MIDDLE EAST TWO STORIES ONE REALITY
By Hugo Adan , August 28 2012
Story # 1.
THIS IS WHY BASHAR AL-ASSAD’S SYRIA WILL NOT FALL
Orient Tendencies
by by Ghaleb Kandil. 26 August 2012
http://www.voltairenet.org/This-is-why-Bashar-al-Assad-s
“The month of Ramadan will witness the fall of the resisting regime in Syria. These illusions have once again collapsed on the battlefield where the armed gangs suffered the fall of thousands of dead, wounded and detainees. .. the death squads, mercenaries and Takfiri groups introduced from all parts of the world suffered a crushing defeat at the level of the battles.”… “the comprehensive attack launched by the extremists against Damascus ended with massive losses.” … “the Syrian army that is pursuing the remnants on the outskirts of the capital. As a result, tons of weapons were confiscated and the heavy infrastructure of the armed groups was dismantled and destroyed, which will require months to reconstruct if the armed groups are ever able to do so.” … “the supply lines of the mercenaries who came from the training camps led by the CIA in Turkey. Consequently, the armed gangs can no longer deliver reinforcements without having to pay a hefty price.”… “According to experts, one third of the extremist groups are composed of jihadists who have come from the Arab Maghreb, Libya, the Gulf, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Chechnya. …”It is clear that the Syrian army’s cleansing of the city of Aleppo and its countryside is now a mere question of time.”
THE FACTS
THE SYRIAN PEOPLE’S STATE OF MIND HAS CHANGED. Without real popular backup President Bashar al-Assad and his army would not have been able to resist and deter this attack. This popular support is due to three factors (I would say four factors).
First, the majority of the Syrians are aware of the fact that their country is targeted by a plot aiming at subjugating Syria to include it in the Western imperialistic camp and consequently remove it from all the regional equations, knowing that during these last four decades, Syria has been at the heart of the balances of power and that nothing could be done in the Middle East without its knowledge and participation. This explain why thousands of young people are volunteering to join the army’s ranks.
Second, 20% of the public -which at some point sympathized with the opposition- discovered the real face of the extremists who are multiplying their savageries in the regions under their control (rape, executions, massacres, pillaging…). This affected the popular mood, especially in the rural areas. The Syrian state has put in place discreet communication means allowing the population to inform the army about the presence of terrorists, which would explain how and why during these last few weeks, the special units and the air force were able to successfully carry out well designed strikes against the bases of the armed gangs.
Third. The state has developed diplomatic initiatives with Russia, China, India , nine arab countries and Latin America, and South African States to create a new balance of power and dismantle the US-NATO project of establishing –outside the context of the United Nations- a no-fly zone in the northern part of Syria. The US-Nato allies can continue do so by they will do it at the expenses of their own population resistance and defiance.
Fourth. The international balance of power is not in favor of more US-NATO wars and the victory of State sovereignty in Damascus has set the mood for global resistance against the imperial power lead by the US. The success of the No aligned countries in Teheran goes in the same direction.
PERSPECTIVES: there should either be recognition of the impossibility to introduce change at the level of Syria’s geography and should be preparations for serious negotiations for peace and for political solutions without war escalation. Or war escalation that will drain the economy of the super-power nations, and Nato allies. This option for sure will lead the world to atomic devastation.
I do not think European nations will accept this option, is more likely that they will quit NATO as soon as the escalation of war hit the oil and gas flow from Saudi, Kuwait and emirates to the west. The escalation of war will affect the map of the Middle East.
First, Israel expansionism will be deterred and pressed to return the land stolen to Palestine and to other neighbors countries. They will demand that Israel should respect the border lines set by the UN in 1948.
Second, because if Israel continue their bulling and misuses of power against neighboring countries (and thread of using nuclear bombs against Iran) Israel will put at risk their own existence. What was said by Sayyed Nasrallah from Lebanon will be said by other countries with real power. (Hezbollah cannot destroy Israel but can make the lives of a million Zionists a living hell. Pierre Khalaf: The new sophisticated missiles of the Lebanese resistance).
==============
Story #2
SYRIA WAR TIPPING MIDEAST BALANCE TOWARD SUNNIS
By HAMZA HENDAWI | Associated Press – Sat, Aug 18, 2012
http://news.yahoo.com/syria-war-tipping-mideast-balance-toward-sunnis-190815332.html
The distortion of reality from this journalist of AP is intending to cover up the maneuvers of Israel and US NATO allies in the region: divide and conquer. Hendawi play with the story-tell of ethnic-religious conflict between Sunnis vs Shias to explain what is going on in the Middle East: they are trying to get “a balance of power”, is his thesis. So, we should welcome and be happy with the destruction of Syria and the defeat of Assad.
The fact is that mercenaries brought and trained Israel and NATO allies are been defeated in Syria and is a matter of days the wipe out of terrorists from Alepoo, said Ghaleb Kandil. To me, there is still a chance for Israel-Nato allies to divide Alepoo and create another wall for ethnic cleansing as they did in the Palestinian territory if and only if, Russia make clear to the suni-jihadist to get out from Syria and Irak and create an autonomous democratic (though non-separated from Syria) in Alepoo. Otherwise Russia and China will continue given them free-tickets to heaven, just what the jihadist wanted.
If the war continues in the middle East the defeat of NATO is at portas. Hendawi thesis has nothing to do with reality. The real fact is the intention of NATO allies to get the oil from Iran and hit China-Russian block of power. They used the ethnic-religious division of Muslim to plunder the oil in Irak and Libya, but the Nato allies fell into a trap and they cannot control their outputs of war. Israel was the only beneficiary of this correlation of forces.
Now that strategy is unsustainable for either the US and for Israel and the rest of allies. Now it is either a pact of peace based on new realities or the escalation of this war could lead to the atomic devastation and the wipe-out of Israel from the map.
The maniqueal thesis that manipulating differences among the muslims will favor Israel can only be based on lies (like saying that “the Sunni-led rebellion could bring down Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime, dominated by members of the Shiite offshoot sect of Alawites”). The ones who design, finance and train foreign mercenaries were Israelits, American, British and other europeans from NATO. They lead the armed rebelion and kidnapped Syrian pacific resistance against the regimen. The same model used in Libya was used here in Syria.
Only the Zionists in Israel and hteir agents in MOSSAD believe in such naïve tactic. They injected in the Jewish population the schizophrenic paranoia that only dividing the neighbors can Israel survive in the mid of Muslim countries. The sunis in Saudi Arabia now love Israel for reasons of convenience. That is not real love. It can be changed overnight if the current ruler is deposted.
So better the Zionist accommodate to the idea that their survival depends on respecting international laws and this implies the returning of the land stolen from bneighborn couintries under the auspicies of the super-power US. The fact is that the demise of this empire is at portas and is not good idea barking to a ghost tree.
==============
martes, 28 de agosto de 2012
lunes, 20 de agosto de 2012
PERU LA HUELGA NACIONAL SI VA. LA CGTP SE UNIRA
PERU LA HUELGA NACIONAL SI VA. LA CGTP SE UNIRA.
Hugo Adan , Agosto 20, 2012
NOTA: Describo aqui tendencias y sugiero hipotesis de trabajo. Nada definitivo.
No faltara quien diga que hay que unir la lucha de los maestros a la de los pueblos afectados por la gran minería, a la de gobiernos regionales que presionan por autonomía, a la de municipios locales acosados y desfinanciados, al movimiento por restaurar la Constitución democrática del 79, a todo sector social disatisfecho con el Gbno: los enemigos de este son nuestros amigos, diran. La respuesta segura del gobierno será la represión masiva. Hay que gravarla y difundirla a nivel nacional e internacional con lujo de detalles. Esa es la trampa en la que caen los Estados ya separados de su nacion. El regimen de Ollanta lo es. Esa seria la pólvora para hacer estallar el PARO NACIONAL y la marcha de los 4 suyos.
El frente social contra el gobierno ya existe, es cierto. Solo hay que coordinarlo y darle direccion. El objetivo tactico es el aumento de salarios, el estrategico es el cambio de regimen, eso tambien es cierto, y esto ultimo es lo que siempre se oculta y no solo por los rebeldes, tambien por la oligarquia. El sector mas estupido de esta, pedira represion,los mas cautos callaran. En este proceso los extremos se unen, conviven y desarman el regimen. Tal fue y es la dinamica del movimiento magisterial y podría tambien ser la del del movimiento popular que se avecina. Al final, el gobierno y los rebeldes pierden y la oligarquia queda intacta.
Hay mucha decepción acumulada. Es un hecho que el Gbno de quien se esperaba algo similar al mov Velasquista, esta transando frente a las grandes corporaciones de forma tal que cierra el camino hacia una opción realmente nacionalista en la coyuntura internacional que se avecina. Si eso continua estaríamos frente a una grave traición que el pueblo peruano jamás perdonaría. Ayudara la huelga sectorial de los maestros a darle consistencia a la rebeldia nacional?. Lo dudo. Pero creo que si logran difundir en la prensa grande un motivo de reflexion, quiza solo una pregunta -en diversa forma pero continua- "que esperabamos del regimen y que tenemos" podrian separar mas al pueblo del gobierno. Eso podria ayudar. Luego vendria la reflexion sobre "Que Peru queremos?".
LOS MAESTROS DE HOY SIN MAS PLAN QUE UN AUMENTO DE SALARIOS IRRISORIO
El movimiento magisterial no solo requiere Unidad interna -como lo indica la lider del CONARE entrevistada abajo- requiere sobre todo un plan estrategico, un modelo auto-gestionario y/o cogestionario para el control del aparato educativo. Ese deberia ser el objetivo estrategico. Los maestros y las comunidades locales son el eje de esta alternativa autonomista. En esa perspectiva, la actual huelga local-regional y nacional de los maestros es un círculo vicioso que terminara en aumentos irrisorios (economicismo típico en los gremios del pais). El aumento que dé el Gbno a cualquier huelga anual siempre será irrisorio y plagado de condiciones lesivas a la dignidad del maestro. Esos aumentos siempre serán esparadrapos temporales al problema de fondo (la construcción de modelos educativos autogestionarios controlados por maestros y la comunidad local).
Con el aumento-esparadrapo luego de la huelga nacional ambos (el gobierno entreguista y los radicales del magisterio) hablaran de victoria. Victoria pírrica en ambos casos; de un lado el Gbno quedara más deslegitimado a nivel nacional y sin ninguna autoridad frente a los dueños del poder económico y sin autoridad frente al resto de asalariados del país. De otro lado, los maestros serán convertidos en enemigos inmediatos de la comunidad local cuyos hijos fueron afectados por la huelga. El único ganador es la escuela privada y esa es y será siempre una derrota para el Estado-Nacion. Tanto el Gbno como los huelguistas estarán ayudando a destruir los cimientos sobre los que reposa un Estado-Nacion que, por ley y por la razón contemporanea, debe ser siempre secular, laica y pro-ciencia en materia de educación.
QUIEN DESTRUYE MEJOR EL SISTEMA EDUCATIVO: LOS EMPRESARIOS O EL ESTADO?
Cualquier huelga magisterial enfrenta el peligro de que el Gobierno separe al maestro de la asociación de padres de familia y de la comunidad local . A esto apunta la acusacion de "terroristas" Si esto gana audiencia jamás podrá el maestro ser un buen maestro. Uno de los eje del éxito educativo (y solo son tres los ejes de este sistema) es el nexo entre maestros y comunidad aledaña. Ambos, maestros y Gobierno central estarán ayudando a destruir el sistema educativo si el divorcio maestro-comunidad ocurre.
Para salir del circulo vicioso y destructivo de las huelgas nacionales, la actual debiera sentar las bases de una alianza solida con las comunidades locales. Esto supone unir el movimiento magisterial a los padres de familia y la comunidad local y al movimiento nacional contra la gran minería. Como hacerlo sin cortar el circuito electrico del aprendizage, como evitar este apagon, es el gran problema de los huelguistas?. Si no lo resuelven seran facillmente convertridos en enemigos de la educacion. Estoy seguro que la tecnologia moderna de las comunicaciones podria ayudar, pero esto requiere el nexo de los maestros con la comunidad. Lo vimos aqui en el norte: se gravaron las clases del programa escolar para un mes (el de la huelga) y estss se trasmitian en los comunity centers con ayuda de voluntarios de Facultades de Educ de Univ cercanas. Ellos y otros mentores (padres de familia) ayudaban en la solucion de los quizes o tests que correspondian al tema.Estas clases via CDs y Videos funciono, y el alumno no perdio contacto con el maestro ni el programa educativo. Hubo luz en medio del apagon huelguistico. Como hacerlo en zonas alejadas a la ciudad? Quiza la radio local y los tapes ayudarian.
PONER EL DEDO EN LA LLAGA: la oligarquia y la gran empresa multi-nanacional.
El Mov magisterial debe exigir que la empresa multinacional pague un bono especial para desarrollo nacional-regional y local (salud y educación) como lo quiso la Constituyente democrática de 1979.
No basta con que la empresa financie una escuela pública y una posta médica gratuita para los hijos del trabajador de la empresa, Eso lo hizo la SPCC en el sur pero los deslaves del cobre y los humos contaminantes liquidaron cultivos de aceituna no solo en Ilo, tambien en Tacna y Arequipa. El Mov magisterial debe presionar por el bono de ley para educación y salud por las multinacionales en Peru; por el regreso a la Cosntitucion del 79, por la decentralizacion política real y por un aumento automático del sueldo toda vez que suba el precio de la canasta familiar.
LA AUTONOMIA REGIONAL Y EL MODELO AUTO-CO- GESTION EDUCATIVA
La descentralización, mejor entendida como autonomía político-regional es la clave para implementar modelos cooperativos de auto-gestión y/o co-gestion educativa. Me explico brevemente: de auto-gestión si un grupo de maestros de diferentes especialidades controla el que-hacer educativo; o co-gestivo si el gremio de maestros y el de padres de familia (o de la comunidad) controlan la dinámica escolar. El Estado no solo estaría obligado a ampliar la cuota destinada a educación en el presupuesto nacional sino que además de eliminar las castas burocráticas intermedias dejaría a iniciativa de maestros y lideres locales el ajuste que mejor corresponda a la región en términos de curricula, bilingüismo, horarios y otros según sea el eco-sistema local-regional.
La tecnología moderna no solo permite articular esto modelos cooperativos a los objetivos del Estado-Nacion, sino que lo hace mas funcional, efectivo y a bajo costo. La financiación de la escuela cooperativa se amplia y diversifica (no solo recibe la asignación actual de Estado, sino además el de empresas local- regional y el de multi-nacionales y NGOs que operan en Tecnologia educativa). El modelo no solo funciona en grandes países como EU, Canada y Europa, tambien en países emergentes como India, Brazil, Israel y varios de Europa del este. Peru tiene raíces solidad para volver a este sistema aun cuando muchas de las andinas han sido destruidas, lo cierto es que el ayni quedó y aun se practica.
Volveremos sobre este tema. Por lo pronto dejo claro que la huelga nacional del magisterio para romper con los efectos perniciosos de pasadas huelgas tiene que articular este movimiento sectorial al movimiento popular en su conjunto. Y el gobierno si realmente quiere ayudar a solucionar el problema de la calidad educativa tiene que dar muestra de calidad en el trato a los maestros y su movimiento gremial.
El Maestro es la clave del sistema educativo, de ellos esperamos creatividad en la solucion de que crisis que enfrentamos. No somos un país de calco y copia, somos un país de creaciones heroicas y estoy seguro que el maestro lograra respuesta al problema educativo más allá del bajo salario que lo agobia.
BASTA DE ACUSARLOS DE TERRORISTAS!! Una gaviota no hace verano ni un ex -terrorista en el Estado y menos uno en el Mov magisterial convierten al Estado y la Nacion en una sociedad de terroristas. Peru es un pueblo de gente creativa, valiente y siempre orientada a causas nobles. El economicismo es solo un lapsus temporal y esperamos que también lo sea la paranoia esquizofrénica de algunos sirvientes de Estado.
===============
MAESTROS DEL CONARE SUTEP RATIFICAN HUELGA NACIONAL PERO ESTÁN ABIERTOS AL DIÁLOGO
http://mariategui.blogspot.com/2012/08/video-peru-maestros-del-conare-sutep.html
Mariátegui. 15/08/12
EL CONARE
El terrorismo mediático una vez más dirigió sus ataques a los maestros más humildes de nuestro país, a los maestros de la escuela pública, a los maestros que enseñan en el campo, en los pueblos más olvidados.
Esta vez la brillante excusa para sus intereses de clase –la dominante por supuesto- es convertir al sindicato de maestros de base CONARE SUTEP (Comité Nacional para la Reorientación y Reconstitución) del SUTEP (Sindicato Unitario de Trabajadores en la Educación del Perú) en el brazo gremial del Sendero Luminoso de la década de los ochenta.
Es decir, insinúan con sus acusaciones que prácticamente cada maestro del SUTEP CONARE está entrenado para denotar un cochebomba o que en la escuela enseñan a sus alumnos a cómo disparara un arma.
Cierto es, que hay un sector del CONARE que tiene poder en la dirección política del movimiento y sí está ligado al MOVADEF (Movimiento por la Amnistía General) que lo integran ex miembros de Sendero Luminoso, que han estado en prisión o jóvenes simpatizantes del llamado pensamiento Gonzalo.
Pero el CONARE SUTEP es un frente, donde no sólo están gente pro sendero, filo senderista o senderista, sino –nos atrevemos a decir- la mayoría no simpatizan con MOVADEF o Sendero Luminoso, pero tampoco con la conducción -de todos estos años- del Comité Ejecutivo Nacional (CEN) del SUTEP, dirigido por Patria Roja.
Entonces, se direccionan los ataques contra un sector de los maestros más humildes y en vez de proponerles una salida dialogada, demostrándoles que también son importantes para el país, con su indiferencia y acusaciones humillantes los invitan a radicalizar sus acciones.
Esta actitud es la de un Estado privatizado, ultra neoliberal, uninacional como el peruano que sólo responde a los intereses del gran capital y de las transnacionales.
La intención está clara, al acusar de terroristas a todos los maestros y al hacerlos culpables del deterioro del actual sistema educativo, es la mejor forma de como ellos desvían el tema principal, que es el abandono en el que tiene el Estado a la escuela pública y a la educación en general.
UNA ENTREVISTA OPORTUNA
Mariátegui. La revista de las ideas conversó nuevamente con la profesora Edy Camones (ver video), dirigente ayacuhana del SUTEP CONARE y presidente del Comité de Diálogo con el gobierno, frente a la sede del Ministerio de Educación en Lima, donde acampan más de dos mil maestros desde hace tres semanas.
Camones indicó que la dirigencia del CONARE SUTEP ha decidido continuar la huelga nacional y que a pesar de que ella ha pertenecido a una corriente magisterial del Partido Nacionalista –partido de gobierno- ahora la calumnian acusándola de senderista y que el gobierno se ha cerrado a todo tipo de diálogo, al cual los maestros siguen abiertos.
Aquí su testimonio.
-¿CUÁL ES SU OPINIÓN SOBRE LA PROPUESTA DE LEY DE DESARROLLO DOCENTE (MAGISTERIAL) QUE PROMUEVE EL GOBIERNO DE OLLANTA HUMALA?
-Nuestra opinión no sólo como dirigente, sino como representante de todos los maestro sen huelga, nosotros no estamos de acuerdo con ningún tipo de ley con la que nos quiten nuestros derechos, ley con la que nos quitan nuestra estabilidad laboral, ley que nos postergue ni ley que arriesgue la escuela pública, la educación gratuita para todos los peruanos.
Este proyecto pareciera que lo están sacando desesperadamente y lo paran cambiando dd nombre, faltando un día para presentarlo ya cambiaron de nombre. Primero fue una Ley de Desarrollo Docente, y hoy es un proyecto de Reforma Magisterial, entonces eso nos hace ver que esa ley n se sabe si existirá o no o los documentos que están en internet sean ciertos o no , porque desconocemos en realidad formalmente cuál es el documento de este proyecto.
- EN TAL CASO, SEGÚN TODO LO QUE SE HA PUBLICADO EN ALGUNOS DIARIOS Y MEDIOS DE COMUNICACIÓN, USTEDES VEN ALGUNA SIMILITUD CON LA ACTUAL LEY DE CARRERA PÚBLICA MAGISTERIAL…
-En la mayor parte tiene similitud, pero ha variado en el aspecto por ejemplo de la evaluación, hoy la evaluación es sino respondes, despido y si no vas a la evaluación también te despiden. Otro tema, por ejemplo ya no hay la bonificación en el caso de las mujeres por cumplir 20 años.
Por ejemplo, los niveles que vamos a tener del primero al octavo, en realidad sin beneficios más al contrario nos van a recortar nuestro sueldo, nos bajan de nivel. Por ejemplo, los maestros que estamos en el tercer nivel vamos a bajar a primer nivel, aquellos que están en quinto o cuarto nivel van a bajar al segundo, de qué estamos hablando, de que tipo de niveles.
Y usted cree en tres años vamos a alcanzar a un quinto o sexto nivel cuando hoy nos bajan a primer y segundo nivel, sería algo imposible de alcanzar esa meta. Es prácticamente una que engaña una vez más al magisterio y en realidad engaña al pueblo. Lo que está queriendo es sorprender a la opinión pública a nuestro s padres de familia, diciendo que con esta ley va a mejorar la economía del maestro y no es así, vamos a entrar en peor condición en esta ley y no estamos de acuerdo con ningún tipo de ley.
Ahora nosotros pedimos la vigencia plena de la Ley del Profesorado, la 24029 y si quieren mejorar en el aspecto de evaluación, de capacitación o la meritocracia, que hablan, que lo hagan en nuestra ley, porque no mejorar una ley que existe, porque no mejorar una ley que el Estado hasta ahora no cumple con esta, para qué más leyes sino puede cumplir con una ley vigente, para qué más leyes hoy nos preguntamos los maestros.
- Hace unos días estuvimos acá y nos comentaba junto al profesor Tacuri, que se había iniciado un diálogo, ese mismo día en horas de la tarde la ministra de Educación, Patricia Salas salió en el Congreso de la República primero a negar el diálogo que se había iniciado y segundo a romper el diálogo que se había iniciado. En este contexto :
¿CÓMO ESTÁ AHORA LA SITUACIÓN DE USTEDES? SE HA VENIDO CRIMINALIZANDO A LOS PROFESORES DEL CONARE SUTEP POR LOS MEDIOS DE COMUNICACIÓN, SE PIDEN DE TODOS LADOS TOMAR MEDIDAS DRÁSTICAS CONTRA LOS PROFESORES EN HUELGA COMO DESCUENTOS ---¿CUÁL ES EL ANÁLISIS DE USTEDES COMO GREMIO EN ESTE MOMENTO, QUE ESTÁN EN LIMA COMO UN MES DE HUELGA?
-Se nos apertura una mesa de diálogo sabiendo, que estas bases que entrabamos en huelga eran bases reconstituidas a través del Comité Nacional de Reorientación y Reconstitución.
Si se apertura una mesa de diálogo que duró un día pero en varios ingresos al ministerio y que salieron con el pretexto de que acá estaba presente un movimiento de ultraizquierda, terrorista, poniéndonos títulos los cuales nosotros rechazamos categóricamente, nosotros no somos terroristas, no hemos sido, ni lo seremos, rechazamos categóricamente, inclusive los actos de terrorismo.
Somos maestros que hemos venido a luchar por nuestra reivindicaciones que lo conocen a nivel mundial, solamente al gobierno les ha servido estos pretextos de tapar el verdadero sentido de esta huelga, porque ellos no tienen la capacidad de resolver.
Por ejemplo, en mi caso he sido satanizada por un pronunciamiento donde ha sido clonado, ha habido montaje de firmas, todo lo demás, la cual yo deslindo. Porque yo soy en realidad compatriota, nacionalista, pertenezco a la Coordinadora Magisterial de la Región Ayacucho, yo he sido parte de la construcción de la Revolución Educativa, he participado en varios eventos.
Ni así como nacionalista me han tenido respeto, a pesar de que soy parte del gobierno, que he trabajado por elección… () y hoy me da vergüenza haber trabajado para alguien que se ha convertido en mi propio verdugo y verdugo del pueblo, de este Magisterio.
- ¿SE REFIERE AL PRESIDENTE OLLANTA HUMALA?
- SÍ, AL PRESIDENTE HUMALA.
- EN ESE CONTEXTO ¿CÓMO VE EL PANORAMA PARA LOS PRÓXIMOS DÍAS? ¿QUÉ MEDIDAS VAN A TOMAR USTEDES? SIGUE DESARROLLÁNDOSE CON MUCHA FUERZA EL PARO EN DIVERSAS PROVINCIAS DEL PAÍS, LOS MAESTROS SIGUEN FIRMES EN LAS REIVINDICACIONES POR LAS QUE INICIARON SU LUCHA HACE MÁS DE DOS MESES. UN MENSAJE A LOS MAESTROS DEL RESTO DEL PAÍS.
- El día viernes de la semana pasada tuvimos la Asamblea Nacional en la que las 18 regiones nos hemos ratificado en la continuidad de esta huelga, porque el maestro no puede permitir de que una ley o el gobierno pretenda quitarnos nuestra estabilidad laboral, pretenda seguir quitándonos nuestros derechos, que ya han sido, inclusive por el gobierno de turno y los anteriores nos han quitado muchos derechos.
Por lo tanto, hago un llamado al magisterio que este es el momento de la verdadera unidad, unirnos en función a nuestras reivindicaciones. Es más hoy no solamente defendemos nuestros derechos, la estabilidad laboral, el hecho de ese tipo de evaluación donde va a haber despido masivo de maestros, quiere decir que ya no va haber escuela pública. Hoy con más razón levantamos la bandera de la defensa de la escuela pública gratuita y de calidad.
- HA HABIDO ALGÚN TIPO DE ACERCAMIENTO CON MIEMBROS DEL GOBIERNO…
- No. Todo tipo de diálogo se ha suspendido, no tenemos respuesta, solamente escuchamos en los medios las versiones que va dando la ministra, el premier, el presidente del Congreso de que no hay voluntad política de solucionar nuestra plataforma de lucha.
- EN TAL CASO, USTEDES ESTÁN ABIERTOS AL DIÁLOGO Y COMO SIEMPRE REIVINDICAN CON UN TRATO DIRECTO CON LAS BASES DEL SINDICATO DE TRABAJADORES, DE MAESTROS…
Es así, nosotros estamos dispuestos al diálogo y lo hemos demostrado, hemos estado por el diálogo, hemos exigido el diálogo, seguimos exigiendo el diálogo porque es el único medio para resolver los problemas, no hay otro medio para resolver los problemas ante las autoridades.
Sin embargo, no hay de parte de ellos no hay voluntad política y ningún mensajero tampoco ha salido a dar las respuestas con documentos, sino quieren resolver una plataforma que ha ingresado por mesa de parte, acá ya hay silencio administrativo.
Porque lo correcto es que cada ministerio, oficina, cualquiera que fuese cuando tú solicitas algo, te deben responder por escrito en un tiempo determinado, acá hay hasta silencio administrativo con nosotros.
===================
Hugo Adan , Agosto 20, 2012
NOTA: Describo aqui tendencias y sugiero hipotesis de trabajo. Nada definitivo.
No faltara quien diga que hay que unir la lucha de los maestros a la de los pueblos afectados por la gran minería, a la de gobiernos regionales que presionan por autonomía, a la de municipios locales acosados y desfinanciados, al movimiento por restaurar la Constitución democrática del 79, a todo sector social disatisfecho con el Gbno: los enemigos de este son nuestros amigos, diran. La respuesta segura del gobierno será la represión masiva. Hay que gravarla y difundirla a nivel nacional e internacional con lujo de detalles. Esa es la trampa en la que caen los Estados ya separados de su nacion. El regimen de Ollanta lo es. Esa seria la pólvora para hacer estallar el PARO NACIONAL y la marcha de los 4 suyos.
El frente social contra el gobierno ya existe, es cierto. Solo hay que coordinarlo y darle direccion. El objetivo tactico es el aumento de salarios, el estrategico es el cambio de regimen, eso tambien es cierto, y esto ultimo es lo que siempre se oculta y no solo por los rebeldes, tambien por la oligarquia. El sector mas estupido de esta, pedira represion,los mas cautos callaran. En este proceso los extremos se unen, conviven y desarman el regimen. Tal fue y es la dinamica del movimiento magisterial y podría tambien ser la del del movimiento popular que se avecina. Al final, el gobierno y los rebeldes pierden y la oligarquia queda intacta.
Hay mucha decepción acumulada. Es un hecho que el Gbno de quien se esperaba algo similar al mov Velasquista, esta transando frente a las grandes corporaciones de forma tal que cierra el camino hacia una opción realmente nacionalista en la coyuntura internacional que se avecina. Si eso continua estaríamos frente a una grave traición que el pueblo peruano jamás perdonaría. Ayudara la huelga sectorial de los maestros a darle consistencia a la rebeldia nacional?. Lo dudo. Pero creo que si logran difundir en la prensa grande un motivo de reflexion, quiza solo una pregunta -en diversa forma pero continua- "que esperabamos del regimen y que tenemos" podrian separar mas al pueblo del gobierno. Eso podria ayudar. Luego vendria la reflexion sobre "Que Peru queremos?".
LOS MAESTROS DE HOY SIN MAS PLAN QUE UN AUMENTO DE SALARIOS IRRISORIO
El movimiento magisterial no solo requiere Unidad interna -como lo indica la lider del CONARE entrevistada abajo- requiere sobre todo un plan estrategico, un modelo auto-gestionario y/o cogestionario para el control del aparato educativo. Ese deberia ser el objetivo estrategico. Los maestros y las comunidades locales son el eje de esta alternativa autonomista. En esa perspectiva, la actual huelga local-regional y nacional de los maestros es un círculo vicioso que terminara en aumentos irrisorios (economicismo típico en los gremios del pais). El aumento que dé el Gbno a cualquier huelga anual siempre será irrisorio y plagado de condiciones lesivas a la dignidad del maestro. Esos aumentos siempre serán esparadrapos temporales al problema de fondo (la construcción de modelos educativos autogestionarios controlados por maestros y la comunidad local).
Con el aumento-esparadrapo luego de la huelga nacional ambos (el gobierno entreguista y los radicales del magisterio) hablaran de victoria. Victoria pírrica en ambos casos; de un lado el Gbno quedara más deslegitimado a nivel nacional y sin ninguna autoridad frente a los dueños del poder económico y sin autoridad frente al resto de asalariados del país. De otro lado, los maestros serán convertidos en enemigos inmediatos de la comunidad local cuyos hijos fueron afectados por la huelga. El único ganador es la escuela privada y esa es y será siempre una derrota para el Estado-Nacion. Tanto el Gbno como los huelguistas estarán ayudando a destruir los cimientos sobre los que reposa un Estado-Nacion que, por ley y por la razón contemporanea, debe ser siempre secular, laica y pro-ciencia en materia de educación.
QUIEN DESTRUYE MEJOR EL SISTEMA EDUCATIVO: LOS EMPRESARIOS O EL ESTADO?
Cualquier huelga magisterial enfrenta el peligro de que el Gobierno separe al maestro de la asociación de padres de familia y de la comunidad local . A esto apunta la acusacion de "terroristas" Si esto gana audiencia jamás podrá el maestro ser un buen maestro. Uno de los eje del éxito educativo (y solo son tres los ejes de este sistema) es el nexo entre maestros y comunidad aledaña. Ambos, maestros y Gobierno central estarán ayudando a destruir el sistema educativo si el divorcio maestro-comunidad ocurre.
Para salir del circulo vicioso y destructivo de las huelgas nacionales, la actual debiera sentar las bases de una alianza solida con las comunidades locales. Esto supone unir el movimiento magisterial a los padres de familia y la comunidad local y al movimiento nacional contra la gran minería. Como hacerlo sin cortar el circuito electrico del aprendizage, como evitar este apagon, es el gran problema de los huelguistas?. Si no lo resuelven seran facillmente convertridos en enemigos de la educacion. Estoy seguro que la tecnologia moderna de las comunicaciones podria ayudar, pero esto requiere el nexo de los maestros con la comunidad. Lo vimos aqui en el norte: se gravaron las clases del programa escolar para un mes (el de la huelga) y estss se trasmitian en los comunity centers con ayuda de voluntarios de Facultades de Educ de Univ cercanas. Ellos y otros mentores (padres de familia) ayudaban en la solucion de los quizes o tests que correspondian al tema.Estas clases via CDs y Videos funciono, y el alumno no perdio contacto con el maestro ni el programa educativo. Hubo luz en medio del apagon huelguistico. Como hacerlo en zonas alejadas a la ciudad? Quiza la radio local y los tapes ayudarian.
PONER EL DEDO EN LA LLAGA: la oligarquia y la gran empresa multi-nanacional.
El Mov magisterial debe exigir que la empresa multinacional pague un bono especial para desarrollo nacional-regional y local (salud y educación) como lo quiso la Constituyente democrática de 1979.
No basta con que la empresa financie una escuela pública y una posta médica gratuita para los hijos del trabajador de la empresa, Eso lo hizo la SPCC en el sur pero los deslaves del cobre y los humos contaminantes liquidaron cultivos de aceituna no solo en Ilo, tambien en Tacna y Arequipa. El Mov magisterial debe presionar por el bono de ley para educación y salud por las multinacionales en Peru; por el regreso a la Cosntitucion del 79, por la decentralizacion política real y por un aumento automático del sueldo toda vez que suba el precio de la canasta familiar.
LA AUTONOMIA REGIONAL Y EL MODELO AUTO-CO- GESTION EDUCATIVA
La descentralización, mejor entendida como autonomía político-regional es la clave para implementar modelos cooperativos de auto-gestión y/o co-gestion educativa. Me explico brevemente: de auto-gestión si un grupo de maestros de diferentes especialidades controla el que-hacer educativo; o co-gestivo si el gremio de maestros y el de padres de familia (o de la comunidad) controlan la dinámica escolar. El Estado no solo estaría obligado a ampliar la cuota destinada a educación en el presupuesto nacional sino que además de eliminar las castas burocráticas intermedias dejaría a iniciativa de maestros y lideres locales el ajuste que mejor corresponda a la región en términos de curricula, bilingüismo, horarios y otros según sea el eco-sistema local-regional.
La tecnología moderna no solo permite articular esto modelos cooperativos a los objetivos del Estado-Nacion, sino que lo hace mas funcional, efectivo y a bajo costo. La financiación de la escuela cooperativa se amplia y diversifica (no solo recibe la asignación actual de Estado, sino además el de empresas local- regional y el de multi-nacionales y NGOs que operan en Tecnologia educativa). El modelo no solo funciona en grandes países como EU, Canada y Europa, tambien en países emergentes como India, Brazil, Israel y varios de Europa del este. Peru tiene raíces solidad para volver a este sistema aun cuando muchas de las andinas han sido destruidas, lo cierto es que el ayni quedó y aun se practica.
Volveremos sobre este tema. Por lo pronto dejo claro que la huelga nacional del magisterio para romper con los efectos perniciosos de pasadas huelgas tiene que articular este movimiento sectorial al movimiento popular en su conjunto. Y el gobierno si realmente quiere ayudar a solucionar el problema de la calidad educativa tiene que dar muestra de calidad en el trato a los maestros y su movimiento gremial.
El Maestro es la clave del sistema educativo, de ellos esperamos creatividad en la solucion de que crisis que enfrentamos. No somos un país de calco y copia, somos un país de creaciones heroicas y estoy seguro que el maestro lograra respuesta al problema educativo más allá del bajo salario que lo agobia.
BASTA DE ACUSARLOS DE TERRORISTAS!! Una gaviota no hace verano ni un ex -terrorista en el Estado y menos uno en el Mov magisterial convierten al Estado y la Nacion en una sociedad de terroristas. Peru es un pueblo de gente creativa, valiente y siempre orientada a causas nobles. El economicismo es solo un lapsus temporal y esperamos que también lo sea la paranoia esquizofrénica de algunos sirvientes de Estado.
===============
MAESTROS DEL CONARE SUTEP RATIFICAN HUELGA NACIONAL PERO ESTÁN ABIERTOS AL DIÁLOGO
http://mariategui.blogspot.com/2012/08/video-peru-maestros-del-conare-sutep.html
Mariátegui. 15/08/12
EL CONARE
El terrorismo mediático una vez más dirigió sus ataques a los maestros más humildes de nuestro país, a los maestros de la escuela pública, a los maestros que enseñan en el campo, en los pueblos más olvidados.
Esta vez la brillante excusa para sus intereses de clase –la dominante por supuesto- es convertir al sindicato de maestros de base CONARE SUTEP (Comité Nacional para la Reorientación y Reconstitución) del SUTEP (Sindicato Unitario de Trabajadores en la Educación del Perú) en el brazo gremial del Sendero Luminoso de la década de los ochenta.
Es decir, insinúan con sus acusaciones que prácticamente cada maestro del SUTEP CONARE está entrenado para denotar un cochebomba o que en la escuela enseñan a sus alumnos a cómo disparara un arma.
Cierto es, que hay un sector del CONARE que tiene poder en la dirección política del movimiento y sí está ligado al MOVADEF (Movimiento por la Amnistía General) que lo integran ex miembros de Sendero Luminoso, que han estado en prisión o jóvenes simpatizantes del llamado pensamiento Gonzalo.
Pero el CONARE SUTEP es un frente, donde no sólo están gente pro sendero, filo senderista o senderista, sino –nos atrevemos a decir- la mayoría no simpatizan con MOVADEF o Sendero Luminoso, pero tampoco con la conducción -de todos estos años- del Comité Ejecutivo Nacional (CEN) del SUTEP, dirigido por Patria Roja.
Entonces, se direccionan los ataques contra un sector de los maestros más humildes y en vez de proponerles una salida dialogada, demostrándoles que también son importantes para el país, con su indiferencia y acusaciones humillantes los invitan a radicalizar sus acciones.
Esta actitud es la de un Estado privatizado, ultra neoliberal, uninacional como el peruano que sólo responde a los intereses del gran capital y de las transnacionales.
La intención está clara, al acusar de terroristas a todos los maestros y al hacerlos culpables del deterioro del actual sistema educativo, es la mejor forma de como ellos desvían el tema principal, que es el abandono en el que tiene el Estado a la escuela pública y a la educación en general.
UNA ENTREVISTA OPORTUNA
Mariátegui. La revista de las ideas conversó nuevamente con la profesora Edy Camones (ver video), dirigente ayacuhana del SUTEP CONARE y presidente del Comité de Diálogo con el gobierno, frente a la sede del Ministerio de Educación en Lima, donde acampan más de dos mil maestros desde hace tres semanas.
Camones indicó que la dirigencia del CONARE SUTEP ha decidido continuar la huelga nacional y que a pesar de que ella ha pertenecido a una corriente magisterial del Partido Nacionalista –partido de gobierno- ahora la calumnian acusándola de senderista y que el gobierno se ha cerrado a todo tipo de diálogo, al cual los maestros siguen abiertos.
Aquí su testimonio.
-¿CUÁL ES SU OPINIÓN SOBRE LA PROPUESTA DE LEY DE DESARROLLO DOCENTE (MAGISTERIAL) QUE PROMUEVE EL GOBIERNO DE OLLANTA HUMALA?
-Nuestra opinión no sólo como dirigente, sino como representante de todos los maestro sen huelga, nosotros no estamos de acuerdo con ningún tipo de ley con la que nos quiten nuestros derechos, ley con la que nos quitan nuestra estabilidad laboral, ley que nos postergue ni ley que arriesgue la escuela pública, la educación gratuita para todos los peruanos.
Este proyecto pareciera que lo están sacando desesperadamente y lo paran cambiando dd nombre, faltando un día para presentarlo ya cambiaron de nombre. Primero fue una Ley de Desarrollo Docente, y hoy es un proyecto de Reforma Magisterial, entonces eso nos hace ver que esa ley n se sabe si existirá o no o los documentos que están en internet sean ciertos o no , porque desconocemos en realidad formalmente cuál es el documento de este proyecto.
- EN TAL CASO, SEGÚN TODO LO QUE SE HA PUBLICADO EN ALGUNOS DIARIOS Y MEDIOS DE COMUNICACIÓN, USTEDES VEN ALGUNA SIMILITUD CON LA ACTUAL LEY DE CARRERA PÚBLICA MAGISTERIAL…
-En la mayor parte tiene similitud, pero ha variado en el aspecto por ejemplo de la evaluación, hoy la evaluación es sino respondes, despido y si no vas a la evaluación también te despiden. Otro tema, por ejemplo ya no hay la bonificación en el caso de las mujeres por cumplir 20 años.
Por ejemplo, los niveles que vamos a tener del primero al octavo, en realidad sin beneficios más al contrario nos van a recortar nuestro sueldo, nos bajan de nivel. Por ejemplo, los maestros que estamos en el tercer nivel vamos a bajar a primer nivel, aquellos que están en quinto o cuarto nivel van a bajar al segundo, de qué estamos hablando, de que tipo de niveles.
Y usted cree en tres años vamos a alcanzar a un quinto o sexto nivel cuando hoy nos bajan a primer y segundo nivel, sería algo imposible de alcanzar esa meta. Es prácticamente una que engaña una vez más al magisterio y en realidad engaña al pueblo. Lo que está queriendo es sorprender a la opinión pública a nuestro s padres de familia, diciendo que con esta ley va a mejorar la economía del maestro y no es así, vamos a entrar en peor condición en esta ley y no estamos de acuerdo con ningún tipo de ley.
Ahora nosotros pedimos la vigencia plena de la Ley del Profesorado, la 24029 y si quieren mejorar en el aspecto de evaluación, de capacitación o la meritocracia, que hablan, que lo hagan en nuestra ley, porque no mejorar una ley que existe, porque no mejorar una ley que el Estado hasta ahora no cumple con esta, para qué más leyes sino puede cumplir con una ley vigente, para qué más leyes hoy nos preguntamos los maestros.
- Hace unos días estuvimos acá y nos comentaba junto al profesor Tacuri, que se había iniciado un diálogo, ese mismo día en horas de la tarde la ministra de Educación, Patricia Salas salió en el Congreso de la República primero a negar el diálogo que se había iniciado y segundo a romper el diálogo que se había iniciado. En este contexto :
¿CÓMO ESTÁ AHORA LA SITUACIÓN DE USTEDES? SE HA VENIDO CRIMINALIZANDO A LOS PROFESORES DEL CONARE SUTEP POR LOS MEDIOS DE COMUNICACIÓN, SE PIDEN DE TODOS LADOS TOMAR MEDIDAS DRÁSTICAS CONTRA LOS PROFESORES EN HUELGA COMO DESCUENTOS ---¿CUÁL ES EL ANÁLISIS DE USTEDES COMO GREMIO EN ESTE MOMENTO, QUE ESTÁN EN LIMA COMO UN MES DE HUELGA?
-Se nos apertura una mesa de diálogo sabiendo, que estas bases que entrabamos en huelga eran bases reconstituidas a través del Comité Nacional de Reorientación y Reconstitución.
Si se apertura una mesa de diálogo que duró un día pero en varios ingresos al ministerio y que salieron con el pretexto de que acá estaba presente un movimiento de ultraizquierda, terrorista, poniéndonos títulos los cuales nosotros rechazamos categóricamente, nosotros no somos terroristas, no hemos sido, ni lo seremos, rechazamos categóricamente, inclusive los actos de terrorismo.
Somos maestros que hemos venido a luchar por nuestra reivindicaciones que lo conocen a nivel mundial, solamente al gobierno les ha servido estos pretextos de tapar el verdadero sentido de esta huelga, porque ellos no tienen la capacidad de resolver.
Por ejemplo, en mi caso he sido satanizada por un pronunciamiento donde ha sido clonado, ha habido montaje de firmas, todo lo demás, la cual yo deslindo. Porque yo soy en realidad compatriota, nacionalista, pertenezco a la Coordinadora Magisterial de la Región Ayacucho, yo he sido parte de la construcción de la Revolución Educativa, he participado en varios eventos.
Ni así como nacionalista me han tenido respeto, a pesar de que soy parte del gobierno, que he trabajado por elección… () y hoy me da vergüenza haber trabajado para alguien que se ha convertido en mi propio verdugo y verdugo del pueblo, de este Magisterio.
- ¿SE REFIERE AL PRESIDENTE OLLANTA HUMALA?
- SÍ, AL PRESIDENTE HUMALA.
- EN ESE CONTEXTO ¿CÓMO VE EL PANORAMA PARA LOS PRÓXIMOS DÍAS? ¿QUÉ MEDIDAS VAN A TOMAR USTEDES? SIGUE DESARROLLÁNDOSE CON MUCHA FUERZA EL PARO EN DIVERSAS PROVINCIAS DEL PAÍS, LOS MAESTROS SIGUEN FIRMES EN LAS REIVINDICACIONES POR LAS QUE INICIARON SU LUCHA HACE MÁS DE DOS MESES. UN MENSAJE A LOS MAESTROS DEL RESTO DEL PAÍS.
- El día viernes de la semana pasada tuvimos la Asamblea Nacional en la que las 18 regiones nos hemos ratificado en la continuidad de esta huelga, porque el maestro no puede permitir de que una ley o el gobierno pretenda quitarnos nuestra estabilidad laboral, pretenda seguir quitándonos nuestros derechos, que ya han sido, inclusive por el gobierno de turno y los anteriores nos han quitado muchos derechos.
Por lo tanto, hago un llamado al magisterio que este es el momento de la verdadera unidad, unirnos en función a nuestras reivindicaciones. Es más hoy no solamente defendemos nuestros derechos, la estabilidad laboral, el hecho de ese tipo de evaluación donde va a haber despido masivo de maestros, quiere decir que ya no va haber escuela pública. Hoy con más razón levantamos la bandera de la defensa de la escuela pública gratuita y de calidad.
- HA HABIDO ALGÚN TIPO DE ACERCAMIENTO CON MIEMBROS DEL GOBIERNO…
- No. Todo tipo de diálogo se ha suspendido, no tenemos respuesta, solamente escuchamos en los medios las versiones que va dando la ministra, el premier, el presidente del Congreso de que no hay voluntad política de solucionar nuestra plataforma de lucha.
- EN TAL CASO, USTEDES ESTÁN ABIERTOS AL DIÁLOGO Y COMO SIEMPRE REIVINDICAN CON UN TRATO DIRECTO CON LAS BASES DEL SINDICATO DE TRABAJADORES, DE MAESTROS…
Es así, nosotros estamos dispuestos al diálogo y lo hemos demostrado, hemos estado por el diálogo, hemos exigido el diálogo, seguimos exigiendo el diálogo porque es el único medio para resolver los problemas, no hay otro medio para resolver los problemas ante las autoridades.
Sin embargo, no hay de parte de ellos no hay voluntad política y ningún mensajero tampoco ha salido a dar las respuestas con documentos, sino quieren resolver una plataforma que ha ingresado por mesa de parte, acá ya hay silencio administrativo.
Porque lo correcto es que cada ministerio, oficina, cualquiera que fuese cuando tú solicitas algo, te deben responder por escrito en un tiempo determinado, acá hay hasta silencio administrativo con nosotros.
===================
viernes, 17 de agosto de 2012
EL ASILO DE ECUADOR PARA ASSANGE Y LA DIPLOMACIA SUR-NORTE
EL ASILO DE ECUADOR PARA ASSANGE Y LA DIPLOMACIA SUR-NORTE
Sally Burch. Agosto 18, 2012
ALAI. http://www.alainet.org/active/57240
http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=154655
La decisión de Ecuador de conceder el asilo político al fundador de Wikileaks, Julian Assange, anunciada este jueves 16 por el canciller Ricardo Patiño, ha generado una situación poco común, que refleja, sin duda, la realidad cambiante que se vive en el mundo, donde la pretensión de los países del Norte de ser el ejemplo en derechos humanos se revela cada vez más fragilizada.
Es conocido que en EEUU, la "guerra contra el terrorismo" lanzada por el gobierno de George W. Bush ha significado un deterioro progresivo de los derechos civiles, que en buena parte se mantiene con la administración Obama. Por ello, es bastante creíble que Assange podría incurrir el riesgo de indefensión y atentado a sus derechos en caso de ser extraditado a ese país, donde, según alega, un gran jurado estaría preparando en secreto un juicio en su contra por la publicación de miles de documentos internos de las misiones diplomáticas. A la vez, no deja de ser insólito que el gobierno de Reino Unido haya amenazado con violar la inmunidad diplomática de la embajada de Ecuador en Londres para detener a Assange, apoyado en una ley interna (lo cual implicaría desconocer el derecho internacional); si bien luego el canciller William Hague lo descartó, ante las reacciones desatadas.
UN REFUGIO EN EL SUR
En su extenso comunicado oficial que anuncia el asilo, con base en convenios internacionales, Ecuador explicita los argumentos legales y éticos que justifican su decisión, entre ellas:
"Que Julian Assange es un profesional de la comunicación galardonado internacionalmente por su lucha a favor de la libertad de expresión, la libertad de prensa y de los derechos humanos en general";
"Que existen serios indicios de retaliación por parte del país o los países que produjeron la información divulgada por el señor Assange", y
"Que la evidencia jurídica muestra claramente que, de darse una extradición a los Estados Unidos de América, el señor Assange no tendría un juicio justo, podría ser juzgado por tribunales especiales o militares, y no es inverosímil que se le aplique un trato cruel y degradante, y se le condene a cadena perpetua o a la pena capital, con lo cual no serían respetados sus derechos humanos".
Ecuador señala, además, que no pretende entorpecer la justicia sueca, que ha pedido la extradición de Assange para interrogarlo por una supuesta alegación de abuso sexual, si bien por ahora no pesa ninguna acusación concreta en su contra. Pero que "la fiscalía sueca ha tenido una actitud contradictoria", que afectaría los derechos procesales de Assange. (Entre otros, Suecia declinó la oferta de interrogarlo en la embajada en Londres).
La Declaración menciona, por otra parte, en referencia al hecho que Ecuador ha acogido un alto número de refugiados de la guerra interna en Colombia, que:
"El Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Refugiados ha elogiado la política de refugio del Ecuador, y ha resaltado el hecho significativo de que en el país no se haya confinado en campamentos a estas personas, sino que han sido integradas a la sociedad, en pleno goce de sus derechos humanos y garantías".
Esto último parece aludir a Gran Bretaña, que retiene a miles de solicitantes de asilo en centros de detención, donde pueden permanecer indefinidamente, con el riesgo de ser retornados a sus países de origen si el pedido es rechazado.
Hace dos meses que Assange acudió a la embajada de Ecuador a pedir refugio. Christine Assange, madre de Julian, quien visitó Ecuador a inicios de agosto, respondió ante una pregunta de ALAI que, cuando un funcionario de la cancillería mencionó en forma no oficial que Assange sería bienvenido en Ecuador, hace dos años, en ese momento su hijo no se daba cuenta que podría necesitar el asilo político. "Julian no tiene experiencia en estos asuntos, que América Latina sí conoce, respecto a requerir protección frente a Estados Unidos", afirmó. "Él dio por supuesto que la justicia seguiría su debido cauce".
Al precisar por qué él había escogido a Ecuador como país de refugio, la Sra. Assange destacó el record ejemplar de ese país en derechos humanos en los últimos cinco años. "Son subyacentes en la Constitución y en cada política, incluida la libertad de expresión en todas sus formas, la protección de periodistas y sus fuentes; y a diferencia de algunos países, Ecuador toma en serio estos mandatos de derechos humanos y libertad de expresión", declaró. A ello se añade el fuerte mandato soberano del país, cuyo principal defensor es el mismo presidente Correa, "quien no teme pararse firme frente a presiones de EE.UU." Christine resaltó también el respaldo popular con el cual cuentan estas políticas, que ella constató en una reunión de jóvenes de distintas tendencias políticas, que fueron unánimes en apoyar el asilo para su hijo.
En la misma reunión con la prensa, el abogado español Baltasar Garzón, quien está coordinando la defensa de Assange entre los diferentes países involucrados en el pleito, opinó que Gran Bretaña no tendría justificación legal para no conceder el salvoconducto, una vez concedido el asilo. "Jurídicamente no puede hacerlo porque Ecuador es un estado soberano, libre y democrático, exactamente igual que los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica, ni más ni menos. Es verdad que la posición hegemónica no es similar, y el único elemento que podría influir en esa no concesión de salvoconducto es que entre la fuerza", la cual no se puede utilizar entre Estados democráticos y con un sistema de derechos, opinó; pues de lo contrario significaría viciar totalmente el procedimiento.
PRÓXIMOS PASOS
El futuro de Assange es incierto, si bien Ecuador ha indicado que podría permanecer indefinidamente en la embajada en caso de no obtener el salvoconducto. Sin duda la decisión podría traer represalias para el país. Ante la actitud amenazante del Reino Unido, el canciller Patiño ha pedido a los distintos foros políticos regionales -ALBA, UNASUR, CELAC, OEA- reunirse de urgencia para expresar una posición sobre la amenaza a la soberanía ecuatoriana.
El ALBA emitió un pronunciamiento en rechazo a la amenaza británica a la integridad de la embajada ecuatoriana y a su derecho soberano de administrar su política de asilo. En una entrevista en Quito, el Secretario de este organismo, Rodolfo Sanz, precisó que: “Ecuador otorgó el asilo político porque estima que el caso es político. El caso no es de derecho penal ordinario. Inglaterra tiene que decidir si da el salvoconducto. El asilo político es una figura que está en el derecho internacional acogida por todos los países que son miembros de Naciones Unidas”. Recordó que por ello muchos países de América Latina han dado salvoconductos, incluso para personas que han cometido crímenes más graves: como los banqueros prófugos que están en EEUU, e incluso a varios implicados en los asesinatos del 11 de abril del 2002 en Venezuela.
El ALBA anunció una reunión de cancilleres para el sábado 18 de agosto en Guayaquil; mientras UNASUR lo hará el domingo en la misma ciudad. Por su parte, la OEA decidirá el viernes 17 sobre una posible convocatoria de cancilleres para el día 23; Canadá y Estados Unidos no han dado importancia a la discusión y no apoyan la medida de convocar la reunión. Por su parte, Victoria Nuland, vocera del Departamento de Estado de EEUU, rechazó hoy la acusación de que su país esté presionando al Reino Unido para que invada por la fuerza la sede diplomática ecuatoriana en Londres y arreste a Assange, y afirmó que "Es un asunto de las naciones involucradas y nosotros no tenemos planeado interponernos".
Organizaciones sociales de Latinoamérica han dado a conocer que se encuentran en consultas para impulsar una campaña internacional de apoyo a Ecuador y de presión al país europeo, que ha ratificado su determinación de entregar Assange a la justicia sueca.
Lo que no cabe duda es que para un Estado como el Reino Unido, le debe resultar una afrenta intolerable que un pequeño e insignificante país del Sur, como Ecuador, pueda darle lecciones en materia de derechos humanos.
Sally Burch es periodista británica radicada en Ecuador. Labora en ALAI.
Fuente original: http://www.alainet.org/active/57240
===================
SAFE PASSAGE FOR JULIAN ASSANGE TO TRAVEL TO ECUADOR or ELSE
SAFE PASSAGE FOR JULIAN ASSANGE TO TRAVEL TO ECUADOR or ELSE
Hugo Adan. August 18, 2012
The international community will not tolerate that Assange’ right for political asylum be disrespected. If Julian Assange is assassinated in London, that could sparks unprecedented levels of violence worldwide.
There is a legal solution to this problem if there is will to do so. This starts with the implementation of Per Samuelsson proposal: “the foundation for the arrest warrant was that they wanted an interrogation with Julian Assange in Sweden. Now it is no longer possible to have it in Sweden because he has been granted political asylum, but THEN WE CAN DO IT IN LONDON. It’s time for the prosecutor of Sweeden to change her mind and go along the line and do it quickly in London. Then everything will be solved. The foundation for the european arrest warrant will disappear, and Julian Assange will be able to leave the embassy and go to Ecuador and seek protection from the United States.”
--------------------------------
LAWYER: RAID ON EMBASSY TO ARREST ASSANGE WOULD BE "UNPRECEDENTED" BREACH OF DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/17/lawyer_raid_on_embassy_to_arrest
Britain is refusing to give Julian Assange of WikiLeaks safe passage out of the country even though Ecuador has granted him political asylum. On Thursday, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Assange would be arrested if he left the embassy. Britain has also threatened to raid the embassy in order to arrest Assange. "Under British law we can give them a week’s notice before entering the premises and the embassy will no longer have diplomatic protection," said a British foreign spokesperson. In response, Ecuador has asked the Organization of American States to hold a meeting Aug. 23 to discuss the diplomatic crisis. "The latest announcements by the British government are alarming," said Jennifer Robinson, legal adviser for Julian Assange.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We begin today’s show on the latest on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Britain is refusing to give Assange safe passage out of the country even though Ecuador has granted him political asylum. Assange remains inside the Ecuadorean embassy in London, where he has stayed for almost two months in an attempt to avoid extradition to Sweden for questioning over sex crime accusations. Assange’s lawyers say he fears Sweden will extradite him to the United States to face charges over the leaking of secret U.S. military and diplomatic files. On Thursday, BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY WILLIAM HAGUE SAID ASSANGE WOULD BE ARRESTED IF HE LEFT THE EMBASSY.
WILLIAM HAGUE: We are disappointed by the statement by Ecuador’s foreign minister today that Ecuador has offered political asylum to Julian Assange. Under our law, with Mr. Assange having exhausted all options of appeal, the British authorities are under a binding obligation to extradite him to Sweden. We must carry out that obligation, and of course we fully intend to do so. The Ecuadorean government’s decision this afternoon does not change that in any way, nor does it change the current circumstances in any way. We remain committed to a diplomatic solution that allows us to carry out our obligations as a nation under the Extradition Act. It’s important to understand that this is not about Mr. Assange’s activities at WikiLeaks or the attitude of the United States of America. He is wanted in Sweden to answer allegations of serious sexual offenses.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Britain has also threatened to raid the embassy in order to arrest Assange. A British foreign spokesperson said, quote, "UNDER BRITISH LAW WE CAN GIVE THEM A WEEK’S NOTICE BEFORE ENTERING THE PREMISES AND THE EMBASSY WILL NO LONGER HAVE DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION."
The British threat was condemned by Ecuadorean officials as well as former diplomats. Sir Anthony Brenton, a former British ambassador to Russia, told the BBC that A BRITISH BREACH OF DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY WOULD, QUOTE, "MAKE THE WORLD A VERY DIFFERENT PLACE," WITH DIPLOMATS EVERYWHERE VULNERABLE TO PUNITIVE ACTION BY HOST GOVERNMENTS.
Meanwhile, Ecuador has asked the Organization of American States to hold a meeting August 23rd to discuss the diplomatic crisis.
Numerous supporters of Assange have gathered outside Ecuador’s embassy in recent days. This is Paul Madrid.
PAUL MADRID: [translated] We believe that the decision taken by the Ecuadorean government is the correct one. We Ecuadoreans abroad very much agree with this. We support the government’s decision, which is a decision taken on the basis of human rights and international commissions that support this type of petition.
AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about the significance of these developments, we are going to go first to Jennifer Robinson, London-based legal adviser for Julian Assange, also DIRECTOR OF LEGAL ADVOCACY AT THE BERTHA FOUNDATION.
We welcome you to Democracy Now!, Jennifer. The significance of the Ecuadorean government granting political asylum to Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder, and then, what Britain is threatening now?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: This is obviously a hugely important decision by Ecuador and one that we both welcome and respect, in light of the recent pressure that’s been brought to bear on them by the British government. It is an important recognition of international law and important recognition of the persecution that Julian faces, and in particular the concerns that we’ve long had about his—the risk of his extradition to the United States and prosecution associated with his activities to do with WikiLeaks.
THE LATEST ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT ARE ALARMING, I think, for diplomats around the world in relation to their threat about entering the embassy. This raises significant concerns about the institution of asylum, and about diplomatic protection, more generally. As international law academics and experts have been saying in the past 24 hours, it would be illegal as a matter of international law to enter an embassy. They are inviolable. And unless and until they withdraw that status, THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT CANNOT ENTER THE EMBASSY. IF THEY DO DECIDE TO WITHDRAW THAT STATUS, THIS ACTUALLY WOULD BE, I THINK, A WATERSHED IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND CAUSE SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS AROUND THE WORLD.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Jennifer Robinson, what about this 1987 law that the British government is claiming would be able—they could justify REMOVING THE DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION OF THE EMBASSY?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: As I stated, at present, Ecuador has diplomatic status. IF THE U.K. GOVERNMENT WERE TO REVOKE THAT STATUS, IT WOULD BE A WATERSHED IN INTERNATIONAL LAW. IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT’S PERMITTED UNDER BRITISH LAW, it would be a—it would be a significant step by the British government and one that I think, AS INTERNATIONAL LAW ACADEMICS HAVE SAID, WOULD PUT AT RISK THE DIPLOMATS ALL OVER THE WORLD.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about a comparison to how the British government dealt with, for example, Augusto Pinochet, the Chilean dictator? Interestingly, Baltasar Garzón is a lawyer for Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, the crusading Spanish judge and prosecutor who called for the extradition of Augusto Pinochet from Britain, where he was there for a medical visit, to Spain. He ultimately had to stay in Britain for a year, but then Britain had him—allowed him to go back to Chile.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: I think that there are limited comparisons to be made between those two cases. Of course, Garzón is the leader of our legal defense team, and he has—he has reiterated the same points that I’ve made about the importance of this decision to grant asylum. But the cases, I think, are very different, and they’re just—it’s difficult to make any connection between them.
AMY GOODMAN: And THIS THREAT OF A RAID, WHAT EXACTLY WOULD IT MEAN? BRITISH SOLDIERS OR POLICE MOVING INTO THE EMBASSY AND EXTRACTING JULIAN ASSANGE?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: It’s unclear what exactly it would mean. I mean, this is an—it would be an unprecedented action if the U.K. were to take that action. I suspect that if they were to withdraw the status of the British embassy, this would be a huge step and one that I know in recent days the British government has distanced themselves from that initial statement. If it were to happen, they would first have to withdraw the diplomatic status of Ecuador, which would again be a huge step. And after that, police—police officers would be able to get into the embassy and take Julian under arrest. But at this stage [inaudible] —
AMY GOODMAN: We’re losing you a little bit, Jennifer.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: At this stage, THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT HAS TAKEN A MASSIVE STEP BACK FROM THAT INITIAL THREAT TO ENTER THE EMBASSY. As I said earlier, they would have to withdraw the status of the Ecuadorean embassy in England before they were able to do so. And that, in and of itself, would be a huge step. I don’t think that that’s going to happen, and it looks like we’re going to be facing a long standoff.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Jennifer Robinson, the—Ecuador’s foreign minister has said that his country sought assurances from Sweden and the United States that Assange would not be extradited from Sweden to the United States, before making a decision, and they were not giving such assurances. That seems to buttress THE FEAR OF ASSANGE THAT THE REAL EFFORT HERE IS TO GET HIM INTO U.S. CUSTODY VIA SWEDEN. YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE FOREIGN MINISTER OF ECUADOR, THAT HE COULD NOT GET THOSE ASSURANCES FROM THE UNITED STATES?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: I think this is a very important point and one that ought to be emphasized, that Ecuador, in considering its international obligations in whether to grant Julian asylum, first sought the assurances that we had been asking our Australian government to ask on his behalf and who had also refused to request. So Ecuador took every step it possibly could, before taking this decision, to seek the assurances it required to assuage concerns about onward extradition to the U.S. It is worth emphasizing that this grant of asylum is with respect to the risk of onward extradition to the United States, and Sweden and the United Kingdom both refused to provide assurances that once matters were dealt with in Sweden, that Julian would be permitted to leave the country and would not be extradited to the United States. THEY REFUSED TO PROVIDE THOSE ASSURANCES.
As he—HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN WILLING TO COOPERATE WITH THE SWEDISH ALLEGATIONS. AGAIN, HE HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED IN SWEDEN YET. They simply want his testimony. And in the course of their consideration of his application, THE ECUADOREAN GOVERNMENT ALSO OFFERED THE SWEDISH AUTHORITIES THE OPPORTUNITY TO INTERVIEW JULIAN in relation to the Swedish sexual offense charge—allegations, IN THE EMBASSY, AND THEY ALSO REFUSED THAT OFFER. So ECUADOR ACTUALLY DID TRY TO GET THE ASSURANCES THAT THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ALLOW JULIAN TO ANSWER THOSE ALLEGATIONS IN SWEDEN AND TO ASSUAGE FEARS ABOUT ONWARD EXTRADITION TO THE U.S. THEY REFUSED TO GIVE THEM, AND AS A RESULT, ECUADOR HAS GRANTED ASYLUM.
AMY GOODMAN: After the announcement that Julian Assange had been granted political asylum in Ecuador, ONE OF HIS LAWYERS IN SWEDEN, PER SAMUELSSON, URGED SWEDISH PROSECUTOR MARIANNE NY TO TRAVEL TO LONDON TO QUESTION ASSANGE.
PER SAMUELSSON: We can solve everything. THE FOUNDATION FOR THE ARREST WARRANT WAS THAT THEY WANTED AN INTERROGATION WITH JULIAN ASSANGE IN SWEDEN. NOW IT IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE TO HAVE IT IN SWEDEN because he has been granted political asylum, but then WE CAN DO IT IN LONDON. And that was—that is what we have been wanting all the time. And now I think IT’S TIME FOR THE PROSECUTOR TO CHANGE HER MIND AND GO ALONG THE LINE AND DO IT QUICKLY IN LONDON. THEN EVERYTHING WILL BE SOLVED. THEN THE FOUNDATION FOR THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT WILL DISAPPEAR, AND JULIAN ASSANGE CAN LEAVE THE EMBASSY AND GO TO ECUADOR AND SEEK PROTECTION FROM THE UNITED STATES.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Per Samuelsson, one of Julian Assange’s lawyers in Sweden. Jennifer Robinson, final comment on this and how long Julian Assange can remain in the Ecuadorean embassy in London?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: First of all, I agree entirely with Per Samuelsson, our colleague in Sweden, that IF THE SWEDISH PROSECUTOR WERE TO GO TO LONDON AND INTERVIEW HIM, THIS COULD ALL BE OVER, AND HE COULD GO TO ECUADOR TO SEEK PROTECTION FROM THE UNITED STATES. We have been offering his testimony from the U.K. as—from as early as October 2010. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR THIS ARREST WARRANT IN THE FIRST PLACE. IT HAS KEPT HIM UNDER HOUSE ARREST IN THE U.K. FOR MORE THAN 18 MONTHS. And if they were—if they took the option to use the mutual legal assistance treaty that is available to them, we wouldn’t—we simply wouldn’t be in this position. And that’s the best possible outcome for everyone involved, including the women in Sweden who have made these allegations.
As to the question about his—how long he could remain in the Ecuadorean embassy, we certainly wouldn’t like it to be an indefinite position. But, of course, ECUADOR HAS GRANTED PROTECTION, AND UNLESS AND UNTIL THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT REMOVES THE DIPLOMATIC STATUS OF THE ECUADOREAN EMBASSY, JULIAN CAN REMAIN IN THERE INDEFINITELY UNTIL HE SAFE PASSAGE CAN BE NEGOTIATED. Of course, we wouldn’t like to see that, and we think that the British government ought to give meaningful recognition of asylum rights by granting him safe passage. But unless and until that’s granted, he is subject to arrest when he walks outside the embassy. And at this stage, he is not willing to do that.
AMY GOODMAN: Jennifer Robinson, I want to thank you for being with us, the London-based legal adviser for Julian Assange. This is Democracy Now! When we come back, we’ll speak with perhaps the United States’ most famous whistleblower, Dan Ellsberg. Stay with us.
==============
MORE ON JULIAN ASSANGE CASE IN DEMOCRACY NOW
DANIEL ELLSBERG: I CONGRATULATE ECUADOR FOR STANDING UP TO BRITISH EMPIRE TO PROTECT JULIAN ASSANGE
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/17/daniel_ellsberg_i_congratulate_ecuador_for
EXTRACTS:
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: For more on Julian Assange, we’re joined by Daniel Ellsberg, perhaps the country’s most famous whistleblower. He leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971, the secret history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. He joins us from Berkeley.
Welcome to Democracy Now! Dan Ellsberg, your response to the latest developments of the decision of Ecuador to grant asylum?
DANIEL ELLSBERG: Well, I congratulate Ecuador, of course, for standing up to the British Empire here, for insisting that they are not a British colony, and acting as a sovereign state ought to act. And I think they’ve done the right thing. I appreciate what they’ve done.
AMY GOODMAN: And the British government first threatening to raid the Ecuadorean embassy in London, also saying they would arrest Julian Assange if he attempted to leave to go to Ecuador, but also saying they’d actually raid the embassy?
DANIEL ELLSBERG: It’s an outrageous proposal, which actually undermines the security of every diplomat in the world, in this country right now. I would say it has a chilling effect right now, the very fact that that possibility has been raised. I’m old enough to remember the occasion that gave rise to that, actually. I remember when a Libyan official shot from the Libyan embassy in London and killed a British female officer—Vivian [Yvonne Joyce Fletcher], I think her name was—in 1984. The result of that was that they removed diplomatic recognition from Libya altogether, sent everybody home. They didn’t raid the embassy on that occasion, but that led three years later to a law that permitted them, under extraordinary circumstances, to do that again.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Dan Ellsberg, again, the extraordinary efforts that are being taken here by the British government—and, obviously, the Swedish government—supposedly just to question him on allegations of a sexual attack, not even actual charges.
DANIEL ELLSBERG: Well, everything that we’ve seen supports the position of his defense team, that THIS IS NOT ABOUT SEXUAL CHARGES IN SWEDEN, ESSENTIALLY, THAT THAT’S A COVER STORY—whatever substance there may be to that story. But the procedures that have been followed here are extraordinary: a red notice here, very unusually given, never under these circumstances, to arrest him and these heavy efforts to extradite him, after HE HAD OFFERED EITHER TO BE QUESTIONED BY THE PROSECUTOR HERSELF OR BY SOME REPRESENTATIVE OF HER IN THE SWEDISH EMBASSY OR THE BRITISH EMBASSY OR BY BRITISH POLICE IN LONDON, where he was, something that, by the way, is routinely done all the time, and the expense is paid for that, if necessary—all of that being refused. Why?
[WE ARE] In a situation where THIS MAN IS CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL CHARGES BY NO COUNTRY—NOT BY SWEDEN, NOT BY BRITAIN, NOT BY THE UNITED STATES, ALTHOUGH THERE MAY IN FACT BE A SECRET INDICTMENT ALREADY WAITING FOR HIM IN THE UNITED STATES, BEING DENIED OR LIED ABOUT RIGHT NOW BY MY COUNTRY. BUT NO CHARGES HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN MADE PUBLIC. So, here, all this emphasis just to get him charged—just to get him questioned, rather, when he’s offered himself for questioning, even right now in the Ecuadorean embassy.
THE STATE OF ECUADOR HAS ACTUALLY OFFICIALLY PROPOSED THAT THAT TAKE PLACE IN THE ECUADOREAN EMBASSY OR ELSEWHERE AND IN LONDON. AND THAT HAS BEEN REFUSED. ALL OF THIS SUPPORTS THE IDEA THAT THIS IS MERELY A WAY OF GETTING HIM TO SWEDEN, WHICH APPARENTLY WOULD BE EASIER TO EXTRADITE HIM FROM TO THE UNITED STATES THAN BRITAIN. If Britain were totally open to extraditing him, it would have happened by now. Two years have passed. But HE’S AN AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN, A MEMBER OF THE COMMONWEALTH, AND THE CRITERIA FOR EXTRADITING SOMEBODY WHO’S BEEN TELLING THE TRUTH AND IS WANTED FOR WHAT CAN ONLY BE A POLITICAL CRIME IN ANOTHER COUNTRY ARE APPARENTLY MORE STRINGENT HERE THAN THEY MIGHT BE IN SWEDEN.
So I think that—in fact, I join his lawyers, Michael Ratner and others, in saying that he has every reason to be wary that the real intent here is to whisk him away to America, where it really hasn’t been made as clear what might be waiting for him as I think one can conjecture.
THE NEW NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT—and I’m a plaintiff in a suit to call that act unconstitutional, in terms of its effect on me and on others, a suit that has been successful so far at the district court level and has led to that act being called unconstitutional. But on its face, THAT ACT COULD BE USED AGAINST JULIAN ASSANGE OR BRADLEY MANNING, IF HE WEREN’T ALREADY IN MILITARY CUSTODY. Julian Assange, although a civilian, and not an American civilian at that, would seem to me, a layman, to be clearly subject to the National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA, putting in military detention for suspicion of giving aid to an enemy, which he’s certainly been accused of by high American officials. I don’t see why he couldn’t be put in indefinite contention, without even the charges that I faced 40 years ago for doing the exact same things that he did.
AMY GOODMAN: Julian Assange’s statement after the Ecuadorean government granted him political asylum, he said, "I’m grateful to the Ecuadorean people, President Rafael Correa and his government. It was not Britain or my home country, Australia, that stood up to protect me from persecution, but a courageous, independent Latin American nation. While today is a historic victory, our struggles have just begun. The unprecedented U.S. investigation against WikiLeaks must be stopped."
And Assange went on to say, "While today much of the focus will be on the decision of the Ecuadorean government, it is just as important that we remember Bradley Manning has been detained without trial for over 800 days. The task of protecting WikiLeaks, its staff, its supporters and its alleged sources continue." That from Julian Assange’s statement yesterday. Final comment, Dan Ellsberg?
DANIEL ELLSBERG: Absolutely. There’s no reason to believe that he would get what in past years, including my time when I was prosecuted, would pass for a fair trial or for fair treatment in this country. I’m sorry to say that there’s been something like a coup some 10 years ago, an executive coup against our Constitution and against the separation of government. It’s outrageous that Bradley Manning’s trial has again been postponed by the action of the government 'til next spring. He will have spent—he's already spent more than 800 days in confinement, 10 months of it and more in conditions that Amnesty International called torture. The idea that President Obama ended torture is simply not true. He didn’t end it even in this country, in terms of isolated commitment, incommunicado, basically, and conditions of nudity, in some cases, intended to humiliate him—all intended to press him to cop a plea and reduce his sentence from the life sentence they’re asking to a much lower sentence, if he will only implicate Julian Assange in ways that would allow them to bring a trial without great embarrassment.
Now, let me enlarge on that for a moment. They don’t have to extradite anyone to bring someone under these charges under the WikiLeaks disclosures. Everything Julian Assange could possibly be charged with under our law was committed as an act by Bill Keller, the president—sorry, the managing editor of—the executive editor of the New York Times. I don’t mean the New York Times should be indicted or that Keller should be indicted. That would be an outrage, just as it is an outrage to think of indicting Julian Assange for exactly the same thing. But meanwhile, Bradley Manning is facing charges that he aided the enemy, absurd charges that amount virtually to treason. And many people have even called for execution of either of them. Well, obviously, the same charges then could lead to Julian Assange being tried under the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act, which has just been found unconstitutional by a courageous and right-thinking judge in the first—in the district of Manhattan—
AMY GOODMAN: Dan Ellsberg, thanks so much for being with us, perhaps the country’s most famous whistleblower. He leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971, the secret history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, joining us from University of California, Berkeley
=================
Hugo Adan. August 18, 2012
The international community will not tolerate that Assange’ right for political asylum be disrespected. If Julian Assange is assassinated in London, that could sparks unprecedented levels of violence worldwide.
There is a legal solution to this problem if there is will to do so. This starts with the implementation of Per Samuelsson proposal: “the foundation for the arrest warrant was that they wanted an interrogation with Julian Assange in Sweden. Now it is no longer possible to have it in Sweden because he has been granted political asylum, but THEN WE CAN DO IT IN LONDON. It’s time for the prosecutor of Sweeden to change her mind and go along the line and do it quickly in London. Then everything will be solved. The foundation for the european arrest warrant will disappear, and Julian Assange will be able to leave the embassy and go to Ecuador and seek protection from the United States.”
--------------------------------
LAWYER: RAID ON EMBASSY TO ARREST ASSANGE WOULD BE "UNPRECEDENTED" BREACH OF DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/17/lawyer_raid_on_embassy_to_arrest
Britain is refusing to give Julian Assange of WikiLeaks safe passage out of the country even though Ecuador has granted him political asylum. On Thursday, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Assange would be arrested if he left the embassy. Britain has also threatened to raid the embassy in order to arrest Assange. "Under British law we can give them a week’s notice before entering the premises and the embassy will no longer have diplomatic protection," said a British foreign spokesperson. In response, Ecuador has asked the Organization of American States to hold a meeting Aug. 23 to discuss the diplomatic crisis. "The latest announcements by the British government are alarming," said Jennifer Robinson, legal adviser for Julian Assange.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We begin today’s show on the latest on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Britain is refusing to give Assange safe passage out of the country even though Ecuador has granted him political asylum. Assange remains inside the Ecuadorean embassy in London, where he has stayed for almost two months in an attempt to avoid extradition to Sweden for questioning over sex crime accusations. Assange’s lawyers say he fears Sweden will extradite him to the United States to face charges over the leaking of secret U.S. military and diplomatic files. On Thursday, BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY WILLIAM HAGUE SAID ASSANGE WOULD BE ARRESTED IF HE LEFT THE EMBASSY.
WILLIAM HAGUE: We are disappointed by the statement by Ecuador’s foreign minister today that Ecuador has offered political asylum to Julian Assange. Under our law, with Mr. Assange having exhausted all options of appeal, the British authorities are under a binding obligation to extradite him to Sweden. We must carry out that obligation, and of course we fully intend to do so. The Ecuadorean government’s decision this afternoon does not change that in any way, nor does it change the current circumstances in any way. We remain committed to a diplomatic solution that allows us to carry out our obligations as a nation under the Extradition Act. It’s important to understand that this is not about Mr. Assange’s activities at WikiLeaks or the attitude of the United States of America. He is wanted in Sweden to answer allegations of serious sexual offenses.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Britain has also threatened to raid the embassy in order to arrest Assange. A British foreign spokesperson said, quote, "UNDER BRITISH LAW WE CAN GIVE THEM A WEEK’S NOTICE BEFORE ENTERING THE PREMISES AND THE EMBASSY WILL NO LONGER HAVE DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION."
The British threat was condemned by Ecuadorean officials as well as former diplomats. Sir Anthony Brenton, a former British ambassador to Russia, told the BBC that A BRITISH BREACH OF DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY WOULD, QUOTE, "MAKE THE WORLD A VERY DIFFERENT PLACE," WITH DIPLOMATS EVERYWHERE VULNERABLE TO PUNITIVE ACTION BY HOST GOVERNMENTS.
Meanwhile, Ecuador has asked the Organization of American States to hold a meeting August 23rd to discuss the diplomatic crisis.
Numerous supporters of Assange have gathered outside Ecuador’s embassy in recent days. This is Paul Madrid.
PAUL MADRID: [translated] We believe that the decision taken by the Ecuadorean government is the correct one. We Ecuadoreans abroad very much agree with this. We support the government’s decision, which is a decision taken on the basis of human rights and international commissions that support this type of petition.
AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about the significance of these developments, we are going to go first to Jennifer Robinson, London-based legal adviser for Julian Assange, also DIRECTOR OF LEGAL ADVOCACY AT THE BERTHA FOUNDATION.
We welcome you to Democracy Now!, Jennifer. The significance of the Ecuadorean government granting political asylum to Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder, and then, what Britain is threatening now?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: This is obviously a hugely important decision by Ecuador and one that we both welcome and respect, in light of the recent pressure that’s been brought to bear on them by the British government. It is an important recognition of international law and important recognition of the persecution that Julian faces, and in particular the concerns that we’ve long had about his—the risk of his extradition to the United States and prosecution associated with his activities to do with WikiLeaks.
THE LATEST ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT ARE ALARMING, I think, for diplomats around the world in relation to their threat about entering the embassy. This raises significant concerns about the institution of asylum, and about diplomatic protection, more generally. As international law academics and experts have been saying in the past 24 hours, it would be illegal as a matter of international law to enter an embassy. They are inviolable. And unless and until they withdraw that status, THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT CANNOT ENTER THE EMBASSY. IF THEY DO DECIDE TO WITHDRAW THAT STATUS, THIS ACTUALLY WOULD BE, I THINK, A WATERSHED IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND CAUSE SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS AROUND THE WORLD.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Jennifer Robinson, what about this 1987 law that the British government is claiming would be able—they could justify REMOVING THE DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION OF THE EMBASSY?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: As I stated, at present, Ecuador has diplomatic status. IF THE U.K. GOVERNMENT WERE TO REVOKE THAT STATUS, IT WOULD BE A WATERSHED IN INTERNATIONAL LAW. IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT’S PERMITTED UNDER BRITISH LAW, it would be a—it would be a significant step by the British government and one that I think, AS INTERNATIONAL LAW ACADEMICS HAVE SAID, WOULD PUT AT RISK THE DIPLOMATS ALL OVER THE WORLD.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about a comparison to how the British government dealt with, for example, Augusto Pinochet, the Chilean dictator? Interestingly, Baltasar Garzón is a lawyer for Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, the crusading Spanish judge and prosecutor who called for the extradition of Augusto Pinochet from Britain, where he was there for a medical visit, to Spain. He ultimately had to stay in Britain for a year, but then Britain had him—allowed him to go back to Chile.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: I think that there are limited comparisons to be made between those two cases. Of course, Garzón is the leader of our legal defense team, and he has—he has reiterated the same points that I’ve made about the importance of this decision to grant asylum. But the cases, I think, are very different, and they’re just—it’s difficult to make any connection between them.
AMY GOODMAN: And THIS THREAT OF A RAID, WHAT EXACTLY WOULD IT MEAN? BRITISH SOLDIERS OR POLICE MOVING INTO THE EMBASSY AND EXTRACTING JULIAN ASSANGE?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: It’s unclear what exactly it would mean. I mean, this is an—it would be an unprecedented action if the U.K. were to take that action. I suspect that if they were to withdraw the status of the British embassy, this would be a huge step and one that I know in recent days the British government has distanced themselves from that initial statement. If it were to happen, they would first have to withdraw the diplomatic status of Ecuador, which would again be a huge step. And after that, police—police officers would be able to get into the embassy and take Julian under arrest. But at this stage [inaudible] —
AMY GOODMAN: We’re losing you a little bit, Jennifer.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: At this stage, THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT HAS TAKEN A MASSIVE STEP BACK FROM THAT INITIAL THREAT TO ENTER THE EMBASSY. As I said earlier, they would have to withdraw the status of the Ecuadorean embassy in England before they were able to do so. And that, in and of itself, would be a huge step. I don’t think that that’s going to happen, and it looks like we’re going to be facing a long standoff.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Jennifer Robinson, the—Ecuador’s foreign minister has said that his country sought assurances from Sweden and the United States that Assange would not be extradited from Sweden to the United States, before making a decision, and they were not giving such assurances. That seems to buttress THE FEAR OF ASSANGE THAT THE REAL EFFORT HERE IS TO GET HIM INTO U.S. CUSTODY VIA SWEDEN. YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE FOREIGN MINISTER OF ECUADOR, THAT HE COULD NOT GET THOSE ASSURANCES FROM THE UNITED STATES?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: I think this is a very important point and one that ought to be emphasized, that Ecuador, in considering its international obligations in whether to grant Julian asylum, first sought the assurances that we had been asking our Australian government to ask on his behalf and who had also refused to request. So Ecuador took every step it possibly could, before taking this decision, to seek the assurances it required to assuage concerns about onward extradition to the U.S. It is worth emphasizing that this grant of asylum is with respect to the risk of onward extradition to the United States, and Sweden and the United Kingdom both refused to provide assurances that once matters were dealt with in Sweden, that Julian would be permitted to leave the country and would not be extradited to the United States. THEY REFUSED TO PROVIDE THOSE ASSURANCES.
As he—HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN WILLING TO COOPERATE WITH THE SWEDISH ALLEGATIONS. AGAIN, HE HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED IN SWEDEN YET. They simply want his testimony. And in the course of their consideration of his application, THE ECUADOREAN GOVERNMENT ALSO OFFERED THE SWEDISH AUTHORITIES THE OPPORTUNITY TO INTERVIEW JULIAN in relation to the Swedish sexual offense charge—allegations, IN THE EMBASSY, AND THEY ALSO REFUSED THAT OFFER. So ECUADOR ACTUALLY DID TRY TO GET THE ASSURANCES THAT THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ALLOW JULIAN TO ANSWER THOSE ALLEGATIONS IN SWEDEN AND TO ASSUAGE FEARS ABOUT ONWARD EXTRADITION TO THE U.S. THEY REFUSED TO GIVE THEM, AND AS A RESULT, ECUADOR HAS GRANTED ASYLUM.
AMY GOODMAN: After the announcement that Julian Assange had been granted political asylum in Ecuador, ONE OF HIS LAWYERS IN SWEDEN, PER SAMUELSSON, URGED SWEDISH PROSECUTOR MARIANNE NY TO TRAVEL TO LONDON TO QUESTION ASSANGE.
PER SAMUELSSON: We can solve everything. THE FOUNDATION FOR THE ARREST WARRANT WAS THAT THEY WANTED AN INTERROGATION WITH JULIAN ASSANGE IN SWEDEN. NOW IT IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE TO HAVE IT IN SWEDEN because he has been granted political asylum, but then WE CAN DO IT IN LONDON. And that was—that is what we have been wanting all the time. And now I think IT’S TIME FOR THE PROSECUTOR TO CHANGE HER MIND AND GO ALONG THE LINE AND DO IT QUICKLY IN LONDON. THEN EVERYTHING WILL BE SOLVED. THEN THE FOUNDATION FOR THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT WILL DISAPPEAR, AND JULIAN ASSANGE CAN LEAVE THE EMBASSY AND GO TO ECUADOR AND SEEK PROTECTION FROM THE UNITED STATES.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Per Samuelsson, one of Julian Assange’s lawyers in Sweden. Jennifer Robinson, final comment on this and how long Julian Assange can remain in the Ecuadorean embassy in London?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: First of all, I agree entirely with Per Samuelsson, our colleague in Sweden, that IF THE SWEDISH PROSECUTOR WERE TO GO TO LONDON AND INTERVIEW HIM, THIS COULD ALL BE OVER, AND HE COULD GO TO ECUADOR TO SEEK PROTECTION FROM THE UNITED STATES. We have been offering his testimony from the U.K. as—from as early as October 2010. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR THIS ARREST WARRANT IN THE FIRST PLACE. IT HAS KEPT HIM UNDER HOUSE ARREST IN THE U.K. FOR MORE THAN 18 MONTHS. And if they were—if they took the option to use the mutual legal assistance treaty that is available to them, we wouldn’t—we simply wouldn’t be in this position. And that’s the best possible outcome for everyone involved, including the women in Sweden who have made these allegations.
As to the question about his—how long he could remain in the Ecuadorean embassy, we certainly wouldn’t like it to be an indefinite position. But, of course, ECUADOR HAS GRANTED PROTECTION, AND UNLESS AND UNTIL THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT REMOVES THE DIPLOMATIC STATUS OF THE ECUADOREAN EMBASSY, JULIAN CAN REMAIN IN THERE INDEFINITELY UNTIL HE SAFE PASSAGE CAN BE NEGOTIATED. Of course, we wouldn’t like to see that, and we think that the British government ought to give meaningful recognition of asylum rights by granting him safe passage. But unless and until that’s granted, he is subject to arrest when he walks outside the embassy. And at this stage, he is not willing to do that.
AMY GOODMAN: Jennifer Robinson, I want to thank you for being with us, the London-based legal adviser for Julian Assange. This is Democracy Now! When we come back, we’ll speak with perhaps the United States’ most famous whistleblower, Dan Ellsberg. Stay with us.
==============
MORE ON JULIAN ASSANGE CASE IN DEMOCRACY NOW
DANIEL ELLSBERG: I CONGRATULATE ECUADOR FOR STANDING UP TO BRITISH EMPIRE TO PROTECT JULIAN ASSANGE
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/17/daniel_ellsberg_i_congratulate_ecuador_for
EXTRACTS:
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: For more on Julian Assange, we’re joined by Daniel Ellsberg, perhaps the country’s most famous whistleblower. He leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971, the secret history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. He joins us from Berkeley.
Welcome to Democracy Now! Dan Ellsberg, your response to the latest developments of the decision of Ecuador to grant asylum?
DANIEL ELLSBERG: Well, I congratulate Ecuador, of course, for standing up to the British Empire here, for insisting that they are not a British colony, and acting as a sovereign state ought to act. And I think they’ve done the right thing. I appreciate what they’ve done.
AMY GOODMAN: And the British government first threatening to raid the Ecuadorean embassy in London, also saying they would arrest Julian Assange if he attempted to leave to go to Ecuador, but also saying they’d actually raid the embassy?
DANIEL ELLSBERG: It’s an outrageous proposal, which actually undermines the security of every diplomat in the world, in this country right now. I would say it has a chilling effect right now, the very fact that that possibility has been raised. I’m old enough to remember the occasion that gave rise to that, actually. I remember when a Libyan official shot from the Libyan embassy in London and killed a British female officer—Vivian [Yvonne Joyce Fletcher], I think her name was—in 1984. The result of that was that they removed diplomatic recognition from Libya altogether, sent everybody home. They didn’t raid the embassy on that occasion, but that led three years later to a law that permitted them, under extraordinary circumstances, to do that again.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Dan Ellsberg, again, the extraordinary efforts that are being taken here by the British government—and, obviously, the Swedish government—supposedly just to question him on allegations of a sexual attack, not even actual charges.
DANIEL ELLSBERG: Well, everything that we’ve seen supports the position of his defense team, that THIS IS NOT ABOUT SEXUAL CHARGES IN SWEDEN, ESSENTIALLY, THAT THAT’S A COVER STORY—whatever substance there may be to that story. But the procedures that have been followed here are extraordinary: a red notice here, very unusually given, never under these circumstances, to arrest him and these heavy efforts to extradite him, after HE HAD OFFERED EITHER TO BE QUESTIONED BY THE PROSECUTOR HERSELF OR BY SOME REPRESENTATIVE OF HER IN THE SWEDISH EMBASSY OR THE BRITISH EMBASSY OR BY BRITISH POLICE IN LONDON, where he was, something that, by the way, is routinely done all the time, and the expense is paid for that, if necessary—all of that being refused. Why?
[WE ARE] In a situation where THIS MAN IS CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL CHARGES BY NO COUNTRY—NOT BY SWEDEN, NOT BY BRITAIN, NOT BY THE UNITED STATES, ALTHOUGH THERE MAY IN FACT BE A SECRET INDICTMENT ALREADY WAITING FOR HIM IN THE UNITED STATES, BEING DENIED OR LIED ABOUT RIGHT NOW BY MY COUNTRY. BUT NO CHARGES HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN MADE PUBLIC. So, here, all this emphasis just to get him charged—just to get him questioned, rather, when he’s offered himself for questioning, even right now in the Ecuadorean embassy.
THE STATE OF ECUADOR HAS ACTUALLY OFFICIALLY PROPOSED THAT THAT TAKE PLACE IN THE ECUADOREAN EMBASSY OR ELSEWHERE AND IN LONDON. AND THAT HAS BEEN REFUSED. ALL OF THIS SUPPORTS THE IDEA THAT THIS IS MERELY A WAY OF GETTING HIM TO SWEDEN, WHICH APPARENTLY WOULD BE EASIER TO EXTRADITE HIM FROM TO THE UNITED STATES THAN BRITAIN. If Britain were totally open to extraditing him, it would have happened by now. Two years have passed. But HE’S AN AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN, A MEMBER OF THE COMMONWEALTH, AND THE CRITERIA FOR EXTRADITING SOMEBODY WHO’S BEEN TELLING THE TRUTH AND IS WANTED FOR WHAT CAN ONLY BE A POLITICAL CRIME IN ANOTHER COUNTRY ARE APPARENTLY MORE STRINGENT HERE THAN THEY MIGHT BE IN SWEDEN.
So I think that—in fact, I join his lawyers, Michael Ratner and others, in saying that he has every reason to be wary that the real intent here is to whisk him away to America, where it really hasn’t been made as clear what might be waiting for him as I think one can conjecture.
THE NEW NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT—and I’m a plaintiff in a suit to call that act unconstitutional, in terms of its effect on me and on others, a suit that has been successful so far at the district court level and has led to that act being called unconstitutional. But on its face, THAT ACT COULD BE USED AGAINST JULIAN ASSANGE OR BRADLEY MANNING, IF HE WEREN’T ALREADY IN MILITARY CUSTODY. Julian Assange, although a civilian, and not an American civilian at that, would seem to me, a layman, to be clearly subject to the National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA, putting in military detention for suspicion of giving aid to an enemy, which he’s certainly been accused of by high American officials. I don’t see why he couldn’t be put in indefinite contention, without even the charges that I faced 40 years ago for doing the exact same things that he did.
AMY GOODMAN: Julian Assange’s statement after the Ecuadorean government granted him political asylum, he said, "I’m grateful to the Ecuadorean people, President Rafael Correa and his government. It was not Britain or my home country, Australia, that stood up to protect me from persecution, but a courageous, independent Latin American nation. While today is a historic victory, our struggles have just begun. The unprecedented U.S. investigation against WikiLeaks must be stopped."
And Assange went on to say, "While today much of the focus will be on the decision of the Ecuadorean government, it is just as important that we remember Bradley Manning has been detained without trial for over 800 days. The task of protecting WikiLeaks, its staff, its supporters and its alleged sources continue." That from Julian Assange’s statement yesterday. Final comment, Dan Ellsberg?
DANIEL ELLSBERG: Absolutely. There’s no reason to believe that he would get what in past years, including my time when I was prosecuted, would pass for a fair trial or for fair treatment in this country. I’m sorry to say that there’s been something like a coup some 10 years ago, an executive coup against our Constitution and against the separation of government. It’s outrageous that Bradley Manning’s trial has again been postponed by the action of the government 'til next spring. He will have spent—he's already spent more than 800 days in confinement, 10 months of it and more in conditions that Amnesty International called torture. The idea that President Obama ended torture is simply not true. He didn’t end it even in this country, in terms of isolated commitment, incommunicado, basically, and conditions of nudity, in some cases, intended to humiliate him—all intended to press him to cop a plea and reduce his sentence from the life sentence they’re asking to a much lower sentence, if he will only implicate Julian Assange in ways that would allow them to bring a trial without great embarrassment.
Now, let me enlarge on that for a moment. They don’t have to extradite anyone to bring someone under these charges under the WikiLeaks disclosures. Everything Julian Assange could possibly be charged with under our law was committed as an act by Bill Keller, the president—sorry, the managing editor of—the executive editor of the New York Times. I don’t mean the New York Times should be indicted or that Keller should be indicted. That would be an outrage, just as it is an outrage to think of indicting Julian Assange for exactly the same thing. But meanwhile, Bradley Manning is facing charges that he aided the enemy, absurd charges that amount virtually to treason. And many people have even called for execution of either of them. Well, obviously, the same charges then could lead to Julian Assange being tried under the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act, which has just been found unconstitutional by a courageous and right-thinking judge in the first—in the district of Manhattan—
AMY GOODMAN: Dan Ellsberg, thanks so much for being with us, perhaps the country’s most famous whistleblower. He leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971, the secret history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, joining us from University of California, Berkeley
=================
jueves, 16 de agosto de 2012
KILLING ASSANGE MAY COST TOO MUCH TO US-UK
KILLING ASSANGE MAY COST TOO MUCH TO US-UK
PART 1
"BACK OFF": ASSANGE ATTORNEY MICHAEL RATNER URGES U.K., U.S. TO RESPECT ASYLUM DECISION, INTERNATIONAL LAW
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/16/back_off_assange_attorney_michael_ratner
-------------
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this extracts is to explore the legal consequences of the UK threat: storming the Ecuatorian Embassy in London, take Assange alive or death and if alive, turned Assange to the US auhtoirties to punish him for publishing diplomatic secrets revealing corruption and Human Rights abuses of the US and NATO allies worldwide.
Storming the Ecuatorian Embassy in London is an act of violence that preludes the assassination of Assange by snipers or special teams. This could sparks unpredictable consequences in the current context of war we are living in.
I noticed that many Latinos grass-root- org FROM SEVERAL COUNTRIES are making comments online regarding this threat. It is clear the pressure that will come to their own States from the bottom up. Their demand is to close both embassies and to punish the US - UK by hitting their companies, if they kill Assanhe.
Meaning: If the violence takes place against the Ecuadorian embassy in UK, the response will be also violence against not only the US-UK embassies worldwide, but there will be economic targets too, starting in Latin America.
Do the US-UK authorities really calculate these effects?
That stupid thread from the UK policy-makers may spark an escalation of violence with unpredictable consequences. We should think on this topic by looking at the whole context: the fact is that we have on a double type of war. In the one hand is the military (we start loosing this war)and on the other hand we have the financial war: the dumping of the dollar as main currency for Banks reserve is ad-portas.
The Wall street financial frauds and the Libor scandal in the UK, plus the crisis of the euro, are also part of this context that can be activated very easily if we fall into the stupid trap of the UK policy-makers.
La pradera esta muy seca para jugar con fuego. Los costos del asesinato de Assange van a ser muy altos. In addition, he will became an international hero easily to be replace by many other Assanges. "We all are Assange" is not only a virtual command nowadays, it is taking human personification loaded with new type of energy worldwide.
-------------
Let’s go now to the interview of Amy Goodman to Michael Ratner:
BRIEF SUMMARY: Michael Ratner, a member of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s legal team, reacts to the breaking news that Ecuador has approved Assange’s request for political asylum two months after Assange took refuge in its London embassy. Britain says it still plans to extradite Assange to Sweden: "The British ought to just back off, and the U.S. ought to just back off," Ratner says. "For the British to say that they’re going to go into the embassy and get out someone who’s been granted asylum would turn the refugee convention and asylum completely on its head.”
AMY GOODMAN: Michael Ratner is president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights, legal adviser to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. The news conference, as it continues, the foreign affairs minister of Ecuador has announced that Julian Assange has been granted asylum by Ecuador. Michael Ratner, can talk about the significance of this? Again, Julian Assange now in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, he has been granted asylum by the country of Ecuador. What does this mean?
MICHAEL RATNER: This is an incredibly courageous move by Ecuador. I mean, you have to think about it. Julian Assange, in doing what he and WikiLeaks did, stood up to the great powers of the world. And now you see Ecuador, again, standing up to the great powers. And so it’s an amazing act, really, and we should just applaud and support Ecuador for doing what was legally required here, which is to give Julian Assange asylum for his role as a journalist and a publisher of WikiLeaks.
What does it mean? Well, what it means is, first of all, is the British ought to just back off, and the U.S. ought to just back off. He has a legal right to asylum under the refugee convention. Under the U.N. declarations, there cannot be any adverse consequences for countries granting asylum. It’s considered a humanitarian act. And for the British to say that they’re going to go into the embassy and get out someone who’s been granted asylum would turn the refugee convention and asylum completely on its head. It’s unheard of. As far as I know, it’s never been done before that you’ve gone into an embassy to pull out someone granted asylum.
Julian Assange in my view, has a right to leave that embassy, get on a plane and go to Ecuador. Will the British ever honor that, with the kinds of threats they’re making against Julian Assange? I doubt it right now. But that’s pretty—that’s the law, to me. You’re given asylum. The British can’t pick him up and then send him to a country where he will then be persecuted. [..]They can’t do it, and they should not only back off the embassy, they should ensure that he is allowed free passage out of the United Kingdom.
AMY GOODMAN: Michael Ratner, when—if someone who’s granted political asylum, as Julian Assange now has, if he got into a car to go to the airport, what is that territory considered, the actual car?
MICHAEL RATNER: You know, I think that’s an open question at this point. I think it should still be considered under the diplomatic protection of the Ecuadorean embassy. I think there’s enough law to say that.[..] Once you’ve been given asylum, it’s not like you can be then picked up by a country and sent into the hands of your persecutor. Whether it’s in the car, whether it’s on the streets, wherever you are, it’s illegal to do so. And it’s illegal for the British to go into that embassy. It’s illegal for them to stop Julian Assange trying to get to Ecuador.
AMY GOODMAN: You know, we were just talking about death squads in El Salvador. Actually, in 1980, when the archbishop of—the archbishop El Salvador was killed in El Salvador, Óscar Romero, just a few months before, January 31st, 1980, in Guatemala, Rigoberta Menchú, the Nobel Peace Prize winner’s father, Vicente Menchú, had taken refuge in the Spanish embassy in Guatemala City, and he and many others were killed as the Guatemalan forces burned the Spanish embassy to the ground. Michael Ratner?
MICHAEL RATNER: Yeah, Amy, I’m familiar with that, as you are, and it’s an incredible—what it says is the kinds of governments that do what the British are doing are basically inhuman and have blood stains on them for generations for doing this. Blood stains for generations. So the—if the British are acting like that, then they’re essentially acting—is the equivalent of what the Guatemalans did to Rigoberta Menchú’s father.
===================
BASIC LEGAL INFO RELATED TO THE CASE OF JULIAN ASSANGE .
PART 2
Hugo Adan , August 16, 2012
THE 1951 CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES AND ITS 1967 PROTOCOL
http://www.unhcr.org/4ec262df9.html
In July 1951, a diplomatic conference in Geneva adopted the
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (‘1951 Convention’), which was
later amended by the 1967 Protocol. These documents clearly spell out who
is a refugee and the kind of legal protection, other assistance and social rights
a refugee is entitled to receive. It also defines a refugee’s obligations to host
countries and specifies certain categories of people, such as war criminals, who
do not qualify for refugee status. Initially, the 1951 Convention was more or less
limited to protecting European refugees in the aftermath of World War II, but
the 1967 Protocol expanded its scope as the problem of displacement spread
around the world.
REFUGEE DEFINITION
The 1951 Convention protects refugees. It defines a refugee as a person who
is outside his or her country of nationality or habitual residence; has a
well-founded fear of being persecuted because of his or her race, religion,
nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
is unable or unwilling to avail him— or herself of the protection of that
country, or to return there, for fear of persecution (see Article 1A(2)).
People who fulfill this definition are entitled to the rights and bound
by the duties contained in the 1951 Convention.
CAN SOMEONE BE EXCLUDED FROM REFUGEE PROTECTION?
Yes. The 1951 Convention only protects persons who meet the criteria
for refugee status. Certain categories of people are considered not to deserve
refugee protection and should be excluded from such protection. This includes persons for whom there are serious reasons to suspect that:
• they have committed a crime against peace, a war
crime, a crime against humanity or a serious non-political
crime outside their country of refuge; or
• they are guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and
principles of the United Nations.
WHAT RIGHTS DO REFUGEES HAVE UNDER THE 1951 CONVENTION?-
THE CORNERSTONE OF THE 1951 CONVENTION IS THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-REFOULEMENT contained in Article 33.
According to this principle, a refugee should not be returned to a country where
he or she faces serious threats to his or her life or freedom. This protection
may not be claimed by refugees who are reasonably regarded as a danger to
the security of the country, or having been convicted of a particularly serious
crime, are considered a danger to the community.
OTHER RIGHTS CONTAINED IN THE 1951 CONVENTION INCLUDE:
• The right not to be expelled, except under certain, strictly defined conditions (Article 32);
• The right not to be punished for illegal entry into the territory of a contracting State (Article 31);
• The right to work (Articles 17 to 19);
• The right to housing (Article 21);
• The right to education (Article 22);
• The right to public relief and assistance (Article 23);
• The right to freedom of religion (Article 4);
• The right to access the courts (Article 16);
• The right to freedom of movement within the territory (Article 26); and
• The right to be issued identity and travel documents (Articles 27 and 28).
-----------------------------
HERE SOME NOTES WRITTEN IN LAW and PERTINENT TO THE CASE OF JULIAN ASSANGE:
CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES
http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html
Text of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees
RESOLUTION 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 16 December 1966
FIRST A NOTE on the realm of the CONVENTION of 1951 and the PROTOCOL of 1967
The Convention enabled States to make a declaration when becoming party, according
to which the words “events occurring before 1 January 1951” are understood to mean
“events occurring in Europe” prior to that date. This geographical limitation has been maintained by a very limited number of States, and with the adoption of the 1967
Protocol, has lost much of its significance.
The Protocol of 1967 is attached to United Nations General Assembly resolution 2198 (XXI) of 16 December 1967, and available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3b00f1cc50.html.
EXTRACTS:
IV. The Conference adopted unanimously the following recommendations:
A
(Facilitation of refugee travels)
The Conference,
considering that the issue and recognition of travel documents is necessary
to facilitate the movement of refugees, and in particular their resettlement,
URGES Governments which are parties to the Inter-Governmental Agreement
on Refugee Travel Documents signed in London on 15 October
1946, or which recognize travel documents issued in accordance with the
Agreement, to continue to issue or to recognize such travel documents,
and to extend the issue of such documents to refugees as defined in Article
1 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees or to recognize
the travel documents so issued to such persons, until they shall have
undertaken obligations under Article 28 of the said Convention.
D
(International co-operation in the field of asylum and resettlement) (1)
The Conference,
considering that many persons still leave their country of origin for reasons
of persecution and are entitled to special protection on account of their position,
recommends that Governments continue to receive refugees in their territories and that they act in concert in a true spirit of international cooperation in order that these refugees may find asylum and the possibility of resettlement.
E
(Extension of treatment provided by the Convention) (1)
The Conference,
expresses the hope that the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
will have value as an example exceeding its contractual scope and that
all nations will be guided by it in granting so far as possible to persons in
their territory as refugees and who would not be covered by the terms of
the Convention, the treatment for which it provides.
in witness whereof the President, Vice-Presidents and the Executive Secretary
of the Conference have signed this Final Act.
The President of the Conference: Knud Larsen
The Vice-Presidents of the Conference: A. Herment, Talat Miras
The Executive Secretary of the Conference: John P. Humphrey
----------------
THE CONVENTION Relating to the Status of Refugees established the definition of the term “refugee”
http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html
DEFINITION OF THE TERM “REFUGEE”
A. For the purposes of the present Convention, the term “refugee” shall
apply to any person who:
(1) Has been considered a refugee under the Arrangements of 12 May 1926
and 30 June 1928 or under the Conventions of 28 October 1933 and 10
February 1938, the Protocol of 14 September 1939 or the Constitution of
the International Refugee Organization;
Decisions of non-eligibility taken by the International Refugee Organization
during the period of its activities shall not prevent the status
of refugee being accorded to persons who fulfill the conditions of paragraph
2 of this section;
(2) As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well founded
fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who,
not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former
habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such
fear, is unwilling to return to it.
IN THE CASE OF A PERSON WHO HAS MORE THAN ONE NATIONALITY, the term “the
country of his nationality” shall mean each of the countries of which he
is a national, and a person shall not be deemed to be lacking the protection
of the country of his nationality if, without any valid reason BASED
on well-founded fear, he has not availed himself of the protection of one
of the countries of which he is a national.
ARTICLE 26
freedom of movement
Each Contracting State shall accord to refugees lawfully in its territory the
right to choose their place of residence to move freely within its territory,
subject to any regulations applicable to aliens generally in the same circumstances.
ARTICLE 28
travel documents
1. The Contracting States shall issue to refugees lawfully staying in their
territory travel documents for the purpose of travel outside their territory,
unless compelling reasons of national security or public order otherwise
require, and the provisions of the Schedule to this Convention shall apply
with respect to such documents. The Contracting States may issue such a
travel document to any other refugee in their territory; they shall in particular
give sympathetic consideration to the issue of such a travel document to
refugees in their territory who are unable to obtain a travel document from
the country of their lawful residence.
2. Travel documents issued to refugees under previous international agreements
by parties thereto shall be recognized and treated by the Contracting
States in the same way as if they had been issued pursuant to this article.
================
PART 1
"BACK OFF": ASSANGE ATTORNEY MICHAEL RATNER URGES U.K., U.S. TO RESPECT ASYLUM DECISION, INTERNATIONAL LAW
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/16/back_off_assange_attorney_michael_ratner
-------------
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this extracts is to explore the legal consequences of the UK threat: storming the Ecuatorian Embassy in London, take Assange alive or death and if alive, turned Assange to the US auhtoirties to punish him for publishing diplomatic secrets revealing corruption and Human Rights abuses of the US and NATO allies worldwide.
Storming the Ecuatorian Embassy in London is an act of violence that preludes the assassination of Assange by snipers or special teams. This could sparks unpredictable consequences in the current context of war we are living in.
I noticed that many Latinos grass-root- org FROM SEVERAL COUNTRIES are making comments online regarding this threat. It is clear the pressure that will come to their own States from the bottom up. Their demand is to close both embassies and to punish the US - UK by hitting their companies, if they kill Assanhe.
Meaning: If the violence takes place against the Ecuadorian embassy in UK, the response will be also violence against not only the US-UK embassies worldwide, but there will be economic targets too, starting in Latin America.
Do the US-UK authorities really calculate these effects?
That stupid thread from the UK policy-makers may spark an escalation of violence with unpredictable consequences. We should think on this topic by looking at the whole context: the fact is that we have on a double type of war. In the one hand is the military (we start loosing this war)and on the other hand we have the financial war: the dumping of the dollar as main currency for Banks reserve is ad-portas.
The Wall street financial frauds and the Libor scandal in the UK, plus the crisis of the euro, are also part of this context that can be activated very easily if we fall into the stupid trap of the UK policy-makers.
La pradera esta muy seca para jugar con fuego. Los costos del asesinato de Assange van a ser muy altos. In addition, he will became an international hero easily to be replace by many other Assanges. "We all are Assange" is not only a virtual command nowadays, it is taking human personification loaded with new type of energy worldwide.
-------------
Let’s go now to the interview of Amy Goodman to Michael Ratner:
BRIEF SUMMARY: Michael Ratner, a member of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s legal team, reacts to the breaking news that Ecuador has approved Assange’s request for political asylum two months after Assange took refuge in its London embassy. Britain says it still plans to extradite Assange to Sweden: "The British ought to just back off, and the U.S. ought to just back off," Ratner says. "For the British to say that they’re going to go into the embassy and get out someone who’s been granted asylum would turn the refugee convention and asylum completely on its head.”
AMY GOODMAN: Michael Ratner is president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights, legal adviser to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. The news conference, as it continues, the foreign affairs minister of Ecuador has announced that Julian Assange has been granted asylum by Ecuador. Michael Ratner, can talk about the significance of this? Again, Julian Assange now in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, he has been granted asylum by the country of Ecuador. What does this mean?
MICHAEL RATNER: This is an incredibly courageous move by Ecuador. I mean, you have to think about it. Julian Assange, in doing what he and WikiLeaks did, stood up to the great powers of the world. And now you see Ecuador, again, standing up to the great powers. And so it’s an amazing act, really, and we should just applaud and support Ecuador for doing what was legally required here, which is to give Julian Assange asylum for his role as a journalist and a publisher of WikiLeaks.
What does it mean? Well, what it means is, first of all, is the British ought to just back off, and the U.S. ought to just back off. He has a legal right to asylum under the refugee convention. Under the U.N. declarations, there cannot be any adverse consequences for countries granting asylum. It’s considered a humanitarian act. And for the British to say that they’re going to go into the embassy and get out someone who’s been granted asylum would turn the refugee convention and asylum completely on its head. It’s unheard of. As far as I know, it’s never been done before that you’ve gone into an embassy to pull out someone granted asylum.
Julian Assange in my view, has a right to leave that embassy, get on a plane and go to Ecuador. Will the British ever honor that, with the kinds of threats they’re making against Julian Assange? I doubt it right now. But that’s pretty—that’s the law, to me. You’re given asylum. The British can’t pick him up and then send him to a country where he will then be persecuted. [..]They can’t do it, and they should not only back off the embassy, they should ensure that he is allowed free passage out of the United Kingdom.
AMY GOODMAN: Michael Ratner, when—if someone who’s granted political asylum, as Julian Assange now has, if he got into a car to go to the airport, what is that territory considered, the actual car?
MICHAEL RATNER: You know, I think that’s an open question at this point. I think it should still be considered under the diplomatic protection of the Ecuadorean embassy. I think there’s enough law to say that.[..] Once you’ve been given asylum, it’s not like you can be then picked up by a country and sent into the hands of your persecutor. Whether it’s in the car, whether it’s on the streets, wherever you are, it’s illegal to do so. And it’s illegal for the British to go into that embassy. It’s illegal for them to stop Julian Assange trying to get to Ecuador.
AMY GOODMAN: You know, we were just talking about death squads in El Salvador. Actually, in 1980, when the archbishop of—the archbishop El Salvador was killed in El Salvador, Óscar Romero, just a few months before, January 31st, 1980, in Guatemala, Rigoberta Menchú, the Nobel Peace Prize winner’s father, Vicente Menchú, had taken refuge in the Spanish embassy in Guatemala City, and he and many others were killed as the Guatemalan forces burned the Spanish embassy to the ground. Michael Ratner?
MICHAEL RATNER: Yeah, Amy, I’m familiar with that, as you are, and it’s an incredible—what it says is the kinds of governments that do what the British are doing are basically inhuman and have blood stains on them for generations for doing this. Blood stains for generations. So the—if the British are acting like that, then they’re essentially acting—is the equivalent of what the Guatemalans did to Rigoberta Menchú’s father.
===================
BASIC LEGAL INFO RELATED TO THE CASE OF JULIAN ASSANGE .
PART 2
Hugo Adan , August 16, 2012
THE 1951 CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES AND ITS 1967 PROTOCOL
http://www.unhcr.org/4ec262df9.html
In July 1951, a diplomatic conference in Geneva adopted the
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (‘1951 Convention’), which was
later amended by the 1967 Protocol. These documents clearly spell out who
is a refugee and the kind of legal protection, other assistance and social rights
a refugee is entitled to receive. It also defines a refugee’s obligations to host
countries and specifies certain categories of people, such as war criminals, who
do not qualify for refugee status. Initially, the 1951 Convention was more or less
limited to protecting European refugees in the aftermath of World War II, but
the 1967 Protocol expanded its scope as the problem of displacement spread
around the world.
REFUGEE DEFINITION
The 1951 Convention protects refugees. It defines a refugee as a person who
is outside his or her country of nationality or habitual residence; has a
well-founded fear of being persecuted because of his or her race, religion,
nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
is unable or unwilling to avail him— or herself of the protection of that
country, or to return there, for fear of persecution (see Article 1A(2)).
People who fulfill this definition are entitled to the rights and bound
by the duties contained in the 1951 Convention.
CAN SOMEONE BE EXCLUDED FROM REFUGEE PROTECTION?
Yes. The 1951 Convention only protects persons who meet the criteria
for refugee status. Certain categories of people are considered not to deserve
refugee protection and should be excluded from such protection. This includes persons for whom there are serious reasons to suspect that:
• they have committed a crime against peace, a war
crime, a crime against humanity or a serious non-political
crime outside their country of refuge; or
• they are guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and
principles of the United Nations.
WHAT RIGHTS DO REFUGEES HAVE UNDER THE 1951 CONVENTION?-
THE CORNERSTONE OF THE 1951 CONVENTION IS THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-REFOULEMENT contained in Article 33.
According to this principle, a refugee should not be returned to a country where
he or she faces serious threats to his or her life or freedom. This protection
may not be claimed by refugees who are reasonably regarded as a danger to
the security of the country, or having been convicted of a particularly serious
crime, are considered a danger to the community.
OTHER RIGHTS CONTAINED IN THE 1951 CONVENTION INCLUDE:
• The right not to be expelled, except under certain, strictly defined conditions (Article 32);
• The right not to be punished for illegal entry into the territory of a contracting State (Article 31);
• The right to work (Articles 17 to 19);
• The right to housing (Article 21);
• The right to education (Article 22);
• The right to public relief and assistance (Article 23);
• The right to freedom of religion (Article 4);
• The right to access the courts (Article 16);
• The right to freedom of movement within the territory (Article 26); and
• The right to be issued identity and travel documents (Articles 27 and 28).
-----------------------------
HERE SOME NOTES WRITTEN IN LAW and PERTINENT TO THE CASE OF JULIAN ASSANGE:
CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES
http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html
Text of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees
RESOLUTION 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 16 December 1966
FIRST A NOTE on the realm of the CONVENTION of 1951 and the PROTOCOL of 1967
The Convention enabled States to make a declaration when becoming party, according
to which the words “events occurring before 1 January 1951” are understood to mean
“events occurring in Europe” prior to that date. This geographical limitation has been maintained by a very limited number of States, and with the adoption of the 1967
Protocol, has lost much of its significance.
The Protocol of 1967 is attached to United Nations General Assembly resolution 2198 (XXI) of 16 December 1967, and available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3b00f1cc50.html.
EXTRACTS:
IV. The Conference adopted unanimously the following recommendations:
A
(Facilitation of refugee travels)
The Conference,
considering that the issue and recognition of travel documents is necessary
to facilitate the movement of refugees, and in particular their resettlement,
URGES Governments which are parties to the Inter-Governmental Agreement
on Refugee Travel Documents signed in London on 15 October
1946, or which recognize travel documents issued in accordance with the
Agreement, to continue to issue or to recognize such travel documents,
and to extend the issue of such documents to refugees as defined in Article
1 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees or to recognize
the travel documents so issued to such persons, until they shall have
undertaken obligations under Article 28 of the said Convention.
D
(International co-operation in the field of asylum and resettlement) (1)
The Conference,
considering that many persons still leave their country of origin for reasons
of persecution and are entitled to special protection on account of their position,
recommends that Governments continue to receive refugees in their territories and that they act in concert in a true spirit of international cooperation in order that these refugees may find asylum and the possibility of resettlement.
E
(Extension of treatment provided by the Convention) (1)
The Conference,
expresses the hope that the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
will have value as an example exceeding its contractual scope and that
all nations will be guided by it in granting so far as possible to persons in
their territory as refugees and who would not be covered by the terms of
the Convention, the treatment for which it provides.
in witness whereof the President, Vice-Presidents and the Executive Secretary
of the Conference have signed this Final Act.
The President of the Conference: Knud Larsen
The Vice-Presidents of the Conference: A. Herment, Talat Miras
The Executive Secretary of the Conference: John P. Humphrey
----------------
THE CONVENTION Relating to the Status of Refugees established the definition of the term “refugee”
http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html
DEFINITION OF THE TERM “REFUGEE”
A. For the purposes of the present Convention, the term “refugee” shall
apply to any person who:
(1) Has been considered a refugee under the Arrangements of 12 May 1926
and 30 June 1928 or under the Conventions of 28 October 1933 and 10
February 1938, the Protocol of 14 September 1939 or the Constitution of
the International Refugee Organization;
Decisions of non-eligibility taken by the International Refugee Organization
during the period of its activities shall not prevent the status
of refugee being accorded to persons who fulfill the conditions of paragraph
2 of this section;
(2) As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well founded
fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who,
not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former
habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such
fear, is unwilling to return to it.
IN THE CASE OF A PERSON WHO HAS MORE THAN ONE NATIONALITY, the term “the
country of his nationality” shall mean each of the countries of which he
is a national, and a person shall not be deemed to be lacking the protection
of the country of his nationality if, without any valid reason BASED
on well-founded fear, he has not availed himself of the protection of one
of the countries of which he is a national.
ARTICLE 26
freedom of movement
Each Contracting State shall accord to refugees lawfully in its territory the
right to choose their place of residence to move freely within its territory,
subject to any regulations applicable to aliens generally in the same circumstances.
ARTICLE 28
travel documents
1. The Contracting States shall issue to refugees lawfully staying in their
territory travel documents for the purpose of travel outside their territory,
unless compelling reasons of national security or public order otherwise
require, and the provisions of the Schedule to this Convention shall apply
with respect to such documents. The Contracting States may issue such a
travel document to any other refugee in their territory; they shall in particular
give sympathetic consideration to the issue of such a travel document to
refugees in their territory who are unable to obtain a travel document from
the country of their lawful residence.
2. Travel documents issued to refugees under previous international agreements
by parties thereto shall be recognized and treated by the Contracting
States in the same way as if they had been issued pursuant to this article.
================
lunes, 13 de agosto de 2012
ARE THE GOVERNMENT AND THE BIG BANKS QUIETLY PREPARING FOR AN IMMINENT FINANCIAL COLLAPSE?
ARE THE GOVERNMENT AND THE BIG BANKS QUIETLY PREPARING FOR AN IMMINENT FINANCIAL COLLAPSE?
By TEC (theeconomiccollapseblog.com)
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/are-the-government-and-the-big-banks-quietly-preparing-for-an-imminent-financial-collapse
Something really strange appears to be happening. All over the globe, governments and big banks are acting as if they are anticipating an imminent financial collapse. Unfortunately, we are not privy to the quiet conversations that are taking place in corporate boardrooms and in the halls of power in places such as Washington D.C. and London, so all we can do is try to make sense of all the clues that are all around us.
Of course it is completely possible to misinterpret these clues, but sticking our heads in the sand is not going to do any good either. Last week, it was revealed that the U.S. government has been secretly directing five of the biggest banks in America "to develop plans for staving off collapse" for the last two years. By itself, that wouldn't be that big of a deal. But when you add that piece to the dozens of other clues of imminent financial collapse, a very troubling picture begins to emerge.
Over the past 12 months, hundreds of banking executives have been resigning, corporate insiders have been selling off enormous amounts of stock, and I have been personally told that a significant number of Wall Street bankers have been shopping for "prepper properties" in rural communities this summer.
Meanwhile, there have been reports that the U.S. government has been stockpiling food and ammunition, and Barack Obama has been signing a whole bunch of executive orders that would potentially be implemented in the event of a major meltdown of society.
So what does all of this mean? It could mean something or it could mean nothing. What we do know is that a financial collapse is coming at some point. Over the past 40 years, the total amount of all debt in the United States has grown from about 2 trillion dollars to nearly 55 trillion dollars. That is a recipe for financial armageddon, and it is inevitable that this gigantic bubble of debt is going to burst at some point.
In normal times, the U.S. government does not tell major banks to "develop plans for staving off collapse".
But according to a recent Reuters article, that is apparently exactly what has been happening....
“U.S. regulators directed five of the country's biggest banks, including Bank of America Corp and Goldman Sachs Group Inc, to develop plans for staving off collapse if they faced serious problems, emphasizing that the banks could not count on government help.
The two-year-old program, which has been largely secret until now, is in addition to the "living wills" the banks crafted to help regulators dismantle them if they actually do fail. It shows how hard regulators are working to ensure that banks have plans for worst-case scenarios and can act rationally in times of distress.” http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/10/us-banks-recoveryplans-idUSBRE87905N20120810
Does it seem odd to anyone else that only five really big banks got such a warning?
And why keep it secret from the American public?
Does the federal government actually expect such a collapse to happen?
If federal officials do expect a financial collapse to occur, they would not be the only ones. An increasing number of very respected economists are speaking about the coming financial collapse as if there is a certain inevitability about it.
For example, check out the following quote from a recent Money Morning article....
“Richard Duncan, formerly of the World Bank and chief economist at Blackhorse Asset Mgmt., says America's $16 trillion federal debt has escalated into a "death spiral," as he told CNBC.
And it could result in a depression so severe that he doesn't "think our civilization could survive it." http://moneymorning.com/ob/economist-richard-duncan-civilization-may-not-survive-death-spiral/
A former World Bank executive is warning that our civilization might not survive what is coming?
That is pretty chilling.
Economist Nouriel Roubini says that he believes that the coming crisis will be even worse than 2008...
“Worse because like 2008 you will have an economic and financial crisis but unlike 2008, you are running out of policy bullets. In 2008, you could cut rates; do QE1, QE2; you could do fiscal stimulus; you could backstop/ringfence/guarantee banks and everybody else. Today, more QEs are becoming less and less effective because the problems are of solvency not liquidity. Fiscal deficits are already so large and you cannot bail out the banks because 1) there is a political opposition to it; and 2) governments are near-insolvent - they cannot bailout themselves let alone their banks. The problem is that we are running out of policy rabbits to pull out of the hat!" http://www.zerohedge.com/news/roubini-2013s-global-perfect-storm-and-greedy-bankers-hanging-streets?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge/feed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline,+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
Across the pond, many European officials are echoing similar sentiments.
What Nigel Farage told King World News the other day is very ominous....
“Today MEP (Member European Parliament) Nigel Farage spoke with King World News about what he described as the possibility of, “a really dramatic banking collapse.” Farage also warned that central planners want to enslave and imprison people inside of a ‘New Order,’ and he described the situation as “horrifying.” http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/KWN_DailyWeb/Entries/2012/8/10_Nigel_Farage_-_They_Will_Collapse_The_System_&_Enslave_People.html
The situation in Europe continues to get worse and worse. The authorities in Europe have come out with "solution" after "solution", and yet unemployment continues to skyrocket and economic conditions in the EU have deteriorated very steadily over the past 12 months.
If all of that was not bad enough, there are an increasing number of indications that Germany is actually considering leaving the euro.
Needless to say, that would be a complete and total disaster for the rest of the eurozone.
Of course there are any number of ways that the financial crisis in Europe could potentially play out.
But all of the realistic scenarios would be very bad for the global economy.
Meanwhile, our resources are dwindling, war in the Middle East could erupt at any moment and our planet is becoming increasingly unstable. The following is from a recent article by Paul B. Farrell on Marketwatch.com....
“Fasten your seat belts, soon we’ll all be shocked out of denial. Some unpredictable black swan. A global wake-up call will trigger the Pentagon’s prediction in Fortune a decade ago at the launch of the Iraq War: “By 2020 ... an ancient pattern of desperate, all-out wars over food, water, and energy supplies is emerging ... warfare defining human life.” http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wwiii-great-commodities-war-to-end-all-wars-2012-08-07
It is almost as if a "perfect storm" is brewing.
Of course the historic drought that is ravaging food production in the United States this summer is not helping matters either. Another summer or two like this one and we could be looking at a return of Dust Bowl conditions.
Anyone that is watching what is going on in the world and is not concerned at all about what is happening is simply being delusional.
Recently, a "team of scientists, economists, and geopolitical analysts" examined the current state of the global economic system and the conclusions they reached were absolutely staggering....
“ne member of this team, Chris Martenson, a pathologist and former VP of a Fortune 300 company, explains their findings:
"We found an identical pattern in our debt, total credit market, and money supply that guarantees they're going to fail. This pattern is nearly the same as in any pyramid scheme, one that escalates exponentially fast before it collapses. Governments around the globe are chiefly responsible.
"And what's really disturbing about these findings is that the pattern isn't limited to our economy. We found the same catastrophic pattern in our energy, food, and water systems as well." http://moneymorning.com/ob/economist-richard-duncan-civilization-may-not-survive-death-spiral/
According to Martenson: "These systems could all implode at the same time. Food, water, energy, money. Everything."
Hmmmm - it sounds like they have been reading The Economic Collapse Blog.
The truth is that a massive worldwide financial collapse is coming.
It is inevitable, and it is going to be extremely painful.
=============
CRISIS O ESTAFA IMPUNE AUN?
CRISIS O ESTAFA?
Salvador López Arnal. Agosto 13, 2012
Rebelión: http://www.rebelion.org/noticias/economia/2012/8/crisis-o-estafa-154454
Tomando pie en la plataforma Bloomberg, Amanda Mars informaba en El País del miércoles 8 de agosto de 2012 que Amancio Ortega se ubicaba, según patrimonio en el tercer lugar de esa, LA LISTA INSULTANTE DE LOS 20 INDIVIDUOS MÁS RICOS DEL MUNDO.
EL PRIMERO ES CARLOS SLIM, UN EMPRESARIO DE UN PAÍS QUE ESTÁ EN MANOS DEL NARCOTRÁFICO, de un suicida libre comercio, incapaz de admitir que una fuerza moderada de centro izquierda pueda alcanzar la presidencia de la nación. Don Felipe González-Gas Natural podría explicarnos detalles muy interesantes de las iniciativas económicos políticas de la primera fortuna del mundo.
BILL GATES ES EL SEGUNDO RICACHÓN. SU NEGOCIO: PRIVATIZAR EL CONOCIMIENTO INFORMÁTICO. Si usted quiere usar una hoja de cálculo para obtener el promedio de sus gastos mensuales, tiene que pagar por ello. Es como si usted tuviera que pagar a un empresario por utilizar el teorema de Pitágoras, la ley de la gravedad, la tabla periódica de los elementos o el principio de incertidumbre.
LA LISTA DE LOS RICACHONES ES MUY MASCULINA Y MUY OCCIDENTAL. AL FINAL APARECE UN POPPERIANO, GEORGE SOROS, que se las da de luchar por la sociedad abierta ¡menuda sociedad es esa!
LA SUMA DE LOS PATRIMONIOS DE ESTOS 20 RICACHONES SUMA APROXIMADAMENTE 680 MIL MILLONES DE DÓLARES. Más que el PIB de Grecia y Portugal sumados, más de los 2/3 del PIB español: los 20 tienen tanto como unos 30 millones de ciudadanos españoles o como 300 o 400 millones de ciudadanos africanos. ¿De dónde han obtenido su fortuna? Un ejemplo puede ayudar:
Ortega era hasta hace poco presidente ejecutivo de Inditex. Pablo Isla abogado del estado, es ahora presidente de la multinacional. El año 2011 sus honorarios por la presidencia subieron 21,8 millones de euros. Según la misma empresa, lo que ellos llaman gasto por trabajador -salario más seguridad social- fue de 20.218 euros. La relación fue por tanto de 1000 a 1. Si tenemos en cuenta que la cantidad indicada es un promedio, es muy probable que la relación con los salarios más bajos de los trabajadores haya sido de 1500 a 1. A eso se le llamaba en los tiempos heroicos explotación, plusvalía absoluta, plusvalía relativa etc.
Hay otro punto a remarcar: la variación patrimonial. En tiempos de supuesta crisis internacional, Carlos Slim ha incrementado su patrimonio entre 2011 y 2012 en un 20,4%. Gates en un 12,3%. Don Ortega en un 32,2%. De estos 20 ricachones sólo uno ha disminuido su patrimonio en un 0,2% ¿CRISIS? ¿QUÉ CRISIS? ¿NO SERÍA MEJOR LLAMARLE POR SU NOMBRE VERDADERO: ESTAFA DESCOMUNAL CONTRA LOS TRABAJADORES Y TRABAJADORAS DE TODO EL MUNDO?
HACE UNOS CUANTOS AÑOS, WARREN E. BUFFETT, EL CUARTO RICACHÓN DE LOS RICACHONES, TUVO LA DESFACHATEZ DE AFIRMAR QUE ERA OBVIA LA EXISTENCIA DE LA LUCHA DE CLASES Y QUE LA SUYA, LA EMPRESARIAL, LA BURGUESA, LOS NUEVOS EMPRENDEDORES, ESTABAN GANANDO POR GOLEADA. CON TODO EL CINISMO DEL MUNDO. Hace unos cuantos años más, en 1848 los jóvenes Marx y Engels ya explicaron que la historia humana conocida se vertebraba en base a esa lucha que, en ocasiones acababa en desastre. No estamos muy lejos de ese punto. Pero añadieron algo más: el fantasma del movimiento revolucionario recorría las ciudades y pueblos de europa.
Hoy EL FANTASMA DE LA REVOLUCIÓN SOCIAL DEBE RECORRER TAMBIÉN EUROPA Y EL MUNDO ¡HASTA ENTERRARLOS EN EL MAR, A ESOS 20 RICACHONES Y A TODOS LOS EJECUTIVOS Y POLÍTICOS QUE LES SIRVEN Y ADULAN!
-------------------------
GOLDMAN SACHS en EU y LIBOR en INGLATERRA SIGUEN BURLANDO LA LEY
COMO NEGOCIAR CON LA CRISIS? LA GRAN ESTAFA DE GOLDMAN SACHS
Goldman Sachs en los EU y Libor in UK siguen estando por encima de las leyes
GOLDMAN SACHS SIGUE BURLANDO LA LEY
Por Martine Orange
Viento Sur- Agosto 13, 2012
http://www.rebelion.org/noticias/economia/2012/8/goldman-sachs-sigue-estando-por-encima-de-las-leyes-154455
Overview in Spanish:
Es una muy extraña manera de marcar el quinto aniversario del comienzo de la crisis financiera: Goldman Sachs, el banco que simboliza todas las perversiones de Wall Street y del mundo financiero, no será inquietado por la justicia. Las autoridades federales americanas han anunciado, el jueves 9 de agosto, que habían cerrado las investigaciones realizadas sobre el gigante bancario. “No hay base sólida para emprender un procedimiento criminal contra el banco o sus empleados”, ha explicado el Ministerio de Justicia.
------------------
Original: Goldman Sachs reste au-dessus des lois. Par Martine Orange. 10 août 2012. http://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/100812/goldman-sachs-reste-au-dessus-des-lois. Over view in French: Le ministère américain de la justice a annoncé jeudi, qu’il renonçait à poursuivre la banque dans le dossier des subprimes, faute de « preuves suffisantes ». Les charges qui pesaient contre le géant bancaire étaient pourtant accablantes. Wall Street confirme son impunité.
------------------
El dossier, sin embargo, parecía espeso. Trataba sobre el tema más emblemático de la crisis: las actuaciones del banco en el mercado de las subprimes, los productos que estaban en el origen del desencadenamiento de la crisis. El presidente de Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, era incluso sospechoso de perjurio/1 por haber mentido bajo juramento ante los senadores americanos.
La justicia americana había cogido el asunto en sus manos tras una investigación particularmente destructiva de una comisión senatorial sobre los orígenes de la crisis financiera. Durante dieciocho meses, había convocado a numerosos testigos, oído a los principales responsables bancarios, desmenuzado miles de documentos y de correos internos. EN UN MUY LARGO INFORME/2, HABÍAN PUESTO AL DESNUDO TODAS LAS DERIVAS DE WALL STREET, PARA ACABAR CON UNA CONSTATACIÓN ABRUMADORA: “LA CRISIS NO HA SIDO RESULTADO DE UNA CATÁSTROFE NATURAL, SINO DE LOS PRODUCTOS FINANCIEROS COMPLEJOS Y DE ALTO RIESGO; DE CONFLICTOS DE INTERESES MANTENIDOS EN SECRETO Y DEL FRACASO DE LOS REGULADORES, DE LAS AGENCIAS DE CALIFICACIÓN Y DEL PROPIO MERCADO PARA REFRENAR LOS EXCESOS DE WALL STREET”.
Goldman Sachs tenía en este informe un lugar preponderante. Los senadores confirmaban en él las revelaciones de la prensa, particularmente las de Michael Lewis en su obra The Big Short sobre el papel de la banca en el mercado hipotecario inmobiliario. Con el Deutsche Bank, cuyo peso ha sido también preponderante en este asunto, Goldman Sachs ha sido el actor principal de toda la invención financiera -CDO, RMBS, CDS- cuya toxicidad se descubrirá posteriormente. Durante esos bellos años, el banco ha emitido por más de 100 millardos [sic ¿? Billones?] de dólares en productos titulizados en el sector inmobiliario.
MAXIMIZAR EL BENEFICIO
Desde diciembre de 2006 Goldman Sachs ve los signos anunciadores de la catástrofe: los impagos de las familias, incapaces de pagar sus mensualidades, se multiplican. En esa fecha, Goldman tiene más de 15 millardos [billones?] de dólares en subprimes y productos titulizados en cartera. Se da la orden de vender a cualquier precio. Goldman Sachs inventa en particular el fondo Abacus, donde mete una parte de sus productos tóxicos, que se apresura a vender a sus clientes. Durante ese tiempo, Goldman Sachs especula a la baja sobre los mismos productos. El engaño general está organizado.
Durante las audiciones, los senadores descubrirán la otra parte del decorado: EL FAMOSO TRADER FABRICE TOURRE, que se presenta en sus mails como un genio de la mentira; los correos internos del banco en los que LOS DIFERENTES TRADERS UTILIZAN EL TÉRMINO DE “RATAS” PARA HABLAR DE SUS CLIENTES o de “AVES A DESPLUMAR” EN EL ESCÁNDALO DEL LIBOR. Con una cara apenada, Lloyd Bankfein, que se presentaba unos meses antes como el banquero que hacía “la obra de Dios” [convertir la crisis en bonanza], aseguró con la mano sobre el corazón a los senadores que no estaba al corriente de nada, y que lamentaba profundamente estas actuaciones no conformes a la “cultura del banco”.
Y sin embargo, la investigación senatorial probará que la dirección de Goldman Sachs no podía ignorar nada. Desde diciembre de 2006, el departamento “créditos hipotecarios y subprimes” había sido puesto bajo la autoridad directa de la dirección general de Goldman Sachs, que vigilaba día a día la evolución de la situación. En algunos meses, la exposición del banco a las subprimes cae de 15 a 2 millardos de dólares. Durante ese tiempo, sus posiciones de venta a descubierto sobre los mismos productos pasan de 1 a 13,6 millardos [billones?]de dólares. En noviembre de 2007, Lloyd Blankfein escribe un mail elocuente sobre este tema a los principales responsables del banco: “No hemos sido inmunes al desorden de las subprimes. Pero nuestras pérdidas han sido ampliamente compensadas por nuestras ganancias en las ventas a plazos”.
En cuanto al cambio de comportamiento del banco, solo los ingenuos creen en ello. En una carta de dimisión incendiaria /3, publicada en el New York Times, un empleado resumía los “grandes principios” de un Goldman Sachs, obnubilado por su propia riqueza. “El banco ha cambiado su forma de pensar el liderazgo (…) Hoy, si consigues bastante dinero para la empresa, serás colocado en un puesto de influencia”, escribe.
“HAY TRES MEDIOS RÁPIDOS PARA CONVERTIRSE EN LÍDER BANQUERO:
a) persuadir a los clientes para que inviertan en títulos o productos de los que el Banco está intentando librarse porque son juzgados no suficientemente beneficiosos;
b) llevar a tus clientes a negociar algún tipo de producto que produzca el máximo de beneficio a Goldman;
c) encontrarse uno mismo en una situación: mi ttrabajo consiste en negociar cualquier tipo de producto sin liquidez y opaco con un acrónimo de tres letras: esto es oro”, he ahí la gran estafa de los bancos, denunció NYT en http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&hp.
A pesar de estos graves cargos, el Ministerio de Justicia en EU indica que “ha llegado a la conclusión de que la carga de la prueba para llevar a cabo un procedimiento judicial era insuficiente, teniendo en cuenta la ley y los hechos, tal como aparecen actualmente”. En otros términos, la justicia no tiene suficientes medios legales para emprender una acción judicial. El Ministerio subraya, sin embargo, que está dispuesto a reabrir el dossier si aparecen nuevos elementos.
NADIE ESTÁ EN PRISIÓN
Como una buena noticia no llega jamás sola, Goldman Sachs se entero el mismo día que la SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission), la autoridad bursátil de Nueva York, cerraba, sin abrir posibilidades de continuidad, otra investigación sobre las ventas de productos titulizados. EL BANCO ESTABA ACUSADO DE HABER VENDIDO OTRAS SUBPRIMES EN DICIEMBRE DE 2006, ENGAÑANDO A SUS CLIENTES. PERO EN ESTE ASUNTO TAMPOCO HA ENCONTRADO LA SEC NADA QUE DECIR.
“Estamos muy contentos de ver este asunto como algo pasado”, se ha felicitado un portavoz del banco. ¡Cómo no estarlo! Se han escapado de todo [a la ley]. GOLDMAN SACHS HA CUMPLIDO JUSTO CON UNA MULTA DE 500 MILLONES DE DÓLARES EN 2009 ANTE LA SEC PARA PONER FIN A UNA ACCIÓN JUDICIAL SOBRE SUS ACTUACIONES EN LAS SUBPRIMES. La única acción en lo civil aún en curso está llevada contra su trader Fabrice Tourre.
Han sido numerosos los comentarios en las páginas web de prensa americanas tras la publicación de esta información. Algunos recuerdan con insistencia que GOLDMAN SACHS ES UN GRAN DONANTE EN LAS CAMPAÑAS PRESIDENCIALES. COMO LO RECONOCÍA CON CINISMO UN TRADER DEL BANCO, PREGUNTADO POR LA BBC, EL PASADO OTOÑO: “NO SON LOS GOBIERNOS LOS QUE DIRIGEN EL MUNDO. ES GOLDMAN SACHS QUIEN DIRIGE EL MUNDO”, ANTES DE AÑADIR QUE ESPERABA UNA RECESIÓN, “PUES HABÍA MUCHO DINERO QUE GANAR EN CASO DE CRISIS”.
La decisión del Ministerio de Justicia, en cualquier caso, parece cargada de consecuencias. WALL STREET VA A CONTINUAR GOZANDO DE TOTAL INMUNIDAD. “Estos anuncios son también las últimas indicaciones de que las investigaciones federales sobre la crisis financiera se debilitan mientras el tiempo de la prescripción se acerca”, señala el New York Times. “DESDE EL COMIENZO DE LA CRISIS, NADIE ESTÁ EN LA CÁRCEL”, no ha dejado de quejarse Charles Ferguson, realizador del DOCUMENTAL INSIDE JOB, que desvela todas las infamias de Wall Street.
Los últimos acontecimientos también le dan desgraciadamente la razón.
10 de agosto del /2012
http://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/100812/goldman-sachs-reste-au-dessus-des-lois
Traducción: Faustino Eguberri para VIENTO SUR
NOTAS
1/ http://www.mediapart.fr/journal/economie/170411/crise-financiere-le-president-de-goldman-sachs-menace-dun-proces-pour-parjur
2/ http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/04/14/business/14crisis-docviewer.html
3/ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&hp
4/ http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/goldman-says-sec-has-ended-mortgage-investigation/?hp
Goldman Sachs en los EU y Libor in UK siguen estando por encima de las leyes
GOLDMAN SACHS SIGUE BURLANDO LA LEY
Por Martine Orange
Viento Sur- Agosto 13, 2012
http://www.rebelion.org/noticias/economia/2012/8/goldman-sachs-sigue-estando-por-encima-de-las-leyes-154455
Overview in Spanish:
Es una muy extraña manera de marcar el quinto aniversario del comienzo de la crisis financiera: Goldman Sachs, el banco que simboliza todas las perversiones de Wall Street y del mundo financiero, no será inquietado por la justicia. Las autoridades federales americanas han anunciado, el jueves 9 de agosto, que habían cerrado las investigaciones realizadas sobre el gigante bancario. “No hay base sólida para emprender un procedimiento criminal contra el banco o sus empleados”, ha explicado el Ministerio de Justicia.
------------------
Original: Goldman Sachs reste au-dessus des lois. Par Martine Orange. 10 août 2012. http://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/100812/goldman-sachs-reste-au-dessus-des-lois. Over view in French: Le ministère américain de la justice a annoncé jeudi, qu’il renonçait à poursuivre la banque dans le dossier des subprimes, faute de « preuves suffisantes ». Les charges qui pesaient contre le géant bancaire étaient pourtant accablantes. Wall Street confirme son impunité.
------------------
El dossier, sin embargo, parecía espeso. Trataba sobre el tema más emblemático de la crisis: las actuaciones del banco en el mercado de las subprimes, los productos que estaban en el origen del desencadenamiento de la crisis. El presidente de Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, era incluso sospechoso de perjurio/1 por haber mentido bajo juramento ante los senadores americanos.
La justicia americana había cogido el asunto en sus manos tras una investigación particularmente destructiva de una comisión senatorial sobre los orígenes de la crisis financiera. Durante dieciocho meses, había convocado a numerosos testigos, oído a los principales responsables bancarios, desmenuzado miles de documentos y de correos internos. EN UN MUY LARGO INFORME/2, HABÍAN PUESTO AL DESNUDO TODAS LAS DERIVAS DE WALL STREET, PARA ACABAR CON UNA CONSTATACIÓN ABRUMADORA: “LA CRISIS NO HA SIDO RESULTADO DE UNA CATÁSTROFE NATURAL, SINO DE LOS PRODUCTOS FINANCIEROS COMPLEJOS Y DE ALTO RIESGO; DE CONFLICTOS DE INTERESES MANTENIDOS EN SECRETO Y DEL FRACASO DE LOS REGULADORES, DE LAS AGENCIAS DE CALIFICACIÓN Y DEL PROPIO MERCADO PARA REFRENAR LOS EXCESOS DE WALL STREET”.
Goldman Sachs tenía en este informe un lugar preponderante. Los senadores confirmaban en él las revelaciones de la prensa, particularmente las de Michael Lewis en su obra The Big Short sobre el papel de la banca en el mercado hipotecario inmobiliario. Con el Deutsche Bank, cuyo peso ha sido también preponderante en este asunto, Goldman Sachs ha sido el actor principal de toda la invención financiera -CDO, RMBS, CDS- cuya toxicidad se descubrirá posteriormente. Durante esos bellos años, el banco ha emitido por más de 100 millardos [sic ¿? Billones?] de dólares en productos titulizados en el sector inmobiliario.
MAXIMIZAR EL BENEFICIO
Desde diciembre de 2006 Goldman Sachs ve los signos anunciadores de la catástrofe: los impagos de las familias, incapaces de pagar sus mensualidades, se multiplican. En esa fecha, Goldman tiene más de 15 millardos [billones?] de dólares en subprimes y productos titulizados en cartera. Se da la orden de vender a cualquier precio. Goldman Sachs inventa en particular el fondo Abacus, donde mete una parte de sus productos tóxicos, que se apresura a vender a sus clientes. Durante ese tiempo, Goldman Sachs especula a la baja sobre los mismos productos. El engaño general está organizado.
Durante las audiciones, los senadores descubrirán la otra parte del decorado: EL FAMOSO TRADER FABRICE TOURRE, que se presenta en sus mails como un genio de la mentira; los correos internos del banco en los que LOS DIFERENTES TRADERS UTILIZAN EL TÉRMINO DE “RATAS” PARA HABLAR DE SUS CLIENTES o de “AVES A DESPLUMAR” EN EL ESCÁNDALO DEL LIBOR. Con una cara apenada, Lloyd Bankfein, que se presentaba unos meses antes como el banquero que hacía “la obra de Dios” [convertir la crisis en bonanza], aseguró con la mano sobre el corazón a los senadores que no estaba al corriente de nada, y que lamentaba profundamente estas actuaciones no conformes a la “cultura del banco”.
Y sin embargo, la investigación senatorial probará que la dirección de Goldman Sachs no podía ignorar nada. Desde diciembre de 2006, el departamento “créditos hipotecarios y subprimes” había sido puesto bajo la autoridad directa de la dirección general de Goldman Sachs, que vigilaba día a día la evolución de la situación. En algunos meses, la exposición del banco a las subprimes cae de 15 a 2 millardos de dólares. Durante ese tiempo, sus posiciones de venta a descubierto sobre los mismos productos pasan de 1 a 13,6 millardos [billones?]de dólares. En noviembre de 2007, Lloyd Blankfein escribe un mail elocuente sobre este tema a los principales responsables del banco: “No hemos sido inmunes al desorden de las subprimes. Pero nuestras pérdidas han sido ampliamente compensadas por nuestras ganancias en las ventas a plazos”.
En cuanto al cambio de comportamiento del banco, solo los ingenuos creen en ello. En una carta de dimisión incendiaria /3, publicada en el New York Times, un empleado resumía los “grandes principios” de un Goldman Sachs, obnubilado por su propia riqueza. “El banco ha cambiado su forma de pensar el liderazgo (…) Hoy, si consigues bastante dinero para la empresa, serás colocado en un puesto de influencia”, escribe.
“HAY TRES MEDIOS RÁPIDOS PARA CONVERTIRSE EN LÍDER BANQUERO:
a) persuadir a los clientes para que inviertan en títulos o productos de los que el Banco está intentando librarse porque son juzgados no suficientemente beneficiosos;
b) llevar a tus clientes a negociar algún tipo de producto que produzca el máximo de beneficio a Goldman;
c) encontrarse uno mismo en una situación: mi ttrabajo consiste en negociar cualquier tipo de producto sin liquidez y opaco con un acrónimo de tres letras: esto es oro”, he ahí la gran estafa de los bancos, denunció NYT en http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&hp.
A pesar de estos graves cargos, el Ministerio de Justicia en EU indica que “ha llegado a la conclusión de que la carga de la prueba para llevar a cabo un procedimiento judicial era insuficiente, teniendo en cuenta la ley y los hechos, tal como aparecen actualmente”. En otros términos, la justicia no tiene suficientes medios legales para emprender una acción judicial. El Ministerio subraya, sin embargo, que está dispuesto a reabrir el dossier si aparecen nuevos elementos.
NADIE ESTÁ EN PRISIÓN
Como una buena noticia no llega jamás sola, Goldman Sachs se entero el mismo día que la SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission), la autoridad bursátil de Nueva York, cerraba, sin abrir posibilidades de continuidad, otra investigación sobre las ventas de productos titulizados. EL BANCO ESTABA ACUSADO DE HABER VENDIDO OTRAS SUBPRIMES EN DICIEMBRE DE 2006, ENGAÑANDO A SUS CLIENTES. PERO EN ESTE ASUNTO TAMPOCO HA ENCONTRADO LA SEC NADA QUE DECIR.
“Estamos muy contentos de ver este asunto como algo pasado”, se ha felicitado un portavoz del banco. ¡Cómo no estarlo! Se han escapado de todo [a la ley]. GOLDMAN SACHS HA CUMPLIDO JUSTO CON UNA MULTA DE 500 MILLONES DE DÓLARES EN 2009 ANTE LA SEC PARA PONER FIN A UNA ACCIÓN JUDICIAL SOBRE SUS ACTUACIONES EN LAS SUBPRIMES. La única acción en lo civil aún en curso está llevada contra su trader Fabrice Tourre.
Han sido numerosos los comentarios en las páginas web de prensa americanas tras la publicación de esta información. Algunos recuerdan con insistencia que GOLDMAN SACHS ES UN GRAN DONANTE EN LAS CAMPAÑAS PRESIDENCIALES. COMO LO RECONOCÍA CON CINISMO UN TRADER DEL BANCO, PREGUNTADO POR LA BBC, EL PASADO OTOÑO: “NO SON LOS GOBIERNOS LOS QUE DIRIGEN EL MUNDO. ES GOLDMAN SACHS QUIEN DIRIGE EL MUNDO”, ANTES DE AÑADIR QUE ESPERABA UNA RECESIÓN, “PUES HABÍA MUCHO DINERO QUE GANAR EN CASO DE CRISIS”.
La decisión del Ministerio de Justicia, en cualquier caso, parece cargada de consecuencias. WALL STREET VA A CONTINUAR GOZANDO DE TOTAL INMUNIDAD. “Estos anuncios son también las últimas indicaciones de que las investigaciones federales sobre la crisis financiera se debilitan mientras el tiempo de la prescripción se acerca”, señala el New York Times. “DESDE EL COMIENZO DE LA CRISIS, NADIE ESTÁ EN LA CÁRCEL”, no ha dejado de quejarse Charles Ferguson, realizador del DOCUMENTAL INSIDE JOB, que desvela todas las infamias de Wall Street.
Los últimos acontecimientos también le dan desgraciadamente la razón.
10 de agosto del /2012
http://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/100812/goldman-sachs-reste-au-dessus-des-lois
Traducción: Faustino Eguberri para VIENTO SUR
NOTAS
1/ http://www.mediapart.fr/journal/economie/170411/crise-financiere-le-president-de-goldman-sachs-menace-dun-proces-pour-parjur
2/ http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/04/14/business/14crisis-docviewer.html
3/ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&hp
4/ http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/goldman-says-sec-has-ended-mortgage-investigation/?hp
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)