GEOPOLITICA DEL MONDO MODERNO

Category archive

Americas - page 10

The meeting between Obama and Renzi at the White House

Americas/Politics di

p041715ps-0317

On the 18th of October, President Barack Obama met the Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi in Washington. The meeting started with a ceremony at the White House and a public speech of both leaders. After that, Obama hosted Renzi and other important Italian personalities for the last state dinner at the White House.

The two leaders strengthened their alliance and cooperation. Italy has been in Europe one of the major supporters of the free trade agreements proposed by the US and Canada, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment partnership (TTIP) and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). In exchange, the U.S. has supported the Italian position on the migratory crisis, arguing that EU countries should share responsibilities.

Moreover, Obama expressed its support to Italian reforms and criticized the economic policies of austerity undertaken by the EU institutions. The US President argued that the expansive economic measures adopted by his country in response to the crisis of 2007 were successfully implemented and the US recovered from the crisis. Conversely, the restrictive economic measures carried out by the EU authorities led to a long economic recession and social problems such as unemployment. In addition to that, Obama warned EU about the fact that the long economic crisis as well as the high level of unemployment have created the conditions for the birth of populism in many countries.

Undoubtedly, the US considers Italy as an important member of NATO alliance and a privileged interlocutor in the EU. Renzi, in his speech, assured the commitment of Italy in supporting the international coalition fighting in the Middle East against ISIS. Italy also allowed the U.S. to use Italian military bases to carry out air strikes in Libya, and few days ago the government accepted to participate to a NATO force in Eastern Europe.

Finally, it is also important to remark that the meeting took place approximately two months before the Italian constitutional referendum promoted by Matteo Renzi. As regards the referendum scheduled for the 4th of December, President Obama expressed his support for the constitutional reforms, as the US Ambassador in Italy did before him. On the one hand this support from the US strengthened the credibility of Renzi’s government on the international stage, but on the other hand the official stance of the US on the Italian referendum provoked criticism in Italy. In fact, many political parties against the constitutional reform defined the U.S. position as an interference in the domestic jurisdiction of a sovereign state.

Argentina: interest rates are going down thanks to the subside of inflation

Americas/BreakingNews @en di

Argentina’s main state-run bank said it lowered its headline interest rates for loans to businesses on Monday amid expectations that inflation will begin to slow in Latin America’s third-largest economy, a move that will help put credit back within firms’ reach. Banco Nacion, the country’s largest financial institution and which also acts as a development bank, set its annual nominal reference rate for business loans at 27%, down from 32%.

Argentina: interest rates are going down thanks to the subside of inflation

Americas di

Argentina’s main state-run bank said it lowered its headline interest rates for loans to businesses on Monday amid expectations that inflation will begin to slow in Latin America’s third-largest economy, a move that will help put credit back within firms’ reach. Banco Nacion, the country’s largest financial institution and which also acts as a development bank, set its annual nominal reference rate for business loans at 27%, down from 32%.

Colombians say No to referendum and Yes to democracy

Americas di

On Sunday 3 October, Colombians went to the polls to decide whether to ratify a peace deal that would have brought an end to Latin America’s longest running armed conflict. After four years of talks, the agreement signed by President Juan Manuel Santos and the head of the FARC, was supposed to end half a century of fighting which has killed a quarter of a million people.

The head of the government’s negotiating team Humberto de la Calle told some days earlier: “Those who vote YES will not only end the FARC as an armed organization, but open new convenient and useful roads for Colombia. People have a right to vote NO, but it is important that they know the consequences of their vote. I hope that all of us as Colombians decide the country’s future”.

Announcing the accord, FARC’s chief negotiator Rodrigo Londono, so-called “Timochenko” said: “We have agreed unanimously to end the conflict and to build a stable and lasting peace with the firm conviction that within it lies the seeds of transformation that the vast majority of people and the whole country are striving for.” FARC leaders and the Colombian government started peace talks in Cuba in November 2012, and since then, they have discussed about the conditions for peace, which concerned the concessions to make to the rebels and what kind of justice they should face. The government’s agreement with the FARC won the support of the United States, the United Nations and Pope Francis. Ringo Starr even recorded a song for it, which shows the need for peace shared throughout the world. But, as we all well know, voters rejected the landmark deal as too lenient on the rebels. The Sunday’s results were a shock to the Santos government and the peace deal’s supporters, as well as to the country that plunged into uncertainty.

We shall now try briefly to explain the reasons why there was a NO vote.

First of all, we’re talking about a quite complex agreement, of more than 290 pages, in which the most critical point is the transitional justice talks, which means what would happen to FARC guerrillas, such as those who have killed almost 260,000 Colombians, 80% of which were civilians. “Would they be imprisoned or not?” was the big question, the most critical discussions which lasted several months. Under the terms of the deal, the FARC would have been able to transform from guerilla army to political party with 10 unelected congressional seats, guaranteed until 2026, 5 seats of which in the Senate and 5 in the Lower House, to compete in the 2018 presidential and legislative elections.

The estimated 7000 FARC fighters were supposed to hand over their weapons and move into 28 disarmament zones set up by the UN. FARC members would have received a 2-year pension and a one-off payment of 610 euros. Furthermore, in order to combat drug crime, FARC agreed to stop cocaine production in its strongholds. In return, the government would have helped farmers earn a new living. However, nevertheless the group publicly admitted for the first time it trafficked drugs, recruited minors and committed human rights violations, including massacres, amnesty would have been granted for political crimes. However, voters were worried the rebels would fail to turn over assets from drugs and illegal mining, which would potentially give them a formidable opportunity to outstrip the coffers of traditional political parties.

On the other hand, once the government announces the referendum results, the agreement would have been implemented progressively according to its timeline, that’s why it would have taken anyway a long term for Colombia to achieve real stability.

The angered “No” campaigners argued in fact that the rebels should serve jail terms and not be allowed to enter politics. The former President, Alvaro Uribe, said that a better agreement could be negotiated. “We – the No voters – say in solidarity to those for Yes that we want peace too. Our concern is with the fear of seeing a weakening of democracy in our constitution in the face of terrorism”.

President Juan Manuel Santos said there is no Plan B for the failure of the plebiscite vote. In the meantime, Timochenko stated on Monday that the peace accord is legally binding because it was signed by Santos. With the deal at risk of collapse, a half-century war that has killed more than 220,000 and displaced eight million, could easily flare up again, a scenario that seemed unimaginable before Sunday. The Colombian government and the FARC have no choice but to renegotiate, to rework the deal and make it more appealing to the voters.

 Roberta Ciampo

The new form of world conspiracy realized by United States

Americas di

Since his first election the Bolivian head of State, Evo Morales, has always shown clearly his mistrust for the US government, which is indicted for promoting global terrorism through military interventions, citing the rise of the Islamic State group and charged of “congressional coups” such as the impending impeachment trial of suspended President Dilma Rousseff in Brazil.

After a narrow defeat in the Constitutional Referendum vote on February 21, which has prevented Morales from representing his Movement to Socialism Party (MAS) in a run for a third term in 2019, the Bolivian president said Socialist governments in Latin America must relaunch “democratic revolutions” in order to counter the strategies in play by the United States to regain control of the region. According to the information reported by the article: “Evo Morales Urges Democratic Revolutions Against US Empire” (TelesurTv), there surely is an ambition to establish a United States presence in these countries and recover subservient governments as a model, as a system.

On August 17 the Guardian reveals the new ‘anti-imperialist’ military academy opening in Bolivia, established with the aim of building anti-colonial and anti-capitalist thinking that binds the armed forces to social movements and counteracts the influence of the School of the Americas that always saw the indigenous as internal enemies.

Furthermore, the online journal “Strategic Culture Foundation” published an article on September 6, emphasizing the economic relations between Bolivia and China, which represent all sorts of concerns for Washington. Morales is steadily strengthening his financial, economic, trade, and military relationships with the Chinese who, unlike the Americans, have always viewed Bolivia as an ally and partner in a relationship that eschews double standards. The US plans to destabilize Bolivia – which were provided to Evo Morales’s government by an unnamed friendly country – include a step-by-step chronogram of the actions plotted by the Americans such as: “To spark hunger strikes and mass mobilizations and to stir up conflicts within universities, civil organizations, indigenous communities, and varied social circles, as well as within government institutions. To strike up acquaintances with both active-duty and retired military officers, with the goal of undercutting the government’s credibility within the armed forces. It is absolutely essential to train the military for a crisis scenario, so that in an atmosphere of growing social conflict they will lead an uprising against the regime and support the protests in order to ensure a peaceful transition to democracy.” The program’s first fruits have been the emergence ** of social protests financed and directed by US intelligence agencies

Morales, who expelled the US ambassador and counter-narcotics agents in 2008, accused Washington of encouraging terrorism, violence and war. On a speech at the 71st General Assembly in New York, Sept. 21, Morales added that it is strongly recommended to “stand alert and take immediate action in order to prevent barbarism of capitalism”, and he expressed his vigorous rejection of the “corrosive and unilateral economic measures used by United States against Cuba for political reasons”, arguing that restoring diplomatic ties is not enough. Then he highlighted the involvement of United Stated in recent bombings and attacks against military positions in Syria, which is the clear demonstration of hypocrisy. This is why in order to eliminate terrorism, Evo suggests to tackle the roots of these diseases. On Sep. 27 Bolivia’s President, Evo Morales, said that “The United States has one policy, which is intervention… Elected presidents do not govern there, bankers and entrepreneurs do” by adding that “Barack Obama had not changed the capitalist policy of the northern country, despite his African origin”.

Today October 2 the online newspaper Prensa Latina reported that, Roberto Aguilar, the education minister of Bolivia, has warned that “if in the past the Americans undertook military coups, now the most powerful weapons are ‘soft coups’ using lies and deception”. Among the many examples, he mentioned the quick trial to dismiss the Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo, the media war against Venezuela and the political process against the Brazilian president, Dilma Rousseff. In the case of Bolivia, he said, the opposition uses misinformation and lies to confuse the people, to undermine social stability and create conditions for interventionism by the US, by promoting the American expansionism, political control and economic dominance of the country.

Roberta Ciampo

Hillary Clinton wins the first presidential debate

Americas/Politics di

The first presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump took place on the 26th of September. The event was held at the Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, at 9 p. m. The democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, and the republican Donald Trump confronted in an heated debate over some important topics. This first debate was an opportunity for the Americans to know more about the political proposals and the personality of the two leaders. The presidential elections are scheduled for the 8th of November and the popularity of the candidates may be significantly influenced by their performance in the three presidential debates.

The debate lasted 90 minutes, and was divided into three main topic areas: achieving prosperity, America’s direction and securing America. As regards the first topic area, the candidates were asked to express their position on jobs. Clinton proposed to build an economy that works for everyone and not just for those at the top. She wants to create new jobs by investing in infrastructures, innovation, technology, clean renewable energy and small businesses. Furthermore, Hillary proposed to make the economy fairer by raising the national minimum wage, introducing earned sick days, paid family leaves, and free college. On the other hand, Donald Trump argued that the main problem related to jobs in the U.S. is that companies are fleeing the country. This happens because of the high taxes that they have to pay in the U.S.  Then, the two candidates were asked to express their vision on taxes. Donald Trump affirmed that he would cut taxes on companies from 35% to 15%. In his opinion, this measure would attract companies in the country as well as creating new jobs. While Clinton expressed a different perspective on taxes. She said that her plan is to raise taxes on wealthy and cut taxes on small businesses and lower social classes. Her purpose is to create a more consistent middle class. At this point of the debate, Trump was asked to explain why he refused to release his tax returns. Even though it is not an obligation for candidates, it is a tradition followed by U.S. Presidents in order to promote financial transparency. He replied saying that he will release his tax returns when Hillary releases her emails.

Concerning the second area, America’s direction, the two candidates were asked to give their opinion about race relations in the country. Hillary Clinton said that the first challenge is to restore trust between the communities and the police. This goal requires a criminal justice reform and a restriction of the possibility to buy weapons. Conversely, Trump affirmed that he would bring back law and order in the country, empowering the police and using methods like the “Stop and frisk”. It is a practice used by the police officers in which they stop and question a pedestrian, then frisk him for weapons. However, Clinton argued that this method was declared unconstitutional.

Referring to the third area, securing America, the candidates were asked to talk about the  issue of cyber attacks. Clinton said that cyber security will be one of the biggest challenges of the next President. She accused Russia of being responsible for one of the recent attacks to U.S. information. On the contrary, Trump affirmed that it is not sure that was Russia who stole the information. After that, they were asked to talk about the prevention of home grown terrorism and ISIS. On this topic Trump affirmed that ISIS is the result of the disaster made in the Middle East by the previous U.S. governments. He criticized a foreign policy based on military intervention and the NATO alliance, which requires a great economic contribution from the U.S. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton expressed her support to the foreign policy of President Obama, and she reminded the importance of NATO for the security of the U.S., as well as the others alliances and treaties that the U.S. signed with foreign countries.

At the end of the debate, a poll expressed a 62% of support for Hillary Clinton and a 27% of support for Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton appeared to the public much more prepared about her political program and at the same time she managed all Trump’s attacks by smiling and keeping calm. On the contrary Trump reacted to Hillary’s accuses in a much more spontaneous way, even raising his voice. The next debates between the two candidates, scheduled for the 9th and the 19th of October will be fundamental to known who will be the next President of the U.S.

New York City: Huge ‘intentional’ explosion in Chelsea district

Americas di

Is unclear the cause of the blast on saturday night, Major Bill de Blasio said that it seems “Intentional.

29 injured people that are not life threatening but one is really serious. The force of the blast blew-out windows and could be heard several blocks away.

Other device was found at a second location in the same district and the alert is very high.

 

U.S.: Bomb Explodes On Route Of Charity Race In New Jersey

Americas di

A pipe bomb exploded on the route of a charity race in the U.S. state of New Jersey on Sept. 17, forcing the event to be cancelled but causing no injuries, BBC reported. The bomb had been placed in a garbage can along the route of the 5km Semper Five run in Seaside Park. The participants would have been in the area but the race had been delayed because of an unattended bag. The charity race is in aid of Marines and sailors and this year attracted thousands of runners. The blast occurred on a boardwalk area, which authorities sealed off. State and federal law enforcement agencies are investigating the explosion and are sweeping the area for more devices.

Source: Stratfor.com

Iran: S-300 Missile System Deployed To Fordow Nuclear Site

Americas/Defence di

Iran has deployed the Russian-supplied S-300 surface-to-air missile defense system around its Fordow underground uranium enrichment facility, Iranian state media said Aug. 29, Reuters reported. A commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps’ air defense force said the priority of thedefense system was only to protect the nuclear site. Iran and six world powers reached a deal in 2015 aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for lifting economic sanctions imposed on Tehran over its disputed nuclear work. Enrichment of uranium at the Fordow facility, around 100 kilometers (60 miles) south of Tehran, has stopped since the implementation of the nuclear deal. Russia in 2010 canceled a contract to deliver S-300s to Iran, but Russian President Vladimir Putin lifted that self-imposed ban in April 2015, providing much-needed defense equipment to Iran’s military. In August, Iran said that Russia had delivered main parts of the system to the country, adding that it would be delivered in its entirety by the end of 2016.

Source STRATFOR.com

Inherent Resolve Strikes Target ISIL in Syria, Iraq

Americas/Defence di

From a Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve News Release

SOUTHWEST ASIA, Aug. 3, 2016 — U.S. and coalition military forces continued to attack Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists in Syria and Iraq yesterday, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials reported today.

Officials reported details of yesterday’s strikes, noting that assessments of results are based on initial reports.

Strikes in Syria

Fighter aircraft conducted five strikes in Syria:

— Near Raqqah, a strike struck an ISIL headquarters.

— Near Manbij, four strikes struck four separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed five ISIL fighting positions.

Strikes in Iraq

Fighter, remotely piloted aircraft and rocket artillery conducted seven strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:

— Near Kisik, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL vehicle and an ISIL fighting position.

— Near Mosul, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL vehicle and suppressed an ISIL mortar position.

— Near Qayyarah, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL heavy machine gun, an ISIL mortar system, two ISIL vehicles and an ISIL assembly area.

— Near Ramadi, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL vehicle borne improvised explosive device, five ISIL vehicles and four ISIL tactical vehicles.

— Near Rawah, a strike destroyed an ISIL fuel tanker.

— Near Tal Afar, a strike struck an ISIL headquarters.

Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target. Ground-based artillery fired in counterfire or in fire support to maneuver roles is not classified as a strike.

Part of Operation Inherent Resolve

The strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose to Iraq, Syria, and the wider international community. The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terrorist group’s ability to project terror and conduct operations, officials said.

Coalition nations that have conducted strikes in Iraq include the United States, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Jordan, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Coalition nations that have conducted strikes in Syria include the United States, Australia, Bahrain, Canada, France, Jordan, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom.

Alessandro Conte
0 £0.00
Vai a Inizio
×