NewsTrust - Brazil - Most Recent Stories: Opinion (Mainstream)

United Nations: Weak leaders wanted

Mon, 15 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0700

The Guardian - Aug. 15 (Editorial) - To save his legacy Ban Ki-moon must refresh his top team with people who understand the UN's founding principles

NewsTrust Rating: Not rated yet - See Info » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Religion strikes back at Brazil's gay culture

Sat, 02 Jul 2011 00:00:00 -0700

The Guardian - By Vincent Bevins - Jul. 02 (Opinion) - Brazilians tend to be fairly liberal on the issue of others' sexuality, but gay rights are threatened by a growing evangelical movement Despite a little sub-tropical rain, the world's largest gay pride parade, in São Paulo, went off spectacularly. It received broad public support, and no less a figure than Stephen Fry joined a colourful group of revellers who have much to celebrate. The supreme court had just officially recognised the rights of same-sex unions to the privileges held by heterosexual couples, and another judge soon after signed off on the country's first full-fledged gay marriage. One aspect of the celebrations, however, ignited controversy. The city's main avenue was decorated with posters , designed by an HIV prevention group, that featured 12 barely clothed male models, styled as Catholic saints, but with come-hither looks and the caption: "Not even a saint can save you. Use a condom." The group says the aim was education, but it was hard not to see the campaign as an ...

NewsTrust Rating: 3.4 average (not enough reviews) - See Review » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Why Washington is worried about Peru | Mark Weisbrot

Thu, 02 Jun 2011 00:00:00 -0700

The Guardian - By Mark Weisbrot - Jun. 02 (Opinion) - If its preferred candidate Keiko Fujimori loses to Ollanta Humala, the US will be isolated against South America's left governmentsIn just a few days, on Sunday 5 June, an election will take place that will have a significant influence on the western hemisphere. At the moment, it is too close to call. Most of official Washington has been relatively quiet, but there is no doubt that the Obama administration has a big stake in the outcome of this poll. The election is in Peru, where left populist and former military officer Ollanta Humala is facing off against Keiko Fujimori, the daughter of Peru's former authoritarian ruler Alberto Fujimori, who was president from 1990-2000. Alberto Fujimori is in jail, serving a 25-year sentence for multiple political murders, kidnapping and corruption. Keiko has made it clear that she represents him and his administration, and has been surrounded by his associates and former officials of his government.Fujimori was found to have had "individual criminal responsibility" for the murders and kidnappings. But his government was responsible for many more widespread murders and human rights abuses, including the forced sterilisation of tens of thousands of women, mostly indigenous.Between the two candidates, whom do you think Washington would prefer?If you guessed Keiko Fujimori, you guessed right. I spoke Monday night with Gustavo Gorriti in Lima, an award-winning Peruvian investigative journalist who was one of the people that Alberto Fujimori was convicted of kidnapping. "The US embassy strongly opposes Humala's candidacy," he said. Harvard professor of government Steven Levitsky, who has written extensively on Peru and is currently visiting professor at Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú (PUCP), came to the same conclusion: "It's clear that the US embassy here sees Keiko as the least bad option," he told me from Lima on Tuesday.Humala's opponents argue that Peru's democracy would be imperilled if he were elected, pointing to a military revolt that he led against Fujimori's authoritarian government. (He was later pardoned by the Peruvian Congress.) But his record is hardly comparable to the actual, proven crimes of Alberto Fujimori.Humala is also accused of being an ally of Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez. He has distanced himself from Chávez, unlike in his 2006 campaign for the presidency. But all of this is just a rightwing media stunt. Chávez has been demonised throughout the hemispheric media, and so rightwing media monopolies have used him as a bogeyman in numerous elections for years, with varying degrees of success. Of course, Venezuela is also irrelevant to the Peruvian election because almost all governments in South America are "allies of Chávez". This is especially true of Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador and Uruguay, for example, all of whom have very close and collaborative relations with Venezuela.As in many other elections in Latin America, rightwing domination of the media is key to successful scare tactics. "The majority of TV stations and newspapers have been actively working for Fujimori in this election," said Levitsky.The thought of another Fujimori government is so frightening that a number of prominent conservative Peruvian politicians have decided to endorse Humala. Among these is the Nobel prize-winning novelist Mario Vargas Llosa, who hates the Latin American left as much as anyone. Humala has also been endorsed by Alejandro Toledo, the former Peruvian president and contender in the first round of this election.So why would Washington want Fujimori? The answer is quite simple: it's about Washington's waning influence and power in its former "backyard" of Latin America. In South America, there are now left-of-centre governments in Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Uruguay and Paraguay. These governments have a common position on most hemispheric issues (and sometimes, other international issues, such as the Middle East), and it often differs from that of Washington.For example, when the Honduran military overthrew the country's elected left-of-centre president, Manuel Zelaya, in 2009, and the Obama administration sought to legitimise the coup government through elections that other governments would not recognise, it was Washington's few rightwing allies that first broke ranks with the rest of South America.Prior to last August, the only governments in South America that Washington could count as allies were Chile, Peru and Colombia. But Colombia under President Manuel Santos is no longer a reliable ally, and currently has very good co-operative relations with Venezuela. If Humala wins, there is little doubt that he will join the rest of South America on most issues of concern to Washington. The same cannot be said of Keiko Fujimori.And that is why Washington is worried about this election.PeruVenezuelaUS foreign policyUnited StatesColombiaEcuadorBrazilHuman rightsHondurasHugo ChávezMark Weisbrotguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

NewsTrust Rating: 4.0 average (not enough reviews) - See Review » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

WHO report finds rich and poor nations now battle all kinds of diseases

Tue, 17 May 2011 00:00:00 -0700

The Guardian - May. 17 - Progress has been made on key MDG health targets, but non-infectious diseases have spread to developing countriesThe world is experiencing a change in the geographic distribution of diseases. Traditionally, infectious diseases, which claim the lives of so many children, have affected poor countries and non-communicable diseases, such as diabetes, cardiac ailments and cancer, have plagued rich countries.But the latest statistics released by the World Health Organisation (WHO) on Friday show that the income level of nations is no longer so important, and that all countries now face the burden of both kinds of diseases.Up to now, non-communicable diseases tended to be identified as the ills of opulence, limited to high-income countries, WHO's director of health statistics and informatics, Ties Boerma, told IPS.However, due to changes caused by the ageing population, improvements brought about by the global effort to meet the millennium development goals (MDGs), changes in birthrates and other factors, developing countries are now also fighting non-infectious diseases, he said.Boerma noted that the phenomenon began in urban areas of developing nations, among the most highly educated population groups, but it is now expanding rapidly. That was one of the central conclusions reached by WHO experts on the basis of the World Health Statistics 2011 report published on Friday.The study confirms that important progress has been made in improving the main health indicators, fighting poverty, bolstering gender equality and education, and moving towards the other goals outlined in the eight MDGs, which were agreed by the international community in the 2000 UN general assembly and have a 2015 deadline, Boerma said.Over the past 10 years, the rate of improvement of infant and maternal mortality rates – key MDG targets – has been twice as fast as progress made in the 1990s.Many countries are still lagging, some of them considerably, which means a huge effort is needed over the next five years to meet the MDGs, Boerma said. Nevertheless, the rate of progress is speeding up overall, he added.In the case of child mortality, the world is only halfway to the MDG target, while in the case of maternal mortality, the world is only one-third of the way there, the WHO expert said.The question of infant mortality will be evaluated again in September, when WHO and Unicef, the UN children's fund, release new statistics. For now, "we are still standing at 8.1 million" children under five who died in 2009, Boerma said, compared with 12.4 million in 1990.With respect to the situation in the Americas, he said the statistics show that "very good progress" has been made in many countries.In Brazil, Argentina and Chile, for example, "there have been steady but relatively fast declines in child mortality, and coverage intervention is high. And they also reduced the inequity between the poorest and the richest. Brazil has been a very good case study of where the poorest have benefited," he said, adding that Mexico has also progressed.At the other extreme, of course, is Haiti, he said, adding that the health indicators are still worrying in countries like Bolivia and Peru, which have made some advances but "still have a much longer way to go".Boerma cited the case of Cuba, pointing out that although it is not a rich country, it "spends quite a lot on health" and does so "in a very equitable way."Everybody has (free) access to health services," he said. "So in terms of life expectancy it ranks quite high and it has low child mortality and high coverage of intervention. So it is very successful in reaching the whole population and getting good value" for its investment, he added.The expert noted that the US "is not at the top" in terms of health statistics in the Americas. He said: "They are at the top when it comes to the amount of money they spend on health. But they are not at the top in terms of getting good results for their investments in health services."One reason," he said, "may be that coverage of the whole population is not so good. So much of the expenditure goes to relatively expensive curative interventions or interventions that benefit a smaller proportion of the population."The WHO study reported that average global life expectancy rose from 64 years in 1990 to 68 in 2009. In poor countries, the average is 56 years, while it has climbed to 80 years in wealthy countries.Life expectancy for women is five years longer on average than for men. That difference has held fairly steady, between four and five years, over the past two decades.The WHO figures show there is still a huge gap in health spending between low and high-income countries, averaging an annual $32 per capita in the former and $400 per capita in the latter.The study reports that high-income countries have, per capita, 10 times more doctors, 12 times more nurses and midwives and 30 times more dentists, on average, than low-income countries.HealthWorld Health OrganisationAids and HIVMillennium development goalsInfant mortalityMaternal healthMaternal mortalityUnited StatesBrazilArgentinaCubaBoliviaPeruHaitiUnited Nationsguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

NewsTrust Rating: 3.8 average (not enough reviews) - See Review » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Where next for Brazil's gay rights? | Toni Reis

Wed, 11 May 2011 00:00:00 -0700

The Guardian - By Toni Reis - May. 11 (Opinion) - Same-sex unions have been legalised in Brazil, but work still needs to be done to improve tolerance of sexual diversity The 5 May 2011 was an historic day for the rights of lesbians and gay men in Brazil. The country's supreme court ruled unanimously that partnerships between same-sex couples must be recognised as being equal in every legal aspect to partnerships between unmarried heterosexual couples. Prior to the ruling some, but not all, public notaries would register a document stating that the couple lived together. Such documents did not, however, have guaranteed legal value, were subject to interpretation and could be disregarded. Same-sex couples could also take their claim to court, requiring legal recognition of their partnerships. For the most part, such cases were judged by the civil courts and not the family courts, and were regarded as a business partnership – only protecting assets, rather than a relationship of love and affection, with its ensuing rights and obligations. ...

NewsTrust Rating: 3.8 average (not enough reviews) - See Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Brazil: changing sides in currency war

Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:00:00 -0700

Financial Times - By Jonathan Wheatley - Apr. 12 (Opinion) - Another day, another macro-prudential measure from Brazil. On Thursday night Guido Mantega, finance minister, announced a doubling in the tax due on personal loans, from 1.5 to 3 per cent a year.

NewsTrust Rating: 2.9 average (not enough reviews) - See Review » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Latin America shakes off the US yoke | Mark Weisbrot

Fri, 08 Apr 2011 00:00:00 -0700

The Guardian - By Mark Weisbrot - Apr. 08 - The current spat with Ecuador is symptomatic of Washington's failure to grasp that it no longer exercises regional hegemonyOn Thursday the United States expelled the ambassador from Ecuador, in retaliation for Wednesday's expulsion of the US ambassador from Ecuador. This now leaves the United States without ambassadorial relations in three South American countries – Bolivia and Venezuela being the other two – thus surpassing the Bush administration in its diplomatic problems in the region.US Ambassador Heather Hodges was declared "persona non grata" and asked to leave Ecuador "as soon as possible", after a diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks showed her saying some disparaging things about Ecuador's president, Rafael Correa. In the cable, she alleges that President Correa had knowledge of corruption by a former head of the national police. Although the Bush administration intervened in the internal affairs of countries such as Bolivia and even Brazil, it was somewhat better at keeping its "eyes on the prize" and avoiding fights that would distract from its main goal. The prize, of course, is Venezuela – home to the largest oil reserves in the world, estimated by the US Geological Survey at 500bn barrels. Washington's goal there for the last decade has been regime change. The Bush team understood that the more they fought with other countries in the region, the less credible would be their public relations story that Venezuela was the problem.It's nothing personal, really – Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez could have chosen to be the perfect diplomat and he would still be treated in much the same manner by the US government. And it's not the oil itself, since Venezuela still sells the US more than 1m barrels a day and there is a world market for oil, in any case. It's just that any country with that much oil is going to have regional influence; and Washington just doesn't want to deal with someone who has regional influence and doesn't line up with its own goals for the region – not if it can get rid of them. (This simple observation explains a lot about US relations with some other oil states: for example, Iran.) And they have come close to getting rid of Chávez, in the 2002 coup – so they are not giving up.But Washington is losing ground there, too. A big blow was the change in Colombia's foreign policy last summer, when President Juan Manuel Santos took office. An important part of Washington's strategy in Venezuela is to maintain tension between Colombia and Venezuela. They have a head start on this project since the 2,000km border between the two countries has been plagued by paramilitary and guerrilla violence for decades. Conflict between Venezuela and Colombia is also important to Washington's electoral strategy in Venezuela. When there is trouble between the two countries, as in 2009, when Venezuela cut off bilateral trade in response to the US effort to expand its military presence in Colombia, it has a negative impact on a lot of Venezuelans in border states. This helps garner some anti-Chávez votes in border states, as in last year's congressional election in Venezuela. And accusations of Venezuelan support for the Farc guerrillas in Colombia – despite Washington's failure to offer any evidence – are a key element of bringing its anti-Venezuela efforts under the "war on terror" umbrella.Although Colombia's previous president, Álvaro Uribe, was – in recent years – very much allied with the United States' strategy toward Venezuela, Santos immediately rejected it and decided immediately to make peace with Chávez. This turned out to be quite easy to do, despite their past fights when Santos was Uribe's defence minister. As anyone who follows Venezuela knows, Chávez is friendly to any head of state or government that is friendly to Venezuela. Santos's U-turn towards Venezuela is very interesting for several reasons. First, it shows how important regional economic integration is as a force for peace and stability in the area. The attempt by Washington and Santos's predecessor to expand the US military presence in Colombia led to a cutoff of $2.3bn of Colombia's exports to what had recently become their second most important trading partner, Venezuela. This was more than 11% of Colombia's exports, and the bulk of it was in livestock and textile products for which replacement markets were not so readily available. Venezuela also has very close relations with Brazil and most of the rest of South America, and they all felt the same way about Colombia's foreign policy. They were especially concerned about the US military expansion in Colombia – and even more opposed after US Air Force documents made it clear that this expansion was for "mobility operations … on the South American continent" and against the "constant threat" from "anti-US governments". Santos was basically faced with a choice of continuing to do Washington's bidding or being part of South America. He chose South America. The key role of commerce here, as South America continues to integrate economically, illustrates some of the most important "gains from trade". These are far greater than the neoclassical "efficiency gains", often exaggerated by advocates of "free trade" agreements. Also, Santos's choice to rejoin South America shows how geopolitical changes led by the left governments of the region have now encompassed even rightwing governments. This is a result of changes in institutions (foreign ministries, multilateral organisations such as Unasur, the Rio Group), ideas, and norms that have taken place over the last decade.Now comes Washington, demanding that Colombia extradite one Walid Makled, an accused Venezuelan narco-trafficker arrested in Colombia, to the United States. No, thank you, says President Santos – this guy goes to Venezuela. Santos cites Colombian law, stating that, first, Colombia has an extradition treaty with Venezuela, not with the United States; second, Venezuela got their extradition request in first; and third, Makled is wanted for more serious crimes (including murder) in Venezuela than in the US (drug-trafficking). All of these are facts that legally require extradition of Makled to Venezuela.This is most infuriating to Washington. To understand why this is so important to the state department, one has to look behind official pronouncements about Makled getting "a free and fair trial" in Venezuela and other nonsense repeated with charming innocence by the major media. Venezuela has a presidential election next year. For every important election or referendum in Venezuela – and there are many, but none more important to Washington than this one – there is an international media campaign, with the participation of the US government. (A recent WikiLeaks cable shows the Colombian government sharing with US officials its coordinated media campaign to link both Chávez and Correa to the Colombian Farc guerrillas.) Makled has already offered to sing about alleged corruption of Venezuelan officials (note that we haven't heard anything about his dealings with Colombian officials – there must not be any narco-corruption there), but only if he is extradited to the US. So, if they could only get him to Miami, they could have a splendid show trial that would be better than any international media campaign that the state department could organise.If all that seems like it's not worth the trouble, it's exactly what happened in 2008. US authorities used a sketchy show trial of a Venezuelan slapped with dubious "failing to register as a foreign agent" charges – but not with actual espionage – in order to broadcast allegations of corruption at the "highest levels" of the Venezuelan government. The allegations made headlines throughout the hemisphere and, of course, were a mainstay of the Venezuelan opposition-dominated media. Just think what the Makled trial could do: no one would ask what the witnesses were offered for their testimony, or whether there was any corroborating evidence for their allegations. It would be one big free-for-all smear-fest, with reporters gobbling it all up.But Santos is not co-operating, despite enormous pressure and, of course, the currently pending "free trade" agreement between the US and Colombia. Perhaps Washington wants this agreement more than he does.In any case, the Obama administration – like its predecessor – is fighting a losing battle. President Obama's recent trip to Latin America was hardly more successful than those of Bush. He gets better press – no riots in the streets or Mayan leaders cleansing the site with sage after his visit. But every president and foreign minister there can see that US policies haven't changed one bit.VenezuelaEcuadorWikiLeaksThe US embassy cablesUS foreign policyUnited StatesColombiaDrugs tradeHugo ChávezBrazilObama administrationExtraditionMark Weisbrotguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

NewsTrust Rating: 3.4 average (not enough reviews) - See Review » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Ethanol Escapade: Brazil Sugar Producers, Criticized, Seek Sweeter PR

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Wall Street Journal - By Kenneth Rapoza - Jun. 13 (Opinion) - Amid mounting criticism that Brazil's ethanol industry is felling forests to grow sugar for fuel, the industry is fighting back to save its reputation.

NewsTrust Rating: 4.0 average - 3 Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

The State of Energy

Wed, 01 Feb 2006 20:32:33 -0800

New York Times - Feb. 01 (Editorial) - President Bush devoted two minutes and 15 seconds of his State of the Union speech to energy independence. It was hardly the bold signal we've been waiting for through years of global warming and deadly struggles in the Middle East, where everything takes place in the context of what Mr....

NewsTrust Rating: 2.4 average (not enough reviews) - See Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer