Tuesday, June 30, 2009

We will be interviewed today on Radio Unica 1010AM (KIQI), San Francisco, California, USA

Today, approximately at 2:30 pm Venezuela time, or 12 pm California time, we'll be interviewed by Radio Unica 1010AM (KIQI) located in San Francisco, California, United States of America.

In this interview we will be talking, with the journalist Edi Monterroso, about the political crisis in Honduras.

Monday, June 29, 2009

Coup in Honduras, June 2009: Manuel Zelaya is the main responsible

Authors:
Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri and José Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

The removal of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya through an irregular decision of the highest court of justice, and the high command of the Armed Forces of that country, is undoubtedly a coup d'etat.

Our assertion is based on the fact that the President in question was removed from office by the military, after a controversy between the executive and judicial branches of the Honduran government, which is unacceptable in a democracy where power is subject to the Constitution.

It is enough that the Armed Forces have to act, in Latin America, as if they were over the other organs of the State, because this habit conditions the people to solve their problems violently and believe in military dictators.

However, we also must say that the crisis that today face Honduras did not begin on june 28, but started since President Manuel Zelaya allowed a foreign government, in this case Venezuela, to meddle in the internal affairs of Honduras and manage its political agenda to suit the interests of Hugo Chavez.

The Venezuelan control over Zelaya can be seen in his plan of government, very similar indeed to that of Evo Morales and other Chavez's puppets in the region: rejection of dialogue with dissidents, strangulation of the private sector, attacks on independent media, the imposition to all the country's television and radio stations to broadcast simultaneous interviews with the President and government ministers for two hours a day, confrontation with the Church and other national sectors, hostility toward the United States, desire to amend the Constitution to establish the indefinite re-election of the president, and additional legislative reforms that emulate the radical leftist political system of Chavez.

That is, when President Manuel Zelaya violates the Constitution of his country, putting national interests and politics of Honduras under the convenience of a neighboring government, provokes a crisis in institutions and other sectors involved in Honduran politics, forcing them to react against the establishment of a puppet government in Honduras, directed from Venezuela.

In conclusion, the submissive attitude of Zelaya do not justify that the sectors that oppose the intervention of Hugo Chávez in Honduras overthrow the president in ways that are not acceptable in a democracy, but it makes clear that the major responsibility for the crisis facing Honduras is the same Manuel Zelaya.


Related articles:

- How acts of oppression lead to political self-destruction

- Why the Castros do not want to return to the OAS

- Iran's election 2009: Questioning Iranian democracy

Saturday, June 27, 2009

Global financial crisis of 2008-2009: The left was wrong again

Authors:
José Alberto López Rafaschieri and Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

At this point of the international economic crisis, leftists imagined that the United States would already be immersed in a desolation like that of Terminator Salvation, with the new T-800 robot wreaking havoc in the human resistance.

They said that the United States was crumbling, that capitalism had reached its end, that Marx was right, that the free market was unsustainable, that private companies should be nationalized, that this crisis will be worse than the Great Depression, that more bankruptcies will happen, that the dollar was finished, that we had to withdraw money from the United States, etc, etc, etc. Trying to turn the current financial crisis in evidence to prove the inviability of capitalism.

But unfortunately for the left, Marxist thought was wrong again. By late 2009, experts agree that the crisis that led to the Chrysler and General Motors bankruptcy will begin to overcome in the developed world, as we said here last year.

With this recovery, the free market will maintain its place as the best economic model known since it was born in the seventeenth century. While socialism, due to its irreparable defects, has not endured 100 years anywhere in the world.

Since the nineteenth century, Marx and the socialists have been making failed prophecies, incorrectly trying to link every economic problem with the end of capitalism. “It will end now, it will end now” they say in each crisis, but they always end up disappointed because the facts again and again are unfavorable to socialism.

So the 2008-2009 economic crisis will become another memory in the album of the obstacles conquered by capitalism. Its destination will be to accompany other remembrances like the Bolshevik revolution, the Great Depression, the Two World Wars, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the collapse of gold standard, the Arab oil embargo, the Asian crisis and the September 11 attacks. Events that, although ideologically shook the world, did not do to the free market what the fall of the Berlin Wall did to socialism.

At the end of the day, history's scoreboard is altered, as ever, in favor of the model with better results. By overcoming the 2008-2009 financial crisis, democracy and free market economy score another point, whereas socialism and the left are still losing the game.


Related articles:

- The 2008 U.S. financial crisis: Origin & ideological implications

- The Hispanic vision of the U.S. financial crisis

- The 2008-2009 crisis: Criticism of financial hypertrophy theory

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Iran's presidential election 2009: Questioning Iranian democracy

Authors:
Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri and José Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

Although article 6 of the Iranian Constitution states that in the Islamic Republic of Iran the election of the president and representatives of the legislature must be decided by popular vote, and although President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently said that Iranian democracy is an example for the world, big street protests in Iran, caused by the demonstration against the vote counting during the presidential elections on June 12, 2009, show what many have long known: In Iran, people sovereignty is not respected because an elite has special powers over politics.

This time doubts about the counting process are so overwhelming that, in addition to the organizations that traditionally make pronouncements on human rights violations, the main European leaders asked Iranian authorities to open an inquiry into allegations of electoral fraud, and to show restraint against protesters.

That is, the world is realizing that in Iran apart from existing a strong censorship against freedom of speech, women's oppression, persecution of dissent and other human rights violations, the people's opportunity to choose their own government in free and fair elections is denied.

So Iran should enter into a process of democratic reforms, to resolve the lack of real citizens' rights and reconsider the constitutional figure of the "Leader", which is a position with greater powers than the president but that is elected through a council of "Experts." This council of "Experts", for its part, is elected by direct vote from a selected list controlled by the regime, therefore someone who is not appropriate for the oligarchy will never be eligible for the position of "Leader”.

About this plenipotentiary figure -"Leader"- described in the Iranian Constitution, citizens should consider how can it be qualify as democratic a nation where the highest authority of the state: 1) is not elected directly by citizens, 2) is above the President and 3) has constitutional powers to guide national policies, command the armed forces, police, judiciary and the official media.


Related articles:

- How acts of oppression lead to political self-destruction

- On the Obama's decision to close Guantanamo

- Questions after 50 years of Castrist revolution in Cuba

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Mistakes of Chavez's opposition in Venezuela: Personalistic political parties

Authors:
José Alberto López Rafaschieri and Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

In Venezuela, opposition political parties are struggling against the dictatorial pretensions of Hugo Chavez, a former military who, among many other things, is criticized for the excessive personalistic character of his government.

But contradictorily, many of the organizations that oppose Hugo Chavez work with the same defect. Most of Venezuelan opposition political parties are headed by untouchable persons, who always occupy the same positions and that tend to neglect the grassroots views.

The opposition parties generally appear to be private companies controlled by a majority shareholder with full powers, where the others members only have opportunity to get secondary positions, unless they win the favor of the party's leader.

In these associations senior members derive legitimacy from themselves -because they are founders, won an important election sometime in the past, or any other pretext- which absolutely contradicts the functioning of democratic institutions.

So when we look at the main opposition parties in Venezuela, it is easy to see that each one has its own touch of autocracy: Manuel Rosales in Un Nuevo Tiempo, Julio Borges in Primero Justicia, Ramos Allup in Accion Democratica, Salas in Projecto Venezuela, and the same pattern in almost all others.

Unbelievably doing within their parties -in micro- something similar to the personalistic practices that Hugo Chavez applies in macro.


Related articles:

- Most popular Venezuelan opposition parties in 2009

- Venezuela after February 2009: Extremism - rising tensions

- Focus Group: The opposition and Chavez's radicalism in 2009

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Mexican legislative election, July 5, 2009: Polls

Authors:
Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri and José Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

Next July 5, Mexico will hold elections for the 500-member Congress. The three political parties with more opportunities to obtain seats are the Partido de Accion Nacional -PAN- the Partido de la Revolucion Democratica -PRD- and the Partido Revolucionario Institucional -PRI-

Of these, according to polls, the PRI is in the lead with 37.1% of popular support, followed by the PAN with 33.0%, the PRD with 16.5%, and the others with 13.4%.

The PRI is a center-left party with an incomparable tradition in Mexico, it held the power in that country for over 70 years, until it was defeated in the presidential election of 2000 by Vicente Fox of the PAN. For its part, the PAN is a center-right party, currently the ruling party, from which the president Felipe Calderon is a member.

Regarding the PRD we can say it is the most important radical left-wing party of Mexico, Andres Lopez Obrador is part of this organization, who was one of the most prominent candidates of the 2006 elections.

If polls are correct, there would be a change in Mexican politics in relation to what were the last legislative elections of 2006. This assertion is based on the fact that in 2009 the PAN would retain more or less the same number of votes obtained in 2006 -33%- but this time it will not take the majority of Congress as it did then, because now who will receive the most votes is the PRI, a party that won only 28% of the vote in 2006 and that is expected to get 37% in 2009.

But more critical is what is estimated for the PRD, that obtained 28.99% of the vote in 2006, and would receive only 16.5% in 2009. Obviously, many voters are migrating from the PRD to the PRI, which means that the radical left is losing support in Mexico.

Click on the image to enlarge it

Related articles:

- Argentine legislative election, 2009: Polls

- Obama's victory will give a blow to the Latin leftism

- Why the Castros do not want to return to the OAS

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

2008-2009 Financial Crisis: Obama and the public finance problem

Authors:
José Alberto López Rafaschieri and Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

All public spending that has been implemented by the United States government to combat the 2008-2009 economic crisis has left consequences in the U.S. budget. By 2009, the government's fiscal deficit is expected to reach between 10% and 13% relative to GDP. While the national debt is estimated above 70%, also in relation to GDP.

That is, after this year, the U.S. government will be heavily indebted and with much more expenses than incomes, meaning that the government will have to: 1) borrow even more to continue operating, 2) raise taxes to increase revenue and 3) cut expenses.

However, though president Obama has been in charge for several months and it is impossible that he is not aware of the serious fiscal situation facing his administration, nobody has seen the implementation of policies designed to balance government accounts.

The U.S. Executive has only taken general approaches to explain theoretically how a tax increase on the rich and economic recovery would be enough to reduce the deficit to 3% of GDP in the short run. Besides, regarding the national debt, Obama has put all his hopes on the fact that a growing economy will decrease the debt/GDP ratio, but there is no a plan specifically oriented to reduce the enormous U.S. government debt.

The consequences of Obama's passive stance on public finance problems will begin to appear in the near future, which supposes that, when this recession ends, U.S. citizens will have to deal with a higher inflation rate and the risk of hurting important government programs like Social Security and Medicare.


Related articles:

- The great failure of Obama's stimulus measures

- On Republican criticism of Obama's tax plan

- Barack Obama’s economic background is his Achilles' Heel

Saturday, June 6, 2009

Why the Castros do not want to return Cuba to the OAS

Authors:
Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri and José Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

Thanks to lobbying by Jose Miguel Insulza, Hugo Chavez's antidemocratic blackmail and the current leftist trend of several Latin American governments, the OAS General Assembly decided, in San Pedro Sula -Honduras- to lift the sanctions that this multilateral organization imposed in 1962 on the obstinate Cuban dictatorship.

A decision that could be interpreted as a victory for the Latin American left, since in this way Cuba would require less mediation by Chavez and the Castros would be able to advocate for their dictatorial government before this international body, applying directly on OAS members their characteristic diplomatic style of sabotages, intimidations and threats.

With Cuba within the OAS, the ultra-leftist group of governments linked to Hugo Chavez would acquire another vote in its favor, and in the OAS votes really count. Furthermore, from a media point of view, this fact could be presented as a victory for the radical left in Latin America, who will use the event as an additional resource in its anti-US propaganda.

However, the hypothetical return of Cuba to the OAS would have the enormous limitation of being constantly hanging by a thread, because it is unlikely that in the future there is always a block of Latin American countries run by socialist radicals like now, and because nobody knows what might come when Insulza leaves office in 2010.

But the Castro brothers are also aware that the reinsertion of Cuba in the OAS could produce unwanted side effects for the Socialists in the island.

In this sense, perhaps the greatest danger for Cuba, if effectively it returns to the OAS, would be the international influence that this country would receive from the organization. As it has been studied that international norms and multilateral agencies tend to eventually lead to democratic changes even in the worst dictatorships (Ropp, 1999) and more when it comes to poor countries -such as Cuba- that could get international assistance if they behave more civilly.

Therefore it is no coincidence that the world's democratic countries tend to enroll themselves in a large number of multilateral agencies. As well as, conversely, countries with authoritarian governments prefer to have few, and weak, links with multinational organizations.

So with this action, the Latin American leftists, wanting to help the Castro regime, might have activated a new democratic hope entirely unfavorable to the Cuban autocratic socialism.


Bibliography:

- Ropp, Steve C. The power of human rights: International norms and domestic change, Cambridge: 1999, Cambridge University Press.


Related articles:

- Why Obama do not lift the embargo against Castro's Cuba

- Latino leaders and the 2009 Summit of the Americas

- Evaluation of Insulza as Secretary of the OAS

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

OPEC Meeting - May, 2009: The cartel contradicts chavismo's views on the global crisis

Authors:
José Alberto López Rafaschieri and Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

On Thursday, May 28, 2009, at the meeting of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, the group decided by consensus not to cut production, confident that it is no longer necessary because the global demand for crude is recovering.

From the Secretary General of the organization (Abdalla Salem El-Badri) to the representatives of Venezuela, Iran and Libya, have expressed satisfaction with current production levels and expect a gradual increase in oil prices, based mainly on the fact that orders from the United States, and the world's most industrialized nations, are beginning to overcome.

Paradoxically, while the government of Venezuela and OPEC are in Vienna with their faith placed in the recovery of the economies of the capitalist world, in order to continue selling oil at high prices and to maintain current production levels, Chavez made a forum in Venezuela called “World Meeting of Intellectuals against capitalism's global crisis,” an event where the Latin American Left's more fundamentalist side declared the end of the same model in which OPEC, including Venezuela, has placed its hopes.

In other words, while Chavez says to Venezuelans that capitalism's world crisis has no cure and that we must replace this model by Cuban style socialism, the 12 governments that make up OPEC recently decided not to cut production and predicted another sharp rise in oil prices based on the strengthening of the capitalist economy.


Related articles:

- Venezuelan oil-services law's purpose

- Obama-Lula meeting, March 2009: Brazilian energy

- Correa's energy policy is causing havoc in Ecuador