Greeks protesting against austerity measures. Credit: Apostolis Fotiadis/IPS

By Mario Soares
LISBON, May 27 2013 (IPS)

The economic crisis began in the United States under the administration of then-President George W. Bush, following the collapse of the Lehman Brothers Bank. It came as a result of unregulated globalisation and a neoliberal ideology that places usurious markets, offshore bank accounts, and money for the sake of money, above state power. It is an ideology that ignores citizens, even as they starve.

At the time – between 2007 and 2009 – I wrote some books: “A Changing World”, “In Praise of Politics”, “Fighting for a Better World” and “Inside the Hurricane”, addressing in all of them my concerns about the risk of a neoliberal contagion of the euro and the European Union (EU) itself.

Mário Soares, former president and prime minister of Portugal. Credit: IPS

U.S. President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher championed these disastrous neoliberal politics – which were later continued by the pseudo-labourite Tony Blair – whose negative consequences are now evident to all.

In view of the profound links between Europe and the United States, the spread of U.S. neoliberalism to the EU and particularly to the eurozone was inevitable. When the EU crisis began, chancellor Angela Merkel already headed Germany. In spite of being a Lutheran, Merkel was also a former militant of the East German Communist Party. After the fall of the Berlin Wall she stood in opposition to the German reunification to which European states contributed.

As is well known, the first victim of the crisis was Greece, the cradle of our civilization and thus a country that deserved better treatment. It got the opposite.

The German chancellor, a longtime ally of ultra-conservative liberals, heeded market demands. The situation in Greece, where German banks occupied a privileged position, deteriorated until the country was able to pay the exorbitant sum demanded by the Troika, a body comprised of Greece’s major creditors: the European Central Bank (ECB), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the European Commission (EC).

In the meantime, in the absence of financial assistance, the so-called peripheral states of the eurozone plunged into crisis. Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy (Europe’s third largest economy) and Cyprus were followed by the recent and surprising Dutch collapse. France is the latest addition to the list.

It all boils down to the criminal policy of austerity imposed by Germany, the IMF, the European Commission under the presidency of Jose Manuel Durão Barroso and, with greater discretion, Mario Draghi’s European Central Bank.

It has become more than evident that austerity favours merely usurious markets and those behind them. Austerity obliterates states and their respective populations, not only in the so-called “peripheral”, southern states, as was recklessly claimed. Take a look at the Netherlands, France and Germany. The crisis was bound to hit Germany as many economists, including Nobel Prize-winners Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, had predicted.

Currently Germany is struggling due to a policy of austerity that has shrunk many of its markets in the European states, which account for 50 percent of its exports. If austerity is maintained, Germany itself will enter a recession.

European public opinion has understood both the necessity and urgency of a break not only with current policy, but also with a political class that has proven incompetent.

The current ruling parties within the EU are mostly ultra-conservative and incapable of grasping the critical situation. Truth be told, the parties that built the EU – the socialists, the social democrats, the Labourites, and the Christian democrats, are no longer in power.

The sole exceptions are France and now Italy, where President Giorgio Napolitano was re-elected in spite of his age, and where we find a new prime minister in the figure of Enrico Letta. Both Letta and French President Francois Hollande have openly declared their opposition to austerity and their intention to restore the role of states in controlling markets, and not the other way around.

Hence, the citizens of all European countries have vociferously expressed their opposition to Troikas, the markets, pseudo-politicians and those governments committed to austerity.

It should be noted that the welfare state (a product of the postwar era), democracy as we conceived it, as well as the rule of law are all being jeopardised, creating the need for a profound and immediate political shift.

We face a straightforward dilemma: either we fight against unemployment, widespread poverty, recession and in defense of the welfare state in its broader sense, or, if we wait too long, the EU will fall into the abyss.

And not only would it be tragic for the U.S. to lose its only faithful ally, but many nations of the world would suffer: China, Russia, Japan, Brazil, India, Mexico and so on.

I am hopeful this won’t be the case. The world surely does not wish the disappearance of the European Union, the most original political project of all times and the one that brought so many benefits to its peoples. Its collapse could open the door to a global conflict. Its demise would represent an unacceptable regression of civilization, one that would set us more than a century back. May common sense and courage prevail.

(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

“Carrying development”. Credit: Claudius/IPS

By Federico Mayor Zaragoza and Mario Soares
BARCELONA, Jun 1 2012 (IPS)

We are all going through a period of great confusion and uncertainty.

On the one hand, part of the world is dramatically affected by the consequences of governments’ total submission to the financial markets. These markets, supposedly anonymous, are not subject to any kind of control, due to the deregulating policies of the last decades. They have even overthrown democratically elected governments and substituted them with “technocratic” ones.

On the other hand, the speculative nature of a great part of these markets is harshly affecting the price of commodities, including food, thus pushing millions more people to hunger and malnutrition. This fact, in addition to chronic failure in the fulfillment of international agreements related to development cooperation, is aggravated even more by the current financial and economic crisis.

Parallel to this, the world is immersed in yet another crisis that is threatening its own survival. The challenges of climate change and environmental degradation, together with unsustainable production and consumption models, are growing alarmingly, something that the present structures of global governance are not able to face, as shown by the repeated failures of the last COP meetings.

In this framework, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, also known as Rio+20, will take place in Rio de Janeiro from Jun. 20-22, twenty years after the celebration of the first “Earth Summit” in the very same city. This will be a key moment in the international agenda to which everybody – including citizens, of course – must pay special attention.

There are several topics on the agenda resulting from intense negotiations that are still underway. In this context, the World Forum of Civil Society Networks – UBUNTU wishes to underline the following regarding the two main themes: a green economy and an institutional framework.

The green economy concept must refer to a model of sustainable development that includes a holistic approach, with deep social roots and a strong commitment to the environment. We shall reject the promotion of any other model that conceals an option for an increased commodification of nature.

Secondly, the need for reforming the institutional framework is obvious and more urgent than ever. We shall move beyond the organisational details of the new framework, though they too are important; now, the priority is to ensure that the resulting structure has the resources, independence and powers necessary to guarantee the implementation and fulfillment of environmental agreements, including the capacity to impose sanctions.

This must go hand in hand with a process of promoting a system of democratic multilateralism. This is the only possible option for those who truly believe in the transition towards a model of real, global democratic governance that is both participatory and fair.

Another key issue to be raised at the Summit is the idea of basing progress in all aspects related to the concept of climate justice on the principle of “common but differentiated responsibility”.

In this sense, the issue of financing is essential, highlighting once more the need to move forward with respect to innovative mechanisms of financing for development, particularly the proposal of a Financial Transaction Tax.

In the framework of a comprehensive proposal regarding the concept of sustainable human development, it is imperative to establish a legal framework that prevents speculation affecting food prices.

Moreover, the debate regarding new ways of measuring development and sustainability must help us, in line with the Human Development Index, to overcome the current model based on gross domestic product (GDP). This model shuns basic criteria such as equity, sustainability or respect for human rights. In this sense, the proposal of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) may be a positive one, but only if the Goals go in the abovementioned direction, and if they complement the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), with which in any case they must never compete.

It is also extremely important that the Summit renews and re-launches agreements as essential as the Agenda 21, which includes topics of utmost significance, such as commitments regarding greenhouse gases; or the conventions on climate change, biological diversity or desertification.

Therefore, we call for the mobilisation of all involved actors, and especially citizens and civil society – at all levels: local, regional and global – in order to ensure that this new “Earth Summit” measures up to the severity of the crisis we are going through.

The world cannot afford another fiasco in Rio. It is time for responsibility. And, above all, it is time for action.

(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Federico Mayor Zaragoza is ex director-general of UNESCO, president of the Culture of Peace Foundation and former president of IPS. Mario Soares is ex-president and ex-prime minister of Portugal. Read full text and list of adhesions to the appeal at UBUNTU – World Forum of Civil Society Networks.

I have known French president-elect Francois Hollande since the days of his predecessor and my friend Francois Mitterand. A man of broad vision, he is what France needs to pull itself out of the current crisis and put in place a policy for economic and social recovery. But his victory at the run-off election on May 6 goes far beyond this: it is a resounding confirmation of numerous signs that Europe has recognised the failure of neoliberal ideology and is changing course.

In many countries Europeans have finally seen that the austerity policies imposed to please the usurious markets are leading us down the wrong road. They have forced European countries and the euro zone into a spiral of disintegration and decline.

German chancellor Angela Merkel was constrained to see that her European partners not only resisted obeying her -this has been happening for three years- but even started to organise against her policy in an effort to end the recession, which is paralysing the real economy and favouring the virtual economy, driving unemployment to levels that are socially unacceptable.

It has become necessary to wall off this intensifying recession, which strikes one country after another. It has already moved beyond Greece, Ireland, and Portugal, the first victims of the markets and the dangerous ratings agencies. Now far larger countries like Spain, France, and Italy seem in line for the same battering, as well as small but wealthy countries like The Netherlands, whose government fell in late April. In Romania a socialist leader took charge after the previous administration lost a vote of confidence. Now Slovakia, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, and even Finland seem headed for rough waters.

In this context, with the victory of Hollande the European political pendulum seems to be swinging back towards the left.

The axis that departing president Nicolas Sarkozy forged with Merkel has fallen apart. Faced with numerous domestic problems and a growing opposition -both green and socialdemocrat- Merkel will clearly have to change her policy and come to an understanding with Hollande.

The shift that brought victory to Hollande in France did not surprise European socialists; indeed, they assumed he would win. This is clear from the “conspiracy” that took place in Rome on April 19, attended by representatives of socialist, socialdemocrat, and progressive democratic parties from across Europe who came together to analyse the situation and coordinate actions before the victory they thought near certain brought a socialist government to power in Paris.

Meanwhile, there was no relief in the European and global economic landscape. England recently entered into recession for the second time since the global crisis exploded in 2008. And according to recent statements, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, fears that the European recession may spread to the U.S.

What a sad irony, given that the European “contagion” originated precisely in the United States, which drove the world into the headlong globalisation and the embrace of neoliberal ideology that fomented the global crisis. Thus what the U.S. now fears is a dose of its own medicine. Remember the saying: sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

Unlike Sarkozy, Hollande had the political discernment to recognise that all countries of the euro zone depend on the future of the EU, which is the only body able to bring about a policy change at the continental level. He stated clearly that this is what is needed to prevent the European project from sliding into disintegration and irreversible decline.

It has finally been understood throughout the euro zone -including the United Kingdom- that austerity is not only a dead end; it does nothing but intensify the suffering of the weakest. Even the EU institutions have begun to understand this truth. European Council President Herman von Rompuy convened for the first time a summit meeting to fight the recession and unemployment.

Similarly, Spencer Oliver, an American and secretary-general of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), stated that “the financial crisis was provoked by Wall Street’s appetite for profits” and that to reverse it what is necessary, as U.S. president Barack Obama has said, is a dedicated battle against the recession and unemployment and for the social state. He added, “The financial systems, the bailouts, and the stimulus packages that cannibalised vast sums of money to save many of the very bankers who were responsible for the situation in the first place must be indicted.”

This is a time for hope, that the victory of Hollande will be the spark to change the current paradigm and put an end to the crisis. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

* Mario Soares is ex-president and ex-prime minister of Portugal.

It is hard to see how the European Union and the euro can find their way out of the imbroglio their leaders have led themselves, and all Europeanists, into.

By Mario Soares and - -
LISBON, Aug 11 2010 (IPS)

The two main political-ideological families that contributed most to the unity of Europe were without question social democracy (labour, socialists, and social-democrats) and Christian democracy. These two strains are, and have long been, in decline, the former since the collapse of the communist universe (1989-1990) and their submission to neoliberal “colonisation”; the latter since the changes that occurred after Vatican II in the 1970s.

The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 marks the high point in the development of Europe-building. The Treaty of Nice that followed ended in major failure. Rather than move valiantly towards a political Europe on the road to a United States of Europe, the EU opted for broadening, integrating countries of the east as they were being freed from communist dictatorships. The new members always preferred NATO to the European Community for reasons of security. For them, with certain honourable exceptions, a political Europe made no sense; what interested them, rather, was financial and economic support from the community.

The frustrated attempt at a European Constitution, which would have been a significant step towards federalism, was blocked by a veto of France (and later Holland). It should be noted that the French Socialist Party played a part in this, with its infighting. Since then the European Union has been paralysed. And the healing in extremis provided by the Lisbon Treaty of 2007, of neoliberal economic inspiration, did not carry the Union forward either institutionally or politically, though it did mean progress in the area of human rights.

Europe’s Christian democratic parties lost much of their force in their conversion into populist parties stripped of social concerns. In Italy, Spain, and Portugal, the Christian democrats almost disappeared. The German party survived but evolved dangerously towards the right, especially since it joined with liberals in governing coalitions.

As for the socialist parties, Tony Blair’s New Labour, with its so-called Third Way, not only became a vassal in Bush’s war effort but also wreaked havoc in the Socialist International in terms of ideology and ethical-political values. In Italy the Socialist Party, rebaptised Democratic, lost its identity and its constituency. Throughout the European Union socialist governments fell one after the other. The electorate must have understood that if you want right-wing policies it’s better to vote for right-wing parties. Thus of the fifteen socialist governments in place in EU countries at the end of the last century, only three remain in power today, in Spain, Greece, and Portugal, all in the south; in Austria, though the prime minister is socialist, the governing coalition includes the right-wing.

Meanwhile the world is changing fast. The global presence of the Emerging Nations is growing steadily. The United States is now led by the charismatic Barack Obama whose values and vision of the world are diametrically opposed to those of his predecessor George W. Bush, now thankfully just an unpleasant memory. Obama is a humanist, a pacifist, and a legitimate heir of the great American presidents like Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Kennedy.

In a world passing through a rapidly evolving crisis of extreme complexity, the fact that US politics is undergoing a 180 degree turn does not seem to be understood and is certainly not being accompanied by similar changes in the European political scene. This contrast could be tragic for Europe and the West in general. At the same time as the US is gradually attacking the causes of the current crisis so that it will not happen again, the European Union is thinking only of cutting budget deficits and ignoring the effects this will have on economic growth and people’s health.

Thus it is not surprising that European citizens are distancing themselves more and more from their current leaders and beginning to question the project of the European Union now that it is compromising the political project of peace, well-being, and social justice that was the essence of its identity. Are we heading back into the fever of national egotism that led us into two horrific world wars? (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Mario Soares is ex-president and ex-prime minister of Portugal.

Excerpt:

By Mario Soares and - -
LISBON, May 11 2010 (IPS)

Even Pangloss from Voltaire’s Candide, with his incurable optimism, would find today’s world hard going. Nature and humanity have let loose their respective demons and no one can rein them in. In many areas, the earth has battered us repeatedly with cyclones, tidal waves, earthquakes, floods, and most recently the eruption of a volcano in Iceland that shut down airports across northern and central Europe. It is a sad and unprecedented spectacle.

Some -the rash and least discerning- will say that these are simply normal, natural occurrences. But for those who are eighty or older, as I am, and never saw or even heard of anything like this series of catastrophes, it is prudent to ask whether it is possible that man is to a certain extent responsible, having threatened the natural equilibrium of the planet, abusing and degrading it with his blind, unconscious actions.

The Climate Change Summit held in Copenhagen last December was supposed to condemn and address global warming but ended in total failure in the form of a suspicious agreement worked out at the last minute between China and the US. By coincidence -perhaps- these two great powers happen to be the largest polluters on the planet. They managed to stymie the European contingent, which they dismissed as of marginal importance, and various delegations from other continents who were expecting positive results from the meeting.

What is more worrying is that certain scientists have taken positions openly contrary to the overwhelming majority of ecologists and are asserting that global warming is not caused by human activity or the excessive use of hydrocarbons but is rather a natural phenomenon. This suggests to me that there are some people willing to pursue financial gain at any cost and place their immediate interests above any other consideration without a peep from their consciences – if they have one.

However, I am convinced that at the next World Climate Change Conference scientific truth will prevail and the major powers will be obliged to respect rules intended to radically contain global warming.

But the risks the planet now contends with are not just those considered natural catastrophes, which occur with clear and worrying frequency. Global terrorism continues to wreak havoc, since 2001. Too many nations have nuclear weapons. These must be limited. In this context, a remarkable development with very positive political and geostrategic ramifications is the agreement that Barack Obama succeeded in working out with Russia and China to reduce the three countries’ nuclear weapon arsenals and keep non- nuclear nations from obtaining them.

In a world as dangerous as ours -consider only the number of unresolved armed conflicts underway- it is essential that weapon sales be reduced and that a culture of peace, now tirelessly promoted by former UNESCO director-general Federico Mayor Zaragoza, be established and nourished. At the same time we must avoid and control to the greatest extent possible every form of incitement to violence that is constantly propagated via the media and especially television (consciously or not), now in a clear process of escalation.

All governments of the world that see themselves as upholding the rule of law and that must therefore respect and protect human rights have an obligation to adopt policies and measures to create a culture of peace and repudiate systematically, with teaching, all of the forms of violence that enter our homes daily. We must do this for the health and survival of our descendants and the future of humanity.

The threats we face today come from various directions: uncertain and directionless political leadership, an unregulated economy waiting for the current crisis to pass, and the string of calamities. It is time for the people of the world to open their eyes, react, and demand solutions. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Mario Soares, ex-president and ex-prime minister of Portugal.

Excerpt:

By Mario Soares and - -
LISBON, Mar 1 2010 (IPS)

There is lively debate in the European Union about the global recession and the economic crisis in member countries, but relatively little discussion about the future of the Old Continent.

We need to acknowledge, above all else, that Western (EU-US) hegemony is a thing of the past. The world is now multilateral and recognises that emerging countries and those trying to emerge have an important role to play.

On the other hand, we are seeing the dawn of a US-China axis, despite the grave differences between the countries. The frustrated Climate Change Conference last December in Copenhagen brought to the surface a powerful manifestation of this development. The US ostensibly ignored the EU and reached an agreement with China on decisions that, lamentably, were contrary to the defence of the environment.

The truth is that the EU -or, more precisely, its leaders- have failed to see the Obama phenomenon and the innovation that his election brought to the world stage. Just as they were unable to prevent the 2007-2008 global crisis, they were also unable to take advantage of the great opportunity presented to reform the neoliberal system that generated the recession. They left intact tax shelters that facilitated major deals and scandalous acts of fraud. They didn’t dare blame those responsible for the crisis. Rather they saved a few bankrupt banks and corporations with taxpayer funds, while doing nothing to fight unemployment, inequality, or poverty.

With things in this state, it is legitimate to ask whether we are on the way to overcoming the crisis, as some economists are saying, or whether the recession will continue, aggravating social conflict.

We hoped that with the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty the EU would be able to take a step forward on the institutional front. This was not the case. The new EU president Herman Van Rompuy, and the High Representative for Foreign Policy and Security Policy, Baroness Catherine Ashton, did not take the initiative, which is probably what the leaders of the major countries had in mind in appointing them.

In the face of the crisis, EU states acted on their own, each trying to save its own skin. Now, with trader attacks rattling the euro and nervousness cramping the European exchanges, they may have finally recognised that they must come up with a common -or at least coordinated- strategy to keep the problem from causing irreversible damage.

True, on February 4 the French and German governments (which seemed to have fallen out) held a joint summit in Paris to coordinate certain common policies. This strengthened the so-called French-German motor of Europe; according to Sarkozy, the plan was to launch bilaterally 80 measures to increase cooperation between the two states. But it is important to note that the two governments ignored the Union that they belong to. This is the opposite of the dream of Europe that the founders had in mind.

Will we convinced Europeanists allow the EU to deteriorate in the way certain of its leaders seem to want?

Do the leaders of France and Germany not see that without a strong and cohesive EU, they will represent little in the world that is taking form today?

It doesn’t look good. Nor does the public criticism we are hearing from Brussels, first aimed at Greece and now at the countries of southern Europe, especially Spain and Portugal. This benefits no one. Are the countries of Eastern Europe (with the exception of Poland), the Baltic, and others, like Ireland, somehow immune to the serious effects of the global crisis that originated in the United States?

In short, if the EU as a whole continues to avoid presenting a coherent and solidary response to the global crisis -which the people of Europe in all their diversity are for, the immigrant populations included- the coming decade will be very hard. The path to decline will lie open before us and our freedoms and social advances will be in jeopardy. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Mario Soares is ex-president and ex-prime minister of Portugal.

Excerpt:

By Mario Soares and - -
LISBON, Feb 22 2010 (IPS)

There is lively debate in the European Union about the global recession and the economic crisis in member countries, but relatively little discussion about the future of the Old Continent.

We need to acknowledge, above all else, that Western (EU-US) hegemony is a thing of the past. The world is now multilateral and recognises that emerging countries and those trying to emerge have an important role to play.

On the other hand, we are seeing the dawn of a US-China axis, despite the grave differences between the countries. The frustrated Climate Change Conference last December in Copenhagen brought to the surface a powerful manifestation of this development. The US ostensibly ignored the EU and reached an agreement with China on decisions that, lamentably, were contrary to the defence of the environment.

The truth is that the EU -or, more precisely, its leaders- have failed to see the Obama phenomenon and the innovation that his election brought to the world stage. Just as they were unable to prevent the 2007-2008 global crisis, they were also unable to take advantage of the great opportunity presented to reform the neoliberal system that generated the recession. They left intact tax shelters that facilitated major deals and scandalous acts of fraud. They didn’t dare blame those responsible for the crisis. Rather they saved a few bankrupt banks and corporations with taxpayer funds, while doing nothing to fight unemployment, inequality, or poverty.

With things in this state, it is legitimate to ask whether we are on the way to overcoming the crisis, as some economists are saying, or whether the recession will continue, aggravating social conflict.

We hoped that with the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty the EU would be able to take a step forward on the institutional front. This was not the case. The new EU president Herman Van Rompuy, and the High Representative for Foreign Policy and Security, Baroness Catherine Ashton, did not take the initiative, which is probably what the leaders of the major countries had in mind in appointing them.

In the face of the crisis, EU states acted on their own, each trying to save its own skin. Now, with trader attacks rattling the euro and nervousness cramping the European exchanges, they may have finally recognised that they must come up with a common -or at least coordinated- strategy to keep the problem from causing irreversible damage.

True, on February 4 a joint summit was held in Paris by the French and German governments (which seemed to have fallen out) in order to coordinate certain common policies. This step strengthened the so-called French-German motor of Europe. According to Sarkozy, the plan was to launch bilaterally 80 measures to increase cooperation between the two states. But it is important to note that the two governments ignored the Union that they belong to. This is the opposite of the dream of Europe that the founders had in mind.

Will we convinced Europeanists allow the EU to deteriorate in the way certain of its leaders seem to want?

Do the leaders of France and Germany not see that without a strong and cohesive EU, they will represent little in the world that is taking form today?

It doesn’t look good. Nor does the public criticism we are hearing from Brussels, first aimed at Greece and now at the countries of southern Europe, especially Spain and Portugal. This benefits no one. Are the countries of Eastern Europe (with the exception of Poland), the Baltic, and others, like Ireland, somehow immune to the serious effects of the global crisis that originated in the United States?

In short, if the EU as a whole continues to avoid presenting a coherent and solidary response to the global crisis -which the people of Europe in all their diversity are for, the immigrant populations included- the coming decade will be very hard. The path to decline will lie open before us and our freedoms and social advances will be in jeopardy. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Mario Soares is ex-president and ex-prime minister of Portugal.

Excerpt:

By IPS Correspondents, Mario Soares, and - -
LISBON, Jan 19 2010 (IPS)

I have been a sincere admirer of yours since I started following your writing and speaking about your plans during the presidential campaign. I admire your humanism, your culture, your valour, and your style. Unlike you, I am not a believer. I am agnostic and have a certain amount of experience in public life. However, I said to many friends that your victory constituted an authentic miracle for the United States and for the world, however little I believe in miracles.

I know that once you became president, the weight of the world was dropped onto your shoulders. Literally. You gave remarkable and innovative speeches that helped change America’s image in the world and particularly in Europe. You gave new momentum to the United Nations, which had been completely scorned by your predecessor, recognising that the planet is too vast and varied for it to be governed by a single superpower. You opened the door to a multilateral world of dialogue and peace.

With great intelligence, you extended your hand to the Islamic world in the speech you gave in Cairo. Concerned about the global crisis and world peace, you spoke directly with the Russians and the Chinese. You reached out to the peoples of Africa, promising them help, and to your neighbours to the South, especially to Cuba. You have fended off aggressive adversaries with determination and bravery, particularly in the domestic arena, the Republicans and certain Democrats, as well as lobbies, which cause considerable damage. Your victory in achieving health care reform, despite the concessions made, represents a historic milestone and an important example.

For all these reasons, I applauded enthusiastically when you were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Despite certain protests, it was a very just and apt decision. No one in the annus horribilis of 2009 deserved it more.

However, two of your actions I did not approve of. The first was the decision to send more 30,000 American troops to Afghanistan, which, forgive my frankness, is a lost war, like that in Iraq, if not

worse. I know that the invasion of Afghanistan had the backing of the UN and involved NATO, which was transformed from an organisation that was defensive since its founding during the Cold War into an offensive one operating outside of its normal sphere of involvement. This was a fatal error of realpolitik that discredited the body and that I feel will carry a very large price.

The second reason for my disappointment was the way you behaved at the Copenhagen Climate Summit. You went right over the UN and nearly bypassed the EU entirely, preferring to seek an agreement with China, which refuses to external supervision -with reason- and to meet with certain other countries, including Brazil, perhaps for more than a mere photo op.

Allow me to say, Mr. President, that your speech at the summit was on of the most listless and sad that you have given up to now. Only one sentence stays with me: "I didn’t come here to speak but to act." Indeed. As far as the environment is concerned, time is of the essence and action is needed immediately. It is necessary to fight against the powerful range of egotistical human crimes that are threatening our planet. Is any issue more crucial to the survival of humanity?

Let’s hope that the summit scheduled for the end of 2010 in Mexico can produce concrete results, whether or not China agrees.

And allow me one final observation. Being Portuguese, I feel both Iberian and European. This is something that is usually difficult for an American to understand. I also am a federalist and a supporter, like Jean Monnet, of the United States of Europe. I am worried about Latin America, which has been able to expel military dictatorships shaped in mould of the Chicago School. Today almost all of the countries in the area are, or are trying to be, democracies. Latin America is rich in natural resources, with cultural, scientific and technical elites of undisputable quality. Traditionally distrustful of their powerful neighbour to the North -and for good reason- they were very receptive to your first messages as president, above all when you extended your hand to Cuba.

Presently Cuba is passing through a very difficult moment, as a result of both the global crisis and domestic structural problems. The naturally dynamic and happy people are beginning to feel suffocated, as made clear in a recent speech by Raul Castro.

Mr. President, in a single unilateral move, you could end the blockade, which is a source of hardship and nothing else. There is no doubt the world would applaud you for it. This would renew hope in what you represent and are capable of achieving, not only for the people of the US but all the peoples of the world. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Mario Soares is ex-president and ex-prime minister of Portugal.

Excerpt:

By Mario Soares and - -
LISBON, Dec 21 2009 (IPS)

Latin America is undergoing a process of accelerated transformation. Considered the “backyard of the United States” for much of the last century, it suffered a string of coups d’etat and dictatorships, many piloted by neoliberal economists from the so-called “Chicago School”. It is natural that the region would want to forget this past and move in another direction.

Beginning in the 1980s, inspired by Portugal’s Carnation Revolution in April 1974 and by Spain’s transition to democracy after the death of dictator Francisco Franco in 1975, Latin Americans set in motion their own transition from military dictatorships to democracy.

In those days the United States was ruled by a democratic plutocracy, namely the administrations of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush, which understood that democratic regimes could serve US interests as well dictatorships, with the added benefit that with them it might be possible to broaden trade flows that certain nationalist military regimes had sought to limit.

This new approach would be codified at the end of the 1980s in the so-called Washington Consensus, a set of neoliberal prescriptions inspired by policies of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and imposed on numerous developing countries, especially in Latin America.

But the world order changed after the collapse of the communist universe. The US was convinced that as the world hyperpower, with dominance in every sector -economic-financial, technological, and of course military- its role was to assume control of the destiny of the planet.

However, soon after -on September 11, 2001- the US learned that it too was vulnerable. Islamic terrorism asserted itself with extraordinary force. And the response of George W. Bush was the worst possible one: waging war against Iraq and Afghanistan and involving both Pakistan, Iran, and even more serious, the religion of Islam as such. This was a fatal error.

Curiously, another development followed soon after in mid-2008: the massive crisis of financial-speculative capitalism which some believe is already ending, expecting that all will return to the way it was before. In my opinion, this is sheer self-delusion and, unfortunately, grim times are still ahead.

In recent years, until Barack Obama became president, the US ruling class did not have time for consideration of their neighbours to the south, with the occasional exception of Mexico.

For Latin America, which accounts for over ten percent of the global population, this has been a period of sustained economic growth -an average of about 5 percent per year- while the strengthening of democratisation and the elections of 2006 and 2007 have given it greater economic independence from the US and EU, for example, in the context of the World Trade Organisation.

In effect, in the countries to the south of the Rio Grande, there was movement in the direction of democracy, some radical, as in Nicaragua, Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia, Paraguay, and more recently, Uruguay.

In this same period Brazil won recognition as a world player, which strengthened its position as a regional leader. Its firm opposition to the coup in Honduras raised its international profile. During the 19th Ibero-American Summit held in Estoril in early December, President Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva categorically refused to do as Washington wished and recognise the elections organised by coup-leader Roberto Micheletti. Lula left the meeting with a parting shot: “A democracy can never tolerate a military coup.”

In his first year in office, Obama has pursued a policy towards Latin America that is original and different from that of his predecessor, George W. Bush. He has also extended his hand to Cuba, although this gesture has produced no results yet, and as long as the blockade remains in place, it is premature to talk of a truly new US policy towards the island.

Meanwhile, the military bases that the US plans on installing in Colombia are certainly not a good sign, nor are the naval manoeuvres in the South Atlantic. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Mario Soares, ex-president and ex-prime minister of Portugal.

Excerpt:

By Mario Soares and - -
LISBON, Oct 13 2009 (IPS)

The news was like a ray of sunlight that lit the entire world: “Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize!” It was unexpected, for many premature, and set off a wide range of reactions in every corner of the planet.

This is natural. In a world as dangerous and complex as ours today, changing with lightning speed, raging with aggressive competing interests, and whose course is uncertain and problematic, it is understandable that the news sparked such a wide variety of responses, from resounding applause, to treacherous reserve, open displeasure, and cautious doubt about the merits and motivation of the award.

The courage and timing of the decision by the Nobel committee has been corroborated by the controversy that the decision has stirred up. Obama is one of that rarest type of human who leaves no one indifferent. He is a part of the future of all of us, and because of this he is both loved and hated, in America as well as the rest of the world.

From my point of view, this most revered of all prizes could not have been awarded in a more timely and more appropriate manner.

Some have criticised the decision, arguing that Obama has been in office for such a brief period that he has not had time to accomplish anything concrete, whether in the US, Iraq, or Guantanamo. What has he accomplished? There is one remarkable feat: he has radically changed his country and the world.

The reputation of the United States under George W. Bush was seriously debased by its grave violations of human rights -the real litmus test of the so-called free world- and by brazenly lying about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He hobbled the United Nations, provoked two bloody wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and involved NATO in its first war ever, which was not only a fatal error but actually a crime. He encouraged a frenzy of speculative neo-liberal capitalism which was to provoke the global financial and economic crisis that we are now living through.

Obama put an end to the arrogant and aggressive unilateralism of the US, which, with the most powerful military on earth, assumed for itself the role of “ruler of the world”. He believes in multilateralism, promotes dialogue among countries, has extended a hand to the Arabs, scrapped the plan to install an anti-missile shield in Eastern Europe (obviously intended for Russia), initiated talks with China, proposed a new relationship with Latin America on equal footing (agreeing to negotiate with Cuba without preconditions and to take concrete steps towards lifting the embargo, and condemning the coup in Honduras, thus signalling a very important shift in US attitude). As an African American he made a very important opening towards Africa, proclaimed before the United Nations the importance of dialogue, peace, and respect for the dignity of all peoples, proposed a programme of progressive denuclearisation, and at this December’s meeting in Copenhagen will sign and relaunch the mechanisms of the Kyoto protocols to drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions and initiate a policy to defend the planet.

Are these examples mere words, promises without meaning? Anyone who argues they are does not have a clear understanding how important the defence of ideas and good causes is, and has always been, to the progress of the world.

That said, no one has a magic wand that can instantly change the world, not even Obama. On the other hand, as a democrat and a humanist, Obama does not make use of threats or decrees. His approach is to propose and persuade. With realism and persistence he tries to get across his ideas and values and win support for his policies. This is his approach in seeking agreement on a negotiated peace with the goal of ending overt and latent wars, as part of a global vision that seeks a solution to this and other contemporary challenges.

Obama is not alone. He has the support of the majority of Americans, the young, the poor, and the intellectual, scientific, and artistic elites. They are against the major, entrenched interests, and the selfishness and unconscious egotism forged by a culture of violence and disinformation.

Obama’s greatest strength derives from the hope he arouses for a better world, one with more solidarity and justice. This is not a new utopia. Today it is possible to take a major step forward, like those taken during other crucial periods of history.

In awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation among peoples”, the committee demonstrated both courage and lucidity. “Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.”

Congratulations to Oslo! Do we want Obama to accomplish more in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Cuba? Yes, but we should remember that Obama negotiates, he doesn’t decree. And as the Italians say, Rome wasn’t built in a day. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Mario Soares is ex-president and ex-prime minister of Portugal.

Excerpt:

By Mario Soares and - -
LISBON, Sep 2 2009 (IPS)

In Europe summer is usually the time when publishers release forgotten books, biographies, and travel writing, and major magazines put out special editions on a past subject of current interest.

And so it was that the French magazine Le Point came out with an issue dedicated to Karl Marx focussing on what he really wrote, on how his thought has been manipulated, and on his life and his influence, past and present. The issue runs a full 120 pages and was written by major economists, political scientists, sociologists, and historians, from a range of political and ideological points of view and with extreme rigour and clarity, which were not always characteristics of Marx the economist or the neo-Hegelian philosopher. The weekly Nouvel Observateur, another major French magazine, also dedicated an issue to the German titled "The Great Return of Marx" in August.

During my youth, between 1942 and 1949, before becoming active in the socialist movement, I was a communist, and for these years -and afterwards as well- I considered myself a Marxist. But I never managed to read "Das Kapital", despite the fact that I own two versions of this major work, one in Portuguese and the other in French. Nor did I read Marx’s other philosophical and economic works. In contrast, I read the "Communist Manifesto", which Marx wrote with Frederick Engels, as well as his historical works like "The Eighteenth Brumaire. And of course I read Jean Paul Sartre’s pamphlet on Marxism and the prologue by Vergilio Ferreira that circulated in Portugal until the end of the Second World War, when it was fashionable to talk about Marxist-Leninism, Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, and much later about Mao Tse Tung, whom I never found convincing. Of these texts, the writings of Stalin, then considered the father of the poor, stood out as being clearer and more linear.

As is well known, Marx exercised a profound influence on the workers and revolutionary movement of the 19th and 20th century despite the fact that he died in March 1883. This is partly due to the fact that he was the fundamental reference for Vladimir Lenin, notwithstanding how far the latter distanced himself from the German thinker with his cult of violence and the extermination of his enemies, and on more humanistic figures like Karl Kautsky, Eduard Bernstein, Gheorghi Plekhanov, Leon Trotsky, and Antonio Gramsci. Not to mention the distance between Marx’s thinking and that of Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and many others.

Curiously, about twenty years ago, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the figure of Marx seemed to sink into purgatory, if not hell itself. At the same time came the explosive emergence of neoliberalism, the end of ideology was proclaimed, the greatest possible shrinkage of the state postulated, and humanistic values were replaced by the cult of money and the hegemony of the market.

Then came the economic crisis of 2008, still underway, which was the swan song of neoliberalism and, among other things, seems to be bringing about a rescue from purgatory of Marx, who in truth was not a believer and, in line with German historian Ludwig Feuerbach, thought that God was an invention of man.

The new interest that has emerged in Marx is evidenced by various works on his life and thought that have been published recently -like Jacques Attali’s "Marx and the Spirit of the World"- and by a revival of interest in him at various European and American universities.

Why? Because, though there is no doubt that the present global crisis does not mean the end of capitalism -though it does mean the end of financial capitalism without ethical values- the same can be said of democratic socialism. There is still great validity in the idea of a "socialism with a human face", which was posited as an alternative to totalitarian socialism after the fall of the Berlin Wall, with the democratic, humanistic, and ethical values that Marx never rejected in his work, though he did conceive of the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat and class struggle, albeit in a sense different from that later attributed to him. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Mario Soares, ex-president and ex-prime minister of Portugal.

Excerpt:

By Mario Soares and - -
LISBON, Aug 3 2009 (IPS)

A few months were enough for Obama to peacefully revolutionise the United States and the world. He radically changed the policies of Washington, domestic and international, with visible consequences at the global level despite a financial and economic crisis that, notwithstanding certain signs of improvement, is still far from turning around.

The American president has had to contend with many the antibodies generated by ominous past US involvement in the region that people are beginning to forget but that is still relevant to numerous interests damaged by those who put profits above people and human dignity.

And so we come to the crisis that struck Honduras on June 28, which represents a test as much for Obama as for Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, despite the fact that both leaders condemned,

albeit for different reasons, the coup that ousted the country’s legitimate president Manuel Zelaya.

It is the first time in the 200-year history of US-Central and South

American relations that a US president has unequivocally condemned the military overthrow of a democratic government. Normally Washington backed such coups, when it didn’t in fact support or even

play a part in them, as occurred with General Augusto Pinochet in Chile, to mention one of dozens of cases.

Obama has announced, and is putting into practice, a policy towards Latin America that is diametrically opposite that of his predecessors, as seen in his opening towards Cuba and the overtures to Chavez, who has reacted with an alternation of elegy and diatribe.

It is obvious that the chess game of Latin America is extremely complicated. On the one hand there are deep contradictions that must be overcome among the various countries, which in turn have, and will not forget, substantial claims against their giant neighbour to the North. Notwithstanding their differences, all countries of the region are now democratic and thus the military overthrow of a democratic government is absolutely unacceptable.

Oscar Arias, the current president of Costa Rica and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, was selected to mediate the conflict and is an excellent choice for this delicate task. He has followed the situation of Central America and the rest of the region for decades, is well-acquainted with American politicians past and present, and is personally and politically held in high esteem.

In a recent interview with Spain’s El Pais, Arias stated that in addition to "being in contact with many presidents of Latin America, with Washington, and the King of Spain", he has had conversations with President Zelaya and the de facto president installed by the coup, Roberto Micheletti. He also stated that "any agreement would have to reinstate Zelaya as president". But this outcome will not come about by trying to force his return to Honduras without a previous agreement, which Zelaya tried to do on July 25. On the contrary, such an approach would only make a military conflict more likely, which would be disastrous for everyone.

It is true that more than a month has passed and Zelaya’s impatience is understandable, as is his desire to avoid a consolidation of power by the de facto government.

Arias argues that "everything depends on the US and Europe". But not only them: the world has returned to multilateralism and there are other forces that count, like Brazil, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and others.

In this context, it is auspicious that the armed forces of Honduras have shown their support for a negotiated solution to the crisis mediated by Oscar Arias.

Meanwhile international pressure and dwindling supplies are beginning to make conditions in Honduras extremely difficult.

One factor seems decisive: Obama cannot go back on the commitment he made immediately after the coup. If he did -and I don’t think he would- he would lose an invaluable source of political capital: the credibility he enjoys in Latin America. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Mario Soares is ex-president and ex-prime minister of Portugal.

Excerpt:

By Mario Soares, Mario de Queiroz, and Miren Gutierrez
LISBON, Jun 3 2009 (IPS)

Global house prices are diving further, unemployment in the 16 countries using the euro increased in April to its highest level in almost ten years, and Eurozone Gross Domestic Product is expected to shrink by 1.9 percent during 2009…

Mario Soares Credit: Fundação Mário Soares

Socialist Mario Soares thinks these elections are crucial, and that the socialists of Europe should put up a presidential candidate for the European Commission who can implement their anti-crisis plan.

Soares was the first Premier of democratic Portugal from 1976 to 1978, again from 1983 to 1985, and then President from 1986 to 1996. Even his critics admit that his main accomplishment was to turn public opinion around and to negotiate Portugal's entry into the EU in 1986. Portugal at the time was suspicious of integration into the EU.

Soares wrote recently about the financial crisis and the position of the Socialists of Europe. He responded to IPS in line with some of his analysis.

IPS: What has been the difference of response to the financial crisis between the U.S. and Europe? MARIO SOARES: The current global crisis is the worst since 1929, and will be a prolonged one. But some positive signals are now coming from the U.S., which is focussing its efforts on the real economy.

Barack Obama is saying that we only will overcome this crisis by taking measures that ordinary citizens understand because those measures meet their needs and aspirations, involving social and environmental changes, and also punishment of those who are guilty of greed.

In contrast, the European Union, governed by actors of the past – some of them close to former U.S. president George Bush — has not been able to agree on a coordinated plan to respond to this crisis. This was the final outcome of the London G20 Summit on Apr. 2. It seems most of the European leaders just want to change the minimum possible to keep things as they are.

IPS: The U.N. will soon hold a conference on the world financial and economic crisis. What should the European position be? MS: Europe should present a united front. I always believed in the U.N. for the resolution of major global problems, but without Europe the world will hardly emerge from the global crisis affecting us. Without a concerted anti- crisis strategy, no European country by itself will be capable of overcoming the global crisis, not even the larger one, Germany, and the EU will enter a period of decadence.

The U.S. of Barack Obama has understood this, even though the U.S. has not yet emerged from the crisis. In contrast, the EU, divided, without an assertive leadership and lacking a clear path, is being marginalised, with negative repercussions for all European countries.

IPS: How do you see the Socialists of Europe reacting in the face of the crisis? MS: The Party of European Socialists (PES) has understood the situation, and in a declaration signed by all the 27 (Socialist) European leaders, they pointed out seven priorities to overcome this crisis: stronger and coordinated plans for investment; restoring banks lending to companies and people; safeguarding jobs and creating new ones; fighting poverty and supporting low-income groups who are losing their incomes and houses.

We also need to eliminate bank secrecy and tax havens, where top managers and wealthy people have been hiding their exorbitant profits. We also need to have transparency to avoid speculative financial and commercial transactions.

As the crisis is global and multi-dimensional – not only financial and economic, it also affects energy, the environment and food security – we need to ensure solidarity between countries, paving the way for a Global New Deal and reforming the international financial institutions, which have become obsolete.

These simple ideas were presented in the Declaration of the Party of European Socialists. They concur with the proposals made by the International Trade Unions Confederation to the G20. But although all the European socialist leaders have subscribed to this Declaration, few of them have discussed the ideas with their parties or in the international meetings they attend.

IPS: Why should Europeans care about it? MS: The policies have to change, and the European electors have to understand this clearly. However, European citizens are largely indifferent to the elections in all 27 member states because they have not seen convincing proposals to change and overcome the crisis. In these conditions, why should they vote?

From my viewpoint, only the left is in condition to overcome this crisis, and has concrete and systemic proposals. This is unhappily not the case of the right-wing parties, notably the parties which have abandoned Christian- democracy and have become popular parties, in line with the U.S. Republicans and with Bush, in particular.

IPS: So, if that is the situation, the socialists can present a strong case at the elections… MS: The European Popular Party has appointed Jose Manuel Barroso as candidate to the presidency of the European Commission. Barroso was the host of the Azores Summit, which green-lighted the invasion of Iraq.

However, three leaders and heads of government – Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Gordon Brown and Jose Socrates, heads of government in Spain, the United Kingdom and Portugal – have announced that their parties are ready to vote with the European Popular Party to elect Barroso.

I am asking: how is it possible? Because of national politics reasons, because of personal and political agreements? Does this mean that the ideological reasons do not count? This is a situation that means a kind of political suicide for the PES, and which will likely damage the outcome in the European elections.

As socialist, former member of the European Parliament and honorary President of the Socialist International, I think that I should protest and send a wake-up call. This is about the future of Europe, about a new and effective cooperation with the U.S. of Barack Obama, and about defeating a crisis that is hitting billions of human beings.

We should have the courage to be coherent European and internationalist socialists. We should not let the hope of democratic socialism die, refusing to present a candidate from the PES. These candidates exist.

*Miren Gutierrez is IPS Editor-in-Chief.

(Not for publication in Italy.)

Excerpt:

By Mario Soares and - -
LISBON, Apr 28 2009 (IPS)

The first good news regarding the economic crisis is arriving from the United States, about certain improvements in the banking sector as well (Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Morgan Chase, etc). For now, they are but faint signs. But Barack Obama continues to fight on all fronts, with rigour and courage.

In contrast, in the European Union there is a marked lack of responsible leaders. Those now in power fail to identify both the causes of the crisis and possible solutions and are incapable of agreeing on a coherent, forward-looking European plan. Certain observers fear the worst -even the breakup of the EU project- and although I do not count myself among them, I regard the situation as particularly grave.

European elections are set for the first days of June, and given the lack of new ideas and the anaemia of the debate among the contending parties, a low turnout is expected. The electorate doesn’t believe that the current leaders can solve the problems that now face them, finding them instead indifferent and unconcerned.

In this context, on March 19, with an eye on the then-imminent G20 summit, the European Socialist Party, led by union leader and ex-prime minister of Denmark Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, presented a statement that all European socialist leaders endorsed -although they didn’t take it into account later. A similar proposal from the European Confederation of Unions met the same fate. Wilful blindness is the worst form of the condition.

However, if we are to survive this crisis, there is a need for policies from the left that address the underling problems: rising unemployment, the lack of credit that is devastating small and medium-size businesses, and the increase in poverty. In the absence of efficient social and environmental policies that are tangible to the people, there can be no restoration of the confidence of the citizens of Europe. And without confidence there will be no way to overcome the depression.

The declaration of the European Socialist Party presents of a seven-point plan to address the crisis:

-A significant increase in investment, especially to stimulate the economy and provide money to the banks so they can extend credit to those who need it most;

-More credit providers that would operate on the condition that they dedicate their activities to assuring the revival of the real economy and not financial speculation;

-A social pact for employment that would be financed with European social funds and regional development funds;

-A pact for social progress directed towards avoiding new divisions in Europe;

-A policy of economic solidarity among the 27 EU member states that would involve assistance to those countries that need help most and would be coordinated by the European Commission in strict collaboration with members as well as the International Monetary Fund.

-A concerted global effort of all states to stimulate a more safe and sustainable form of economic growth; financial normalisation on the basis of better and ethically-grounded regulation of the system; working to assure that the Doha Round of trade talks lead to a new trade order that benefits all countries and stresses the solidarity of rich nations with poor nations; and the elimination of tax havens and secrecy in banking.

-And finally, the fulfilment of the Millennium Development Goals by the target date of 2015.

The European Socialist Party holds that with this programme it will be possible to weather the economic crisis and at the same time use the opportunity to fashion a better and more just future. The socialists are running on this platform in the elections for European Parliament, which are set for 4-7 June. Socialist, social democrat, and labour candidates can win this challenge, but to do so they must win the confidence of the electorate and convince it they will fulfil their promises.

The European Popular Party, the umbrella group of the right-wing parties, has already endorsed current European Union president Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, whom they will fight to reelect. They want more of the same, in other words.

But that is a matter for the right. For voters on the left, what is unacceptable and would be a colossal and incomprehensible error is the position adopted by three European prime ministers -Gordon Brown of the UK, Spain’s Jose Manuel Rodriguez Zapatero, and Portugal’s Jose Socrates- who have all endorsed Barroso as well.

Is this an ideological renunciation for personal or national reasons? The Socialist Party would be shirking its responsability if it didn’t present a socialist candidate, and there is certainly no shortage of qualified contenders, some excellent.

The leaders mentioned must respond to their obligations, and if they don’t they will be responsible for a decisive electoral loss, in addition to which they would leave the European Union without the leadership it needs to cooperate closely with the US under Obama to overcome the crisis. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Mario Soares is ex-president and ex-prime minister of Portugal

Excerpt:

By Mario Soares and - -
LISBON, Feb 12 2009 (IPS)

The economic crisis engulfing the world is getting worse day by day and has spread to every continent. It is a truly global crisis the solution to which is clear to no one. During the years of hope in the “glorious decades” following World War II, the communists never tired of proclaiming the impending general crisis of capitalism, which would be fatal for the system, according to Marxist analysts. Although there were small crises, none was comparable to the depression of 1929, which seems the ultimate measure of failure.

Then capitalism reformed itself. Welfare states emerged with universal social security, the New Deal of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, British Labour and postwar nationalisation, the democratic socialism of the Nordic countries, and bit by bit, in various shades, social assistance and harmony spread to the rest of Western Europe, with the dark exceptions of the Iberian peninsula and Greece.

Then Soviet communism spread to and was established in Eastern Europe, China -which would shortly adopt a communism that rivalled the Soviet form- North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba. But western capitalism not only persisted but thrived, weathering the “oil shock” of the 1970s, and having the unexpected satisfaction of seeing the peaceful implosion of the communist bloc with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the Soviet Union, while since 1978 China, with Deng Xiao Ping, has sought to reconcile single-party communism with the most savage form of capitalism.

The so-called West and the US in particular, exultant at the fall of communism, committed the fatal error of believing they were then the rulers of the world. Washington, during the presidency of George W. Bush, did everything possible to marginalise the United Nations and spread liberal democracy, a globalisation stripped of ethical rules, and “casino capitalism”. The arrogance of the victor lead it into the quagmires of Afghanistan and Iraq and the unpardonable errors of giving Israel the green light to attack Lebanon and the Gaza strip.

Finally came the global economic crisis. The financial system created by neoliberalism collapsed as fast as the communist universe twenty years before. And the question all ask themselves anxiously is, What now?

President Obama says that a change in economic model is necessary. This is clear. However, the mentality of the politicians, economists, entrepreneurs, and speculators has for the most part not changed. This makes me wonder whether for real change to take place, young people must be found, new politicians, economists, and entrepreneurs with ethical, social, and environmental values and strict public morality.

Some have called for a shift from capitalism to communism. Is it possible today at the turbulent dawn of the 21st century to revive the old 20th century utopias that so many outstanding figures still believe in? One would have to exclude authoritarian socialism of the Soviet, Maoist, and Cuban variety, which all failed. Without a market there are no free citizens, only servants and functionaries.

Where does this leave us? A market economy with ethical rules and strict policies. Rule of law that can control the markets and guarantee societies of free citizens, pluralist and participatory, democracies that are not oligarchic like those we know so well but oriented toward the well-being of all citizens, with independent media and rigorous environmental safeguards.

Broadly speaking, it consists of what for decades Europe has called democratic socialism or socialdemocracy. It might also be referred to as advanced or progressive capitalism in which people are valued above financial speculation. I don’t think that at this juncture anything better can be devised to lift us out of this crisis and provide humanity with a few years of peace and well-being.

This alternative demands that we subject globalisation to regulation. Otherwise it will be impossible to exit the crisis. Just as economic globalisation is a universal and irreversible fact, so the establishment of global political regulation by reforming the international financial institutions (starting with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank) and integrating them into a UN reformulated in keeping with the Millennium Development Goals is indispensable. This would involve nothing less than a New World Order based on an inclusive system of international governance; in other words, not dominated by a handful of rich countries but responsive to the multilateral and democratic reality of today’s world and therefore representative of regional blocs and emerging countries from every continent. It won’t be easy, but I see no other way to build a better and more human world. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Mario Soares is ex-President and ex-Prime Minister of Portugal.

Excerpt:

By Ignacio Ramonet, Mario Soares, and - -
LISBON, Jan 28 2009 (IPS)

In office only since January 20, US President Barack Obama has jumped into action so quickly he has not given adversaries or observers the time to organise criticism or attacks. Meanwhile Europeans, and in particular their political leaders, do not seem to have grasped the “Copernican revolution” that is underway in the US and appear stunned and incapable of reacting to the new developments that are taking place each day in Washington.

What is happening is a peaceful revolution, endorsed by a broad majority of voters, and, according to a poll taken immediately after his inaugural address, supported by 84 percent of the people.

Expectations are huge, as are the problems and the difficulties facing the new president. Americans, like the rest of the world, place an enormous amount of hope in this remarkably well-prepared and clear-thinking 47-year-old African-American with a humanist, unitarian, and patriotic vision for the United States, a proclivity towards peace, dialogue, and human rights, and who without waiting a second banned the practice of torture and declared that within a year the concentration camp at Guantanamo would be closed and American troops would begin to be withdrawn from Iraq.

The new foreign policy will be a permanent headache for Obama, as is all too evident in this breakdown of its most prominent components:

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict which, after the recent “futile war” devastated Gaza and brought the massacre of hundreds of innocent people, children in particular, left a hatred of Israel that will not go away in the near future. In Afghanistan, where NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) finds itself near defeat, the war stretches on implacably. Iran, which fortunately has not been attacked as Israel proposed, nonetheless presents a very complex challenge for negotiations. Lebanon remains in precarious condition two and a half years after another “futile war” which only sowed devastation and rancour. There is the fight against terrorism, which caused such awful damage during the presidency of George Bush, who never managed to find Al Qaeda’s hidden bases or capture Osama Bin Laden. Then there are relations with Russia and China, emerging countries and creditors of the US. Violence continues to erupt across Africa. Relations with Latin America, which is experiencing an accelerated transition phase, need to be adjusted. There is the embargo of Cuba, which there is reason to hope will be lifted. American-European relations need a tune-up to repair the damage caused by the Bush administration. Also on the list is improving relations with the United Nations and its specialised agencies as well as the international economic organisations, the World Bank and International Monetary Foundation, which need to be democratised and integrated into the UN system. Etcetera.

Moving from the international to the domestic front, the need for a break with the past and for new strategies to move ahead is equally great. This is especially true with regards to the environment. It is expected the Obama will sign the Kyoto Protocol. The greatest challenge, or course, is the economic crisis. The dazzling new president has devised a vast new programme of investment in public and private works intended to create jobs at a time when sharply rising unemployment constitutes the principal economic challenge for the US. He has already initiated negotiations with labour unions with the idea of granting them a higher profile and a larger role in his plan for creating a more democratic and more egalitarian society. He has also proposed to “put more money in the pockets of Americans”. And he has begun to rein in the vast network of political lobbies, which exert pressure on politicians, political operatives, and members of congress and have, though legal, been the main cause of government corruption. And as if that weren’t enough, he has stated his opposition to tax shelters and the movement of companies offshore, an opaque and secretive practice that has been one of the most massive political scandals in recent years. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Mario Soares is ex-president and ex-prime minister of Portugal.

Excerpt:

By Mario Soares and - -
LISBON, Jan 28 2009 (IPS)

In office only since January 20, US President Barack Obama has jumped into action so quickly he has not given adversaries or observers the time to organise criticism or attacks. Meanwhile Europeans, and in particular their political leaders, do not seem to have grasped the “Copernican revolution” that is underway in the US and appear stunned and incapable of reacting to the new developments that are taking place each day in Washington.

What is happening is a peaceful revolution, endorsed by a broad majority of voters, and, according to a poll taken immediately after his inaugural address, supported by 84 percent of the people.

Expectations are huge, as are the problems and the difficulties facing the new president. Americans, like the rest of the world, place an enormous amount of hope in this remarkably well-prepared and clear-thinking 47-year-old African-American with a humanist, unitarian, and patriotic vision for the United States, a proclivity towards peace, dialogue, and human rights, and who without waiting a second banned the practice of torture and declared that within a year the concentration camp at Guantanamo would be closed and American troops would begin to be withdrawn from Iraq.

The new foreign policy will be a permanent headache for Obama, as is all too evident in this breakdown of its most prominent components:

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict which, after the recent “futile war” devastated Gaza and brought the massacre of hundreds of innocent people, children in particular, left a hatred of Israel that will not go away in the near future. In Afghanistan, where NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) finds itself near defeat, the war stretches on implacably. Iran, which fortunately has not been attacked as Israel proposed, nonetheless presents a very complex challenge for negotiations. Lebanon remains in precarious condition two and a half years after another “futile war” which only sowed devastation and rancour. There is the fight against terrorism, which caused such awful damage during the presidency of George Bush, who never managed to find Al Qaeda’s hidden bases or capture Osama Bin Laden. Then there are relations with Russia and China, emerging countries and creditors of the US. Violence continues to erupt across Africa. Relations with Latin America, which is experiencing an accelerated transition phase, need to be adjusted. There is the embargo of Cuba, which there is reason to hope will be lifted. American-European relations need a tune-up to repair the damage caused by the Bush administration. Also on the list is improving relations with the United Nations and its specialised agencies as well as the international economic organisations, the World Bank and International Monetary Foundation, which need to be democratised and integrated into the UN system. Etcetera.

Moving from the international to the domestic front, the need for a break with the past and for new strategies to move ahead is equally great. This is especially true with regards to the environment. It is expected the Obama will sign the Kyoto Protocol. The greatest challenge, or course, is the economic crisis. The dazzling new president has devised a vast new programme of investment in public and private works intended to create jobs at a time when sharply rising unemployment constitutes the principal economic challenge for the US. He has already initiated negotiations with labour unions with the idea of granting them a higher profile and a larger role in his plan for creating a more democratic and more egalitarian society. He has also proposed to “put more money in the pockets of Americans”. And he has begun to rein in the vast network of political lobbies, which exert pressure on politicians, political operatives, and members of congress and have, though legal, been the main cause of government corruption. And as if that weren’t enough, he has stated his opposition to tax shelters and the movement of companies offshore, an opaque and secretive practice that has been one of the most massive political scandals in recent years. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Mario Soares is ex-president and ex-prime minister of Portugal.

Excerpt:

By Mario Soares and - -
LISBON, Dec 4 2008 (IPS)

There are remarkable differences between the effects of today\’s massive financial crisis on the US, the epicentre of the crisis, and on the European Union, writes Mario Soares, ex-President and ex-Primer Minister of Portugal. In this analysis, Soares writes that after the victory of Barack Obama and the Democratic party, the US has become \”the land where anything could happen\”, while the Old Continent remains paralysed and seemingly adrift. It is worrying that many European leaders seem not to have even grasped the scale of the challenges the world currently faces and the necessity of working together and joining forces to meet them. It seems improbable that the Treaty of Lisbon will be ratified by the 27 member states, just as predicted months ago. This is a shame, because the strategy embodied by the treaty, approved in March 2000, sets out a social and environmental model and affirms, therefore, that it is possible to make harmonise progressive social policies, workers\’ rights, and strict environmental regulation with economic competitiveness, financial rigour, and scientific and technological innovation.

While the United States, after the victory of Barack Obama and the Democratic party, has become “the land where anything could happen”, the Old Continent remains paralysed and seemingly adrift.

With less than a month left with France holding the Presidency of the European Union -during which it is fair to say Nicolas Sarkozy didn’t get much accomplished- and on the eve of the Czech Republic’s assumption of that position, which generates doubts and preconceptions about the future of the EU, it seems improbable that the Treaty of Lisbon will be ratified by the 27 member states, just as predicted months ago. This is a shame, because the strategy embodied by the treaty, approved in March 2000, sets out a social and environmental model and affirms, therefore, that it is possible to make harmonise progressive social policies, workers’ rights, and strict environmental regulation with economic competitiveness, financial rigour, and scientific and technological innovation.

But there is no denying that the Lisbon Treaty has lost importance and meaning as a result of the wreck caused by neoliberalism and the beginning of a new political-economic cycle. All of this is changing at a rapidly accelerating rate. The solutions to the great crisis must utilise different approaches. However, the means adopted thus far in Europe have been no better than those tried by the US, and they have been less transparent.

It is worrying that many European leaders seem not to have even grasped the scale of the challenges the world currently faces and the necessity of working together and joining forces to meet them.

True, the former Warsaw Pact countries that were part of the latest wave allowed to join the European Union never came across as very pro-Europe -with a few honourable exceptions. They were interested above all else in the security plan (rather theoretical) and membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, while they regarded the European Community as a free-trade organisation that removed tariffs, forgetting that this is not its primary objective, which is building a lasting peace on the continent and guiding it towards political union.

Today, some of these countries, for economic reasons, recognise that belonging to the Eurozone could bring them protection from the crisis. But they don’t see the EU as a real political community.

The parties of the extreme left, which always distrusted what they considered to be the “Europe of the trusts”, never understood the importance of European integration to the realisation of major political transformations.

As for the socialist and social democratic parties, they let themselves be influenced -if not colonised- by the neoliberal creed pushed by the George W. Bush administration and by the so-called “Third Way” of British Labour Party. Today, after the ruin of Bush and the Republican Party, and given the expectations for change that President-elect Barack Obama will bring, neoliberal free-market anti-regulation ideology seems a thing of the past.

However, for the European left to be able to offer a valid alternative to discredited neoliberalism, all of its components -social democrats, labourites, greens, and even the radical left emancipated from the old totalitarian utopias- must prove themselves responsible and capable of a new dynamism necessary to overcome the economic crisis.

In this regard, the French Socialist Party -the party of Leon Blum and Francois Mitterand- set a terrible example at its last congress in Rheims, where the leaders launched into personal fights and seemed incapable of debating ideas or strategy, while not listening to the demands of the activists.

This isn’t good for Europe and is even worse for the left. The first step towards making the changes that are needed today is recognising one’s own mistakes. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Mario Soares and Mario de Queiroz
LISBON, Oct 23 2008 (IPS)

Mario Soares, two times president and three times prime minister of Portugal, says he is sorry that the European Union has not yet understood the importance of strengthening relations with Latin America.

Credit: Mario Soares Foundation

Recognised even by his adversaries as the “father” of Portuguese democracy since the end of the country’s decades-long dictatorship in 1974, Mario Alberto Nobre Lopes Soares first became politically active at the age of 17 when he joined the clandestine opposition to the dictatorship of Antonio de Oliveira Salazar (1889-1970).

Carrying his nearly 84 years lightly (his birthday is Dec. 7), the charismatic Soares is an adept politician who has a good rapport with reporters.

For obvious historical, linguistic and cultural reasons, Portugal’s ties with Latin America have traditionally focused on its largest former colony, Brazil, which is currently governed by Soares’s old friend, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

But Soares believes that Portugal must look towards the region’s Spanish-speaking countries as well.

When he recommends deepening political, cultural, diplomatic and economic ties with the countries of Latin America, however, he is not only referring to Portugal, but to the entire European bloc.

IPS: So your suggestion is not limited to your country. MARIO SOARES: Spain and Portugal are obviously closer to the Americas, due to questions of language and culture. But I am referring to the EU as a whole, which must understand the importance to the bloc of relations with those countries. The countries of the Iberian peninsula must convince the rest of Europe that this should be a priority.

Lisbon and Madrid have long been in favour of forging stronger ties between the EU and the Mercosur (Southern Common Market, made up of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, with Venezuela in the process of joining) trade bloc, which have been modest so far.

Closed in on itself as a result of its own selfish interests, the EU has failed to give Mercosur the response and support that it could have. One notorious example of this is the bloc’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP, which establishes subsidies and other protectionist measures for EU products).

Another bad example is very recent. Two countries, Haiti and Cuba, have been in particularly dire straits since the passage of hurricanes Ike and Gustav. On a strictly humanitarian level, the EU has a duty to help these two countries. Curiously, note where the first aid came from: Russia.

IPS: Politicians in Portugal look almost exclusively to Brazil, and a bit to Venezuela, due to the half million Portuguese who live in that country. But they largely ignore the rest of Latin America. Of course that is not true in your case. MS: It is well known that I am a great admirer and friend of Brazil, our great sister country, which is home to the largest number of Portuguese-speakers in the world: nearly 200 million.

But I am also a friend of Spanish-speaking Latin America, with which I am relatively well-acquainted and where I have many friends, some of whom have high-level positions in their respective governments.

Let me explain. I have been an admirer of Latin America since 1970, when I first visited the region. I admire the great Latin American authors, who differ greatly among themselves: Jorge Luís Borges (Argentina), Octavio Paz (Mexico), Jorge Amado (Brazil), Darcy Ribeiro (Brazil), Gabriel García Márquez (Colombia), Mario Vargas Llosa (Peru) and Carlos Fuentes (Mexico), to cite just a few of those who I have personally met.

They belong to a mosaic of different, extremely original, cultures, which have two common languages, Spanish and Portuguese, whose speakers have the advantage of understanding each other without learning the other language; a more or less shared religion, Christianity; and an extremely rich ethnic and cultural foundation that differs from country to country.

IPS: How do you see the Latin America of today, where a number of innovative political processes are occurring, described by some as ‘change’, and by others as ‘populist’ or ‘leftist’? MS: When I gave a conference on Oct. 6 at the 10th anniversary of the Casa da América Latina (Latin America House) in Lisbon, I spontaneously gave it a title that, in retrospect, I could have taken a bit more care with, as I think it was somewhat inappropriate: “The Peaceful Democratic Revolution in Latin America”.

IPS: Why inappropriate? MS: Because of the ambiguity of the word “revolution”, which has different connotations and meanings, to which I added two adjectives that are also somewhat ambiguous: “democratic” and “peaceful.”

What we are seeing today all over Latin America is a widespread desire for autonomy vis-a-vis the United States. That is one of the essential characteristics of what I was referring to as the “peaceful, democratic revolution.” This is true in the case of the more radical Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua, as well as the more moderate Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay.

Of course there are nuances and different positions in Latin America. Venezuela, with its “Bolivarian socialism” (named for independence hero Simon Bolivar), is more radical than (President) Lula’s Brazil, which is more moderate. But the two leaders get along particularly well, as I was able to see for myself first-hand, talking to them.

IPS: The common view among analysts worldwide is that Latin America is in the midst of a period of virtually unprecedented change. MS: The situation is definitely very different from that of the Latin America that I visited for the first time at the start of the 1970s, with the curiosity of someone from Portugal whose political awakening occurred in the fight against the dictatorship of Oliveira Salazar.

At that time, most of the countries of Latin America were governed by military dictatorships inspired by the “Chicago School” (an economic approach that advocates a totally unregulated market).

But although U.S. dominance was felt all around the region to a greater or lesser degree, the people themselves were manifestly “anti-gringo”, the derogatory term used to refer to them.

Paradoxically, it has been during the two terms of President (George W.) Bush – while the United States has been engrossed in the wars waged in Afghanistan, with the ill-conceived support of NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation), and in Iraq, which was based on a unilateral decision, with all of the consequent negative results – that Latin America has stopped being the “backyard” of its big neighbour to the north.

Many Latin American countries have thus acquired effective autonomy with respect to the United States. Perhaps it was for that reason that Washington recently decided to reactivate the Fourth Fleet to patrol Latin American waters from (the U.S. Southern Command) headquarters in Florida.

It is interesting that Brazil reached an agreement with France for the transfer of technology to build Latin America’s first nuclear-powered submarine, for – as it was explained – “the defence of the country’s extensive coastal area,” where huge oil reserves were recently discovered.

IPS: So in your point of view, there is a widespread feeling of autonomy with regard to the United States, in vast areas of South and Central America, to a greater or lesser degree. MS: Yes. For example, Brazil and Argentina have decided to carry out bilateral trade in their national currencies rather than in dollars, which is a symptom of that.

And at their recent (Union of South American Nations – UNASUR) meeting in Santiago, Chile (in September), it was Bolivia’s neighbours that kept that country from falling into civil war, by helping to pave the way for an agreement between (President) Evo Morales and the opposition, without any interference by the United States – another important signal.

The Bank of the South, an idea of (Venezuelan President Hugo) Chávez; turning (the central Brazilian Amazon city of) Manaus into a hub for land and river corridors that will connect the Pacific and Atlantic oceans; and the creation of UNASUR are other notable examples of the region’s growing autonomy.

IPS: And if Barack Obama is elected president, could that guarantee that the United States will not interfere with these changes? MS: Latin America is one of the world’s richest regions in terms of natural and human resources. It is destined to play a prominent and even decisive role, in every respect, during this already troubled 21st century.

You never know with the United States. But Obama, although he is not a leftist politician, will never fall into the errors committed by the administration of Bush, the main protagonist of a black period in the history of the United States. The new president will certainly want to recuperate that country’s lost prestige.

Excerpt:

By Mario Soares and - -
LISBON, Sep 1 2008 (IPS)

The role of the writer in politics has been a subject of intense debate since French novelist Emile Zola published in 1898 \”J\’accuse\”, his indictment of the French army\’s wrongful conviction of Alfred Dreyfus for treason. The most recent chapter was related to the life and work of the renowned Russian writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who died on August 4, writes Mario Soares, ex-President and ex-Prime Minister of Portugal. Between World War I and II numerous French as well as German, British, American, Latin American, and other writers had a considerable effect on the political opinions of the public. One of the most influential was Romain Rolland, author of \”Jean Christophe\” and \”L\’Ame Enchantee\”, a French pacifist and communist sympathiser who was read throughout Europe. In 1974 Solzhenitsyn was expelled from Russia and became the dissident most loathed by the world\’s communist parties. I remember clearly the polemic that erupted in Portugal after the 1974 Carnation Revolution freed us from the dictatorship and how Portuguese communists attacked us socialdemocrats for defending Solzhenitsyn in keeping with our creed.

Between World War I and II numerous French as well as German, British, American, Latin American, and other writers had a considerable effect on the political opinions of the public. One of the most influential was Romain Rolland, author of “Jean Christophe” and “L’Ame Enchantee”, a French pacifist and communist sympathiser who was read throughout Europe.

During the Spanish Civil War, which provoked a crisis of conscience in Europe, the Spanish were irrevocably divided between pro-fascists and anti-fascists. The anti-fascist writers, intellectuals, and artists were more numerous and more substantial. Some were victims of the war, like Federico Garcia Lorca. Others went into exile, like Jose Ortega y Gasset, Miguel de Unamuno – who died under house arrest in Salamanca- Dionisio Ridruejo, Salvador de Madariaga, Claudio Sanchez Albornoz, and Americo de Castro. Renowned painter Pablo Picasso became director of the Prado Museum in Madrid during the Republic but had to flee to exile in Paris two years later.

But it was not only Spanish intellectuals that joined this bloody and heroic struggle, which prepared the way for World War II – Britain’s George Orwell, Hungarian born Arthur Koestler, Andre Malraux of France, Ernest Hemingway of the US, and Portuguese writer, historian, and poet Jaime Cortesao were among the many foreigners who joined the anti-fascist cause in Spain.

In the first phase of the October Revolution, Russian writers like Maxim Gorky, author of “Mother”, played an extraordinary role. But with the subsequent onset of Stalinism and the exile of Leon Trotsky, also an excellent writer, intellectuals became more politically conformist.

Solzhenitsyn, who won the Nobel Prize in 1970, had to seek exile in the West and only returned to his country in 1994. A decorated veteran of World War II, he was an extraordinarily courageous man who refused to accept lies. In a society built on lies, this was particularly difficult. Solzhenitsyn was responsible for revealing to the world the horrors of the Soviet concentration camps with the publication of the “Gulag Archipelago” in France in 1973. His earlier books include “Cancer Ward” and “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich”, perhaps his greatest work, which was allowed to be published in 1962 while Nikita Khrushchev was Secretary-General of the Communist Party. It was Khrushchev who had the courage to present in 1956 the famous report to the 20th Party Congress denouncing the tyranny of Stalin and the system.

But in 1974 Solzhenitsyn was expelled from the country and became the dissident most loathed by the world’s communist parties. I remember clearly the polemic that erupted in Portugal after the 1974 Carnation Revolution freed us from the dictatorship and how Portuguese communists attacked us socialdemocrats for defending Solzhenitsyn in keeping with our creed.

Exiled to the West, Solzhenitsyn continued to write, in peace. But he did not allow himself to be seduced by the consumer delights of the decadent West. He returned to Russia under the government of Mikhail Gorbachev. In his final years he showed sympathy for ex-president and now prime minister Vladimir Putin for having restored Russia to the ranks of the great powers, where it undoubtably belongs.

Together with German philosopher Hanna Arendt, Solzhenitsyn revealed the true identities of the two forms of 20th century totalitarianism, one Nazi, the other Soviet. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Mario Soares and - -
LISBON, Jun 3 2008 (IPS)

The European Union, which has constantly expanded towards the East, should now turn its sights to the West and look positively on the desire of the government of Cape Verde to find a way of integrating with the European Union, writes Mario Soares, ex-prime minister and ex-president of Portugal. In this article,Soares writes that the archipelago is turning into a prime tourist destination with modern hotel facilities and an appealing climate even in winter, affable people, and high quality dance and folklore. It is not surprising that European tourists find Cape Verde enchanting. The current president, Pedro Pires, an outstanding anti-colonialist warrior, respected politician, and consummate negotiator, recently stated, \”I want my country to gradually grow closer to the European Union in order to find new ways to guarantee development and security.\”

Cape Verde is a sui generis country. An archipelago situated at the south of the North Atlantic at the junction of three continents – Africa, Europe, and South America – its ten islands were uninhabited when the Portuguese navigator Diego Gomes landed there in 1460. Its population is thus not originally or exclusively African but a mix of Africans, Portuguese, Jews, and other peoples crossing the Atlantic from every direction. As a consequence nothing in the EU treaties would prevent the incorporation of Cape Verde into the European family.

Together with Guinea-Bissau on the continent, Cape Verde won its independence from Portugal after the Carnation Revolution of April 25, 1974, and the territories were united as a political entity. Shortly after, though, without great drama, Cape Verde realised that this union made little sense because the main link between the two was the political will of a single party, the African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde (PAISGC), which was created by the great pro-independence leader Amilcar Cabral once the Portuguese dictatorial regime of Salazar and Caetano refused to respond to his proposal to negotiate the country’s withdrawal from these two colonies.

Meanwhile, times changed. The newly-independent Cape Verde’s fight for survival was particularly difficult since it had the least (known) natural resources of any country in Africa, except for the extraordinary genius of its mestizo population. Cape Verde is the best governed, most politically stable, and most respected internationally of all of the ex-Portuguese colonies, with a solid rule of law.

The evolution of the archipelago is perfectly summed up by recent statements of the foreign minister of Cape Verde, Victor Manuel Barbosa Borges: “At the time we gained our independence, our rate of illiteracy was almost 70 percent; today it is 24 percent. Life expectancy was 50 years, to today’s 75-77. Infant mortality has dropped dramatically and is among the lowest in Africa. For this reason, since January of 2008, we are no longer one the least-advanced countries but are now considered part of the medium-developed group. That said, however, Cabo Verde is far from having resolved all of its problems.”

Cape Verde is the fourth archipelago of Macaronesia, a Greek name for this bio-geographic zone of the Atlantic Ocean which was thought to have a magical or religious character in Greco-Roman times. This area also includes the Azores, the Canary Islands, and Madeira. These three autonomous regions of Spain and Portugal have the status of peripheral European territories and as a result enjoy special benefits. Cape Verde lost the opportunity to be a member of this group -which is geologically unified and has undeniable geo-strategic value, because when it became independent it opted for an African identity.

The political leaders of Cape Verde are informed, serious, and well-educated people. For years they have been pursuing the idea of strengthening political ties with Europe, although there is no denying the difficulties that would be involved. A certain consensus has already emerged on this issue among the country’s political parties.

The archipelago is turning into a prime tourist destination with modern hotel facilities and an appealing climate even in winter, affable people, and high quality dance and folklore. It is not surprising that European tourists find Cape Verde enchanting.

The current president, Pedro Pires – an outstanding anti-colonialist warrior, respected politician, and consummate negotiator – recently stated, “I want my country to gradually grow closer to the European Union in order to find new ways to guarantee development and security.”

Portugal, brother country of Cape Verde and member of the Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries -which also includes Angola, Brazil, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, Santo Tome-Principe, and East Timor- have a duty to do all they can to ensure that Pires’ desire for closer ties with the Old Continent does not come to naught. The Cape Verde government has also expressed its interest in a relationship with NATO and although these days the organisation has drifted far from its initial objectives, the political winds that might sweep a black man to the presidency of the United States could well bring the potentiality for peace and progress to the Atlantic Sea, to use the expression of renowned Portuguese poet Fernando Pessoa. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Mario Soares and - -
LISBON, Apr 8 2008 (IPS)

The world, and the West in particular, are passing through a period of transition and profound insecurity which is manifesting itself in every sphere and makes the near future impossible to predict, writes Mario Soares, ex-president and ex-prime minister of Portugal. In this article, Soares writes that the major problems facing the world are still not receiving a global response, which could come only in the form of a major restructuring of the UN and the Security Council. The G8 club of rich nations lacks legitimacy to serve as a pilot for the world. There is, thus, a major vacuum in the world order. The world order is once again multilateral. The American empire as such is on the way to disappearing. Solutions to the problems that the world faces do not depend only on the West (Europe and the US), as was thought at the beginning of this century, but on others as well: the so-called emerging powers -Russia, China, India, and Brazil- as well as Japan, Mexico, South Africa, Iran, Egypt, and Turkey. The West must understand that it has to negotiate with these countries and participate in the reform of the UN.

On the economic front, we are on the brink of an international recession that started in the US and is being felt in Europe and the rest of the world. It is impossible to know whether it will deepen or whether we have passed through the worst of it. The answer to this depends not only on the West but also on a number of international factors, like the price of oil and the behaviour of the emerging economies.

Speculative capitalism has become a quagmire, given that the speculative economy has little to do with the real economy. Huge fortunes are made and lost in fiscal paradises, awash in dirty money from drug trafficking and other illicit lines of business (prostitution and the illegal trafficking of arms, human organs, etc), while the real economy is beset by unemployment, economic exhaustion, inflation, stock market and credit crises, and irregularities and bankruptcy in banking and insurance institutions that were until now considered rock solid.

The international financial institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund – which do not depend on the UN- have shown themselves to be obsolete and incapable of addressing the financial crisis now underway. The same could be said of the World Trade Organisation -also unrelated to the UN- in which the needed consensus of the emerging and developing countries is growing harder and harder to obtain.

In this era of globalisation -which spans not only economics but also science, technology, information, and the new phenomenon of world public opinion- the major problems facing the world are still not receiving a global response, which could come only in the form of a major restructuring of the UN and the UN Security Council. The G8 grouping of the most powerful countries remains but a club of rich nations and lacks legitimacy to serve as a pilot for the world, as clearly demonstrated in recent years. There is, thus, a major vacuum in the world order.

The contemporary world is faced with major problems that will threaten the survival of humanity if they are not addressed in the near future. In order of importance:

-Most important are the grave environmental problems: the ozone hole, global warming, climate change, pollution of water and the water table in particular, desertification, the shrinking of biodiversity, the progressive disappearance of forests, and urban degradation.

-The hunger and endemic poverty that afflict more than two thirds of the world population despite the fact that science and technology have the resources to easily eliminate both if there were the political will to direct them.

-Violence -which is stoked by the violence shown daily by the media-, conflict, war, unlimited arms sales, the build-up of nuclear weapons, which the great powers and international institutions are incapable of stopping.

-Pandemics like AIDS and other diseases that had been almost eradicated but which have rebounded, like tuberculosis, and malaria, among others. These must be addressed at the global level.

-Religious and political fanaticism, the loss of values in the consumerist and hedonist societies of our age, the scorn for social and environmental problems and human rights.

All of this adds up to a profound world crisis comparable to that at the beginning of the Second World War after the sweeping victories of Hitler and Japanese imperialism, which certain pessimists feared would set the world back 1000 years. Today, as then, we cannot lose hope and give up the fight for the values of universal humanism.

The world order is once again multilateral. The American empire as such is on the way to disappearing. Solutions to the problems that the world faces do not depend only on the West (Europe and the US), as was thought at the beginning of this century, but on others as well: the so-called emerging powers -Russia, China, India, and Brazil- as well as Japan, Mexico, South Africa, Iran, Egypt, and Turkey. In other words the West must understand that it has to negotiate with these countries, just as it has to participate in the reform of the UN if it is to effectively address the great challenges of our time.

Much still depends of the US and its next president. Whoever it is will have to radically change Washington’s domestic and foreign policy in order to prevent the country from falling into decline. And the EU will have to summon the courage to define an autonomous strategy and define the path that it wishes to follow in the coming year as an institution and an actor on the international stage. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Mario Soares and - -
LISBON, Mar 27 2008 (IPS)

The Dalai Lama has returned to centre stage because of the recent and now quelled uprising of the Tibetans against Chinese domination and the brutal response of the government in Beijing. This was a grave error on China\’s part, to say the least, just as it is preparing to host the 2008 Olympic games, writes Mario Soares, ex- president and ex-prime minister of Portugal. In this article , Soares writes that the Dalai Lama responded from Dharamsala, his place of exile, with his customary firmness, accusing China of \’\’cultural genocide\’\’, an expression that has succeeded in stirring consciences across the planet. The rhetorical response of the Beijing government was to accuse him of provoking the riots in the hope of creating difficulties for China. The Dalai Lama calmly responded that as a pacifist he does not believe that the problem of Tibet can be solved with force, but rather through dialogue. Watching the Dalai Lama speak these words on television, I was reminded of an experience I had when I visited political dissident Andrei Sakharov, another Nobel Peace Prize laureate (1975), during an official visit I made as President of Portugal to what was still the Soviet Union. After I signalled to him that there were probably hidden microphones in the room where we met, he answered calmly, \’\’It doesn\’t matter, they know everything that I think. We\’re already used to it.\’\’ Afterwards we spoke freely about everything we wished. The brutal intimidation and force had no effect on the civic conscience of Sakharov.

Since then I have felt an intense admiration for this singular and exceptionally affable person whom the international community honoured with the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989 and whom many Tibetans believe to be of divine nature.

The Dalai Lama has crisscrossed the world defending the identity of his people. Behind his genuine simplicity and modesty, this great man hides a will of steel and a serene intelligence built over years of fighting for control over himself and placed entirely at the service of his land and his people. In Biblical terms his struggle is like that of David against Goliath.

The Dalai Lama has returned to centre stage because of the recent and now quelled uprising of the Tibetans against Chinese domination and the brutal response of the government in Beijing. This was a grave error on China’s part, to say the least, just as it is preparing to host the 2008 Olympic games.

The Dalai Lama responded from Dharamsala, his place of exile, with his customary firmness, accusing China of ”cultural genocide”, an expression that has succeeded in stirring consciences across the planet. The rhetorical response of the Beijing government was to accuse him of provoking the riots in the hope of creating difficulties for China to hold the Olympics. The Dalai Lama calmly responded that as a pacifist he does not believe that the problem of Tibet can be solved with force but rather through dialogue, an opinion that is not shared by the extremist sector of the Tibetan opposition. And he argued ironically that he even hopes that the Olympics take place in Beijing as planned and are a success, ”out of respect for the Chinese people and what this might mean for their desire for freedom.”

Watching the Dalai Lama speak these words on television, I was reminded of an experience I had when I wanted to visit political dissident Andrei Sakharov, another Nobel Peace Prize laureate (1975), during an official visit I made as President of Portugal to what was still the Soviet Union in the days of Mikhail Gorbachev and perestroika. Soviet protocol placed every possible obstacle in my path to block the visit, but I insisted and threatened to call short my trip, and finally I was given permission, and one cold Moscow morning a car from the Portuguese embassy left to pick up Sakharov and bring him to have a coffee with me.

When I arrived early for this appointment, I found that the embassy had been shut by the Soviet police with a security crew so imposing and massive that the embassy personnel, largely domestic and secretarial staff and almost all Russians, were shaking with fear. Even the adjoining streets and neighbourhood were under surveillance.

Shortly after, the car carrying Sakharov and his wife Yelena Bronner arrived. He was a tall man, calm, with clear blue eyes. I had the feeling that a shaft of light had pierced the gloom of the frigid Russian morning. As he entered the room where we were to meet, I signalled him that there were probably hidden microphones. He answered calmly, ”It doesn’t matter, they know everything that I think. We’re already used to it.” Afterwards we spoke freely about everything we wished. The brutal intimidation and force had no effect on the civic conscience of Sakharov. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Mario Soares and - -
LISBON, Jan 1 2008 (IPS)

The neo-liberal system is broken. Capitalism must be moved past this phase of speculation and \”casino economy\” to a form of ethical capitalism that respects the environment and the concerns of society, writes Mario Soares, ex-president and ex-prime minister of Portugal. In this article, Soares calls for a reclaiming of the ethics which were always the hallmark of the left. Civic participation must be increased to counter the weakness of the state, bolster social justice, and oppose the commercialisation of society, corruption, and influence peddling. The activists must resume the fight for peace and the peaceful resolution of conflicts, for social integration, and against inequality and environmental degradation. Most clearly put, the present crisis, which has discredited politics as a whole, was caused by the dealings of economic pressure groups, the immorality of the banking and business elite, and influence peddling by political leaders -in short, by the promiscuous intermingling of politics and business. The conclusion to be drawn in inescapable: the system is corrupt and must be changed, This is the great task facing the European left.

In the face of this catastrophe, the same financiers who just a few months ago were calling for less state involvement and more privatisation are now shamelessly begging the government for a bailout with taxpayer funds. So it goes: profits are privatised and losses are socialised, without concern for the damage done to stock holders or the consequences for those who are less well off.

What is clear is that the neo-liberal system is broken. Capitalism has to be rethought. It must be moved past this phase of speculation, past the “casino economy”, to a form of ethical capitalism that respects the environment and the concerns of society.

Such a change is not only possible but necessary. As Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote, “The political leaders of the West have to summon the courage to make a turn towards the left.”

In the United States, the left has never counted for much, with the brief exceptions of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal and President John F. Kennedy’s New Frontier. Yet the Democratic Party has always maintained clear differences from the ultraconservative Republican Party – though it is worth pointing out that the first warning about the “military industrial complex”, reborn with new vigour during the Bush presidency, was President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican.

The thinking of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, though he is not a politician of the left, is very different from the religious-political ultraconservatism of his Republican rival John McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin.

In Europe, the left was dominant in the 1970s and 80s led by high-calibre politicians like Willy Brandt, Francois Mitterrand, Helmut Schmidt, James Callaghan, Olaf Palme, Bruno Kreisky, Felipe Gonzalez, Pietro Nenni,and Bettino Craxi. Then after the fall of communism it began to lose ground and allowed itself to be “colonised” by the neo-liberal thought of Tony Blair and Gerhard Schroeder, who preached a so-called “Third Way”, now discredited. What are the causes of the current weakness of the left in Europe? What must be done to revive and update its thinking so that it can address the multiple crises the world now faces?

A glance at the situation of the left in the major countries of Europe -Germany’s Social Democratic Party, Labour Party in the United Kingdom, France’s Socialist Party, or Italy’s Democratic Party, to name the major players- reveals a decline commonly found among the parties that are of democratic socialist inspiration and belong to the Socialist International, now almost completely silent.

It is true there is another, minority left comprised of the remnants of the communist parties and the anti-globalisation groups. This left is largely a protest movement and has not found a way to win power.

On the other hand, we should not overlook the very important role played by the labour unions, which are undoubtedly powerful in their sphere, and by human rights and environmental organisations, which have considerable social influence but little effect on elections.

In this regard, the socialdemocratic left should consider two things: how to address the current economic crisis, and how to conceive of another social, political, economic model that could deepen democracy and bring about greater civic participation of citizens.

What is needed is a reclaiming of the ethics which were always the hallmark of the left. Civic participation must be increased to counter the weakness of the state, bolster social justice, and oppose the commercialisation of society, corruption, and influence peddling. The activists of the left must resume the fight for peace and the peaceful resolution of conflicts, for social integration, and against inequality and environmental degradation. Moreover, the men and women of the left who work in government or partisan politics have an obligation to avoid conflicts of interest and operate with transparency.

Most clearly put, the present crisis, which has discredited politics as a whole, was caused by the dealings of economic pressure groups, the immorality of the banking and business elite, and influence peddling by political leaders – in short, by the promiscuous intermingling of politics and business.

The conclusion to be drawn in inescapable: the system is corrupt and must be changed, This is the great task facing the European left.(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Mario Soares and - -
LISBON, Jan 1 2008 (IPS)

Where have all the neoliberals gone? A few months ago they were clamouring relentlessly for \”less government\”and \”more privatisation\”, no government intervention, no ethical rules, and even fewer public services. For them the paramount goals were cutting taxes and letting the market work its magic without interference of any kind, writes Mario Soares, ex-president and ex-prime minister of Portugal. In this analysis, the author writes that American capitalism in its financial-speculative phase, guided by neoliberal ideology and fortified by the collapse of the communist regimes, carried the US up to the gates of financial catastrophe and economic recession. Now its negative effects have spread across Europe and are beginning to poison the rest of the planet. Will the US Treasury plan stabilise the American economy or only provide short-term relief? The means adopted by various countries and the subsequent reactions of the economic actors have generated little more than violent fluctuations and instability, and thus it is not yet possible to answer this question. However, there can be no doubt that a long-term solution would have to go much farther, beginning with reform of the financial-speculative sector through regulation and controls, a crackdown on tax havens, the introduction of strict ethical norms and social and environmental goals, and finally, as French president Sarkozy said, \”Those responsible for causing this crisis should be put in jail\”.

As for privatisations, the neoliberals support it across the board: from healthcare (“socialist” intervention), social security, water, cemeteries, mail, transportation, security (even in wartime situations, like Iraq, where private companies have taken over certain security functions).

Politicians who strayed from the neoliberal creed were treated like lepers, or an archaeological curiosity from a past age. The fashion was absolute freedom to make profits, all the more so with of speculation or conflicts of interest -“politicians in business, or business in politics”- and fiscal paradises. Thus doing business and making money became the supreme value of the so-called free societies; the market was theologised as the deus ex machina of progress; and liberal democracy, bit by bit, was sliding towards plutocracy.

And what about the poor, the manual labourers, farmers, salary workers, and those referred to as the “middle class” in the old days? Leave them to their fate, the neoliberals would say, to sort it out according to the laws of natural selection, a sort of law of the jungle in which the strong (the rich) devour the weak (the poor). The bleeding hearts could dedicate themselves to charity to alleviate the chronic inequality -an activity that does not harm the financial system and does good to the soul.

And so it was that American capitalism in its financial-speculative phase, guided by neoliberal ideology and fortified by the collapse of the communist regimes, carried the United States up to the gates of financial catastrophe and economic recession. Subsequently its negative effects have spread across Europe and are beginning to poison the rest of the planet.

In just a few weeks the neoliberal ideology has gone bust in theory and in practice. Because they had no idea how to intervene, feeling that it was impossible, the economists have fallen silent or advised caution or various half measures for the gravely ill patient.

The results are plain to be seen: banks and other financial institutions on the verge of bankruptcy are calling for help from the government (no doubt the vilest heresy for the neoliberals) as if it were a natural disaster, like hurricane Katrina. And who will foot the bill, when failing companies flee or look the other way? The state, of course. That’s the logic behind the plan of US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, which involves in injection of up to 700 billion dollars. But can Paulson stabilise the economy of the superpower, or will his plan only provide short-term relief of the effects of the crisis?

The means adopted by various countries and the subsequent reactions of the economic actors have generated little more than violent fluctuations and instability, and thus it is not yet possible to answer this question. However, there can be no doubt that a long-term solution would have to go much farther, beginning with reform of the financial-speculative sector through regulation and controls, a crackdown on tax havens, the introduction of strict ethical norms and social and environmental goals, and finally, as French president Nicholas Sarkozy, who must seem like an extremist to the neoliberals, said, “Those responsible for causing this crisis should be put in jail”.(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Mario Soares and - -
LISBON, Nov 28 2007 (IPS)

In principle, religion is against violence, yet historically intolerance has reigned, and without tolerance and respect for those who are different, conflict and war are inevitable. Thus it was in the past and probably will be so in the future unless there is a revolution in the thinking of religions and dialogue and peaceful co-existence prevail, writes Mario Soares, ex-President and ex-Prime Minister of Portugal, and President of the Commission for Religious Freedom of Portugal. In this article, Soares writes that we have a moral duty to fight against all forms of violence and to build a global culture of peace. Violence is harmful for religions, in the short term and the long term, as well as to relations between believers and non-believers, who necessarily live together in our modern societies. A world without violence could be our magnificent utopia of the 21st century – if we were able control the myriad forms of violence that daily enter our homes through the television, movies, and the Internet and if all religions were convinced that the fight for peace, for human rights, and respect for those who are different was the best way to express the love for God.

The three major monotheistic religions are characterised by a love for God that, it would seem, would be the same for all of them, and all three speak of loving one’s neighbour. The question is, which neighbour? And do they love infidels and heretics as well?

Because all three are revealed religions, each has its own truth. This is what makes interfaith dialogue difficult so often — though not impossible, as we have seen in recent history. The faithful of one creed can be infidels for another, or even considered heretics. And dialogue between believers and non-believers, whether atheists or agnostics, is even more difficult.

In the past, inter-faith conflicts and wars to ”convert the infidel”, like the Crusades, were the general rule. Obviously there were exceptions, like the Caliphate of Cordoba, where in the 12th and 13th centuries, Jews and Muslims lived side by side and conversed in peace.

The separation between church and State and the defence of religious pluralism are modern ideas that date from the creation of secular States in Europe.

The culture of human rights and peace as supreme values is essential in a globalised world in order to assure respect for others and make fanaticism and religious violence recede. In the past, both in Europe and other continents, the defeated, if of another religion, were required to undergo a false conversion to the victors’ faith. Today religious fundamentalists –Islamic, Christian, or Jewish– provoke ”holy” wars in order to eliminate those who do not share their creed.

Logically, of course, there neither are nor can be ”holy wars”.

Moreover, it is clear that even if certain wars are called ”holy”, their motivation is more than simply religious: they are driven by poverty, social inequality, nationalism, cultural backwardness, the humiliation of the dominated…

This is where we come across the problem of unilateralism and in particular the current ‘counterculture’ of preventive war and the attempt to marginalise the UN. It has been argued that all of this was a response to the Islamic terrorism that emerged brutally on September 11, 2001, and demonstrated the vulnerability of the dominant superpower. But it is undoubtable that this was the least intelligent and least effective response to a phenomenon as complex as terrorism.

Terrorism must be fought, but without compromising human rights and their universality.

It was the recognition that we are on a slippery slope mined with dangers to world peace that led Spanish President Zapatero and Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, backed by the UN Secretary General, to launch an initiative called the Alliance of Civilisations to provide a forum for discussion among cultures and religions — an idea earlier suggested by Iran’s ex-President Mohammed Khatami.

However, despite the many goodwill initiatives and ecumenical dialogues that have arisen from many parts of the world, religious fanaticism has only got worse and does not promise to recede in the future.

For this reason, we have a moral duty to fight against all forms of violence and to set about building a global culture of peace. In this context, religions must debate among themselves in order to open paths to mutual understanding and peaceful co-existence. Violence is harmful for religions, in the short term and the long term, as well as to relations between believers and non-believers, who necessarily live together in our modern societies.

It is worth noting that fervent anti-clericalism has almost entirely faded away as a result of the widewpread imposition of the separation of Church and State.

A world without violence — this could be our magnificent utopia of the 21st century, if we were able to control the myriad forms of violence that daily enter our homes through the television, movies, and the Internet and if all religions were convinced that the fight for peace, for human rights, and respect for those who are different was the best way to express the love for God. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Mario Soares and - -
LISBON, Oct 24 2007 (IPS)

It is a commonplace today to say that the policies of President Bush have resulted in total disaster both domestically and abroad. This is the opinion not only outside of the country but also of a sizeable majority of Americans as well, writes Mario Soares, former President and former Prime Minister of Portugal. In this analysis, Soares writes that meanwhile, the planet is in the grips of accelerating change. The nine emerging countries, in particular the so-called BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) represent uncontrollable forces in the context of the international order, which rapidly shifted from bi-polar to uni-polar and is now on the way to a multi-polar arrangement. This is the reality that the West must now accept if it wants to contribute to the establishment of a new global order. To achieve this, there must first be a restructuring of the UN to make it more democratic and more capable of intervening to address the major challenges facing humanity: addressing threats to the health of the planet, the eradication of poverty, fighting organised crime at the global level, regulating and guiding globalisation, and in general bringing about a system marked by greater justice, equality, and solidarity such that the future is more human and less fraught with conflict.

In the 20th century, especially after World War Two, Europe lost its global hegemony, and was devastated, along with Japan. Two non-European countries, the United States and the Soviet Union, then became the dominant powers and their ideological, economic, and military rivalry divided the world into two opposing blocs. This was the beginning of the Cold War, which kept the world suspended in an ”equilibrium of terror”.

In parallel, in the 1950s and 60s, the process of decolonialisation led to the emergence of the Movement of the Non-Aligned Countries (India, Egypt, Indonesia, and Yugoslavia) and later the Third World movement.

Meanwhile the scientific, technological, and cultural revolutions were transforming the earth into ”one world” thanks in particular to the extraordinary progress of communications and the ease and speed of travel and the transmission of knowledge.

Towards the end of the last century the communist universe collapsed: the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain in 1989 was followed by the break-up of the so-called ”people’s democracies” and the Soviet Union itself between 1990-92.

The collapse of communism left a vacuum on the international scene that was filled almost entirely by the United States, the only surviving superpower, which was unrivalled militarily. Under the command of George W. Bush, the US revived its imperial ambitions, began its dangerous but ultimately unsuccessful campaign to marginalise the United Nations, and guaranteed the triumph of neo-liberalism as the dominant economic-political ideology. In truth, the influence of neo-liberalism was felt most strongly in the last years of the last century and was responsible for giving capitalism an essentially speculative and virtual financial face. One of its characteristics was the expansion of stock trading and the generation of multi-million dollar profits without having a significant impact in the real, productive economy.

Globalisation, contrary to what was hoped, increased social inequality and the gap between poor and rich nations and people. It brought about a growing concentration in business and the banking sector in particular, the outsourcing of production to areas with low wages if not slave labour, financial scandals, and high-level corruption, all of which are current practices of neo-liberal globalisation, which as a result has been thoroughly discredited.

It is no accident that the neo-liberal ideology loses more ground every day or that the world now finds itself on the verge of a grave financial crisis that is manifesting itself in the rapid seesawing of the stock market and is beginning to affect US society: a deepening of the real estate crisis, rising unemployment, fears of inflation, unprecedented increases in the price of oil, not to mention the colossal trade deficit which no one seems able to relieve.

It is a commonplace today to say that the policies of President Bush have resulted in total disaster both domestically and abroad. This is the opinion not only outside of the country but also of a sizeable majority of Americans as well.

Meanwhile, the planet is in the grips of accelerating change. The new emerging countries, in particular the so-called BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) represent uncontrollable forces in the context of the international order, which rapidly shifted from bi-polar to uni-polar and is now on the way to a multi-polar arrangement.

This is the reality that the West must now accept if it wants to contribute to the establishment of a new global order. To achieve this, there must first be a restructuring of the UN to make it more democratic and more capable of intervening to address the major challenges facing humanity: addressing threats to the health of the planet, the eradication of poverty, fighting organised crime at the global level, regulating and guiding globalisation, and in general bringing about a system marked by greater justice, equality, and solidarity such that the future is more human and less fraught with conflict. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Mario Soares and - -
LISBON, Jul 9 2007 (IPS)

The European Council met recently in Brussels to restart the European Union process, but the meeting was far from a success, writes Mario Soares, ex-president and ex-prime minister of Portugal. For a start, Soares writes in this analysis, they are putting into effect the previous treaties (which the Constitutional Treaty should replace) and two clauses that significantly alter the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which will now be called the Treaty on the Operation of the Union. The word \’\’constitution\’\’ is now taboo and has been flatly banished from the two texts as if a curse. It is indefensible that European governments, out of fear and shallowness, are opposed to assuming a European identity. Federalism, as understood in the old Constitutional Plan, simply disappears. If this is the case, how will it be possible to stimulate and develop a real European citizenship? The gap between European citizens and institutions has broadened considerably. This is a dramatic shift the negative consequences of which will be felt very soon. Meanwhile all the European states know –however much they may deny it– that by themselves, whoever they are, including the largest, like Germany, they have neither the influence nor the size to compete successfully in today\’s globalised world. The European Political Union (with Turkey, of course) is indispensable and represents the most original and promising political project of the 20th century for the 21st century, and one day it will eclipse short-sighted nationalist egoism and win over certain European politicians.

But was it really the success proclaimed by the political marketing blitz that regularly crowns European meetings?

I fear it wasn’t, from what I understood from a careful reading of the ”Mandate Plan of the Intergovernmental Conference”. The Reform Treaty, as it is now called, is not a mini-accord and has not been simplified, as French President Sarkozy claims. It is very long and very complex.

For a start, they are putting into effect the previous treaties (which the Constitutional Treaty should replace) and two clauses that significantly alter the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which will now be called the Treaty on the Operation of the Union. Add to this the fact that neither the EU Treaty nor the Treaty on the Operation of the EU is constitutional in nature. The word ”constitution” is now taboo and has been flatly banished from the two texts as if a curse. Moreover, the designation Minister of Foreign Affairs will be changed to EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Apparently the word “minister” carries the connotation of government and state, terms that are also taboo for the Union. The same is happening with the terms law and framework law, which will be renamed regulation, directive, and decision. All are glaring examples of opportunistic political dodging and reveal a lack of any vision of the future.

At this point — and we are only at the beginning of the ”Mandate Project”– interested readers will already be confused and bored. What will happen to regular European citizens who honestly want to understand the laws underpinning this Europe that they live and believe in?

It should be recognised that changes in terminology are in no way innocent. Quite to the contrary, they are the most overt expression of Euro-sceptic and anti-EU thought, which is seized with horror at the thought of a Political and Social Europe, and sees the Union exclusively as a vast area of free exchange, a market, with a strict financial policy and poorly co-ordinated economic, social, and fiscal policies. How far we are from the “Europe of Citizens”!

The text of the Mandate, as I read it, represents a capable exercise in political hypocrisy and constitutes a grave capitulation to British Euro-scepticism, allowing for the disappearance of the Union’s symbols (the flag, hymn, motto, etc.) when it is clear that these symbols are essential manifestations of identity. Those “in the know” however, wink to us and say, ”Don’t worry, 80 percent of the content is the same.” In truth, this was never written and nor is it true.

What is indefensible is that European governments, out of fear and shallowness, are opposed to assuming a European identity. Federalism, as understood in the old Constitutional Plan, simply disappears. If this is the case, how will it be possible to stimulate and develop a real European citizenship? The gap between European citizens and institutions has broadened considerably. This is a dramatic shift the negative consequences of which will be felt very soon. Wait and see.

How then can the EU forge a global role in the international arena –which is so important for the world– when the powers of the nation states are being knowingly strengthened (and it is those nation states that find it increasingly difficult to establish consensus) and when the competencies of the Union are being blurred as it becomes an ambiguous and diffuse entity which fears stating what it is and where it is going. Is all this a new form of the ”political transparency” that so many European leaders have been calling for ?

Meanwhile all the European states know –however much they may deny it– that by themselves, whoever they are, including the largest, like Germany, they have neither the influence nor the size to compete successfully in today’s globalised world.

In reality what happened at the Brussels summit was that two member states blocked the necessary movement forward of the EU project: the UK (which, as is well known, never wanted it) and Poland (for reasons of circumstance, though using an unacceptable justification). While they certainly have the right to say what they want and to be respected, blocking the progress of the rest of the nations is unacceptable. This is the real issue.

The Franco-German engine – which it is said has been restarted, and let us hope that is the case– decided to give in to British pressure though 18 states (out of 27) had already ratified the Constitutional Treaty and a few others -including Ireland and Portugal- were inclined to do so. The question is: does it make sense that two countries are blocking the progress that 20, or even 25, others support, whether enthusiastically or not.

Jacques Delors, twice president of the European Commission, wrote in the Nouvel Observateur that ”Europe has always progressed in this manner, two steps forward and one step back.” But I fear that this time the two steps forward are less substantial, and less politically important, than the huge step backward that was taken in Brussels. However, and I say this as a convinced Europeanist, let’s give it time.

The European Political Union (with Turkey, of course) is indispensable. It represents the most original and promising political project of the 20th century for the 21st century, and one day it will eclipse short-sighted nationalist egoism and win over certain European politicians. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Mario Soares and - -
LISBON, May 9 2007 (IPS)

Two years after the formation of the socialist government headed by Jose Socrates, Portugal is on the verge of overcoming the financial crisis that has beset it for six years — and as a result, the right-wing opposition –divided and without a leader– is furiously attacking both the government and the Socialist Party (PS), writes Mario Soares, ex-president and ex-prime minister of Portugal. In this article, Soares writes that the opposition fears that having successfully completed the unpopular but necessary task of cutting the budget deficit, the Socrates administration would move ahead with its programme of major progressive reforms designed to reduce the social inequalities that shame us and call attention to the social role of the state. Socrates passed reforms to simplify the bureaucracy and imposed profound changes in social security, health care, education, and justice. And he turned around the negative growth trend: in 2003, the last year of the conservative government that preceded Socrates\’, the economy shrank by 0.5 percent. Currently it is growing at 1.3 percent.

The opposition fears that having successfully completed the unpopular but necessary task of cutting the budget deficit, the government of Prime Minister Socrates would move ahead with its programme of major progressive reforms designed to reduce the social inequalities that shame us and call attention to the social role of the state.

The results of the Socrates administration’s financial housekeeping are already visible: in the last two years it has cut the deficit from 6.8 to 3.9 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) with a drastic restructuring of the public sector, in particular by holding down wages and eliminating privileges.

Socrates passed reforms to simplify the bureaucracy (in particular, the process of establishing a business, purchasing a house, and obtaining documents). He imposed profound changes in the social security system, health care, education, and justice. And he turned around the negative growth trend: in 2003, the last year of the conservative government that preceded Socrates’, the economy shrank by 0.5 percent. Currently it is growing at 1.3 percent.

Of course this isn’t the first crisis that the Portuguese Socialist Party (PS) has faced. It was founded in 1973 in the years of the Salazar dictatorship, which was ended by the Carnation Revolution of April 25, 1974. During the first month after the dictatorship was brought down, 100,000 people joined the PS, the party that went on to forge the Republic and that generated the force that contributed most to the equilibrium and moderation of the new democratic system.

Thus the PS developed the image among the Portuguese of being a party of the left, socialdemocratic, western –it was born at the height of the Cold War– pluralist, tolerant, and respectful of human rights and the rule of law that we wanted to establish –and did– once the 1976 Constitution was ratified.

Notwithstanding the respect that the captains of the April revolution deserve from us, the PS has always been a civilian party, opposed to anarcho-populist or totalitarian adventurism which became a serious threat in 1975. It was also always a party of socialism in freedom, as they said then, adept at the workings of market economy though subject to ethical and juridical rules that would reduce the inequalities that the market inevitably generates when left to its own devices.

The PS was always an open and plural party that spanned a vast range of ideological approaches. However, all elements came together during the conflicts of the ”hot summer” of 1975 and then with the responsibilities imposed once we took power in July 1976 under very difficult conditions. Because of this we were able in successive governments to resolve problems inherited from the past and weather structural crises, some of which –like this one– are extremely serious.

The PS became a political force that was essentially national and popular and well-rooted throughout the country; it deserved the vote of the responsible left and often of the centrists, as well as well-meaning people without clear party affiliation.

This explains what happened in the last legislative elections of February 2005 when the general secretary of the PS, Jose Socrates, lead the party to an absolute majority in parliament with 121 of 230 deputies, winning 45.03 percent of the vote. This gave the government the tools it needed to overcome the financial crisis and to open up the horizons of progress and sustainable development for Portugal in an international scene of great complexity, uncertainty, and insecurity. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Mario Soares and - -
LISBON, Apr 6 2007 (IPS)

On July 1, Portugal will for the third time assume the presidency of the European Union at a time of considerable confusion and uncertainty for the European project as well as a time of major world crisis, writes Mario Soares, ex-president and ex-prime minister of Portugal. In this article Soares argues that those member states that do not want to go further can stay as they are, but they should not keep others who want to move forward from doing so. This was the solution applied regarding the adoption of the euro and the Schengen Treaty. We could also create forms of reinforced co-operation or return to the theory of concentric circles that Mitterand spoke of and that now excites the Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt. What we cannot allow to happen is a prolongation of the institutional paralysis that has persisted for two years now and that threatens to break apart the union and rob it of its power of attraction. Europe together with US democrats should intervene to extract the West from the major impasse it was led into by the blindness of the neo-conservatives –Jewish and Evangelical– that are behind Bush. This must be done by the end of 2007, since 2008 is the year of the next US presidential election. This is the right moment for a small country like Portugal, during its EU presidency, with common sense, political courage, and the help of its allies, to play a historic role.

Portugal is a nation state with a strong national identity and a reasonable degree of social cohesion, which it is trying to strengthen. It also has a deep-rooted Europeanist political, social, cultural, and business consensus that preceded its membership in the European Economic Community (now the European Union) more than twenty years ago. The Portuguese people are fully aware of what they have gained from joining the Union and what is due to the Union’s support.

The Portuguese presidency falls in a period of considerable confusion and uncertainty for the European project as well as a time of major world crisis. Unfortunately for the first half of this year this position is held by Germany, where there is a major national consensus on advancing the EU. Chancellor Angela Merkel, a committed Europeanist who follows in the footsteps of her illustrious predecessor Helmut Kohl, has already placed on her agenda two of the basic problems that have blocked any forward motion of the European project: first, renewing the strategic global US-EU relationship at a time when the US for the first time seriously needs the help of Europe to overcome its disastrous policies in every area in which the Bush administration has committed not only its country but also the entire West.

Second, an EU with 27 member states cannot be governed without clear juridical-institutional rules that enable it to make decisions rapidly and speak with a single voice to the rest of the world. This is especially important given that the Union is one of the most important and creative economic, technological, cultural, and environmental zones of the planet. A revised or reformulated constitution would not resolve everything, but it would represent a necessary leap forward. There are certain more reticent members of the Union, like the United Kingdon, and others that for particular political reasons or an inability to adapt are not ready for such a leap.

Thus there is only one solution, which we cannot renounce: those member states that do not want to go further can stay as they are, but they should not keep others who want to move forward from doing so. This was the solution applied regarding the adoption of the euro and the Schengen Treaty. We could also create forms of reinforced co-operation or return to the theory of concentric circles that Mitterand spoke of and that now excites the Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt. What we cannot allow to happen is a prolongation of the institutional paralysis that has persisted for two years now and that threatens to break apart the union and rob it of its power of attraction.

I hope that in the remaining months of the German presidency these issues can be worked out. France’s May elections will be decisive in this regard; Blair’s exit in the UK, on the other hand, will change little, while the crisis of Romano Prodi’s government in Italy has blown over. In the hour of truth I hope there will be more than twenty member states ready to advance towards a real political, economic,social, and environmental union – with, I hope, both political will and a minimum of courage.

On the other hand, if there is to be progress in firming up the Euro-American (or Atlantic) relationship, there must be a radical change in the policies coming out of Washington. The Bush administration has gone as far as it could. Its unilateral imperialism has been a colossal disaster. Neoliberal globalisation was another.

Generalised poverty is the reverse of globalisation, which is responsible for an international crime wave of unprecedented proportions which included a nuclear contraband market, the trafficking in human organs, and the establishment of a parallel economy that is a tenth as large as world GDP, according to Moises Naim, author of ….?????

The elites, first, and later the more lucid segments of US public opinion saw the errors in the policies of Bush, Blair, Aznar, and their followers in economics, the environment, global geo-strategic concepts, and the fight against Islamic terrorism, which it waged entirely with brute force and arrogant unilateralism.

But Bush still has a year and a half left in office despite the fact he has lost both political and moral legitimacy. What can be done? Moreover, how can the US exit Iraq and Afghanistan and promote a new peace effort between Israel and the Palestinians? And how can it respond to the escalation of tensions with Iran without attacking it — which would be a colossal catastrophe with vast and unforseeable consequences– and without agreeing to the intercession of Israel.

This is where a creative Europe together with US democrats should intervene. What is needed is a way to extract the West from the major impasse it was led into by the blindness of the neo-conservatives –Jewish and Evangelical– that are behind Bush. This must be done by the end of 2007, since 2008 is the year of the next US presidential election. This is the right moment for a small country like Portugal, during its EU presidency, with common sense, political courage, and the help of its allies, to play a historic role. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Mario Soares and - -
LISBOA, Mar 3 2007 (IPS)

\’\’Will there continue to be just one superpower?\’\’, asks Mario Soares, ex-president and ex-prime minister of Portugal. In this article, Soares writes that September 11 showed the world the vulnerability of the US \’\’empire\’\’ in an absolutely unforeseeable way. Is the US about to attack Iran, albeit through its proxy Israel? In the UN Security Council a \’\’No\’\’ front has emerged, spurred on by Russia and China. Russian president Vladimir Putin allows himself to openly criticise Bush\’s policy, choosing to do so in the German city of Munich for the greatest resonance. China, as usual, continues to advance its expansionist policy, with such vast foreign reserves in US Treasury bonds –and dollars– that it could at any moment wreak havoc on the US economy. The various countries of Latin America –from the most radical to the reformists, and including pseudo-allies like Colombia– are in the process of gradually escaping, for the first time, from the control of their giant cousin to the North.

Before September 11, 2001, barely six years ago, no one would have had the slightest hesitation about answering ”Yes.” The US had won the Cold War. It was an unrivalled military superpower. It had economic and technological power without peer in the world. Then, unexpectedly, September 11 showed the world the vulnerability of the ”empire” in an absolutely unforeseeable way.

Few at the time saw that the world was on the point of entering a new era. All members of the UN Security Council hurried to unanimously declare their solidarity with the United States, as did its European allies, the majority of Arab states, and the most important countries of the five continents. It was an enormous mine of political capital for the US, which, however, Washington squandered in record time.

In effect, the Bush administration’s strategy to address terrorism threw it all away, as we can clearly see today. The causes were US arrogance and its rush to vengeance that it plunged into without reflection, going to the extreme of ignoring even the UN. Two subsequent moves have since proven to be absolutely disastrous to both global and US opinion and required foreign ministries to reassess their global strategies. The first was its use of NATO, which went from being a defensive organisation created to contain the Soviet ”enemy” to simply being Washington’s ”adjunct army”, attacking Afghanistan in order to find Osama Bin Laden, who, moreover, remains free, active, and unharmed. The second was the invasion of Iraq on the false pretext of having found weapons of mass destruction.

The ”quagmire” that Iraq was soon transformed into –along with the rest of the Middle East–, the emergence of Iran as a regional power on its way to obtaining nuclear arms, the defeat of Israel in Lebanon in a useless and disastrous war of aggression, the deepening of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — all explain, for to most part, the results of the recent US elections, which were catastrophic for Bush. The universal discrediting of the Bush administration –which lost all moral authority as a result of its disregard for international law and human rights, as seen primarily in its treatment of ”terrorism suspects” in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, and above all the global disorder in which the world now finds itself with the clear impotence of the American superpower, did the rest.

When even Tony Blair, the most loyal of Bush’s allies, feels obligated to announce the withdrawal of his country’s troops from Iraq before stepping off the political stage, even recognising that he was the victim of deception, the scale of the disaster of Bush’s policies comes into a sharp focus. Then there is the critical economic state the US now finds itself in, with rising social tensions and inflation creeping to worrisome levels, all in the larger context of a globalisation that is generating terrible inequality and a flourishing of international organised crime, which reaches from ”nuclear contraband to the slave trade”, as Moises Naim, ex-executive director of the World Bank, writes in Illicit, his last book. To this add the already quite audible discontent of the military hierarchies.

Is the US about to attack Iran, albeit through its proxy Israel? In the UN Security Council a ”No” front has emerged, spurred on by Russia and China. Russian president Vladimir Putin allows himself to openly criticise Bush’s policy, choosing to do so in the German city of Munich for the greatest resonance. China, as usual, continues to advance its expansionist policy, with such vast foreign reserves in US Treasury bonds –and dollars– that it could at any moment wreak havoc on the US economy. The various countries of Latin America –from the most radical to the reformists, and including pseudo-allies like Colombia– are in the process of gradually escaping, for the first time, from the control of their giant cousin to the North.

The European Union, slow to react, is incapable, for the moment, of charting an autonomous foreign policy and speaking with one voice. However, it remains the only zone of global development able to seriously help the US exit the dead end in which it has found itself trapped. It is time to reformulate a new global strategy, open to all horizons. Once Bush disappears, naturally. But time is pressing, and this is the main difficulty. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Mario Soares and - -
LISBON, Feb 2 2007 (IPS)

The world remains dangerous and exasperating in this first phase of 2007. Violence in its many manifestations continues to dominate daily life on every continent, as consumerism, even in extremely poor and disadvantaged countries, is expanding, and with it irresponsibility, the loss of values, corruption at every level, and a mode of life in the mere present, without reference to the past or a path forward into the future, writes Mario Soares, ex-president and ex-prime minister of Portugal. In this analysis Soares writes that global public opinion, the universal awareness of the threats that hang over our planet, and the international disorder that has taken root and proliferated before our very eyes, are beginning to seriously worry the people on every continent. The war in Iraq, which sharply divided the conscience of the world, finally dealt an irreversible shock to US public opinion. President Bush, now on the defensive on the domestic front, seems intent on driving forward with the war in Iraq and hopes to send more troops. Nothing has changed in his belligerent stance towards Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is to be hoped that the US Congress, responsive to American opinion, will be able to block his plans and set out a new foreign policy to restore the lost credibility of the US in the world.

There are those who argue that we are undergoing a crisis of civilisation, a process of change that comes at the end of a historic phase. This is true of the West, obviously, but the rest of the world as well, including Russia, neighbour of the European Union, which seems to have entered, as if in some historic flash back, the rule of the Borgias as in its major cities the financial mafias flaunt their wealth.

However, at the same time the will of the citizens is strengthening. In China massive progress is being made despite the existence of a growing plutocracy which co-exists albeit fitfully with a rigidly hierarchical bureaucracy which dominates the party and the state. In India, while everything seems to be flowing magnificently on the technical, scientific, and development planes for a sliver of the population, the majority, locked into castes, remain without access to progress or knowledge.

In the rest of the world, poverty and inequality remain the primary burdens and are not diminishing despite the commitments made in 2000 by the leaders and heads of state of over 150 countries to work towards the generous objectives of the Millennium Development Goals, defined by the United Nations. Unfortunately this effort seems to have had a negligeable effect, as so little has been done to achieve the goals.

Then there is the Middle East, which is dominated by chaos, war, the threat of war, hopelessness, and humiliation.

Globalisation, which has proved to be an excellent deal for the rich, as noted by Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz, has brought little improvement to the condition of the poor. Instead, what we are seeing in the short term are confusion, vague promises that no one with a modicum of common sense believes, and despair of a better future.

Yet beneath the blanket of pessimism something is beginning to stir. Global public opinion –now a reality that must be reckoned with by the powers that be–, the universal awareness of the threats that hang over our planet, and the international disorder that has taken root and proliferated before our very eyes, are beginning to seriously worry the people on every continent.

The war in Iraq, which sharply divided the conscience of the world, finally dealt an irreversible shock to US public opinion. President Bush, now on the defensive on the domestic front –having made significant concessions regarding social and ecological matters– seems intent on driving forward with the war in Iraq and hopes to send more troops.

Nothing has changed in his belligerent stance towards Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is to be hoped that the US Congress, responsive to American opinion, will be able to block his plans and set out a new foreign policy to restore the lost credibility of the US in the world.

The psychological shock from the disaster of the ”war” in Iraq and the disastrous way the fight against terrorism has been waged in general seems to have reached the European Union, accused by public opinion of intolerable paralysis and omission. German chancellor Angela Merkel, since her country assumed EU presidency, has given signals that she wants to react. To this end she has restored to the European agenda the Constitutional Treaty, which some hurriedly pronounced dead and buried, showing that without serious institutional reform, including increasing the financial resources of the community, the government of a Europe of 27 will be impossible. More democracy –and more participation– are what the EU needs. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Mario Soares and - -
LISBON, Dec 12 2006 (IPS)

The scourge of global terrorism is calling into question what remains of the world order, writes Mario Soares, ex-president and ex-prime minister of Portugal. In this article, Soares writes that because of its unpredictability, no one knows when or where it will strike next. The fight against terrorism is therefore a moral and ethical imperative of the first order and must not be neglected by responsible governments. The fight against terrorism must not be seen as a \’\’war\’\’ –and certainly not a \’\’preventive war– between the West and Islam. Because the simplification of the concepts of West and Islam is reductive, dangerous, and ultimately false to the extent that it fails to take into account the complexity of the values they represent, it induces us to commit gross errors (many have already occurred) and would gradually drag us unwittingly into a religious war, which would be a colossal setback for civilization and the worst possible outcome.

But it cannot be a blind assault that risks punishing innocent populations or imposing excessive security measures that threaten the rights of citizens, human rights, and international law. Such an approach would jeopardise the essential values that underlie our democratic societies and give them political credibility and moral authority. Indeed, it would mean following the lead of terrorism, despite ourselves.

The fight against terrorism must not be seen as a ”war” –and certainly not a ”preventive war– between the West and Islam. Because the simplification of the concepts of West and Islam is reductive, dangerous, and ultimately false to the extent that it fails to take into account the complexity of the values they represent, it induces us to commit gross errors (many have already occurred) and to gradually drag us unwittingly into a religious war, which would be a colossal setback for civilization and the worst possible outcome.

It is possible that certain values of the so-called West are not as universal as they were thought to be at the end of the last century, after the collapse of the communist universe. Despite everything, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, unanimously approved by the United Nations in 1948 and complemented by various charters of rights in the following decades, still represents the greatest juridical and political contribution to what Leopold Senghor called the ”civilisation of the universal”.

The complexity of Islam, its exceptional history and civilisation, which made many extremely valuable contributions to the West before and after the moment of convergence and unique dialogue of Al-Andalus, as well as the irreducible variety of its different religious currents, should lead us to not confuse Islam with global fundamentalism or even with the so-called ”moderate” Arab governments, which, though apparently docile in relation to the West, remain ferocious dictatorships or unacceptable theocracies. Moreover, global fundamentalism is not unique to Islam. Christian, Jewish, and Hindu fundamentalism –to name a few– have all produced considerable levels of violence, some more, some less.

Global fundamentalism does not have exclusively religious roots but also geopolitical and sociological ones that are related to underdevelopment, massive unemployment, hunger, a culture of violence transmitted daily through TV screens, international organised crime, and the spectacular humiliation inflicted by the dizzying financial capitalism of the world’s fiscal paradises.

On the other hand, the West is neither homogeneous nor a coherent whole. The hegemony of the United States –the self-proclaimed benign empire– under the Bush administration, is rocketing towards a political, economic, and sociological disaster of unimaginable proportions. The European Union, incapable of defining for itself an autonomous position with respect to the US, lacks leadership with moral authority and a true political dimension. Latin America, the third pole of the West, is undergoing an accelerating transformation, undecided between populist radicalism (mixed or indigenous) and a moderate reformism of more or less socialdemocratic nature. We can only hope they will be able to understand each other.

But the world is far larger that the West and Islam, and it finds itself undergoing rapid change. The so-called emerging nations –China, India, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia– are waiting for the exact moment that will provide the best opportunities for advancement. This is natural.

Only deep reform of the United Nations that can help bring about a realignment of the world would be capable of successfully addressing the great global challenges: peace, the elimination of terrorism, the eradication of poverty, global environmental threats, and the establishment of new world order that grants all peoples of the earth greater equality, freedom, and solidarity and brings about a more just and human world. Anything else would be mere rhetoric destined to oblivion the very moment it was articulated in speeches. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Mario Soares and - -
LISBON, May 1 2005 (IPS)

A \”No\” vote on the EU Constitution would not be a mere pause in the path forward but a giant step backwards, desired only by those who always wanted a Europe that was no more than a free-trade area, writes Mario Soares, President of Portugal from 1986-1996. In this article, Soares argues that rejection would introduce a tremendous risk of disintegration and spell the end of a political, social, and environmentally-committed Europe. Worse, it would mean the rejection of the EU as a \’\’global power\’\’, a counterweight in European-US relations able to resist efforts at imperial hegemony by forces that consider the UN just a stumbling block. The hawks who advise George W. Bush would certainly be pleased by a \”No\” win. The \”No\” forces, in France and elsewhere, are a contradictory mix. Many are inspired by nationalistic notions. There are leftists and communists guided by immediate and ideological criteria. Then there are the neo-conservatives, ultraconservatives, economic neo-liberals, and religious fanatics. And among the French socialists, who are divided on the constitution, the group headed by ex-prime minister Laurent Fabius is for a \”No\” vote with the idea of using the referendum as a means of protesting the centre-right government of Jacques Chirac. All are partisans of the notion that \”the worse things are, the better they are\”, which historically has tended to backfire on those who live by it.

Politicians come and go; ideas, and their orientations, last. Politicians cannot avoid the crucial issues they are asked to address.

Faced with a choice between rejecting and approving the European Constitution, I do not want to believe that European politicians, whatever their nationality, are not aware that the domestic affairs within their respective countries –however valid they may be in the short term– cannot be allowed to affect a decision that is fundamental to the Old Continent and its role in the world. For this reason I trust that the Europeans, in the hour of truth, will vote “Yes” for the referendum on the Constitution, including the French, who according to the most recent polls, are leaning towards approval by a slight margin.

The draft that was approved by the European Council is not perfect. But constitutions never are, and this represents a possible compromise that is acceptable enough to the broad range of political-ideological forces that want to advance the EU project. The saying comes to mind: the best is the enemy of the good. We know that the European project was begun more than a half century ago in keeping with Jean Monnet’s method of taking one small step at a time, adopted by two of the major European powers -the socialists and the Christian democrats. Wisely proceeding in this way, the focus was to overcome differences through negotiations intended to set aside secondary matters to benefit the essential.

Today for Europeans what is essential is that continental integration continues on its course. This consists of nothing less than the most original political process of the 20th century, which moved forward thanks to the voluntary association of states that were previously rivals and were now willing to share certain aspects of their respective sovereignty in favour of the peace and well-being of their citizens, with the goal of constructing a non- exclusive model of development, with a social, cultural, and political dimension.

A “No” vote on the EU Constitution would introduce a tremendous risk of disintegration. It would not be a mere pause in the path forward but a giant step backwards, which would be desired only by those who always wanted a Europe that was merely a free-trade area, a single, broadened and competitive market but nothing more.

A “No” would be the end of a political, social, and environmentally-committed Europe. Worse, it would mean the rejection of the European Union as a ”global power”, a counterweight in European-US relations that is able to resist efforts at imperial hegemony by forces that consider the United Nations to be just a stumbling block. The hawks who advise George W. Bush would certainly be pleased by a “No” result.

It is important to recognise that the European Union, in this beginning of the millennium, has not been up to its responsibilities. It has practised a sort of “follow the leader” with the United States that has bordered at times on servility. Many European politicians have displayed a tendency to conform to old routines without seeing that the world is changing with unprecedented velocity and that formerly minor contradictions are now deepening and forcing the EU to adopt an strategy to gain autonomy and avail itself of the means to consolidate it.

The left, in particular, must see this. Because in this era of neo- liberal globalisation, with the right stronger and more arrogant since the fall of the Soviet empire, while certain super-countries are emerging, I do not see how the left can gain from weakening the European project which, whatever its contradictions, remains the major source of hope and balance for today’s world, sombre and lacking in points of reference.

The “No” forces, in France and elsewhere, are a contradictory mix. Many are inspired by nationalistic notions. There are leftists and communists guided by immediate and ideological criteria. The communists were always against a “Europe of monopolies” but never failed to take advantage of its progress. Then there are the neo- conservatives, ultraconservatives, economic neo-liberals, and religious fanatics. And among the French socialists, who are divided on the constitution, the group headed by ex-prime minister Laurent Fabius is for a “No” vote with the idea of using the referendum as a means of protesting the centre-right government of Jacques Chirac.

All of the above, some with more good faith than others, are partisans of the notion that “the worse things are, the better they are”, which historically has tended to backfire on those who live by it. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt: