‘Economia norte-americana perdeu 598.000 empregos em Janeiro‘ in Financial Times, 6 de Fevereiro de 2009

The US economy lost more than half a million jobs in January for the third month running, figures showed on Friday, marking the deepest cut in 34 years.

The number of jobs lost last month reached 598,000, while the unemployment rate – 4.4 per cent before the credit crisis – jumped to 7.6 per cent in January, its highest level since 1992.

Economists had expected non-farm payrolls to drop by 525,000 and the unemployment rate to rise to 7.5 per cent, up from 7.2 per cent the month before. The total number of job losses since the recession began in December 2007 has now reached 3.6m, with half of this decline occurring during the last three months, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Friday’s results raised the sense of urgency for the US government to pass a stimulus package. Christina Romer, chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, said that without fiscal action the US economy could lose millions more jobs and the unemployment rate could reach double digits.

“The situation could not be more serious,” President Barack Obama said on Friday, pushing Congress to pass a proposed economic recovery package. “These numbers demand action.”

The data did little to dent risk appetite in global equity markets, however, as investors continued to focus on the US government’s plans for further intervention in the financial system. US stock futures and European markets remained in positive territory.

The dollar consolidated its gains against the yen, rising 0.6 per cent to Y91.66, and edged 0.1 per cent higher to SFr1.1718 against the Swiss franc but was little changed against the euro at $1.2796.

The yield on the two-year Treasury note was little changed at 0.9 per cent while the yield on the 10-year Treasury note was 3 basis points higher at 2.943 per cent.

”These employment numbers are dreadful, but does it matter?” said Alan Ruskin, senior analyst at RBS’s global banking and markets division. “Not for the market today. All the prior labour market indicators, notably the claims data, gave a feeling of foreboding before these numbers. The data broadly delivered.”

Few industries were spared from losses last month. The manufacturing sector lost 207,000 jobs, a 1.6 per cent drop and the biggest monthly decline since October 1982. Construction shed 111,000 jobs, the retail sector lost 45,000 and 42,000 jobs in financial services disappeared. The healthcare and private education sectors added jobs in the month.

“Another horrific report, showing job losses across the economy,” said Ian Sheperdson, chief US economist at High Frequency Economics.

A bright note was that hourly earnings rose 0.3 per cent in January and are up 3.9 per cent on the year. However, few economists expect this to last.

“With demand for labour evaporating, wage increases of this magnitude will be history very soon,” noted Joshua Shapiro, chief US economist at MFR.

Unemployment has risen by more than a full percentage point since September, when the crisis intensified with the collapse of Lehman Brothers. There was also a further rise in the number of discouraged workers no longer actively seeking employment. According to economists at RDQ Economics, adjusting for those who would like a job but are not looking, the unemployment rate is 10.8 per cent.

Earlier this week the monthly survey from ADP Employer Services, which tracks private non-farm payroll employment, showed further deterioration in the labour market. That result was better than economists expected and followed a more dire December report estimating 659,000 jobs lost after a revision.

The labour department also revealed on Thursday that the number of US workers claiming unemployment benefits for the first time surpassed 600,000 last week, reaching a new 26-year high. Initial jobless claims reached 626,000 in the week ending January 31, up from 591,000 the week before, pointing to further job losses in February.

Last month was marked by broad cuts from corporate bellwethers in the US and Europe, culminating on January 26 when companies slashed more than 76,000 jobs from their payrolls to confront the deepening economic downturn. The day was one of the most brutal yet for workers on both sides of the Atlantic.

US corporate groups such as Caterpillar, General Motors, Sprint Nextel and Home Depot led the retreat, as the domestic recession coupled with tough export markets continued to take a heavy toll on their businesses. Pfizer, the drugs group, added to the tally, saying jobs would be lost in its takeover of Wyeth.

Retailers have also been hit particularly hard this year, announcing several thousand job cuts, including 1,100 jobs at Saks and 7,000 at Macy’s. Most have also indicated that they are sharply reducing inventory levels.

Last week government figures showed that the US economy contracted by an annualised 3.8 per cent in the final quarter of 2008. It was a much smaller percentage than expected but still its worst performance since 1982.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/34d6448a-f44d-11dd-8e76-0000779fd2ac.html
JPTF 2009/02/06

Espanha: ‘cerca de 200.000 novos desempregados em Janeiro‘ in el Economista.es, 3 de Fevereiro de 2009

El número de parados registrados en las oficinas del Instituto Nacional de Empleo (Inem) traspasó en enero la cota de los 3,3 millones de desempleados, tras sumar 198.838 parados más respecto a diciembre (+6,35%), en lo que es la mayor subida en un mes de toda la serie histórica. El sector industrial y los servicios registraron las mayores subidas de desempleo en el primer mes del año.

Según ha informado hoy el Ministerio de Trabajo e Inmigración, en concreto, el volumen total de parados alcanzó a cierre del pasado mes la cifra de 3.327.801 desempleados, su nivel más alto en toda la serie histórica comparable, que arranca en 1996. El incremento mensual, cercano a los 199.000 parados, supone también el mayor en 13 años. Sólo en octubre de 2008 se registró una subida cercana a esta cifra (192.658 parados).

El mercado esperaba unas cifras aún peores para enero. Los analistas consultados por Bloomberg habían estimado que el desempleo subiera en 244.800 personas en el primer mes del año.

Diez meses de subidas
Este aumento del paro en enero supone la décima subida mensual consecutiva del desempleo y es superior a la registrada en igual del mes año pasado, cuando el paro se incrementó en 132.378 personas. En el último año, un total de 1.065.876 personas han pasado a engrosar las listas del desempleo, lo que representa un crecimiento interanual del 47,1%.

La secretaria general de Empleo, Maravillas Rojo, afirmó en un comunicado que la crisis financiera internacional, la falta de liquidez y la caída del consumo son los causantes del estancamiento de la economía y del repunte del paro, y subrayó en que a medida que estos factores se vayan corrigiendo, el impacto sobre el empleo y el paro irá cambiando a mejor.

Por sexos y sectores
El paro subió en enero en ambos sexos, aunque a diferencia de meses anteriores se incrementó en mayor medida entre las mujeres. Así, el desempleo masculino aumentó en 96.768 nuevos parados (+6,1%) respecto a diciembre, frente a un incremento del desempleo femenino de 102.070 mujeres (+6,6%).

También se registraron alzas del paro en todos los sectores económicos, aunque fueron los servicios y la industria los que se llevaron la peor parte, al ganar 136.610 y 31.276 parados más, respectivamente, con incrementos relativos del 7,7% y del 7,8%.

En cuanto a la contratación, en enero se registraron en el Inem un total de 1.125.773 contratos, un 28,8% menos que en igual mes de 2008. La contratación fija ascendió el mes pasado a 119.201 contratos, el 10,6% del total, con un descenso del 39,4% en tasa interanual.

http://www.eleconomista.es/economia/noticias/1009773/02/09/El-paro-supera-ya-los-33-millones-una-subida-historica-de-198838-desempleados-en-enero.html

JPTF 2009/02/03

França: ‘Apelo à greve ilimitada nas universidades‘ in Le Figaro, 3 de Fevereiro de 2009

Fait inhabituel, la grève dans les universités est initiée cette fois-ci par des enseignants-chercheurs. La coordination nationale des universités, qui affirme regrouper 74 universités, écoles et instituts, a appelé lundi à une grève illimitée dans toutes facultés, ainsi qu'à une journée de manifestations en France jeudi 5 février et à une manifestation nationale à Paris le mardi 10. Objectif : obtenir le retrait d'un décret réformant le statut des enseignants-chercheurs, transmis vendredi au Conseil d'Etat, et obtenir le retrait de la réforme sur la formation des enseignants.

Toutefois, «il ne s'agira pas forcément de facs mortes partout», a souligné Sarah Hatchouel, professeur d'anglais à l'université du Havre et membre du comité d'organisation de la coordination, en précisant que chaque université pouvait décider de son moyen d'action au niveau local.

La coordination appelle également à une «cérémonie nationale de non remise des maquettes des masters le vendredi 13 devant le ministère et les rectorats», en référence aux nouveaux masters que devront suivre les étudiants se préparant à l'enseignement, selon la réforme prévue par le gouvernement. La coordination «encourage» enfin les enseignants «à faire cours en dehors des cadres habituels» et les syndicats à «faire le lien avec le primaire et le secondaire».

La grève a déjà commencé lundi dans certaines universités, à l'appel de syndicats et d'associations de droite (AutonomeSup, Défense de l'université) comme de gauche (Snesup). «Au moins 45% des activités d'enseignement» étaient touchées par des grèves d'enseignants-chercheurs, selon le Snesup-FSU, premier syndicat du supérieur. «Il y a eu des perturbations limitées et sporadiques: dans certaines universités, pas de cours et rétention de notes», précise pour sa part le ministère de l'Enseignement supérieur. Parmi les grévistes, les professeurs de l'Institut d'études politique d'Aix en Provence, une première dans l'histoire de cet établissement créé en 1956.

C'est la modification du décret de 1984 sur le statut des enseignants-chercheurs, issue de la loi sur l'autonomie des universités (LRU), adoptée en août 2007, qui suscite le mécontentement. Les chercheurs fustigent « l'arbitraire des présidents d'université» qui ont davantage de pouvoir depuis la loi LRU, la hausse du nombre d'heures d'enseignement et l'atteinte à leur indépendance. La ministre Valérie Pécresse a cherché vendredi à les «rassurer» en apportant deux modifications à son projet, mais cela n'a convaincu les syndicats.

L'avenir du mouvement dépendra peut-être des étudiants, dans une période où les examens s'achèvent et où il n'y a pas cours en raison du passage entre deux semestres. Selon le syndicat étudiant Unef, 20.000 étudiants se sont déjà réunis lundi en AG, dont 3.000 à Toulouse, 2.000 à Rennes-II ou Bordeaux-III. D'autres devraient suivre dans la semaine. L'Unef compte faire soit du 5, soit du 10 février, une journée de mobilisation étudiante, dans le but de «faire converger les étudiants et les personnels des universités».

http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2009/02/02/01016-20090202ARTFIG00567-appel-a-la-greve-illimitee-dans-les-universites-.php

JPTF 2009/02/03

Grécia: ‘Segundo dia de confontos entre agricultores e a polícia‘ in International Herald Tribune, 3 de Fevereiro de 2009

Clashes have broken out for a second straight day at Greece's largest port, near Athens, where police fired tear gas at protesting farmers.

Police blocked farmers who sailed from the island of Crete to try and stage a protest with their tractors in the Greek capital.

Tuesday's clashes occurred following nationwide protests by farmers who clogged the country's main highways to press demands for higher subsidies.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/02/03/europe/EU-Greece-Farmers-Protest.php
JPTF 2009/02/03

Reino Unido: ‘Greves podem aumentar após Mandelson chamar aos protestos xenófobos‘ in Telegraph, 2 de Fevereiro de 2009

The Business Secretary said that he had concluded there was "clearly no policy of discrimination" at the oil refinery at the centre of the disputes. However, trade unions insist that British workers are being automatically rejected when applying for work, with firms using an obscure European law to bring their own workforces to carry out work in this country.
Strike action spread on Monday with workers at two nuclear power stations and several other sites joining the unofficial action.
The dispute is also threatening to escalate into a major diplomatic incident. The Italian Government described the strikes as "indefensible". The Governor of Sicily warned that the employment of Britons on the Italian island may be threatened.
The British ambassador in Rome was sent to reassure the Italian Government that Italians would not face discrimination in this country.
The dispute is centred on a £200 million construction project at the Total oil refinery at Lindsey in north Lincolnshire. The contract was awarded to an Italian firm, IREN, which has brought a large number of Italian and Portuguese workers to Britain to complete the work. It is claimed that a British firm was initially awarded the contract but was unable to complete the work.
Lord Mandelson and Gordon Brown have seized on assurances from Total that British workers are not discriminated against. Total has also pledged to work with its contractors to ensure that Britons are employed.
The Business Secretary told the House of Lords: "On the Lindsey site, the great majority of the workers are actually British, so clearly no policy of discrimination or exclusion of British nationals is being operated at the refinery.''
He added: "Membership of the European Union, and taking advantage of the opportunities for trade presented by the EU, are firmly in the UK's national interest. Free movement of labour and the ability to work across the EU has been a condition of membership for decades."
He had earlier rebuked an interviewer asking questions about workers' concerns, saying: "Stop feeding this xenophobia."
However, the comments have been undermined by the managing director of IREN who said that he was forced to only use Italian workers for most of the contract.
Mario Saraceno said that the contract had to be finished within four months. Therefore, he said: "That's why it was absolutely necessary to send to England our specialized workers, a close-knit team that could communicate with each other without language problems, which was particularly important from a safety point of view.
"There was no time for training and so, with the agreement of the British unions, we contracted out the work [to Italians]. But we also took on 30 British workers, among them technicians and labourers."
Strike action spread to nuclear sites and power plants across Britain on Monday. More than 900 workers walked out at Sellafield. The workers, who are liaising via web sites and mobile phone text messages, are thought to be planning a co-ordinated national strike later in the week.
The issue is causing a split at the highest levels of the Labour Party. Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary and former union leader, has called for European directives to be renegotiated if necessary. It is claimed that firms are using loopholes in European law to only hire workers from certain countries. The proposal for the Government to intervene is also backed by senior Labour figures including former ministers Peter Hain and Frank Field.
Ministers are awaiting a formal report from Acas, the independent arbitration service, into the causes of the strike. Trade unions are calling for all contractors working on public infrastructure projects to sign contracts guaranteeing fair access to British workers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/4436818/Wildcat-strikes-threaten-to-escalate-after-Lord-Mandelson-calls-protests-xenophobic.html
JPTF 2009/02/02

‘ONGs em Gaza: humanitarismo versus política‘ por Hugo Slim in OpenDemocracy

The Israel-Palestine conflict is striking for the intense emotions that it generates. These encompass not just the people directly involved on both sides but outsiders, especially in the western world - from cyber-activists waging a "virtual' war in the blogosphere and comment-forums to NGOs, civil-society movements and international humanitarian agencies.

This distinguishes the Israel-Palestine conflict from most other wars around the world. The discussion of armed conflicts, famines and repression elsewhere - Darfur, northern Uganda, Zimbabwe, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Tibet, Burma, Uzbekistan, Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), among other places - seldom rouses such emotions or provokes so many people (including those from the international humanitarian and NGO community) to take to the streets.

This is worth noting because the death-toll in a number of wars around the world since the 1990s alone is much, much higher and the attitude of their belligerents to killing civilians is much, much worse than that in Israel-Palestine. International civil society cares deeply about these other vicious armed conflicts and disasters. It expends enormous effort and resources on trying to publicise them and organise aid for their victims. But the Israel-Palestine conflict, as is evident in the 2008-09 war over Gaza, seems to evoke a disproportionate degree of outrage.

Such impassioned engagement raises the important issue of the relationship between humanitarian and political action, and the question of how it is observed in practice. Many people in the humanitarian world have strong political views on this particular conflict. This can be a problem insofar as impartiality is the guiding star of practical humanitarian work. The principle of impartiality requires that all humanitarian agencies "act in proportion to need alone". They should not "see" race, colour, or politics; nor should they choose what is easiest, closest and most high-profile. They must see and act only on the basis of the greatest need.

This professional obligation is increasingly compromised by the trend for modern NGOs to bend complex political realities into a classic liberal schema of righteous victim and malevolent oppressor. This satisfying trope can then allow self-mandated civil-society groups to use their aura of humanitarian impartiality to promote a partisan attitude. NGOs tend to do this wherever they are; but some humanitarian workers find it hard to maintain standards of professional independence where the Palestinians in particular are concerned.

Taking sides

This can be illustrated from a couple of my own encounters as a former NGO worker. During the first Palestinian intifada (1987-93), I found myself becoming suspicious of some European NGO workers in East Jerusalem who refused "to go west" into the Israeli part of the city, and made a conspicuous point of boycotting Israeli goods. In a visit during the second intifada which began in 2000, I listened at a private dinner to a number of United Nations people expressing the hope that the state of Israel "would only last another fifty years at most". In other parts of the world, NGO workers often long for the end of a particular regime or dictator; but only in the Israel-Palestine conflict have I heard them longing for the end of a state.

This "taking sides" is one indication of the blindspots that can be at work among those charged with assisting the victims of this conflict. Another is the way that NGO critiques of the conduct of violence in this region can employ a double-standard. People who adopt a pro-Palestinian standpoint, and express particular revulsion at Israeli conduct in Gaza or in earlier military campaigns, frequently overlook Palestinian ideology, choices and behaviour.

Public condemnation of Palestinian violence against Israelis by many NGOs and United Nations workers often has a routine aspect, as if it is something they "have" to do. Many representatives seem deep down to feel that this violence is an inevitable and understandable expression of "desperation". Internecine violence among Palestinians is also mistakenly understood as the tragic consequence of a factionalism produced by occupation.

The narrative, strategy and feuds of Palestinian nationalism too often go unexamined by outside supporters and "solidarists" with the Palestinian cause. But, like all nationalisms, Palestinian nationalism is constructed, contested, enriched by myth and not a little faked. Why not treat it with the same rigorous examination that every other case of nationalism receives?

This failure of scrutiny can extend to the use of violence by Palestinian resistance and liberation movements. A lot of this violence is politically misguided, illegal and narcissistic. But many western supporters (including those in the aid community) more often exculpate or even indulge it. There is a similar lack of critical attention to the abominable articles in the Hamas movement's charter that are clearly racist and exterminatory. Any equivalent sentiments found (for example) in Sudanese government documents or the pronouncements of the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda would be eagerly denounced by international NGOs. The attitude to Hamas is different: its words are understood as relics of an earlier phase of the organisation which it has now outgrown, or the forgivable hyperbole of an oppressed resistance movement.

The tragedy of this misguided support is that it does the cause of Palestinian autonomy so little good. Arguably, Palestinian politics is overly dependent on outside solidarity, sympathy and gifts. More "solidarity" is the last thing the Palestinians need because it reinforces a sort of "rentier politics" dominated by small cliques - something that does nothing to cultivate broad-based power and agency.

The interesting thing about the slow emergence of Hamas and its eventual election victory in January 2006 was that the movement dearly wanted to do away with such dependency and its associated corruption. During the first intifada I observed health and education projects run by several Hamas supporters who were profoundly committed to the rights, social improvement and self-sufficiency of their people. Two decades on, many still are. But Hamas's continuous commitment to violence and the annihilation of Israel has made them dependent on a network of outside patrons whose support is too often guided by mixed messages and dubious motives.

A choice of visions

There is now a great need for comfort, repair and reconstruction in the aftermath of the Israeli attacks. But the Palestinian people of Gaza have rich friends such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia (who are already launching a fund that could soon top $2 billion) as well as western backers such as the European Union and the United States Agency for International Development (Usaid).

In this context, and in light of the above, western humanitarian agencies should think hard about whether their presence in Gaza is because they have a real humanitarian role to play there or whether they are there in solidarity. If Arab states are able to provide for Gaza's reconstruction - in stark contrast to their poor record in Darfur - then it is arguable that aid agencies in Britain and other European countries might find that need is greatest at present in DR Congo or Sri Lanka.

Humanitarian agencies need to use all the practical skill and political insight that they apply in many other wars to decide what it is best to do in Gaza. The majority of British NGOs appealing via the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) for funds to help Gaza - such as Oxfam, Care, and Save the Children - are multi-mandate agencies. They serve a wider vision of a just society and so are more than "just" humanitarian agencies. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and Medecins Sans Frontières (MSF) alone are solely humanitarian. Theirs is a single, immediate mandate. They are interested in protecting, healing and caring for the wounded and the destitute. Most NGOs have a wider, long-term goal of creating liberal and democratic societies. If this is a part of their goal in Gaza then they should make this clear to the public as they raise funds. They should probably also tell Hamas, which may not entirely share their vision.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/ngos-in-gaza-between-humanitarianism-and-politics

JPTF 2009/02/01

Japão: ‘trabalhadores vão para casa e multipliquem-se‘ in CNN, 26 de Janeiro de 2009

Even before one reaches the front door of Canon's headquarters in Tokyo, one can sense the virtual stampede of employees pouring out of the building exactly at 5:30 p.m.

In a country where 12-hour workdays are common, the electronics giant has taken to letting its employees leave early twice a week for a rather unusual reason: to encourage them to have more babies.

"Canon has a very strong birth planning program," says the company's spokesman Hiroshi Yoshinaga. "Sending workers home early to be with their families is a part of it."

Japan in the midst of an unprecedented recession, so corporations are being asked to work toward fixing another major problem: the country's low birthrate.

At 1.34, the birthrate is well below the 2.0 needed to maintain Japan's population, according to the country's Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare.

Keidanren, Japan's largest business group, with 1,300 major international corporations as members, has issued a plea to its members to let workers go home early to spend time with their families and help Japan with its pressing social problem.

One reason for the low birth rate is the 12-hour workday. But there are several other factors compounding the problem -- among them, the high cost of living, and social rigidity toward women and parenting.

In addition, Japan's population is aging at a faster pace than any other country in the world.

Analysts say the world's second-largest economy faces its greatest threat from its own social problems, rather than outside forces. And the country desperately needs to make some fixes to its current social and work structures, sociologists say.

Canon says its 5:30 p.m. lights-out program is one simple step toward helping address the population problem. It also has an added benefit: Amid the global economic downturn the company can slash overtime across the board twice a week.

"It's great that we can go home early and not feel ashamed," said employee Miwa Iwasaki.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/26/canon.babies/index.html
JPTF 2009/01/26

‘Guerra de palavras: aumentam as tensões económicas entre os EUA e a China‘ in The Economist, 24 de janeiro de 2009

Technically, he is not yet treasury secretary, but Tim Geithner has already made waves in financial markets. In a written response to questions from senators debating his confirmation, Mr Geithner accused China of “manipulating” its currency and promised that the Obama team would push “aggressively” for Beijing to change its policies. The sharp tone and use of the legally-loaded term “currency manipulation” ricocheted through financial markets as investors shuddered at the prospect of a Sino-American spat in the midst of a global slump.

Clearly this was not a slip of the tongue. Conceivably it was a bureaucratic snafu. The tough language came in a 102-page document answering numerous questions from senators—an odd place from which to lob a bombshell at Beijing. If so, it speaks poorly of a man who is already in trouble for failing to pay attention to his taxes. Most likely, therefore, Mr Geithner’s language suggests a change in Washington’s tactics towards China.

American policymakers have long pushed Beijing to accelerate the appreciation of the yuan, arguing that China’s exchange-rate policy played a big role in creating the global imbalances and that—both for the sake of China’s economy and the rest of the world—the currency needs to strengthen. But Hank Paulson’s Treasury studiously avoided accusing Beijing of “currency manipulation”, a term that carries legal implications.

Every six months America’s Treasury must publish a list of countries which it deems to be currency manipulators. Once a country appears on that list, formal negotiations to end the manipulation must begin. The Treasury under George Bush, particularly in recent years, preferred a softer behind-the-scenes approach and refused to brand China a manipulator. Although Mr Geithner did not commit himself to any specific action, the use of the m-word suggests Team Obama will take a tougher line.

Exactly what it means is uncertain. It is not even clear who will manage America’s economic strategy with China (there is some speculation, for instance, that Hillary Clinton wants the State Department to take the lead). But there is no doubt that Barack Obama’s economic team includes a number of people who are frustrated with the world’s failure to convince Beijing to strengthen the yuan. Mr Obama himself supported legislation in the Senate to get tougher on China. More important, his advisers see tough words now as a prophylactic—a warning that Beijing must not be tempted to prop up its staggering economy by weakening the yuan.

Domestic politics is also playing a big role. China’s bilateral trade surplus with America has long been a lightning rod in Congress, and with unemployment up the protectionist pressure is sure to rise. The $800 billion stimulus package making its way through Congress already has dubious “Buy American” measures that demand government spending should be on American goods. By sounding tough up front, the logic goes, the Obama team will be better able to diffuse the more extreme protectionist sentiment.

Unfortunately, this strategy is dangerous on a number of counts. The basic economic analysis—that a stronger yuan, on a trade-weighted basis, is necessary to rebalance China’s economy away from exports—is surely right. But the world’s immediate problem is a dramatic shortfall in demand across the globe and that will not be righted by exchange-rate shifts. Currency movements switch demand between countries; they do not create it. In the short-term, therefore, the outlook for the world economy depends on whether governments’ stimulus packages are successful and, right now, team Obama would do better to focus on the scale, nature and speed of Beijing’s stimulus measures than rant about the currency. What’s more, the evidence for currency manipulation is weakening. Although China still runs a huge current-account surplus, it is no longer accumulating foreign-exchange reserves at a rapid clip, as capital is flowing out of the country.

More important, the political calculus could easily misfire. Domestically, Mr Geithner’s comments may simply fan congressional flames for tougher action on China. Lindsey Graham, a senator who first pushed for a 27.5% tariff against China in 2005, called the comments “music to my ears”. And Sino-American economic tensions are already rising as Chinese officials hotly dispute the idea that their savings surplus had anything to do with the current global mess. (An official at China’s central bank recently called the idea “ridiculous” and an example of “gangster logic”). Traditionally, Chinese officials do not respond well to public admonition and, given the scale of China’s economic woes, they are likely to be pricklier now.

The stakes are extremely high. Everyone knows that protectionism and beggar-thy-neighbour policies exacerbated the Depression. With the global economy in its most dangerous circumstances since the 1930s, rising Sino-American tensions is the last thing anyone needs.

http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13005072&source=features_box_main
JPTF 2009/01/24

‘Saudita libertado de Guantánamo torna-se líder da Al-Qaeda no Iémen‘ in International Herald Tribune, 23 de Janeiro de 2009

The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda's Yemeni branch has underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order President Barack Obama signed Thursday that the detention center be shut down within a year.

The militant, Said Ali al-Shihri, is suspected of involvement in a deadly bombing of the United States Embassy in Yemen's capital, Sana, in September. He was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and passed through a Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists before resurfacing with Al Qaeda in Yemen.

His status was announced in an Internet statement by the militant group and was confirmed by an American counterterrorism official.

"They're one and the same guy," said the official, who insisted on anonymity because he was discussing an intelligence analysis. "He returned to Saudi Arabia in 2007, but his movements to Yemen remain unclear."

The development came as Republican legislators criticized the plan to close the Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, detention camp in the absence of any measures for dealing with current detainees. But it also helps explain why the new administration wants to move cautiously, taking time to work out a plan to cope with the complications.

Almost half the camp's remaining detainees are Yemenis, and efforts to repatriate them depend in part on the creation of a Yemeni rehabilitation program — partly financed by the United States — similar to the Saudi one. Saudi Arabia has claimed that no graduate of its program has returned to terrorism.

"The lesson here is, whoever receives former Guantánamo detainees needs to keep a close eye on them," the American official said.

Although the Pentagon has said that dozens of released Guantánamo detainees have "returned to the fight," its claim is difficult to document, and has been met with skepticism. In any case, few of the former detainees, if any, are thought to have become leaders of a major terrorist organization like Al Qaeda in Yemen, a mostly homegrown group that experts say has been reinforced by foreign fighters.

Long considered a haven for jihadists, Yemen, a desperately poor country in the southern corner of the Arabian Peninsula, has witnessed a rising number of attacks over the past year. American officials say they suspect that Shihri may have been involved in the car bombings outside the American Embassy in Sana last September that killed 16 people, including six attackers.

In the Internet statement, Al Qaeda in Yemen identified its new deputy leader as Abu Sayyaf al-Shihri, saying he returned from Guantánamo to his native Saudi Arabia and then traveled to Yemen "more than 10 months ago." That corresponds roughly to the return of Shihri, a Saudi who was released from Guantánamo in November 2007. Abu Sayyaf is a nom de guerre, commonly used by jihadists in place of their real name or first name.

A Saudi security official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Shihri had disappeared from his home in Saudi Arabia last year after finishing the rehabilitation program.

A Yemeni journalist who interviewed Al Qaeda's leaders in Yemen last year, Abdulela Shaya, confirmed Thursday that the deputy leader was indeed Shihri, the former Guantánamo detainee. Shaya, in a phone interview, said Shihri had described to him his journey from Cuba to Yemen and supplied his Guantánamo detention number, 372. That is the correct number, Pentagon documents show.

"It seems certain from all the sources we have that this is the same individual who was released from Guantánamo in 2007," said Gregory Johnsen, a terrorism analyst and the editor of a forthcoming book, "Islam and Insurgency in Yemen."

Shihri, 35, trained in urban warfare tactics at a camp north of Kabul, Afghanistan, according to documents released by the Pentagon as part of his Guantánamo dossier. Two weeks after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, he traveled to Afghanistan via Bahrain and Pakistan, and he later told American investigators that his intention was to do relief work, the documents say. He was wounded in an airstrike and spent a month and a half recovering in a hospital in Pakistan.

The documents state that Shihri met with a group of "extremists" in Iran and helped them get into Afghanistan. They also say he was accused of trying to arrange the assassination of a writer, in accordance with a fatwa, or religious order, issued by an extremist cleric.

However, under a heading describing reasons for Shihri's possible release from Guantánamo, the documents say he claimed that he traveled to Iran "to purchase carpets for his store" in Saudi Arabia. They also say that he denied knowledge of any terrorists or terrorist activities, and that he "related that if released, he would like to return to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, wherein he would reunite with his family."

"The detainee stated he would attempt to work at his family's furniture store if it is still in business," the documents say.

The Yemeni branch of Al Qaeda has carried out a number of terrorist attacks over the past year, culminating in the assault on the American Embassy in Sana on Sept. 16. In that assault, the attackers disguised themselves as Yemeni policemen and detonated two car bombs. The group has also begun releasing sophisticated Internet material, in what appears to be a bid to gain more recruits.

Yemen began cooperating with the United States on counterterrorism activities in late 2001. But the partnership has been a troubled one, with American officials accusing Yemen of paroling dangerous terrorists, including some who were wanted in the United States. Some high-level terrorism suspects have also mysteriously escaped from Yemeni jails. The disagreements and security lapses have complicated efforts to repatriate the 100 or so Yemenis remaining in Guantánamo.

Despite some notable Yemeni successes in fighting terrorist groups, Al Qaeda in Yemen appears to be gaining strength.

"They are bringing Saudi fighters in, and they want to start to use Yemen as a base for attacks throughout region, including Saudi Arabia and the Horn of Africa," said Johnsen, an expert on Al Qaeda in Yemen.

http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=19618615
JPTF 2009/01/23

‘Paul Krugman afirma que o Euro pode estar a prejudicar a Espanha‘ in El Economista, 20 de Janeiro de 2009

El periodista y economista estadounidense Paul Krugman, último premio Nobel de Economía, dedica su último post en su blog del diario The New York Times, que titula The pain in Spain (El dolor en España). En él, trata de explicar lo que ocurre en nuestro país justo después de la rebaja de rating, y lo compara con Florida. Y sugiere que quizá el euro no es una buena idea para nuestro país.

El artículo comienza con un juego de palabras: The pain in Spain... isn´t hard to explain (El dolor en España no es difícil de explicar). Krugman asegura que nuestro país era básicamente Florida, una burbuja inmobiliaria inflada por la demanda interna y externa, y esta burbuja ha explotado.

Pero después señala dos problemas que tiene España, que hacen que su caso sea más problemático que el de este estado, dos problemas que tienen que ver con la adopción del euro.

Primero, Europa no tiene un gobierno central, por lo que nuestro país no puede acudir a él y todo el peso de la recesión cae en el presupuesto del Estado: de ahí la rebaja de rating de S&P ayer.

Segundo, Estados Unidos tiene un mercado laboral más o menos integrado, lo que hace que los trabajadores se muevan de las regiones con más problemas a las que tienen menos. Y Europa no tiene esta movilidad ni de lejos, según Krugman.

¿Qué se puede hacer?
Ante esta pregunta, el premio Nobel lo tiene claro: hay que ser más competitivos. Pero ante la imposibilidad de una devaluación, ya que somos parte de la zona euro, la única alternativa es la rebaja de los salarios, algo que es muy difícil de conseguir .

La conclusión de Krugman es clara: contrariamente a lo que se ha dicho, ser parte de la Eurozona no inmuniza frente a la crisis. En el caso de España, como en el de Italia, Irlanda y Grecia, el euro podría estar empeorando las cosas. Sin embargo, la caída de la libra podría estar resultando muy positiva para el Reino Unido.

http://www.eleconomista.es/economia/noticias/980453/01/09/El-Nobel-Paul-Krugman-lo-tiene-claro-el-euro-podria-estar-perjudicando-a-Espana.html
JPTF 2009/01/20

‘Guerra em Gaza: os media como arma‘ in Corriere della Sera, 18 de Janeiro de 2009

Le polemiche innescate dai contenuti della trasmissione televisiva «Anno Zero» sulla guerra di Gaza possono aiutarci a riflettere su un aspetto cruciale di questo conflitto (come di altri che lo hanno preceduto): il ruolo dei mass media, delle televisioni in primo luogo, non come strumenti di informazione sulla guerra ma come armi della guerra e nella guerra. E' qualcosa che va al di là delle tradizionali forme di propaganda, più o meno pianificata, che hanno sempre accompagnato i conflitti e li accompagnano tuttora. La prima volta che si comprese appieno il nuovo (e imprevisto) ruolo attivo giocato dalle televisioni nei conflitti asimmetrici fu all'indomani della conclusione della guerra del Vietnam: si disse allora, con qualche esagerazione ma anche con qualche elemento di verità, che gli Stati Uniti avevano perso quella guerra non nelle risaie e nelle giungle dell'Indocina ma nelle case americane dove ogni sera il piccolo schermo faceva entrare le immagini delle devastazioni prodotte dai bombardamenti statunitensi.

Da allora, nessun governo o gruppo armato impegnato in una guerra ha più dimenticato che le immagini televisive e i commenti che le accompagnano sono parte integrante, non accessoria, dei conflitti, e dei conflitti asimmetrici soprattutto: è da essi che dipende lo spostamento, a favore di uno dei belligeranti, dell'orientamento delle opinioni pubbliche delle democrazie occidentali. E poiché nelle democrazie i governi devono tenere conto delle opinioni pubbliche, lo spostamento di queste ultime da una parte o dall'altra non è senza effetti internazionali: spinge o può spingere i governi delle democrazie ad esercitare pressioni diplomatiche a favore del belligerante che ha conquistato il sostegno dell'opinione pubblica.

Il caso di Gaza (una guerra che forse è ora giunta a conclusione) è da manuale. Dal punto di vista strettamente militare la disparità delle forze fra l'esercito israeliano e Hamas era massima. Hamas ha avuto quindi a disposizione, in questa guerra, soprattutto una carta e l'ha giocata fino in fondo: le vittime civili. Il calcolo era semplice: più vittime civili ci sono (e non possono non esserci vittime civili data la natura del conflitto), più i networks televisivi ne parlano, più è probabile che le opinioni pubbliche, soprattutto europee, si schierino contro Israele e che, infine, la «comunità internazionale » (leggi: le democrazie occidentali) sia costretta a tenerne conto. La contromossa israeliana (vietare l'ingresso a Gaza ai giornalisti finché durano i combattimenti) è parte della stessa logica.

Si considerino gli scopi bellici dei due contendenti. Per Israele «vincere» significava ridimensionare Hamas militarmente (mettere il gruppo in condizione di non lanciare più missili sul territorio israeliano) e politicamente (creare le condizioni per una successiva riconquista del potere a Gaza, a spese di Hamas, da parte della fazione palestinese moderata, Fatah). Per Hamas, invece, «vincere» significava sopravvivere, quali che fossero le perdite subite, essere ancora in grado di riorganizzare le forze per colpire di nuovo Israele fra qualche tempo. Come in Libano nel 2006: Hezbollah «vinse» la guerra semplicemente perché sopravvisse all'offensiva israeliana. In queste condizioni, e data questa disparità degli obiettivi dei due contendenti, usare i civili come scudi era per Hamas una necessità di guerra, il solo modo per tentare di ottenere una pressione internazionale tale da fermare Israele. Il che, dal punto di vista di Hamas, avrebbe significato vincere. Per Israele valeva la regola contraria: meno civili cadono, meno è probabile che la comunità internazionale si metta di mezzo. Per questo, la guerra è stata condotta simultaneamente in due ambiti diversi (sul terreno e sui mass media). Il contenzioso sul numero di vittime civili (ovviamente difficile da stabilire, dato che i combattenti di Hamas sono mescolati alla popolazione) diventa parte integrante della guerra. Come mostra anche il fatto che le notizie, più o meno attendibili, sui caduti civili sono, fra tutte le notizie di guerra, quelle a cui i mass media danno in assoluto più risalto.

Per i sostenitori occidentali di Israele le vittime civili sono, in parte, una tragica conseguenza della natura di questa guerra e, in parte, il frutto dell'azione deliberata di Hamas. Per gli avversari di Israele sono invece la prova della natura criminale di quello Stato. Le televisioni svolgono un ruolo nel far pendere la bilancia dell'opinione pubblica da una parte o dall'altra. Però, va subito aggiunto, a mò di correttivo, il fatto che contano anche le più generali condizioni politiche in cui si svolge il conflitto. Se il calcolo di Hamas, come sembra ora possibile, si rivelerà alla fine sbagliato non sarà perché l'arma di guerra massmediatica sia di per sé spuntata o debole, ma perché essa è stata neutralizzata, almeno in parte, dall'atteggiamento prudente tenuto per tutta la durata del conflitto dai governi arabi (spaventati dall'alleanza fra Hamas e l'Iran) e dalla ostilità dei palestinesi di Abu Mazen per Hamas. Insieme alla compattezza della società israeliana nel sostenere l'azione del proprio esercito e all'efficacia di quella stessa azione (niente a che vedere con quanto avvenne in Libano nel 2006), questi fattori hanno giocato un ruolo importantissimo nella guerra. Hanno impedito o ritardato uno spostamento massiccio, «a slavina», delle opinioni pubbliche occidentali a favore di Hamas.

http://www.corriere.it/editoriali/09_gennaio_18/panebianco_69991bea-e537-11dd-9276-00144f02aabc.shtml
JPTF 2009/01/19

Cartoon de Peter Brookes no jornal Times

‘Entropa‘: escultura do artista checo David Černý no edifício do Conselho para eurocrata ver (e causar polémica)

Autocarro dos ateístas ocidentais anda 42 anos atrasado, diz o líder albanês Enver Hoxha

9 de Outubro de 1967

ALBÂNIA PROCLAMA:
SOMOS O «PRIMEIRO ESTADO ATEÍSTA DO MUNDO»


«The closing of 2,169 churches, mosques, monasteries and other religious institutions during the past six months represents the concluding phase of the campaign against formal religious institutions and at the same time the intensification of the final phase aimed at eliminating the informal manifestations of religion in Albania. This information, along with the allegation that Albania has become the "first atheist state in the world", appeared in the September issue of the Albanian literary monthly Nendori (November). The monthly's editorial, in dealing with the role of Albanian youth in the "revolutionary" campaigns during 1967, states: What youth is capable of achieving has been best shown especially since comrade Hoxha's speech of February 6. The entire Albanian generation of youth. in support of the students' initiative of the Naim Frasheri school in Durres1 rose in unison to transform into reality the party's call against feudal-bourgeois ideology, against harmful habits and against religious ideology. As a result of this sharp class struggle initiated by the youth against everything foreign to the party's culture and ideology, and with the full support of the population, religion was forced to turn over to the young people by May 1967, 2,169 churches, mosques, monasteries and other religious institutions. The major part of these institutions are being turned into cultural centers for the younger generation. The party and comrade Enver assigned to our revolutionary youth the task of successfully implementing this great mission. Under their shining guidance (party and Hoxha), together with the entire populace, the youth has created the first atheist state in the world. Now it is up to the cultural organs to turn these former religiouscenters into effective institutions for theideological-cultural education and entertainment of youth.»

NOTA: O primeiro estado ateísta do mundo hoje é membro da Organização da Conferência Islâmica...
http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/300/8/3/text/2-5-40.shtml
JPTF 2009/01/14

‘Episódio dos Simpsons irrita associações de muçulmanos britânicos‘ in ABC 13 de Janeiro de 2009

'Los Simpson' han levantado ampollas una vez más, esta vez en el Reino Unido, donde una autoridad islámica criticó un episodio de la famosa serie por el tratamiento de su fe. Unos vecinos musulmanes se mudan a Springfield y Homer teme que sean terroristas, además de mostrar su desconocimiento absoluto de la religión de Mahoma. El creador de la serie ha defendido que los dibujos satíricos siempre echan mano de estereotipos para hacer humor y que en todo caso han sido de ser "sensibles".
Por contra, en EE. UU. la comunidad musulmana entendió todo lo contrario, que el episodio quería romper con los estereotipos y los prejuicios.
El Centro Cultural Islámico de Gran Bretaña y la Mezquita Central de Londres lanzaron sus críticas el pasado fin de semana contra un episodio de 'Los Simpson' que se iba a emitir el domingo: 'Mypods and Boomsticks'. En él, un personaje musulmán llamado Amid se muda junto a su familia a Springfield, donde es blanco de los prejuicios de Homer Simpson, una persona que, como por todos es sabido, no se caracteriza por su brillante inteligencia.
Homer y sus prejuicios
Homer acusa a sus nuevos vecinos de querer volar por los aires el centro comercial, algo que queda desmentido cuando se descubre que Amid trabaja en una empresa de demoliciones. Además, el cabeza de la familia Simpson demuestra su ignorancia sobre la fe islámica cuando llama a Alá "Oliver" y al Corán "The corona". Por estos motivos, el portavoz de ambas instituciones islámicas comentó al periódico británico Daily Star: "Espero que el programa pase desapercibido para los musulmanes".
La noticia ha sido difundida por varios medios británicos desde el pasado fin de semana cuando se emitió el episodio, como es el caso del canal televisivo Sky1, el periódico Daily Star y webs como Digital Spy, Contact Music, Starpulse o Yahoo UK. También se hizo eco de la información la agencia dedicada a la industria del entretenimiento británica WENN. Daily Star publicó unas declaraciones de Matt Groening, creador de 'Los Simpson', defendiendo a la serie: "Los dibujos se basan en estereotipos. Intentamos ser sensibles".
En el mismo episodio, el hijo de la nueva familia, Bashir, es atacado e insultado por los matones del pueblo, Kearney, Jimbo y Dolph, pero Bart Simpson sale en su defensa. Esto, unido a la estupidez manifiesta de Homer, hicieron que The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) entendiera el pasado diciembre, cuando se emitió en EE. UU. , que el episodio lo que hacía era ridiculizar a los críticos con los musulmanes y no al revés. Allí, la asociación agradeció a Fox y a Groening "se enfrentaran a la islamofobia". Quizá el problema y comienzo de la diferencia de pareceres fuera que en un lado del charco vieron el episodio antes de opinar y en el otro no.
En EEUU entienderon el episodio justamente al revés y agradecieron a la FOX que «se enfrentara a la islamofobia»
"Gracias a su aceptación en la cultura popular, la comedia a menudo es el mejor de los vehículos para luchar contra los estereotipos y la intolerancia. Fox y Matt Groening deben ser felicitados por contribuir a difuminar el fenómeno de la islamofobia", dijo el director de la CAIR, Nihad Awad, en una carta recogida por Otr/press. [...]

http://www.abc.es/20090113/internacional-europa/polemica-reino-unido-episodio-200901131929.html
JPTF 2009/01/14

Israel-Hamas-Fatah: sem comentários

‘Reaquecer as relações‘ UE-Rússia, cartoon de Chappatte para o jornal Le Temps