Relações entre Londres e Moscovo congeladas

Aumentam os receios do regresso da Guerra Fria. Moscovo considera "imoral" e "provocatória" a atitude de Londres em expulsar quatro diplomatas russos da embaixada na capital britânica. É o último episódio do caso Litvinenko, depois da recusa da Rússia ao pedido de extradição do principal suspeito do caso.

O ministro russo dos Negócios Estrangeiros, Mikhail Kamyin, afirma que a atitude de Londres é imoral, quaisquer acções provocatórias tomadas pelas autoridades britânicas vão ter consequências para as relações globais entre os dois países.

O governo britânico iniciou também uma revisão da cooperação bitalteral, em particular a facilitação de vistos de entrada a cidadãos de nacionalidade russa.

O primeiro-ministro Gordon Brown diz que foi cometido um crime contra um cidadão britânico em território britânico, o caso deve ser julgado pelas instâncias nacionais, não tem desculpas a apresentar pela decisão tomada mas quer que o caso se resolva o mais depressa possível.

Andrei Lugovoi é o homem que Londres quer levar a tribunal. A acusação acredita que o também antigo agente do KGB convidou o ex-espião Alexandre Litvinenko para tomar chá num hotel de Londres. O rasto de Polónio 210 segue Lugovoi desde o avião em que viajou para o Reino Unido. Lugovoi assegura que está inocente

As autoridades britânicas avisam ainda que Lugovoi pode ser preso em países com quem tenham acordos de extradição.

A Rússia considera que a atitude britânica serve para justificar a recusa em cooperar no sentido da extradição de Berezovski e Zakayev, dois cidadãos russos a viver em Londres, assumidos adversários do presidente Vladimir Puntin.


FONTE
------------------------------------------
Britânicos assustados com dois Tupolev-95


O comandante-em-chefe da Força Aérea da Rússia, general Alexandr Zelin, desmentiu hoje (18) que os bombardeiros Tupolev-95 (Tu95) tenham tentado ontem invadir o espaço aéreo do Reino Unido."Nossos aviões cumpriam missões de vôos sobre águas neutras", disse Zelin à agência "Interfax"

Segundo informações da Efe o Ministério da Defesa do Reino Unido ontem mantinha no ar dois aviões da Real Força Aérea para interceptar dois bombardeiros Tu95 que voavam em direção à Escócia .
Segundo o porta-voz, os aviões russos não foram interceptados porque se afastaram e não entraram no espaço aéreo britânico, mas sim no da Noruega .

Zelin disse que o episódio nada tem a ver com a recente tensão diplomática entre Londres e Moscovo.

“Estes voos tem sido feitos e vão continuar de acordo com o nosso plano de treinos de equipas de longo-alcance”, disse .

O incidente lembrou os piores tempos da Guerra Fria.


Por Lyuba Lyulko
------------------------------------------



Parece que temos nova crise UE/Rússia, antes foi aquele problema do Gás natural, e agora o problema das bases de misseis e radares dos EUA e esta tensão entre a Rússia e o Reino Unido. Vamos esperar para ver o que vai sair da próxima Cimeira Russo-Europeia que se realizará em Portugal e ainda este ano. Como é que os colegas do CEPRI e de RI comentam a situação? (Se é que comentam...)

Cumprimentos a todos.

Os 7 compromissos de Al Gore.

Não sou um adepto do ambientalismo extremista, nem da utilização da ciência ou das causas ambientalistas para a concretização de fins políticos. No entanto quero salientar que em Portugal este tema ainda não ganhou a visibilidade que merece.

Al Gore on Thursday called on people around the world to sign a "7 Point Pledge" promising personal action in curbing global warming.
The former vice president unveiled the pledge at a press conference to promote Live Earth, the July 7 event of concerts stretching across the globe.

1. Demand that my country join an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth.

2. Take personal action to help solve the climate crises by reducing my own C02 pollution as much as I can and offsetting the rest to become “carbon neutral”.

3. Fight for a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store the C02.

4. Work for a dramatic increase in the energy efficiency of my home, workplace, school, place of worship, and means of transportation.

5. Fight for laws and policies that expand the use of renewable energy sources and reduce dependence on oil and coal.

6. Plant new trees and to join with others in preserving and protecting forests.

7. Buy from businesses and support leaders who share my commitment to solving the climate crises and building a sustainable, just and prosperous world for the 21st century.

Nova vida

"Não queria quebrar a rotina, monótona e aborrecida, que se tornou este blog do CEPRI. De acesas discussões entre académicos embirrantes (nos quais me incluo) e projectos de artigos de opinião sobre os mais relevantes e irrelevantes assuntos internacionais, este blog passou a ser um mero "placard de cortiça", que anuncia algumas actividades relacionadas com a nossa àrea de estudo.
Apelo a todos os outros 10 académicos que constam na lista dos "contributors" e outros alunos que se queiram juntar, mostrem que existe vida nos nossos cursos e interesse na discussão e estudo das Relações Internacionais."

Isto disse o Rui Saraiva no final do ano passado aqui no blog e está visto que nada mudou.

Mas não desesperem os muitos fieis seguidores deste blog. Com a eleição da nova lista do CEPRI, está prevista uma revitalização e remodelação de tudo o que envolva a vida dos alunos do curso de Relações Internacionais da Universidade Lusíada de Lisboa a partir do início do próximo ano lectivo. Tentaremos fazer do CEPRI o que suponho que tenha sido em tempos, algo dinâmico que permita aos alunos da Lusíada e não só, também para qualquer pessoa que se interesse pelo tema, ter um espaço onde se discuta temas da actualidade nacional e internacional.

Até lá, boas férias a todos.

In St. Petersburg with Putin, by Francis Fukuyama.

I was on a panel on Sunday with Presidents Putin of Russia and Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. The following is the text of my speech:

I would like to begin by thanking the organizers of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum for inviting me, and giving me the opportunity to address this extremely distinguished audience. I’m not sure why I am on a panel with two presidents—I am not president of anything, not even of a small university. But it is certainly a great honor to be asked to join in a discussion with Presidents Putin and Nazarbayev.

The topic for today’s panel is “Competitive Eurasia: Space for Trust.” I don’t want to address the specifics of political and economic arrangements in this region. I don’t feel it is my job to give advice to anyone here as to how to organize themselves. Rather, I want to put the discussion of regions and economic integration in the larger context of broader developments in world politics.

THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS

My starting point for my analysis will be Samuel Huntington’s thesis concerning the “clash of civilizations.” Prof. Huntington was my teacher at Harvard University and remains a friend of mine, but I disagree with aspects of this thesis in certain important respects.

Huntington argued that, after the Cold War, world politics would be dominated not by conflicts between rival ideologies, but by conflicts between civilizations and cultures. He believed that the power of culture trumped the the integrating forces of globalization, and that people’s loyalties would ultimately be communal, based on ties of religion, ethnicity, and shared history. According to Huntington, the values of the Western Enlightenment like democracy and individual rights were simply projections of the values of Western Christianity, but that other cultures with other values would create different types of institutions. Russia, incidentally, was relegated under this scheme to a civilizational space separate from that of Western Europe, defined by its Orthodox religious traditions.

Many people have argued that the clash of civilizations hypothesis has been proven right by recent events. There has been a broad rise in religion and religious identity. This has been particularly notable in the Muslim world with the emergence of radical Islamism, but the religious revival has also been evident in South Asia, Latin America, the United States, and Russia itself. Much of the current turmoil in the Middle East is the byproduct of religiously-grounded terrorism and American reaction to it after September 11. Elsewhere, as in East Asia, old-fashioned nationalism is on the rise.

Hence the issues raised by the clash of civilizations thesis is relevant to the topic of this panel. When we think about regional integration, do we set the boundaries of cooperation according to cultural factors, or do we follow the dictates of economic rationality? Are there natural political spaces of trust created by cultural factors, or are we integrating on a more global and universal basis?

ONLY HALF RIGHT

I both agree and disagree with Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations thesis. I agree that cultural factors have become the prism through which many people see international affairs today. On the other hand, I believe that this point of view underestimates the integrating forces driving global development, and the way in which the modernization process forces a convergence of institutions and approaches to governance.

Samuel Huntington is right that culture and cultural identity are not going to disappear, not now or in the foreseeable future. People will remain primarily defined by nation, tradition, culture, and local community. Globalization will not produce cultural uniformity throughout the world, nor should it. Among other things, it would be profoundly undemocratic if global economic forces stripped local communities of their ability to decide how to structure their common political life.
I also agree that countries will have to find their own routes to modernity. The specific paths that Europe, the United States, Japan, Russia, and other countries are all different. Modernization and development are ultimately brought about by people who live in a given society, and not by outsiders. Countries can learn from one another, but their ability to shape outcomes in foreign lands is usually very limited. This is something that the United States has painfully learned over the past four years in Iraq.

The question we need to address, however, is whether we are taking different paths to the same end point—an endpoint of a single modern civilization—or whether we are all heading to fundamentally different places.

It is my view, contrary to that of Huntington, that modernization itself in the long run requires the convergence of many types of institutions, regardless of our cultural starting point. And economic integration between states is most productive, and results in the most durable forms of trust, when it is based on transparent, rule-bound institutions.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODERN STATE

The starting point of any country’s development is the state. The German sociologist Max Weber defined the state as a monopoly of legitimate force over a defined territory. But while the state begins with coercion, the miracle of the modern state is its ability solve the paradox of power. That is, a state has to be strong enough to enforce laws and provide for order, and yet it has to constrain its own exercise of power if there is to be long-run economic growth.

I believe that many people in the West wrongly downplayed the importance of the state in the period following the end of the Cold War. The trend towards liberalization following the end of communism and the disappearance of the former Soviet Union was understandable, given the fact that states had everywhere grown too strong and sclerotic, not just in the former Soviet Union but in other developed countries as well. In the process of adjustment, however, countries often went too far in cutting back critical state functions and capacity. Thus throughout many parts of the post-Soviet space, there was a general weakening of state authority.

Indeed, it is state weakness that lies at the root of the lack of economic growth in many parts of the developing world. All societies need order, rule of law, a government that provides basic public goods, and a reasonably fair distribution of resources. If rulers cannot govern effectively, if they are highly corrupt and divert public resources to private ends, if they behave in arbitrary ways, then they will undercut the savings and investment needed for long-term growth. It is therefore not a surprise that by the end of the 1990s, better governance and more competent states became the order of the day.

How does a modern state achieve good governance? The latter is not a gift given by rulers to the rules. It ultimately has to be based on accountability mechanisms that ensure that the rulers are truly serving the interests of the ruled, and not just their own, or those of their friends and families. It is for this reason that the World Bank for some years has been emphasizing greater accountability as the key to better governance.

Governments can be held accountable in a number of ways. The most familiar are those vertical accountability mechanisms known as elections. But there are also mechanisms of horizontal accountability, wherein the different parts of the government have different interests and functions, and monitor each other’s performance. Parliaments and courts, independent of the executive, are crucial in this regard. Furthermore, there are mechanisms of vertical accountablity that lie outside the formal political system. Accountability requires institutions that provide transparency regarding the behavior of the rulers; bad governments seldom report on their own failures and transgressions. It is for that reason that you need a media that is independent of government influence, and a civil society that is able to monitor the performance and behavior of the state.

Thus modern states are in the end as notable for the constraints that they put on themselves, than for their ability to concentrate power. I would note in passing that the governance requirements for resource-rich countries is much more stringent than for countries that do not have natural resources, given the distributional conflicts and opportunities for corruption that resource rents encourage. All of this is, to repeat, necessary in the long run to promote good economic governance and growth. In the end, you only get long-term growth through investment, and you only get investment with stable property rights, and a rule-bound environment in which businesses can operate.

TRUST IN REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

You may wonder why I have spent so long talking about national-level institutions for a panel devoted to the question of “Spaces for Trust in Eurasia.” The reason is that trust between nations, or in global business, depends on the nature of the legal and institutional frameworks within which businesses have to operate.

Trust can arise from one of two sources. The first is cultural, where individuals trust one another because they share the same culture, values, traditions, and history. In all societies, trust begins with family and kinship, and then only slowly radiates out to a broader range of social groups.

The second form of trust is based on shared interests. This kind of trust can exist between complete strangers, strangers who have nothing in common culturally and may operate in completely different parts of the world. This kind of trust is based on institutions.

Of the two forms of trust, the cultural version is clearly the most natural and widespread, but it is also more primitive. All human beings organize themselves into primary social groups or cultural communities; we fall back on such groups in times of trouble or crisis. The second form of trust expands the potential radius of trust indefinitely. It is more durable because it is based on self-interest, and it is the basis of modern economic interdependence. Trust becomes increasingly anchored in self-interest rather than culture as countries modernize. Globalization provides the opportunity to expand markets far beyond the limits of one’s own cultural community, requiring development of an impersonal, structured institutional framework by which trust can emerge between complete strangers. The whole apparatus of modern law and mechanisms mandating transparency in corporate and state governance is designed to get around the need for culturally-based trust.

Let me give you one example. Businesses in China and in Chinese-speaking societies were traditionally structured around the family. Confucianism is an ideology that puts family relations at the center of morality. This meant that trust in China was often reserved for relatives or close personal friends; it was very difficult to trust strangers or enter into business relationships with someone to whom you were not related.

While this kinship-based form of social capital worked for a while, it was also very limiting. It meant that family-owned businesses could not grow into large, professionally-managed companies. And it engendered high degrees of nepotism, corruption, and incompetent management, problems that came to light during the Asian crisis of a decade ago. So the next stage in East Asia’s economic development was to replace business relationships built around personal relationships with ones anchored in formal legal and economic institutions.

When we talk about what kind of trust will emerge in Eurasia in the coming years, then, we face the same sorts of choices. Trust can be based on cultural affinity and shared history, or it can be based on mutual self-interest and institutions. There are many political reasons for which countries decide to align with one another on grounds of cultural, ethnic, or historical commonality. But economic rationality demands that trust be based on more impersonal criteria, regarding the degree to which a country’s institutions are law-governed and transparent.

To conclude: I believe the clash of cultures perspective gets things only half right. There is indeed a retreat, in many parts of the world, into cultural stereotypes, identity politics, and politicized religion. But there is another dynamic that has continued unabated over the past several hundred years, towards the development of modern states that can both deploy power, enforce rules, and yet constrain themselves at the same time. And we are seeing the gradual emergence of an international order based on institutions and rules, though this project is in a much less developed state. Political integration in the global economy will be more durable and productive of shared prosperity to the extent that it can be based on interests rather than passions, and institutions rather than culture. This is not a Western perspective, it is a global one.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Francis Fukuyama

Curso de Verão 2007 IPRI

09 Julho 2007 - 13 Julho 2007 Óbidos

OrganizaçãoIPRI-UNLCâmara Municipal de Óbidos

Coordenação Científica: Prof. Doutor José Esteves Pereira Prof. Doutor Carlos Motta Prof. Doutor António Costa Pinto Doutora Madalena Meyer Resende Doutor Andrés Malamud

Programa Provisório:

Segunda-Feira, 9Julho2007

16.30Sessão de abertura Telmo Faria, Presidente, Câmara Municipal de Óbidos Carlos Gaspar, Director, IPRI-UNL

17.00Religião e Regimes Políticos, Manuel Lucena, Instituto de Ciências Sociais, Universidade de Lisboa

Terça-Feira, 10Julho2007

9.30Movimentos Religiosos e Mudanças de RegimeMiriam Kunkler, Universidade de Columbia Raquel Vaz Pinto, Instituto de Estudos Políticos – Universidade Católica Portuguesa

11:30Conferência Inaugural: D. Manuel Clemente, Bispo do PortoApresentação: Maria João Avillez

17.30Mesa Redonda: Religião e LiberalismoManuela Franco, IPRI-UNL Paulo Fontes, Centro de Estudos de História Religiosa – Universidade Católica PortuguesaAntónio Araújo, Faculdade de Direito - Universidade de Lisboa

Quarta-Feira, 11Julho2007

9.30Modelos de Relação entre Estado e Igreja John Madeley, London School of Economics and Political ScienceMadalena Meyer Resende, IPRI-UNL

17.30Mesa Redonda: A Querela da Constituição Europeia José Pacheco Pereira, ISCTE Francisco Sarsfield Cabral, Rádio Renascença

Quinta-Feira, 12Julho2007

9.30A Igreja Católica e a Transição PortuguesaLuís Salgado de Matos, Instituto de Ciências Sociais – Universidade de Lisboa António Matos Ferreira, Centro de Estudos de História Religiosa – Universidade Católica Portuguesa

17.30Mesa Redonda: A Igreja Católica e a Revolução Portuguesa P. Agostinho Jardim Gonçalves, Director do Gabinete do Cardeal Patriarca de Lisboa Luís Moita, Vice-Reitor, Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa, José Félix Ribeiro, Departamento de Prospectiva e Planeamento - Ministério das Finanças

Sexta-Feira, 13Julho2007

9.30Religião e Relações Internacionais Vasco Rato, IPRI-UNL João Marques de Almeida, IPRI-UNL

12.30Sessão de Encerramento Telmo Faria, Presidente, Câmara Municipal de Óbidos Madalena Meyer Resende, IPRI-UNL.

IPRI

Fukuyama salienta que a China será um desafio maior para os EUA que o Médio Oriente!

Francis Fukuyama entrevistado em: http://bloggingheads.tv/video.php?id=285&cid=1554

I Encontro Nacional de Estudantes do Curso de Relações Internacionais

O Centro de Estudos do Curso de Relações Internacionais da Universidade do Minho está a organizar o I Encontro Nacional de Estudantes do Curso de Relações Internacionais.
Encontra-se a continuação o programa provisório do evento e demais informações disponíveis:

29 de Março

A partir das 10h00- Recepção dos participantes
13h00- Almoço na Universidade do Minho
15h00- Tertúlia (títulos das intervenções a definir)
(a confirmar) - Augusto Rogério Leitão - Universidade de Coimbra
(a confirmar) - José Villas-Boas - Embaixador
(a confirmar) - Luís Lobo Fernandes - Pró-Reitor da Universidade do Minho
17h00- Visita ao Campus de Gualtar da Universidade do Minho
17h00- Reunião de Representantes dos Núcleos para formação da Associação Nacional
de Estudantes de R.I.
20h30- Jantar
24h00- Festa das Relações Internacionais

30 de Março

13h00- Almoço na Universidade do Minho
14h30- Sessão de Encerramento

INSCRIÇÕES

Programa completo: 35€ *
(2 almoços, 1 jantar, 1 noite no Hotel Lamaçães ***)
*- Para inscrições até dia 22 de Maio, inscrições posteriores estarão sujeitas a acréscimo de 5€.

Email: cecri.uminho@hotmail.com

Morada: Gabinete 0.22- EEG, Campus de Gualtar- Universidade do Minho
4710 Braga
Telefones: 917 004 373 ou 938 628 182

Exposição e conferência sobre o Paquistão

A Fundação Minerva e a Embaixada do Paquistão têm a honra de convidar V. Exa para a abertura da exposição “As cores do Paquistão” (The colours of Pakistan). que terá lugar na Universidade Lusíada de Lisboa (Rua da Junqueira. 198). no dia 2 de Maio às 12:00 horas, seguida de uma Conferência intitulada: “Paquistão na confluência de importantes regiões” (Pakistan at the confluence of important regions). A Conferência será proferida pela Sra. Embaixadora da República Islâmica do Paquistão. Fauzia M. Sana.

Iran vs Britain: Who Blinked? by Francis Fukuyama

While commentators like Charles Krauthammer and John Bolton have charged that Britain capitulated to Iran and handed them a humiliating victory in obtaining the release of the 15 British Marines last week (when has Krauthammer ever not cried “Munich!” in response to an act of diplomacy?), it would appear that something more like the opposite is actually the case. But to understand why this is so, we have to look at the larger picture of internal Iranian politics against which the crisis played out.

Our Iranian problem is actually a problem with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC, or in Persian Pasdaran) and allied institutions like the Basij militia. These are the “power” agencies that serve as the political base for the conservatives inside Iran. In return for its support, political leaders like ex-president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have allowed the IRGC to grow into a semi-autonomous state-within-a-state. Today it is a large and sprawling enterprise, that controls its own intelligence agency, manufacturing base, and import-export companies, much like the Russian FSB or the Chinese military. Since coming to power, the current Ahmedinejad regime has awarded IRGC-affiliated companies billions in no-bid contracts, increasing the already great perception among the Iranian public of its corruption.

It is widely believed that Supreme Leader Khamenei put the current nutcase president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad into office as a means of counterbalancing former president Rafsanjani, and has been regretting this decision ever since as Ahmedinejad spouted off about the Holocaust and pushed Iran deeper and deeper into isolation. The current president comes out of the IRGC (specifically, the Ramazan Unit of the Quds Force), and has used that organization and the Basij to help consolidate his power by moving against more liberal political opponents.

No one knows exactly why the naval wing of the IRGC took the 15 British Marines captive at the end of March. Some have speculated that it was a matter of freelancing by the IRGC’s command, or the navy, reacting to a local target of opportunity. The IRGC may have wanted some bargaining chips to help spring of its members captured in Iraq. It does not seem to be an accident, though, that the capture came quickly after the Security Council passed a very specific set of sanctions against Iran that targeted not just IRGC-affiliated companies and financial institutions like the Ammunition and Metallurgy Industries Group and the Bank Sepah, organizations dealing with nuclear or ballistic missile activities, but also a series of senior IRGC commanders, including Morteza Rezaei, the Guards’ deputy commander, Vice Admiral Ali Ahmadian, chief of the Joint Staff, and Brigadier General Mohammad Hejazi, commander of the Basij. By freezing Iranian assets outside of Iran, the UN was hitting the IRGC where it hurt, in its pocketbook.

Clearly, whoever was responsible for the decision to take the British Marines prisoner was hoping rekindle some of the fervor of the 1979 revolution, and use that to force the rest of the leadership into a confrontation with Britain and America. Hence the televised “confessions” that hearkened back to the taking of hostages in the American Embassy (the “nest of spies”), and the rallies against foreign embassies. But the gambit didn’t work, and there was clearly a behind-the-scenes power struggle between different parts of the regime. Ahmedinejad was supposed to give a major speech to a huge rally in Teheran, which he cancelled at the last moment, and when he did speak, it was to announce that the captives would soon be released. The IRGC prisoners in Iraq were released, but Britain did not apologize or admit wrong-doing in return. So it would appear that it was the Iranians who blinked first, before the incident could spiral into a genuine 1979-style hostage crisis.

All of this does not mean that there are necessarily “radicals” and “moderates” within the clerical regime in Teheran. Those pulling the IRGC’s chain are themselves committed to a revolutionary agenda, and doubtless want a nuclear weapon as badly as the Pasdaran commanders. One of the alleged reasons Khamenei didn’t want Rafsanjani as president was because he was not keen enough on the nuclear program. The Iranian regime is not, however, a totalitarian juggernaut; there are important splits within the leadership and there is an important faction that does not want Iran to be isolated. The IRGC has evolved into something like a mafia organization, with extensive economic interests that lead both to corruption and potential vulnerability to sanctions imposed by the international community.

It is important to remember: those who were responsible for taking the British Marines captive wanted an escalation of the confrontation, both to improve their domestic standing, and to punch back for sanctions that were beginning to bite. This suggests that what the Bush administration has been doing – slowly racheting up the pressure through the use of diplomacy to create an international coalition that now includes the Russians – is the proper course to be on.

by Francis Fukuyama

Palestra do Doutor Harlan Ullman

HARLAN ULLMAN
SENIOR ADVISER DO CSIS

CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

O Instituto de Estudos Políticos da Universidade Católica Portuguesa, com o apoio da Fundação Luso - Americana tem o prazer de convidar V. Exa. para a Palestra “America’s Current Political Culture and U.S. Foreign Policy” pelo Doutor Harlan Ullman, que terá lugar no próximo dia 14 de Março pelas 18h, na Sala de Exposições, Piso 2 da BUJPII.

IIMUN 2007

Istanbul International Model United Nations will be held in Istanbul between 23-27 July 2007 with the cooperation of University of Istanbul ILSA and Maltepe University.

IIMUN will have the basic properties of MUN conferences: the structure, the rules of procedure and the agenda will resemble the United Nation's original ones. Positions of the secretariat, delegations and chairmen will be held by students.

IIMUN aims to expand the cultural empathy and unite students from different nations, while they attain knowledge about the current international affairs. IIMUN will also be the first annual conference held in two continents.

We kindly invite you to attend IIMUN 2007.

Website: www.iimun.org ~ e-mail: secretariat@iimun.org

Che Guevara, qual a realidade por trás do mito?

A propósito da transmissão na RTP, dos filmes sobre o "diário de Che Guevara" ("Motorcycle Diaries"), tendo em conta o imcompreensível culto da extrema esquerda portuguesa a esta personagem, e a sua injustificável mitificação. É aconselhável procurar a verdade dos factos e afastar a instrumentalização propagandística de Ernesto Guevara de la Serna.

O peruano Alvaro Vargas Llosa, académico, editor e colunista nos EUA, elaborou um dos mais claros e elucidativos artigos sobre a verdade que se esconde atrás do mito e culto de Che Guevara: "The Killing Machine: Che Guevara, from Communist Firebrand to Capitalist Brand".

Fukuyama entrevistado por Bob Wright.

Francis Fukuyama, politólogo popularizado através da obra "The end of History and the last Man", é entrevistado por Robert Wright jornalista, autor e editor de diversas publicações norte-americanas.

É um facto que a popularização dos autores discutidos nas diversas áreas científicas, causa generalizações abusivas, interpretações erradas e conceitos inválidos. É por isso um privilégio, a oportunidade de os poder ouvir e compreender através da sua própia voz:

http://bloggingheads.tv/video.php?id=199

ACL Awards 2007

ANNUAL AMERICAN CLUB AWARD

The American Club Award of 2007 aims to support individuals working on projects to enhance Luso-American ties. This year the American Club Award Committee has targeted six major subject areas:

· New Telecommunication Technology and Applications

· Ubiquitous Computing

· Innovative Journalism in all Media

· Conflict Resolution Through Mediation

· Integration of Allopathic and Eastern Medicines

· Innovative Practical Applications of Quantum Physics

Competition for this award, in the amount of 3,300 US dollars, is open to Portuguese citizens between the ages of 20-35, who must have completed a minimum of two years undergraduate studies.

The award is to be used for travel and lodging expenses within the United States for a 2-4 week visit, and also includes round trip tickets between Portugal and the United States courtesy of Continental Airlines.

REQUIREMENTS

Applicants must submit a one-page proposal with a specific description of the project, accompanied by a one-page Curriculum Vitae, in English by e-mail with the word "Award" in the subject line.

All applications received exceeding this 2-page limit will be immediately disqualified.

Applications will be accepted only until noon on May 2, 2007.

Applicants must be fluent in both spoken and written English.

All applicants will be contacted by May 9th.

Interviews will be conducted in English during the third week in May.

The Award must be used before December 10th 2007. Continental Airlines ticket booking dates, subject to availability.

For further information please contact:
THE AMERICAN CLUB OF LISBON

Tel: 213 529 308

Fax: 213 529 309
americanclub@mail.telepac.pt
URL: www.americancluboflisbon.com

O REINO DA HIPOCRISIA

As aparências são tudo! Tal se aplica em Portugal onde reina a hipocrisia.

A nossa sociedade é o reflexo do estado da nossa civilização. Uma civilização, onde predomina a dupla personalidade, pois só assim se pode justificar os acontecimentos actuais.

De acordo com o dicionário, a palavra hipocrisia deriva do “grego “Hipokrités”, fingimento de boas qualidades para ocultar os defeitos; falsidade; dissimulação.”
Este é o retrato da nossa sociedade. Onde os indivíduos para manterem as aparências defendem e comportam-se de um determinado modo, que consideram ser a boa moral e os bons costumes. Ser a maneira correcta como se deve conviver em sociedade, defendo a dita moral e os bons costumes como se fosse um dogma.

Mas em privado, cai o Santo e a Trindade. Verifica-se que as suas boas maneiras, a sua moral, as suas qualidades estão assentes em falsidades, ou seja, as suas bases não tem suporte de apoio. Pois em privado já não se aplicam, pois o que interessa são as aparências.

Dai que a nossa sociedade, é caracterizada pela dupla personalidade dos seus indivíduos.

Se queremos ser credíveis, temos que ter o mesmo comportamento que temos em publico e em privado. Pois se não, não deixaremos de ser indivíduos arrogantes, que temos o sentimento de ser superiores aos outros e mania da razão.

Cada individuo tem o direito de ter a convicção de ser convencido, de ter a mania que é superior aos outros, de ter a mania que tem valores e uma moral superior aos dos outros e de ter a mania da razão. Mas desde tenham essas qualidades e tenham o mesmo actos quer em publico quer em privado, pois se assim não for não deixa de ser um falso, um hipócrita, um pudico.

Ou seja temos indivíduos que se auto intitulam de civilizados, de detentores e defensores da boa moral e bons costumes, que consideram repugnante perante a ideia do assassínio, do incesto, do aborto, de mentir, de copiar, de fingir as suas qualidades. Mas adoram satisfazer a sua cobiça, ambição, a sua agressividade, as suas cobiças sexuais, que não hesitam em prejudicar os seus semelhantes por meio da mentira, do engano, da calunia, contanto que o possam fazer com impunidade, contudo vivendo sempre com o medo que alguém descubra que as suas qualidades são falsas e que vivem numa mentira.

Este é a caracterização possível da nossa sociedade, já acreditava que a nossa sociedade era assim mas a minha opinião tem sido reforçada e acentuada desde que começou o debate sobre a despenalização da interrupção voluntária da gravidez.

Onde o que esta em causa é o tipo de sociedade que queremos e não as nossas convicções morais, politicas, religiosas e éticas.
O que esta em causa não é o direito a vida, é o direito a liberdade.
Liberdade de sermos o que somos, liberdade de escolha se queremos ter filhos ou não, liberdade de fazer o que queremos com o nosso corpo, liberdade de termos as nossas convicções religiosas politicas e religiosas, liberdade de dois homens ou duas mulheres se casarem, liberdade da pratica de eutanásia.
E por favor deixem de demagogias, do tipo de dizerem que qualquer dia só falta casarem-se homens com cães e mulheres com gatos. É necessário respeitarmos as convicções e os valores uns dos outros, ou seja é necessário chegar a um compromisso.

E tal respeito aplica-se ao debate actual sobre o aborto, chegou-se ao compromisso, de que se considera que ate as 10 semanas de gravidez, o período aceitável para se poder interromper a gravidez, de acordo com a actual lei. Ao contrário de outros países ocidentais, que vão ate as 24 semanas de gravidez, dependendo de Estado para Estado.
Não vou aqui numerar todos os argumentos que os defensores do Sim e do Não já debateram.

Contudo este debate revela a hipocrisia que a nossa sociedade chegou. Onde os defensores do Não são contra que as mulheres sejam criminalizadas e levadas a julgamento, mas já não se chocam com as condições deploráveis que uma mulher tem que suportar ao fazer um aborto clandestino.
Já não se chocam se uma mulher morrer por fazer um aborto.
Já não se chocam se uma mulher sofrer danos irreparáveis para o resto da sua vida, onde nunca mais pode ter filhos.
Já não se chocam com os danos irreparáveis psicológicos que uma mulher sofre, quer por ter ser obrigada devidas as suas condições de vida por não poder ter um filho e ter que ser obrigada a fazer um aborto.
Já não se chocam com o sofrimento psicológico que uma mulher sofre ao ter que ir para a clandestinidade, de não ter um acompanhamento médico, de andar viver num clima de medo de que alguém descubra e seja perseguida pelas autoridades.
Já não se chocam com uso dos nossos impostos sejam usados, para pagar as contas dos hospitais das mulheres que chegam as portas da morte por ter feito um aborto clandestino.
E já não se chocam que os nossos impostos sejam usados para perseguir mulheres e para julga-las mesmo que no fim de o julgamento as mulheres sejam absolvidas.

E por ultimo já não se chocam em ser hipócritas, onde se tivessem nas mesmas condições de vida que muitas mulheres vivem, não se chocavam em ir com as suas filhas a Espanha ou outro país verdadeiramente civilizado, para poderem interromper voluntariamente a gravidez de suas filhas.

Se queremos ser a favor da vida, temos que lutar por isso, temos que lutar para criar condições para que mulheres e casais possam ter aquilo que mais desejam, ter um filho. É preciso lutar por uma verdadeira politica de família, como esta acontecer na Alemanha onde as mulheres para poderem beneficiar dos novos benefícios faziam tudo e mais alguma coisa para poderem adiar o nascimento dos seus filhos. É preciso lutar por uma verdadeira educação sexual nas escolas, pois é de novo que se aprende e não depois dos erros serem cometidos.

A nossa sociedade tem problemas sérios, e são precisos Homens e Mulheres sérios para os resolver, Homens e Mulheres com carácter e com verdadeiras qualidades. Onde critiquem a sociedade, no sentido de provocar uma mudança de mentalidades. E sem uma mudança de mentalidades é impossível lutar contra o sistema vigente. Onde Reina a Hipocrisia, a nível social, politico e religioso.

Pois se não, tal como Sigmund Freud disse: “Existe infinitamente mais homens que aceitam a civilização como hipócrita do que Homens e Mulheres verdadeiramente civilizados.”

E este tipo de sociedade não nos trás honra e orgulho nenhum!