Después del error garrafal que cometió el gobierno el 31 de mayo del 2008 al anunciar el cierre a la salida de arroz ecuatoriano hacia Colombia, el sector nacional de dicha gramínea ha sufrido dolorosos vaivenes a causa de la desacertada decisión gubernamental señalada. Se permitió sólo la salida de 20,000 toneladas de arroz hacia Venezuela, debido “al cariño que le tenemos a Venezuela”, como dijo el primer mandatario. Tal vez ésta fue una de las primeras veces que en el Siglo XXI se conducía los grandes intereses económicos de una nación por “cariño” hacia un país y el desprecio hacia otro. Este tipo de doble conducta también se reflejó en las intenciones de la medida con respecto a los ciudadanos ecuatorianos: cariño para el consumidor (precios bajos) e incomprensión hacia el productor arrocero (siempre indefenso ante los stocks agigantados, los costos de producción altos, y los precios de la gramínea bajos).
Tres años más tarde, Ecuador aún no resuelve su crónico problema de excedentes de arroz, que ocurren con mayor intensidad precisamente en el momento más indeseado, la cosecha invernal, y que propician con frecuencia una caída estrepitosa de los precios del grano. Pero lo interesante del caso ahora es que Ecuador está tratando con “guantes de seda” a Colombia con respecto a la obligación del último de comprarle libremente al primero la producción de arroz sin ambages ni limitaciones ni condiciones.
En febrero del año pasado, el Tribunal de Justicia de la Comunidad Andina de Naciones (CAN) emitió un dictamen favorable a Ecuador en el litigio (proceso judicial 118-AL-2003) planteado por este país contra su vecino norteño por prohibir que el arroz ecuatoriano ingresara a territorio colombiano. Este año, en cambio, Colombia no nos cierra la frontera al arroz por completo pero nos tira una mera migaja en ese sentido, imponiéndonos un absurdo y humillante contingente de 40,000 TM de arroz paddy cuando su proyectado déficit para junio del 2011 es 156,000 TM. Es decir, la verdadera necesidad colombiana de importar arroz es cuatro veces mayor al mísero contingente que se le otorga a Ecuador como país excedentario de la gramínea y socio comercial. En cambio, para abril se prevé un excedente de 129,000 TM de arroz pilado en el Ecuador, sin contar la reserva estratégica que mantiene la UNA (Unidad Nacional de Almacenamiento). Es necesario también resaltar que las 40,000 TM de arroz paddy o en cáscara se convierten en solamente 22,000 TM de arroz pilado. Además, se escucha que el gobierno ecuatoriano se quedará con la mitad del contingente colombiano, de tal forma que lo que recibiría el sector arrocero privado sería escasamente el equivalente de 11,000 TM de arroz pilado para exportar al vecino país. Esto es obvia y escandalosamente una injusticia si se toma en cuenta las 129,000 TM de arroz pilado de excedente que tendría el sector privado ecuatoriano en abril.
Entonces, ¿qué espera la Cancillería del Ecuador para ejercer los derechos del país amparados dentro de la Comunidad Andina y nuevamente enjuiciar a Colombia en el Tribunal de Justicia de la Comunidad Andina de Naciones por interferir en el comercio libre entre naciones comercialmente asociadas?
El año pasado Ecuador tuvo el derecho de imponer una sobretasa arancelaria de 5% a 5 productos estrellas importados desde Colombia por su actuación en referencia a nuestro arroz. Sin embargo, no lo hizo. Este año el gobierno ecuatoriano se conforma con un exiguo contingente de arroz—y en cáscara, repito, no en pilado—y hace mutis.
No es que se le quiera forzar al país vecino importar un producto más caro que el que la nación colombiana produce. ¡Todo lo contrario! El arroz ecuatoriano es mucho más barato que el colombiano. Según la Federación Nacional de Arroceros de Colombia, el precio del arroz en cáscara en dicho país es US $43 la saca de 200 libras en el campo. En estos momentos el precio de la saca de arroz en cáscara de 210 libras (ojo, no de 200) en el Ecuador es US $23 a 24 en bodega de comprador (y no en el campo), considerablemente más bajo que el precio colombiano prevaleciente así como el referencial de $28 la saca sugerido por el gobierno ecuatoriano. Más allá de que en el sector no se estén respetando los criterios del Ministerio de Agricultura en referencia a precios para el arroz, el gobierno parece haber asumido una actitud pasiva, letárgica, y pusilánime frente a la peligrosa situación actual que amenaza la futura cosecha arrocera venidera en escasamente dos meses.
Esto es alarmante y a la vez tragicómico, puesto que en el Ramada Inn de Guayaquil recientemente el canciller ecuatoriano hizo alarde de que el gobierno estaba tratando de colocar arroz ecuatoriano en Irán y la Unión Europea. Cantaleta como ésta de vender arroz a países que nunca les hemos vendido y que poseen paladares distintos para el arroz a los nuestros se escucha desde hace tiempo desde círculos oficiales. En septiembre de 2009 el Ministro de Agricultura anunció que se estaba negociando alrededor de 100,000 TM entre Irán y Libia. Casi dos años después no ha pasado nada al respecto. De la misma forma probablemente no ocurrirá nada con la Unión Europea, ahora mencionada por primera vez para venta de nuestra gramínea. Con más cantos de sirena y cortinas de humo, no se resuelve el problema que está a punto de reventar y que ya se perfila fuertemente en la iliquidez que afecta al sector arrocero.
Señores del gobierno, no se vayan tan lejos a negociar nuestro arroz, si es que en verdad lo están haciendo, cuando tenemos nuestro natural e histórico comprador tan cerca, sólo del otro lado de la frontera del norte. Pero para lograr una venta justa y totalmente libre a Colombia, hay que pararse firme e ir a la CAN para reclamar y tomar represalias comerciales legítimas. Mayor fuerza a favor de Ecuador en este caso aporta el hecho de que Ecuador tiene un déficit de US $153 millones en la balanza comercial con Colombia.
Lo demás es, a mi parecer, una pérdida de tiempo o un burdo intento por engañarnos. De nada sirve que un gobierno quiera impresionar a un sector con úrea barata a US $10 el saco (aunque poca, de mala calidad, y traída a destiempo) cuando posteriormente la cosecha no tiene compradores y sus productores se van a la quiebra. ¿De cuánto vale que la UNA abra más bodegas y almacene y almacene arroz si después el grano sale a cuenta gota o se daña en sus instalaciones y dicha entidad pública pierde liquidez y eficacia?
Si la hecatombe arrocera llega en abril, los compradores siendo escasos y los precios del grano colapsando, nos otorgaremos el derecho de hacer eco a esa frase muy usada por el actual gobierno: ¡Prohibido olvidar!
sábado, 19 de febrero de 2011
viernes, 28 de enero de 2011
Communism and Fascism Are One and the Same Thing
Communism and fascism are one and the same thing. Today more than ever, this truth is being made manifest in the despotic manner Hugo Chávez governs Venezuela. Recently, Chávez has unleashed his most furious attack against democracy and free speech in that country, emasculating the national parliament by assuming absolute power to rule by decree for 18 months while having previously pressured said legislative body into passing ironclad gag laws to control, censor, and manipulate not only TV, radio, and newspapers but also Internet (including Facebook, Twitter, and other social networks). Twenty-first-century socialist Chávez’s political tactics and strategies clearly bolster the idea that communism and fascism are veritable Siamese twins.
This concept is exposed in Pandemic of Lies: the Exile through a dialogue between Dr. Eduardo Borja, a former finance minister in the Alejandro Salvador government, and Manuel Cruz:
“Well, what I mean by this is that Marxism and Fascism cojean dela misma pata. In other words, they hobble on the same bad leg.”
“What? How is that?” I said, shaking my head skeptically. “Aren’t they on diametrically opposite ends on the political spectrum?”
Dr. Eduardo Borja smiled condescendingly at me with the kind of sympathetic smile reserved for a confused student. “It depends on how you draw the political spectrum.”
“Explain,” I demanded.
“We normally see the political spectrum in rectilinear form, Fascism at the extreme end to the right and Communism or Socialism at the extreme end to the left. But what if the political spectrum is perceived in a different way, for example, in curvilinear fashion?”
He paused, took a pen out of his shirt’s pocket, and drew first a line on a paper napkin and then a circle.
“With the rectilinear format,” he said, pointing at the drawn line, “Marxism and Fascism are indeed at opposite ends, but if you curve the line and finish turning it into a circle, the extreme ends join each other, melt, and become one.” To make his case even more graphic, he now rolled the napkin into the form of a cigar and then bent it until the tips touched each other. “There!” he cried victoriously. “Marxism and Fascism are really one and the same political phenomenon. The same dog, different collar. Same shit, different smell.”
“Birds of the same feather,” I contributed.
He laughed appreciatively.
“But have you got enough supporting evidence to prove this theory?”
“It’s not a theory. It’s a fact,” he corrected contentiously. “In truth, it’s not an original idea of mine. I will be the first Latin American political economist, though, to expose it in this century, and I think it’s about time somebody did.”
“But the evidence, the proof?” I insisted.
“Hold your horses. I’m coming to that. Who do you think was the first fascist leader in the twentieth century?”
“I don’t know,” I said impatiently, feeling he was subjecting me to a question-and-answer classroom situation. “Benito Mussolini, I guess.”
The learned doctor pursed his lips. “Wrong,” he growled, as if he were about to condemn me to after-school detention for having given the wrong answer.
“Who then?” I demanded.
“Lenin. Or Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, to be more precise. He changed his name to Lenin in 1901. You see, even back then he was already preparing himself for the initiation of a cult of personality around himself. With a name like Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov he would have never gotten anywhere, don’t you think? But a charismatic leader could proudly bear a name like Lenin. Such a name sticks favorably to the memory cells. It’s short and sonorous.”
Dr. Borja paused to recharge himself with another deep sip from his drink.
“Now, what are some of the characteristics linked to Fascism? For one, the emergence of a charismatic leader, right? And later the creation of a whole aura of invincibility, courage, patriotism, and even godliness around the leader—what’s called a cult of personality, correct? Communist or socialist principles are supposed to be based on the dictatorship of the proletariat, and yet throughout history, we see that what prevailed in communist countries time and time again was, not the dictatorship of the proletariat, but the absolute rule of one man, the charismatic leader—a Fascist trait. Examples of Hitler and Mussolini types in this sense abound in socialist or communist settings: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-sung and later his son Kim Jongil, Fidel Castro and then his brother Raúl Castro—scratch Raúl out; he’s about as charismatic as pubic lice—and now, heading down the dictatorship lane by leaps and bounds, Hugo Chávez. Then there are the pups Hugo is grooming in his Fascist Dictatorship University: Daniel Ortega, Evo Morales, Rafael Correa, and, oh, oh, surprise, surprise, Alejandro Salvador. Lacaya registered at Hugo’s school but recently flunked out, thanks to Hillary.”
“Alright, alright, I catch your drift,” I chuckled. “But there must be more similarities between the two political tendencies,” I said, getting enthused with the direction the exposition was taking.
“Fervent nationalism is another element that typifies Fascism. Communism and socialism supposedly have an internationalist focus, and yet already in 1924 Stalin was promoting the concept of Socialism in One Country, which later became the basis for the Soviet Union’s imperialist doctrine. Take something very close to home as far as you’re concerned: Cuba. The main slogan there is: Patria o muerte, venceremos. Fatherland or death, we shall triumph. Hugo Chávez has adopted this jingoist war cry with a slight variation: Patria, socialismo o muerte. Fatherland, socialism or death. And Evo Morales promises that he will soon make the Cuban slogan Patria o muerte, venceremos the rallying cry of the Bolivian Armed Forces. Can you get more chauvinistic than that?”
I grinned and nodded my head. His comments, it seemed to me, were all bull’s-eyes.
“Another practice that distinguishes Fascism is its racism. Mussolini promoted the Italic race, Hitler the Aryan race, above all other races. Hitler, in particular, hated Jews. Recently, historians have started discovering Stalin’s pathological anti-Semitism. And now the Latin American would-be dictators are showing their anti-Semitic colors as well. Look at Hugo Chávez. He’s become real chummy with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who denies the Holocaust by calling it a ‘myth’. And at the same time Hugo is forcing his political toadies like Evo Morales, Rafael Correa, Daniel Ortega, and Alejandro Salvador to get their respective countries politically and economically aligned with Iran, the world’s epicenter of anti-Semitism. And as the saying goes: Dime con quién andas y te diré quién eres. Your pals reflect who you are; it’s as simple as that.”
This concept is exposed in Pandemic of Lies: the Exile through a dialogue between Dr. Eduardo Borja, a former finance minister in the Alejandro Salvador government, and Manuel Cruz:
“Well, what I mean by this is that Marxism and Fascism cojean dela misma pata. In other words, they hobble on the same bad leg.”
“What? How is that?” I said, shaking my head skeptically. “Aren’t they on diametrically opposite ends on the political spectrum?”
Dr. Eduardo Borja smiled condescendingly at me with the kind of sympathetic smile reserved for a confused student. “It depends on how you draw the political spectrum.”
“Explain,” I demanded.
“We normally see the political spectrum in rectilinear form, Fascism at the extreme end to the right and Communism or Socialism at the extreme end to the left. But what if the political spectrum is perceived in a different way, for example, in curvilinear fashion?”
He paused, took a pen out of his shirt’s pocket, and drew first a line on a paper napkin and then a circle.
“With the rectilinear format,” he said, pointing at the drawn line, “Marxism and Fascism are indeed at opposite ends, but if you curve the line and finish turning it into a circle, the extreme ends join each other, melt, and become one.” To make his case even more graphic, he now rolled the napkin into the form of a cigar and then bent it until the tips touched each other. “There!” he cried victoriously. “Marxism and Fascism are really one and the same political phenomenon. The same dog, different collar. Same shit, different smell.”
“Birds of the same feather,” I contributed.
He laughed appreciatively.
“But have you got enough supporting evidence to prove this theory?”
“It’s not a theory. It’s a fact,” he corrected contentiously. “In truth, it’s not an original idea of mine. I will be the first Latin American political economist, though, to expose it in this century, and I think it’s about time somebody did.”
“But the evidence, the proof?” I insisted.
“Hold your horses. I’m coming to that. Who do you think was the first fascist leader in the twentieth century?”
“I don’t know,” I said impatiently, feeling he was subjecting me to a question-and-answer classroom situation. “Benito Mussolini, I guess.”
The learned doctor pursed his lips. “Wrong,” he growled, as if he were about to condemn me to after-school detention for having given the wrong answer.
“Who then?” I demanded.
“Lenin. Or Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, to be more precise. He changed his name to Lenin in 1901. You see, even back then he was already preparing himself for the initiation of a cult of personality around himself. With a name like Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov he would have never gotten anywhere, don’t you think? But a charismatic leader could proudly bear a name like Lenin. Such a name sticks favorably to the memory cells. It’s short and sonorous.”
Dr. Borja paused to recharge himself with another deep sip from his drink.
“Now, what are some of the characteristics linked to Fascism? For one, the emergence of a charismatic leader, right? And later the creation of a whole aura of invincibility, courage, patriotism, and even godliness around the leader—what’s called a cult of personality, correct? Communist or socialist principles are supposed to be based on the dictatorship of the proletariat, and yet throughout history, we see that what prevailed in communist countries time and time again was, not the dictatorship of the proletariat, but the absolute rule of one man, the charismatic leader—a Fascist trait. Examples of Hitler and Mussolini types in this sense abound in socialist or communist settings: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-sung and later his son Kim Jongil, Fidel Castro and then his brother Raúl Castro—scratch Raúl out; he’s about as charismatic as pubic lice—and now, heading down the dictatorship lane by leaps and bounds, Hugo Chávez. Then there are the pups Hugo is grooming in his Fascist Dictatorship University: Daniel Ortega, Evo Morales, Rafael Correa, and, oh, oh, surprise, surprise, Alejandro Salvador. Lacaya registered at Hugo’s school but recently flunked out, thanks to Hillary.”
“Alright, alright, I catch your drift,” I chuckled. “But there must be more similarities between the two political tendencies,” I said, getting enthused with the direction the exposition was taking.
“Fervent nationalism is another element that typifies Fascism. Communism and socialism supposedly have an internationalist focus, and yet already in 1924 Stalin was promoting the concept of Socialism in One Country, which later became the basis for the Soviet Union’s imperialist doctrine. Take something very close to home as far as you’re concerned: Cuba. The main slogan there is: Patria o muerte, venceremos. Fatherland or death, we shall triumph. Hugo Chávez has adopted this jingoist war cry with a slight variation: Patria, socialismo o muerte. Fatherland, socialism or death. And Evo Morales promises that he will soon make the Cuban slogan Patria o muerte, venceremos the rallying cry of the Bolivian Armed Forces. Can you get more chauvinistic than that?”
I grinned and nodded my head. His comments, it seemed to me, were all bull’s-eyes.
“Another practice that distinguishes Fascism is its racism. Mussolini promoted the Italic race, Hitler the Aryan race, above all other races. Hitler, in particular, hated Jews. Recently, historians have started discovering Stalin’s pathological anti-Semitism. And now the Latin American would-be dictators are showing their anti-Semitic colors as well. Look at Hugo Chávez. He’s become real chummy with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who denies the Holocaust by calling it a ‘myth’. And at the same time Hugo is forcing his political toadies like Evo Morales, Rafael Correa, Daniel Ortega, and Alejandro Salvador to get their respective countries politically and economically aligned with Iran, the world’s epicenter of anti-Semitism. And as the saying goes: Dime con quién andas y te diré quién eres. Your pals reflect who you are; it’s as simple as that.”
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)