O CASA BRANCA deseja-lhe um Feliz 2010

Momentos que ficam de 2009 na política americana

Críticas e elogios a Obama no rescaldo da tentativa falhada de ataque terrorista

Já a secretária Janet Napolitano, titular da pasta da Segurança Interna, está sob fogo por ter dito que «o sistema funcionou».

Obama admite «falha no sistema de segurança»

«Caderno Afegão», por Alexandra Lucas Coelho

«Este livro é um acto de coragem. É um acto de optimismo, também.
Paul Theroux explica na introdução a "O Velho Expresso da Patagónia" que "os viajantes são essencialmente optimistas, ou então nunca iriam a lado nenhum".

É esse optimismo que permite a Alexandra Lucas Coelho afastar quaisquer receios com uma espécie de fatalismo paradoxalmente empreendedor: "não há nada a fazer". Mesmo quando por instantes se lhe infiltra na mente a dúvida acerca do desconhecido que a certa altura a transporta, sabe-se lá para onde, numa terra onde "um estrangeiro é um acepipe". "Não há nada a fazer." E a viagem continua.

Vamos com ela aos jardins de Babur. Descobrimos com ela – num país masculino, onde até na morgue há frigoríficos distintos para os cadáveres de homens e mulheres – a herança da extraordinária rainha Gowar Shad. Mergulhamos o olhar no azul intenso de Band-e-Amir, um milagre atribuído a Ali, primo e genro do Profeta, que continua a proporcionar a quem o visita os bens mais escassos num país em guerra: tranquilidade e alegria.

Aquilo que aqui, a ocidente, a milhares de quilómetros de distância, é apenas um borrão sem nome, uma massa de ideias vagas e de lugares-comuns, geopolítica e geoestratégia, toma a forma de gente concreta, ganha contornos, espessura, rosto. O facto de Alexandra Lucas Coelho escrever tão bem faz o resto. É o meio de transporte em que viajamos por um lugar aonde, é quase certo, nunca iríamos de outro modo.»
(do prefácio de Carlos Vaz Marques)

Acompanhou-me nos últimos dias e acabei de o ler há momentos. É um livro belíssimo , que vale a pena ser saboreado.

Alexandra Lucas Coelho, jornalista do «Público», escreveu «Caderno Afegão», obra na qual relata a sua experiência (única) no Afeganistão, em Junho de 2008.

Numa altura em que o Afeganistão é, cada vez mais, o país chave para se perceber como irá correr o resto do mandato de Obama, aqui fica a sugestão de leitura, no CASA BRANCA.

A edição (muito bonita) é da Tinta da China.

O segundo semestre de 2009 em cinco minutos

Relances de 2009 num minuto e pouco

Nancy Pelosy, 'madam speaker'

Texto publicado no passado dia 21 de Dezembro, no «Histórias da Casa Branca», site de A Bola, secção Outros Mundos, sobre a speaker da Câmara dos Representantes:

Nancy Pelosi, "madam speaker"

Por Germano Almeida

Há um elo fundamental para que a corrente entre a Casa Branca de Barack Obama e o Congresso possa funcionar – e batalhas como a da Saúde mostram que nem sempre tem funcionado da melhor forma. Esse elo chama-se Nancy Pelosi, a poderosa 'speaker' da Câmara dos Representantes.

Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi, 69 anos, é a primeira mulher a liderar a House (a câmara baixa), um marco histórico que até George W. Bush (que ainda era Presidente quando Nancy atingiu o posto) destacou durante largos minutos em discurso no Congresso. É, também, a primeira italo-americana e a primeira congressista eleita pelo estado da Califórnia a assumir o posto de speaker.

Filha de um antigo congressista do Maryland, Thomas D'Alesandro, Nancy cresceu numa família com fortes ligações ao Partido Democrata. Além de ter servido no Congresso, o pai de Nancy foi também mayor de Baltimore, tal como o filho, Thomas D'Alesandro III, irmão da actual 'speaker'.

É católica (religião minoritária no meio predominantemente protestante da política americana) e está casada, há 46 anos, com Paul Pelosi. Têm cinco filhos: Nancy Corrine, Christine, Jacqueline, Paul e Alexandra.

A vocação política, que está nos genes de Nancy, levou-a a entrar no Congresso há mais de duas décadas, em 1987. Quinze anos depois, tomou a liderança da bancada democrata, sucedendo a Dick Gephardt, que abandonou o cargo para preparar a sua (mal sucedida...) candidatura presidencial nas primárias de 2004.

Depois de ter liderado a então minoria democrata durante quatro anos, na primeira parte dos anos Bush, a vitória do Partido Democrata nas intercalares de 2006 levou Pelosi a ser escolhida para comandar a Câmara dos Representantes.

Jogo de equilíbrios
Dois anos depois, quando Barack Obama conquistou a Casa Branca, os democratas passaram a beneficiar de um «pleno» de que há muito não dispunham: controlam, desde aí, a Presidência, o Senado e a Câmara dos Representantes.

A somar a este cenário aparentemente tão favorável para o Partido Democrata, falta dizer que, poucos meses depois da eleição de Obama, foi atingido o mítico número de 60 senadores – o limiar que impede um 'filibuster' (minoria de bloqueio) republicano.

É que apesar de terem perdido o influente senador Joe Lieberman, do Connecticut (que passou para a coluna dos independentes), os democratas conquistaram o apoio do senador Arlen Spector, da Pensilvânia, que trocou de partido, abandonando os republicanos, na sequência do apoio que deu ao 'stimulus package' preparado pela Administração Obama para responder à crise económica, aprovado no Senado.

À primeira vista, parecia o cenário político ideal para que a Administração Obama pudesse jogar os seus trunfos com relativa tranquilidade. Mas é sabido que as coisas estão longe de ser assim: o Presidente ainda não sabe se vai conseguir passar no Senado um dos pilares do seu primeiro mandato, a Reforma da Saúde, apesar de esta já ter passado na Câmara dos Representantes. Foi uma aprovação histórica, mas tangencial – e a intervenção de Nancy Pelosi nas negociações de bastidores revelou-se decisiva.

Com um Partido Republicano cada vez mais disposto a subir o tom da oposição a Obama (e ansioso por aproveitar as intercalares de 2010 para alterar fortemente os dados do jogo), e com uma fatia minoritária -- mas significativa para formar maiorias -- de 'Blue Dogs' democratas que vota frequentemente em direcção oposta à do Presidente, não tem sido fácil gerir este jogo de equilíbrios.

Obama sabe que corre o risco de perder estas maiorias alargadas no Congresso dentro de poucos meses – e conta com a habilidade negocial de Nancy para ir passando as medidas essenciais. Já foi assim com a recuperação económica, está a ser assim com a Reforma da Saúde e há-de ser assim com a Climate Bill e, sobretudo, quando chegar o momento do Congresso apreciar a decisão do Presidente para o AfPak.

Refazer pontes políticas
Forte opositora da guerra do Iraque, Nancy também tem sido contra a escalada militar adoptada pelos EUA no Afeganistão, nos últimos anos, e não escondeu as suas enormes reservas sobre a recente decisão de Barack Obama de enviar mais 30 mil efectivos para o terreno.

Também na Reforma da Saúde, Pelosi tem-se situado na ala esquerda das sensibilidades democratas, mostrando-se acérrima defensora de uma via tendencialmente universal – e a favor da polémica 'public option', que está a emperrar uma solução de consenso.

Mas, como 'speaker' do Congresso, Nancy tem sabido interpretar a máxima que nos diz que a política está longe de ser um mundo ideal e deve ser «a arte do possível»: há poucos meses, garantia a pés juntos que «a Reforma da Saúde terá a 'public option' ou então não será uma verdadeira reforma». Perante as ameaças dos 'Blue Dogs' de travarem o diploma, Nancy já diz agora que «vale a pena encontrar vias para encontrar pontes políticas que permitam aprovar o essencial».

Mesmo ocupando uma franja mais liberal do que o Presidente, Nancy Pelosi tem sido decisiva para que Obama possa ver no Congresso um aliado e não um adversário.»

A mensagem de Natal de Barack e Michelle Obama

Reforma da Saúde aprovada no Senado (IV): 60 votos a favor, 39 contra

Reforma da Saúde aprovada no Senado (III): Obama fala numa «reforma real e significativa»

O Presidente agradeceu a Harry Reid, líder da maioria democrata no Senado, a Nancy Pelosi, speaker da Câmara dos Representantes, o «extraordinário trabalho cumprido», falou num «voto histórico» e lembrou: «Desde Teddy Roosevelt, sete Presidentes, democratas e republicanos, tentaram reformar o sistema e essas tentativas foram sempre bloqueadas pelos grandes interesses».

Obama destacou «as medidas mais duras algumas vez já tomadas para travar os interesses das grandes companhias e proteger os cidadãos». É «a protecção para 30 milhões de americanos que não a tinham», insistiu Obama.

E lançou: «É a maior reforma governamental desde a Segurança Social e, no caso da Saúde, desde a implantação do Medicare, nos anos 60».

Reforma da Saúde aprovada no Senado (II): programa vai custar 871 mil milhões de euros

«After months of blown deadlines and political near-death experiences, a sweeping health care reform bill cleared the Senate Thursday on a party-line vote, putting President Barack Obama within reach of a domestic policy achievement that has eluded Democrats for decades.


With Vice President Joe Biden presiding over the session, Democrats gathered in the chamber before sunrise on the day before Christmas to cast a vote long in coming but in the end, hardly a surprise, a 60-39 tally that was the fourth time in as many days that Democrats proved they could muster the winning margin.


But this was the one that counted, the bookend to a House vote last month that puts Congress on record saying that Americans have a right to affordable health insurance, with plans that will cover 30 million Americans currently without it.


“With today’s vote, we are now incredibly close to making health insurance reform a reality in this country,” President Barack Obama said at the White House, calling the bill the important piece of social legislation since Social Security in the 1930s. “Our challenge, then, is to finish the job.”


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said before the vote that Americans could wait no more. “How much longer can we afford to put this off, or ask the uninsured for their patience?” Reid said. “We may not completely cure this crisis today or tomorrow, but we must start toward that end. We must strive for progress.”


But clearly exhausted, Reid mistakenly voted no when the roll call came to him. Reid shook his head, changed his vote to "aye" – and rested his head on his desk briefly. The chamber erupted in laughter.


"I spent a very restless night last night trying to figure out how I could show some bipartisanship and I think I was able to accomplish that for a few minutes," Reid joked later.


The vote sets the stage for difficult House-Senate negotiations during which Democrats will be forced to settle differences that have lingered for months, and there is still no guarantee a bill will pass in the end.


Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), one of the last Democratic holdouts, once again made clear that his vote isn’t assured when the bill returns to the Senate. In the hallway outside the vote, he told his fellow moderate, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), “Our work is not over.”


"Splitting the difference here could well break the 60-vote consensus," Lieberman said to reporters.


Moments after the historic vote, Nelson returned to the Senate floor, to reassert his call for strong language in the bill that prevents federal funding of abortion, another likely sticking point in the upcoming negotiations.


Republicans, too, say their work isn’t finished. “This fight isn’t over. My colleagues and I will work to stop this bill from becoming law. That’s the clear will of the American people — and we’re going to continue to fight on their behalf,” Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said.

But with momentum at their back, Democrats believe they can craft a compromise that, in broad strokes, would expand coverage through subsidies to help Americans buy insurance and allowing more people into the Medicaid program. The Senate plan includes a new national health insurance program overseen by the government but offered through private insurers.

Both the House and Senate bills prevent insurance companies from dropping patients who get sick and create a new legal requirement that all Americans must own health insurance – a provision already under growing attack from conservatives and liberals.

For a day at least, however, Democrats basked in the moment.


When Sen. Robert Byrd’s name was called, the ailing West Virginian said, “Mr. President, this is for my friend, Ted Kennedy – aye," a reference to the late Massachusetts senator who long fought for universal health care.


Kennedy’s wife, Victoria Kennedy, attended this vote, as she did early Monday morning. Tears in her eyes, she was emotional after the vote. "This is an enormous step for our country," she told reporters off the Senate floor. "We have some steps to go. But we have come too far. We're not going to let this opportunity slip away"


Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was the last vote, entering the chamber late to a round of applause, and he yelled out "yes."


The visitor's gallery was filled with staff that worked on the bill, as well as the longest-serving House member in history, John Dingell, whose father fought for universal health care. Following the vote, the usually stoic Reid broke into a broad smile, and accepted a parade of handshakes from Democrats. He embraced Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who he worked hard to win over last month for the first key test vote.


Senate Republican Jim Bunning of Kentucky was absent for the vote.


Obama has said he would be deeply involved in the negotiations – a contrast to his approach up to this point, involving himself only at key moments and frustrating Democrats who wanted more hands-on help from their leader as they took politically dicey votes.


“We hope to have a whole bunch of folks over here in the West Wing, and I’ll be rolling up my sleeves and spending some time before the full Congress even gets into session, because the American people need it now,” Obama told PBS Wednesday in an interview.


Reid accomplished what was long viewed as impossible: He drafted a comprehensive reform bill palatable to both extremes of his Democratic caucus, moderates and liberals, plus everybody in between.


The Senate plan falls far short of Democrats' initial vision for reform in one key regard — it lacks a government-run insurance option after several moderate Democrats said they’d block the bill if it remained. That decision has divided the Democratic base, with many liberals saying the plan isn’t true reform and would merely enrich private insurers.


But the past four days have still been heady for Democrats, who are well aware of their role in pushing health care reform farther than their predecessors. Reid, in particular, has been singled out repeatedly for praise.

“He is on the verge of achieving what majority leaders going back over a half a century have failed to accomplish,” Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the Senate health committee, said. “Make no mistake, Majority Leader Reid has earned his place in the Senate's history.”


Senate Republicans gambled on Democrats becoming so utterly divided that they would be forced to scrap the bill.


Democrats did struggle to find consensus at every step of the process – during the painstaking committee-level negotiations in both chambers, and as Pelosi and Reid attempted to push the bills towards final passage.


But congressional Democrats always remained remarkably united on the need to finish the job. In the last month, as Senate Republicans threw up procedural hurdles and portrayed the bill as a dangerous experiment, Democrats emerged as a more cohesive unit than when the process began.

“Ultimately, every Democrat from the most liberal to the most conservative realized we had to get a bill, whether they wanted to do health care at the beginning or not,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y) said after Nelson, the last holdout, committed his vote last weekend. “Everybody realized there was just no option and nobody wanted to be the last person to bring it down.”


Republicans kept up their fight to the end. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who was once viewed as a potential Republican supporter and spent months negotiating with Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), said passing the bill would be worse than doing nothing.


“When the debate began last year, interested legislators of both parties set forth benchmarks that were no-brainers: Health care reform should lower the cost of premiums. It should reduce the deficit. It should bend the growth curve in health care the right way,” Grassley said. “The Reid bill doesn't do any of those things.”


Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) repeated charges he first made last weekend that the process was corrupt, citing state-specific deals Reid struck with members to secure their votes.


“This vote is indeed historic,” Coburn said in a statement Thursday. “This Congress will be remembered for its arrogance, corruption and stupidity. … If this bill becomes law, future generations will rue this day and I will do everything in my power to work toward its repeal.”


Some of the toughest work remains ahead.


Senate Democrats concede that significant differences with the House – coupled with the fatigue caused by 25 consecutive days in session this month – will prevent delivering a final bill to Obama’s desk by the State of the Union speech.


“Let's be very honest about this, we need a break,” Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said. “We need a break to get home to our families, to repair some relationships with our spouses, and to relax and recharge and come back. And I think we'll have a much more positive outcome after that break. But it does take time away in January. It may mean that this will take a little longer.”

And after a year of deadlines for action that came and went – the August recess, Columbus Day, Thanksgiving, the end of year – Durbin swore them off. “No. Nope. No deadlines. Boy, I have I learned that. I've announced three or four solemn deadlines during the course of this and had to eat my words every time so I'm finished with deadlines,” he said.


The two bills share the major goals of expanding coverage to millions of Americans and slowing the rapid growth in health care costs. But they differ in many ways, both large and small. Beyond the public option and abortion, the House and Senate bills are at odds over the taxes levied to pay for the overhaul, the mandate on employers to provide coverage, and the amount of subsidies for low- and moderate-income people to purchase coverage.

Democrats at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue have been trying to ease the way for a smooth, politically painless negotiation between the House and Senate on a final bill. Few expect the public option to survive when the two bills are merged, but that didn't stop prominent liberals in the House from waging a last-ditch campaign to save it on the eve of Thursday's big vote.


"By eliminating the public option, the government program that could spark competition within the health insurance industry, the Senate has ended up with a bill that isn't worthy of its support," the always-candid Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter wrote on CNN.com Wednesday.


On a conference call with her rank-and-file Wednesday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reminded House Democrats, "We need to let the Senate work its will," according to someone on the call.


But she also appeared to remind them that she doesn’t plan to concede much ground during the conference negotiations.


"They have a good bill. We have a great bill," the speaker told her colleagues.


Pelosi walked House Democrats through the schedule for the negotiations, telling her members that the best-case scenario would have a bill on the president's desk at the end of January or the beginning of February. Hoping to pass the bill before Obama comes to the House for his first official State of the Union, the speaker said the White House has shown some flexibility to schedule the speech a little later than usual. Pelosi also warned her caucus that the Congressional Budget Office would need at least 12 days to deliver its final cost projection on whatever negotiators agree to.


House Democrats want to ensure the final package makes mandatory insurance more affordable. The House bill provides more extensive subsidies than the Senate legislation at the lower end of the income scale. Liberal Democrats would also like to see the final bill impose a greater burden on businesses to cover their employees.


On the call, a number of Democrats also asked the speaker to push for a mix of new taxes in the final bill. Some Democrats in the House want to see a combination of their surtax on the wealthiest Americans and the Senate's tax on high-end health care plans.»

in POLITICO.COM

HISTÓRICO: REFORMA DA SAÚDE APROVADA NO SENADO

Conheça a casa dos Obama no Havai

Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri) sobre a Reforma da Saúde: atitude dos republicanos uniu os democratas

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Reforma da Saúde é votada no Senado na quinta de manhã, véspera de Natal

E Barack Obama só vai descansar depois de ver os seus «amigos do Senado» a aprovar o histórico diploma:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

A mensagem de Natal de Obama às crianças americanas

Arnold Schwarzenegger, governador republicano da Califórnia, dá um «A» a Obama pelo seu empenho no primeiro ano

Reforma da Saúde: Obama felicita «enorme passo» dado pelo Senado

Mais um passo para a Reforma da Saúde: 60 votos favoráveis estão garantidos

Ben Nelson, senador democrata do Nebraska, pode ter já garantido a passagem da Reforma da Saúde

Com o anúncio de Ben Nelson, senador do Nebraska, de que vai apoiar a proposta dos democratas, estará garantido o número de 60 senadores, necessário para a aprovação da Reforma da Saúde.

O general David Petraeus sobre o papel do Paquistão na guerra do Afeganistão

Reacções ao discurso de Obama em Copenhaga

«Obama does it again»

E ao último dia, chegou-se a um acordo em Copenhaga. Longe do acordo ideal, mas bem melhor do que um «fracasso total» que chegou a ser sentenciado precipitadamente.

Obama apareceu no último dia e falou num «meaningful agreement». Talvez tenha sido apenas um «primeiro passo». Mas terá ficado claro quem, entre China e EUA, é o «superpoluente» mais interessado em melhorar as coisas...

«President Obama reportedly was re luctant to attend the final day of the UN's Copenhagen climate-change summit unless it was front-end wired to be a major political success.

But he went anyway, was twice humiliated in public by the Chinese premier and then finally settled for what the White House hailed as a "meaningful agreement."

Really? A top aide admitted that the deal was basically just "an important first step" that was "not sufficient to combat the threat of climate change."

Then Obama himself dropped the other shoe: The agreement contains no specific commitments on carbon emissions, only pledges that "will not be legally binding."

So what the hell was the point?

One would think that Obama had taken a lesson from his last trip to Copenhagen -- when he thought his presence alone would win the 2016 Olympic games for Chicago.

That is, that he would have learned that it is a mistake to publicly commit presidential prestige to an outcome that isn't locked up in advance.

Obviously, not.

So much for two years of work and a supposedly broad international consensus that was to make the Copenhagen conference little more than a formality.

Clearly, yesterday was about squabbling over how much money we'll borrow from the Chinese so that we can give it right back to Beijing and other Third World countries in exchange for their promise to . . . well, that was never clear.

And twice yesterday, Obama was kept waiting in public by China's premier.

This is scary stuff.

Obviously, the rest of the world has taken measure of Barack Obama -- and decided he's a pushover.

On the merits, not unfairly.

Now, we're not going to feign heartbreak over the outcome itself.

The conference was a UN-sponsored effort to pick the West's pockets on behalf of its own bureaucrats, plus assorted Third World kleptocrats, and it deserved to die ignominiously.

As for Obama, it was clear from Day One that he was on a very steep learning curve.

But who imagined it was this steep?»

in New York Post

David Axelrod: «Seria trágico matar a Reforma da Saúde»

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obama em Copenhaga: «A América está preparada para avançar com um acordo»

Dick Durbin, senador democrata do Illinois: «Dentro de uma semana, haverá 60 senadores a apoiar a Reforma da Saúde»

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

O post 1000 do CASA BRANCA

Este é um post especial: o CASA BRANCA acaba de chegar ao post 1000.

Para assinalar a marca, nada melhor do que escrever sobre um discurso memorável de Obama, o da aceitação do Nobel da Paz, feito no passado dia 10 de Dezembro.

Publiquei este texto esta tarde, no Histórias da Casa Branca, do site de A Bola, Outros Mundos:

Um discurso memorável

Por Germano Almeida
«Não temos que pensar que a natureza humana tem que ser perfeita para que possamos acreditar que ela pode ser melhorada. Não temos que viver num Mundo idealizado para que possamos procurar os ideais que irão fazer do Mundo um sítio melhor». Barack Obama, em Oslo, no discurso de aceitação do Prémio Nobel da Paz

Lembram-se daquela tirada de David Plouffe sobre a necessidade de Obama voltar a ligar a luz do sabre, em resposta à piada de Jon Stewart, que comparara o Presidente ao todo-poderoso... Mestre Jedi da Guerra das Estrelas? Quando tudo parecia destinado a correr mal a Barack, eis que voltou a sentir-se um cheirinho a «Obamania».

Começa a ser repetitivo dizer que uma intervenção de Obama «foi notável», mas muitos dos que ouviram o discurso de aceitação do Prémio Nobel da Paz, em Oslo, falam em algo próximo de uma obra-prima: Barack juntou retórica, coragem política e profundidade intelectual.

Não foi no estilo persuasivo de campanha que o discurso de Filadélfia (Março de 2008) exigia. Nem no tom jubilatório dos discursos de investidura democrata (Denver, Agosto de 2008), da noite da vitória eleitoral (Chicago, Novembro de 2008) ou da tomada de posse como Presidente (Washington, Janeiro de 2009).

Já foi mais parecido com o discurso do Cairo, dirigido ao mundo muçulmano, ou com o discurso de Praga – em que já tinha apontado alguns dos grandes princípios que agora expôs com mais detalhe para a política externa.

Certo, certo é que foi um dos melhores discursos da vida de Barack Obama – e só isso é já um rótulo de garantia. Quando se fizer a história dos momentos chave da Presidência Obama, este discurso de aceitação do Nobel terá um lugar especial: não só pelo brilhantismo, mas, sobretudo, porque poderá marcar o início de uma nova etapa no modo como Barack pretende conduzir o seu mandato presidencial.

Retórica e realismo
Numa altura em que começavam a parecer fechados os caminhos para que o Presidente recuperasse o controlo da situação, Obama voltou a mostrar que tem mesmo um dom especial para se transcender nos momentos de maior tensão – ou não tivesse sido o vencedor-surpresa da eleição disputada num dos períodos mais difíceis da história americana.

Sem camuflar a aparente contradição que o Mundo inteiro lhe apontava (o de estar a aceitar o Nobel da Paz apenas nove dias depois de ter decretado o envio de mais 30 mil soldados americanos para o Afeganistão), Obama usou um trunfo de retórica que domina como quase ninguém: atacou de frente o ponto que lhe poderia ser mais embaraçoso e começou logo por abordar essa dualidade Guerra 'vs' Paz.

O Presidente avançou para uma definição de «guerra justa», um conceito, no mínimo, perigoso, pelos desvios de interpretação que foram feitos durante os anos Bush.

Sem medo da comparação, Obama especificou os termos em que, enquanto Presidente, considera que os EUA têm legitimidade de travar uma guerra. Recordou uma verdade aparentemente óbvia, mas que ajudou a demarcá-lo dos sectores esquerdistas que agora o tentam crucificar pelo reforço de tropas no Afeganistão: «Um movimento pacifista nunca teria derrotado o Exército de Hitler. As negociações não teriam os líderes da Al Qaeda a baixarem as suas armas».

Doutrina Obama
Foi o lançamento para um discurso notável. Durante 35 minutos, Obama reconheceu, com humildade, que os feitos que já alcançou estão ainda «muito aquém» de outros laureados, como Mandela, Marshall ou Martin Luther King.

Questionou o lugar da América no Mundo, fez dura autocrítica do que foram atitudes e comportamentos dos EUA nos últimos anos, mas deixou muito clara a ideia de que -- na esteira dos seus antecessores -- a América saberá assumir as suas responsabilidades históricas, como única superpotência militar.

Se dúvidas restassem, o discurso de Oslo selou os contornos do que muitos já apontam como sendo a Doutrina Obama: uma visão «pragmática» e «realista» de um Mundo onde «o Mal existe», mas assumindo, com muita clareza, que a América, com esta administração, não repetirá Guantánamo ou Abu Ghraib («os Estados Unidos não torturam») e sabe distinguir o «erro» da invasão do Iraque (palavra nunca proferida no seu discurso) da «necessidade» da intervenção no Afeganistão.

São dados bem menos românticos do que o «yes we can» da campanha? Talvez sejam. Mas ninguém pode acusar Obama de incoerência: em traços largos, esta «doutrina» já havia sido exposta por Barack durante a campanha -- repetiu-a nos discursos, nos debates e escreveu-a em artigo profundo e muito bem estruturado, assinado na revista Foreign Affairs, durante o duelo com Hillary nas primárias.

Consistente com o seu próprio passado, mas mais «presidencial» no estilo e na «solidão» do enorme peso que carrega nos ombros (enquanto Presidente de um país em duas guerras), o discurso de aceitação do Nobel pode ajudar Obama a recuperar o essencial da sua base de apoio (os democratas e os independentes) e – eis a enorme novidade -- agradou a uma boa parte dos republicanos, que, pela segunda vez (a primeira tinha sido nove dias antes, no discurso em West Point) olharam para Obama como um Presidente capaz de «garantir a defesa da América».

Intervalo na crispação
«Foi um grande discurso. Muito profundo e, nalgumas passagens, filosófico mesmo. É um discurso que eleva a imagem da América», observa David Gergen, antigo conselheiro de quatro Presidentes americanos.

Em editorial no Washington Post, Ruth Marcus enuncia: «Na sua curta carreira, Obama sempre foi capaz de exceder as expectativas nas alturas cruciais. A sua retórica em Oslo foi arrebatadora e convincente. Ao mesmo tempo, expôs uma visão séria e abrangente do Mundo. Foi um discurso não de um novato, nem de um homem sob fogo, mas de um Presidente que, com o passar do tempo, vai crescendo na sua posição.»

Mais directo, numa só frase, no seu estilo six-pack, Jack Cafferty (autor do Cafferty File, da CNN) resumiu o essencial: «The guy did an amazing speech». Já há algum tempo que não se ouvia uma tirada destas sobre Barack Obama.

Os problemas internos do Presidente americano vão continuar. Mas o notável discurso de Oslo pode ter aberto um novo capítulo no mandato presidencial de Obama – lançando, finalmente, as bases para um caminho de «reconciliação» (uma das ideias fortes da sua campanha) entre as inúmeras sensibilidades políticas e ideológicas que existem na América.

Parece que a estrela de Barack Obama vai continuar a brilhar por mais algum tempo.»

A aceitação do Nobel e muito mais: a semana política em retrospectiva

Cinco pretendentes republicanos para 2012

Um artigo publicado no Histórias da Casa Branca, do site de A Bola:

Cinco pretendentes republicanos para 2012

Por Germano Almeida

Na política americana, a corrida presidencial quase não pára. Obama foi eleito há pouco mais de um ano, mas já há movimentações, mesmo que não assumidas, para a nomeação republicana de 2012. Afinal de contas, «só» faltam dois anos para o Iowa, o estado de arranque das primárias...

A maratona para a Casa Branca é uma autêntica loucura: são dois anos a marcar posição, fazer contactos, arranjar dinheiro e viajar. Viajar muito, por um país enorme, com 50 estados – sendo que aos estados-chave é preciso ir várias vezes.

Depois desses dois anos quase sem parar, então aí, começam as votações. Corrida após corrida, os milhões que têm que se gastar aumentam e o tempo dedicado pelos candidatos à disputa eleitoral vai-se alargando.

Uma corrente de analistas que começa a olhar para a Presidência Obama com uma certa desilusão identifica uma discrepância um pouco preocupante para Barack: como candidato à presidência foi brilhante; como Presidente, nem sempre tem conseguido dar conta do recado.

Será que o cada vez mais exigente processo eleitoral na América está a criar um tipo de candidatos vencedores que não reúnem, propriamente, as características adequadas para se ser Presidente? Serão dois momentos tão diferentes que haverá o risco de não poderem ser assumidos pela mesma pessoa?

David Plouffe, o 'mago' que dirigiu a campanha de Obama, garante que não: «Uma corrida presidencial na América é tão exigente que só quem está muitíssimo bem preparado pode ter sucesso. O Presidente sabe o que tem a fazer na Casa Branca, do mesmo modo que soube o que tinha que fazer quando estava em campanha.»

Na mesma linha, Paul Begala, conselheiro de Bill Clinton nos anos 90 e apoiante de Hillary durante as primárias, observa: «A maneira como está organizado o calendário eleitoral dá-nos uma garantia: quem conquistou a Casa Branca teve que passar por várias provas, tanto a nível político, como no plano da resistência psicológica e mesmo física.»

A linha dura, um moderado ou Romney?
Com o risco que implica falar-se sobre algo que só vai começar a acontecer daqui a dois anos, lanço os cinco nomes que se perfilam como os mais prováveis para a nomeação republicana de 2012.

Pela ordem de probabilidades: Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty e Bobby Jindal. A menos que apareça, do lado republicano, um «furacão» idêntico ao de Obama nas primárias democratas de 2008, o adversário do actual Presidente em 2012 vai partir do lote acima exposto.

Muito dependerá do que vier a acontecer em duas frentes: em primeiro lugar, até que ponto o fantasma da «desilusão» continuará a perseguir Obama durante o primeiro mandato; depois, será importante perceber como mudará o panorama político nas intercalares de 2010.

Depois da gigantesca derrota de 4 de Novembro de 2008 (dia em que perdeu a Casa Branca e ofereceu aos democratas um controlo absoluto do Senado e da Câmara dos Representantes), o Partido Republicano andou à deriva, sem saber para onde caminhar.

A eleição de Michael Steele para chairman do Comité Nacional (oficialmente, o líder do partido, mas na prática um cargo com pouca relevância política) revelou a pressa de reagir à Obamania: basicamente, Steele só foi eleito... por ser negro, numa resposta mimética ao que acontecera com os democratas, mas uma comparação com Obama seria motivo para uma gargalhada.

A queda de Obama nas sondagens tem dado alento aos republicanos. Mas ainda não se percebeu qual será a orientação dominante para 2012: uma colagem à ala dura, protagonizada por Sarah Palin ou Mike Huckabee, ou uma aposta numa figura moderada, capaz de disputar o eleitorado independente – que abriria caminho a Tim Pawlenty ou Bobby Jindal?

No meio desta dualidade, poderá emergir Mitt Romney, que reúne as duas vertentes: é conservador em temas como o aborto ou matérias fiscais, mas mostrou credenciais centristas na governação do estado do Massachussets, que lhe valeram uma boa votação junto dos independentes e mesmo de algum eleitorado democrata.

Romney parte à frente
Mitt Romney, 62 anos, parte como favorito. Foi terceiro nas primárias de 2008 (desistiu em Fevereiro mas, caso tivesse continuado, teria ficado à frente de Mike Huckabee e só atrás de McCain).

Foi governador do Massachussets, estado democrata e liberal, cumprindo um mandato bem-sucedido, no qual aprovou um plano de saúde com bons resultados.

No mundo empresarial, foi CEO da Bain & Company e dirigiu a organização dos Jogos Olímpicos de Inverno de 2002, em Salt Lake City.

Tem, no entanto, um problema que já o perseguiu na campanha de 2008: é mórmon, uma igreja olhada com desconfiança por uma fatia significativa do eleitorado. Filho de George Romney (antigo governador do Michigan e candidato presidencial nas primárias republicanas de 1968), Mitt tem fortes hipóteses de vencer em estados importantes nas primárias. Não por acaso, tem passado as últimas semanas no Iowa e New Hampshire...

O factor Sarah PalinFalta saber quanto tempo durará o factor Sarah Palin. A candidata a vice no ticket de McCain passou a ser uma figura nacional, mesmo que nem sempre pelas melhores razões.

O surpreendente abandono do cargo de governadora do Alasca, função na qual nem sequer terminou o primeiro mandato, baralhou ainda mais as contas.

Aos 45 anos, é apontada como um dos nomes para a renovação – e tem sido uma das vozes mais acidamente críticas desta administração democrata.

Se os conservadores optarem um nomeado com traços mais agressivos contra Obama, Sarah pode saltar para a liderança da corrida republicana.

Os outros
Ainda há Mike Huckabee, 54 anos, antigo pastor baptista, ex-governador do Arkansas e segundo classificado nas primárias de 2008.

Muito forte nos estados do sul, mais talhados a votar em candidatos que se enquadrem nos velhos parâmetros do Partido Republicano, Mike alia um discurso profundamente conservador a uma imagem simpática e bem-disposta.

Tim Pawlenty, 49 anos, é o governador do Minnesota. Chegou a ser apontado como escolha mais provável de McCain para a vice-presidência. Tem posições moderadas e é forte nos independentes.

Piyush 'Bobby' Jindal, de apenas 38 anos, governador da Luisiana, filho de indianos, pode ser a surpresa da corrida republicana. Governa um estado maioritariamente conservador, mas com forte presença da comunidade negra. A sua juventude e o discurso ponderado parecem apontar uma aposta inovadora.

Por enquanto, vai garantindo que nem sequer é pré-candidato, mas um hipotético sucesso de Jindal torná-lo-ia o mais jovem Presidente da história americana: terá apenas 41 anos em 2012, menos um do que Theodore Roosevelt tinha quando tomou posse.»

Obama recebe o Nobel da Paz (VI): um discurso notável, que excedeu as expectativas

Obama recebe o Nobel da Paz (V): críticos muito agradados, à esquerda e à direita

Finalmente um momento de «consenso» entre democratas e republicanos: os dois campos gostaram do discurso de aceitação do Nobel da Paz. Obama foi «filosófico», «profundo», «algures entre Marshall e Luther King».

David Gergen fala na «solidão do Presidente reflectida num discurso histórico».

Obama recebe o Nobel da Paz (IV): o texto integral do discurso de aceitação

«Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Distinguished Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations – that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize – Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela – my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women – some known, some obscure to all but those they help – to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by forty three other countries – including Norway – in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict – filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

These questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease – the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics, and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional, and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

For most of history, this concept of just war was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations – total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of thirty years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations – an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this Prize – America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, and restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states; have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sewn, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, and children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago – “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life's work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak –nothing passive – nothing naïve – in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions – not just treaties and declarations – that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest – because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another – that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths – that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human feelings. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. “Let us focus,” he said, “on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions.”

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations – strong and weak alike – must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I – like any head of state – reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates – and weakens – those who don't.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait – a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don't, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention – no matter how justified.

This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America's commitment to global security will never waiver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries – and other friends and allies – demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: the belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen UN and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali – we honor them not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant – the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior – for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure – and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: all will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur; systematic rape in Congo; or repression in Burma – there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point – the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet all too often, these words are ignored. In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists – a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values.

I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests – nor the world's –are served by the denial of human aspirations.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side

Let me also say this: the promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach – and condemnation without discussion – can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable – and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul's engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement; pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights – it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that is why helping farmers feed their own people – or nations educate their children and care for the sick – is not mere charity. It is also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action – it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance.

Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All of these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, or the staying power, to complete this work without something more – and that is the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there is something irreducible that we all share.

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we all basically want the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities – their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint – no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith – for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached – their faith in human progress – must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith – if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace – then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, “I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the ‘isness' of man's present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal ‘oughtness' that forever confronts him.”

So let us reach for the world that ought to be – that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he's outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that – for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.»

Obama recebe o Nobel da Paz (III): o discurso de aceitação, em Oslo

Obama recebe o Nobel da Paz (II): o discurso feito no dia do anúncio-surpresa

O «momento Franklin Delano Roosevelt» de Barack Obama

Um artigo de Harold Meyerson, no Washington Post:

«With a sweeping bow to reality, President Obama unveiled his second economic stimulus program on Tuesday. He didn't call it that, of course, since "stimulus" has become taboo, but the proposals he sketched will considerably amplify the government's efforts to combat the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

The key elements of the plan are a series of tax breaks and, conceivably, redirected TARP funds for small business and a doubling-down of the federal investment in infrastructure. By placing such a heavy emphasis on aid to small business, Obama is essentially daring the GOP to make his day. Republicans have generally opposed his stimulus efforts and particularly oppose the redirection of funds from the Troubled Assets Relief Program to anything but deficit reduction. Organized small business is a core Republican constituency. Obama's plan essentially compels the GOP to choose between its ideology (or, at minimum, its strategy of opposing Obama at every turn) and its base.

In putting forth a second stimulus, the administration is acknowledging the limits (while not disputing the necessity) of the top-down economic revival strategy that Congress and the Bush administration adopted by enacting TARP -- chiefly, a program to aid major banks -- last fall. The Obama White House has made the same discovery that Franklin Roosevelt's White House made 75 years ago: that propping up banks is not sufficient to get the economy moving again so long as banks look at a deeply beleaguered economy and see nothing but a sea of risk. By adamantly refusing to lend to small businesses, banks -- for that matter, capitalism itself -- compel the government to create the economic conditions that would entice them to begin lending again. So the government becomes the de facto banker to a small-business sector abandoned by private-sector banks, even though those banks have received massive public assistance. A more frontal challenge to conservative ideology, and a more difficult one for conservatives to oppose, is hard to imagine.


Obama's speech left open the possibility that his administration may have to do still more to salvage the economy. It surely will. Recessions that result from financial crises are longer and deeper than the merely cyclical kind. With one-quarter of U.S. mortgages under water, it will be years before construction rebounds. Moreover, this is the first downturn we've experienced since China and India fully entered the global economy, epochal events that have created a huge oversupply of labor for multinational corporations and global supply chains. If we expect U.S. manufacturers to rehire all -- or even most -- of their laid-off workers, we'll be badly disappointed.

That's why the nation needs a public jobs program in addition to a policy of helping small businesses grow again. The infrastructure investments Obama proposed will go part of the way toward meeting that goal, but specific programs of public employment, such as those created by Franklin Roosevelt and that notorious radical Richard Nixon (who signed into law the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act, or CETA) are needed as well. Roosevelt in particular understood that major infrastructure projects took time and a major investment in materials, which is why he established two programs in the depths of the Depression: the Public Works Administration (PWA) for projects such as the construction of the Bonneville Dam, and the Works Progress Administration (WPA) for more labor-intensive projects that were quicker to get up and running. He directed more than five times as much funding to the WPA as he did to the PWA, for the simple reason that Americans were clamoring for work and the private sector wasn't generating any.

When Roosevelt became president in 1933, he brought with him plans that progressives had developed over the preceding 30 years for public power and social insurance. When it came to public jobs, however, FDR was improvising -- progressives hadn't envisioned the Depression or how to deal with it. Obama entered office with a similar disconnect: His dance card was filled with health-care reform and climate-change legislation, but nobody had planned for how to deal with the most severe downturn since the 1930s. Roosevelt showed his mettle as a great political leader by pivoting to remedy mass unemployment. This is Obama's turn to do the same.

There's one more lesson Obama should learn from FDR. In the words of Anna Burger, the secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union, "we need a hammer" -- one government official whose sole mission is to oversee the efforts to create more jobs. Roosevelt's hammer was WPA chief Harry Hopkins. If Obama had a hammer, his new stimulus would be more credible still.»