstancias que el ingreso pér cápita es de unos US$34 mil. Harto por hacer!

Mario Ignacio Artaza - 05.06.2011