Home Blog Page 196

Thurston, Mark Zuckerberg for president

Mark Zuckerberg in Panama. Photo by the Presidencia.
Mark Zuckerberg in Panama. Photo by the Presidencia.

Zuckerberg for president

by Edward Thurston

As we continue to witness the buffoonery of Donald Trump’s aspirations to be president of the USA, this small article about Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg calling him out on his salacious immigration positions caught my attention. Very few people have really studied the effects of what would happen if Trump’s “shoot from the hip” policies were carried out, especially on immigration.

While I don’t disagree with all of Trump’s positions and I do believe we have border/immigration problems, his extreme resolutions to these problems are what concern me. And bottom line is he is asking people to “believe in him” — and apparently masses of followers are. We Americans have been let down for so many decades by weak or corrupt politicos running our country that we are almost willing to turn the reins over to ANY non-politician. Yet I have to draw the line on Trump, and I will not be blindly following his bluster to the voting booth.

I refuse to believe that a business tyrant like Trump, who has been bankrupt a few times, has obvious misogynist leanings against women and dislikes Latinos, has any chance to be the leader of our country. Do we really want this snarly egomaniac who obviously cannot listen to anyone but himself to lead us through the dark shadows of our economic demise and international entanglements? Do we really want him with his finger on the button of nuclear warheads? Could we really count on him as a unifying agent in our already divided country or world? I don’t think so.

In reaction to all of this, I submit the proposition that Mark Zuckerberg would be a better candidate to lead our country than all the 17 Republican candidates and smaller offering of Democratic candidates combined. He has more money than The Donald at a much earlier age. He is more level headed and less emotional than The Donald. He now leads an bigger organization and manages more money than all these candidates put together in their lifetimes.

In addition to these qualifications, I believe the main problem with electing leaders is that most of them are over the age of 50. I am sorry, but most of our world’s conflicts are caused by people over 50. The older people get, the less flexible they become in their positions and have long memories of past conflicts. Older people are slower to forgive and quicker to be offended. Believe me: I see this in myself. And we expect these people to be peacemakers and find “middle ground?”

Therefore, it is my opinion that we would be better off sending the smartest and most effective 30-year-old business leaders in our country to negotiate trade and get us out of armed conflicts abroad and at home. If all countries sent their 30-year-old leaders to negotiate in their sneakers and bluejeans, things would get done in far more peaceful and “brotherly” fashion. There would be no long memories of past wrongs and hatreds tainting any possibility of a resolution. There would be no lifelong bitterness and ego getting in the way of the most basic conversation.

Let the young idealists take us forward with their understanding that it is all about technology and responsible use and sharing of it that solves most of the world’s conflicts. Not bombs, embargoes or starvation of poor people living under tyrants. It is not about personality or enforcing antiquated laws or historic treaties that make no sense. It is about finding commonality among all of humanity, no matter what race, creed or ranking in the wealth meter in order to live free and responsibly.

It is time for major leadership change in our world — and it is not The Donald. It is more like Zuckerberg.


little donor button

The Panama News blog links, August 24, 2015

Pacific locks
Leaky chamber wall on the new Pacific Side locks. Photo from Ariel Corbetti’s Facebook page.

The Panama News blog links, August 24, 2015

Other people’s stuff about Panama, the region and the world….

Video, Rubén Blades – Caín

BBC, PanCanal expansion prompts safety concerns

Seatrade, PanCanal postpones second draft restriction

Tico Times, US concerns about Nicaragua Canal expropriations

The Journal, Rolanda Bell’s steeplechase mishap

TruNews, Weird gringo cult coming to colonize Boquete

Telemetro, Anteproyecto de Ley prohibiría discriminar a personas gay

El Economista, Presupuesto de Panamá para 2016 de $20.106 mil milliones

Reuters, Mercados latinoamericanos caen

Turner, The real demographic challenge

Wallerstein, Free-trade treaties are anti-free trade

EFE, Costa Rica declara ilegal a Uber y decomisa sus vehículos

Sanchez, SouthCom vs Caribbean narco-pirates

Main, Congressional Democrats against military aid to Honduras

SOAW, Victor Jara Justice Campaign

Prensa Latina, Equine encephalitis outbreak in Panama

STRI, Biologists discover skydiving spiders in South American forests

Video, The Who – Boris the Spider

Mellino, Oceans riddled with plastic

Emanuel, Climate change and Hurricane Katrina: what have we learned?

Mongabay, How ya gonna keep ‘em up on the farm?

Condé Nast Traveler, Where to see the Atlantic and Pacific at the same time

The Street, Pros & cons of living in Panama

Taibbi, Donald Trump just stopped being funny

Fang, US TV ads opposing Iran deal organized by Saudi lobbyist

Marple, Chile thinks about legalizing pot

EFE, Más de 600 colombianos deportados por Venezuela

Padrón: Panamá, ida y vuelta

Castro, Escombros que aún se resisten

SD Union-Tribune, Jurisdiction argument doesn’t work in Baldelli slaying case

Jakarta Post, Panama and Indonesia upgrade ties

Yonhap, Panama and South Korea strengthen ties


little donor button

Spanish PayPal button

Avnery, The Sorceror’s Apprentice


Netanyahu's bombThe Sorceror’s Apprentice

by Uri Avnery

One has to choose: Binyamin Netanyahu is either incredibly shrewd or incredibly foolish.

Take his Iran policy. Actually, there is little to choose from. Netanyahu has no other policy to speak off.

According to him, Iran constitutes a mortal danger to Israel. If it obtains a nuclear weapon, God forbid, it will use it to annihilate Israel. It must be stopped by any means, preferably by American armed intervention.

This may be quite wrong (as I believe). But it makes sense.

So what did Netanyahu do?

For years, he alarmed the world. Every day the cry went out: Save Israel! Prevent the destruction of the Jewish State! Prevent a Second Holocaust! Prevent Iran from producing The Bomb!

The world did not take any notice. It was busy with many other matters. There are crises galore everywhere, all the time. Economic depressions. Plagues. The warming of the earth.

But Netanyahu did not let off. He used every rostrum, from the Knesset to the United States Congress, to shout his message.

At long last, a weary world paid heed. OK, the Jews warn of the Iranian bomb? So let’s do something to prevent it. Not just something. No. Let’s get all the great powers of the world together to compel Iran to end this nonsense.

And they did. The USA, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany — practically the whole world — commanded Iran to start negotiations.

There was only one single issue: preventing Iran from getting The Bomb. Nothing else mattered. Compared to this giant issue, everything else was insignificant.

And then something unexpected happened. Iran’s political system replaced their loudmouth president with a very different one: a soft-spoken, eminently reasonable politician. Negotiations started, and Iran sent an even more soft-spoken, eminently reasonable diplomat to conduct them. The foreign ministers of the world were enchanted.

After playing a little hard-to-get, Iran accepted an agreement. The World got, more or less, everything it wanted. No bomb for a long time. Very intrusive inspection procedures. (They were not really needed. Up-to-date espionage techniques can quickly detect any movements toward a bomb.)

Everybody was happy. Everybody, that is, except Netanyahu. He was furious.

What kind of an agreement is this?

The Iranians will get the bomb. If not now, then in 15 years. Or in 25. Or in 50.

The Iranians will cheat! Persians always cheat! They can’t help it! It’s in their blood! (Not like us, who built dozens of nuclear weapons in secret. After the Holocaust, we are allowed to do things like that.)

And anyway, even if they don’t get the bomb, the Iranians will get legitimization. And money. They will support anti-Israeli terrorists, like Hezbollah and Hamas. (Not very convincing, after Netanyahu had demanded concentration on The Bomb, and not on anything else.)

The huge Israeli propaganda machine was set in motion. The terrible agreement is being denounced from every rooftop. Of course we knew all the time that Barack Obama is an anti-Semite, as is John Kerry. Now we have the proof.

Actually, the play is over. An agreement signed by the entire world cannot be made to disappear with a puff from Bibi. It will be there, even if the US Congress does vote against it and overrides the presidential veto. The world is tired of Netanyahu’s whims. The man got what he wanted, so what now?!

I believe that the Iranians did not want the bomb very much anyhow. According to all available evidence, the agreement aroused joy in the streets of Tehran. The prevalent mood seems to be: “Thank Allah, at long last we’ve got rid of this whole nonsense!”

But the bomb that isn’t has already caused immense damage to Israel. Much worse than if it existed in some dark cavern.

All Israelis agree that the one supreme asset Israel has is its special, unparalleled relationship with the United States. It is unique.

Unique and priceless. In military terms, Israel gets the most up-to-date weapon systems, practically for nothing. No less important, Israel can not conduct any war for more than a few days without an airlift of munitions and spare parts from the United States.

But that is only a small element of our national security. Even more important is the knowledge that you cannot threaten Israel without confronting the entire might of the United States. This is a formidable umbrella, the envy of the world.

More than that, every country in the world knows that if you want something from Washington DC, and especially from the US Congress, you better pass through Jerusalem and pay a price. How much is that worth?

And then there is the veto. Not the little veto Obama will use to neutralize a Congress vote against the agreement, but the Big Veto, the one that blocks every single UN Security Council resolution to censure Israel, even for actions that cry to high heaven. A 49-year-old occupation. Hundreds of thousands of settlers who contravene international law. Almost daily killings.

Condemn Israel? Forget it. Sanctions against Israel? Don’t make us laugh. As long as the almighty United States protects Israel, It can do whatever it wants.

All this is now put in question. Perhaps the damage has already been done, like hidden cracks in the foundations of a building. The scale of the damage may become apparent only in coming years.

Another hidden crack is the rift between Israel and a large part of the Jews around the world, especially in the USA. Israel claims to be the “Nation-State of the Jewish People.” All Jews throughout the world owe it unquestioning allegiance. A mighty apparatus of “Jewish organizations” is policing the vassals. Woe to the Jew who dares to object.

Not anymore. A rift has opened within world Jewry, that probably cannot be repaired. Commanded to choose between their president and Israel, many American Jews prefer their president, or just opt out.

Who is the anti-Semite who has managed to bring all this evil about? No other than the Prime Minister of Israel himself.

Does this trouble the world? Not really.

We Israelis believe that we are the center of the world. But it ain’t necessarily so.

While Israel is obsessed with the Iranian bomb, great changes are taking place in our region. The almost forgotten 13-century old rift between Sunni and Shiite Muslims has suddenly reappeared all over. This rift, almost as old as Islam itself, was plastered over by the artificial order established by the notorious colonialist Sykes-Picot agreement during World War I.

What is happening now is a political earthquake. The landscape is changing dramatically. Mountains disappear, new ones are formed. The Shiite axis, from Iran, through Iraq and Syria, to Hezbollah in Lebanon is overtaking the Sunni bloc of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. Libya and Yemen are tossed around, Egypt harkens back to its glorious Pharaonic past, and in the middle of it all, a new power is raising its head — the Islamic Caliphate of Daesh, which attracts Muslim youth from all over the world.

In the middle of this raging storm, Netanyahu is a man of the past, a person whose perceptions were formed decades ago, in another world. Instead of addressing this new world, with its great dangers and great opportunities, he fumbles around with the non-existent Bomb.

The United States and the other Western powers are cautiously changing their stance. They are afraid of Daesh, as they should be. They perceive that their interests are getting closer to those of Iran and further away from those of Saudi Arabia. The new nuclear agreement fits well into this pattern. Netanyahu’s permanent trouble-making does not.

Is this being discussed in Israel? Of course not. It’s all about the bomb, the bomb, the bomb. The little quarrels between the Muslims are more or less ignored.

Sunnis, Shiites – they are all the same. Anti-Semites. Holocaust-deniers. Israel-haters.

Yet there are great opportunities. Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies, as well as Egypt, are already hinting that they could cooperate with Israel. In deepest secrecy, of course. Nobody can shake hands openly with Israel as long as the Arab masses see every day on their TV sets the misdeeds of the settlers, the killings of the occupation army, the humiliation of the Palestinian brothers. Like a heavy weight tied to the leg of a swimmer, the occupation prevents us from reacting to the changes in the region.

Lately, there have been ever-stronger rumors about secret negotiations between Netanyahu and Hamas for an eight or ten year-long armistice, that would amount to an unofficial peace agreement. It would create a tiny Palestinian mini-state, while isolating even more Mahmoud Abbas and the main body of the Palestinian people, who are committed to the Arab peace plan.

All this for what? For enlarging the settlements and perhaps annexing another part of the West Bank (“Area C”).

So is the man shrewd or just foolish? A sorceror or just a sorceror’s apprentice?


little donor button

The 14th Amendment: the GOP off the deep end

Dred Scott

About the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution and its attackers

GOP off the deep end

by Eric Jackson

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

This is the first sentence of the 14th Amendment which Donald Trump and now, apparently, several other Republicans want to repeal.

Let us understand the original historical context of this amendment and its opening words. It was first and foremost the repeal of the Dred Scott decision, wherein the US Supreme Court had decided that black people are not citizens.

There is an otherwise obscure US racist group calling itself the Posse Comitatus, which back in the 1970s and 1980s pioneered a theory about the US Constitution. They argued that since former Confederate states were forced to ratify the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the constitution as a requirement before being readmitted to the Union, those amendments and all that has flowed from them are null and void, as are all later constitutional amendments. This theory, with a bewildering variety of mutations, was widely adopted by Ku Klux Klan, “patriot” militia, “sovereign citizen” and other far-right movements. Now versions of it are embraced by perhaps one-third of the Republican base.

They don’t want to make too much noise about the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery except when imposed by due process of law, but they believe it to be invalid. Every time that that a certain section of white Americans cheer when an unarmed black man is shot dead, these people reaffirm their commitment to the Dred Scott principle that black people are not citizens and those shot dead had “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

The right-wing groups that buy into the Posse Comitatus “constitutional” theory or one of its variants do tend to be more vocal in their condemnation of the 16th Amendment, which allows the graduated federal income tax. Of course.

But back to “anchor babies.” This time the attack on the 14th Amendment is not directed against black people, but by way of a slur is directed primarily against Mexican-Americans and those 42 million or so people in the United States for whom Spanish is their first language. (Consider the violence, racial profiling and unlawful arrests inherent in identifying and removing “anchor babies” from the US population. African-Americans may have a different history and different sets of concerns from the various Hispanic groups in the USA, but the well informed ones would fairly well understand the sorts of practices that would be involved.)

Let us look at what is real about pregnant women coming to the United States to give birth, and about births to non-resident foreigners and women who are in the United States illegally. When we do that, we first find a lot of statistics not kept in readily available fashion and what we know makes the term “anchor baby” so wildly inaccurate as to be not only a pejorative slur but also a monstrous slander. And then let us consider what could be done about the “problem,” if it is a problem.

Recently Uncle Sam shut down a series of operations in the Los Angeles area, wherein rich Chinese women would pay large sums of money to get visas to visit the United States, fly in legally, stay at a set place until ready to give birth, have their child in the USA, stay a bit longer to get the baby’s US passport in order, then fly back to China. I have known of Panamanian women with visas to come and go in the USA who have made a point of it to have their kid in Miami rather than Panama City.

Where is the “anchor” stereotype in these situations? The Chinese women in the scam the feds shut down all along intended to return to China, but then, in 18 years or so, the kid wouldn’t have to deal with the vagaries of getting a visa if she or he wanted to study, live or work in the USA. (Lazy suburban rich white kids at elite universities might have reason to complain about another Asian who’s better prepared and will study more setting the curve in the advanced math or physics class — they don’t get much sympathy from me.) Birth in the USA by way of this scheme can be addressed without repealing or changing the 14th Amendment, but in any case it is not about the family staying.

The Panamanians with visas to come and go? Those are usually granted on the basis of wealth, famous talent or the family’s political connections. The woman who legally chooses Miami over Panama City as a place to give birth does not need an “anchor” — she has a visa to be in the USA anyway.

People who slip across the US borders — it could be and often is the Detroit River rather than the Rio Grande — to live and work without the papers to allow them to do so legally DO form families, have children and so on. Overwhelmingly, these people come to work and try to stay out of trouble to avoid deportation. When there are an estimated 11 million undocumented foreigners in the country, they are going to have a certain number of kids. In a country of more than 320 million it really isn’t an important percentage. One has to be 21 years old to be a US citizen sponsoring a relative who is not a citizen moving to the United States.

There may be humanitarian and public policy reasons not to deport the illegally present foreign parents of US citizen children, but legally there is no “anchor” there. And where are the numbers for the right-wing argument about specifically Latin American women who have illegally entered the United States while pregnant or with the intention of becoming pregnant in the mistaken belief of then having a legal “anchor?”

So, if there is a problem, what might be done to control it? Well isn’t THAT yet another playing field for the far right to advance another part of its agenda, the control of women’s sexuality?

So, a famous Panamanian model, perhaps certified foxy by no less than Donald Trump, goes to the United States on a legal visa to work in her field. Are the feds going to come around visiting her every month or few months, forcing her to undergo pregnancy tests and kicking her out of the country if she tests positive? Are they going to do that to young Panamanian women studying at US universities? Is Disney going to lose a percentage of its foreign theme park visitors because US authorities are going to want to do pregnancy checks before female would-be foreign tourists step on the plane? Are all female non-citizens present in the United States to be required to report every so often to pregnancy testing centers, which have holding cells for those testing positive and to be deported?

Times change. In 1776 Thomas Jefferson wrote and the founders of the United States signed a Declaration of Independence that in its opening paragraph pleaded “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.” But world opinion also evolves. Yes, there are countries without birthright citizenship, but the world increasingly looks askance at such jurisdictions.

However, bedrock Republican ideology these days — certainly that for which Donald Trump stands — is a sneering disregard for world opinion, an America in the role of sticky fingered global bully at war to control everyone else’s assets, an America that wears national, racial and gender double standards on its sleeve. Now that the bulk of US manufacturing has been exported, that’s an America left perilously isolated from the world economy, an America whose citizens are likely to be despised and harassed whenever they go abroad, an America likely to be militarily overwhelmed in the end by the majority of the world’s population whom America has insulted.

That’s what the attack on the 14th Amendment means.


little donor button

¿Wappin? Saturday free form, some of which you will have heard

The late great Peter Tosh

RAWK! Saturday free form from your buzzardly old Panagringo VJ

This first number is dedicated to Donald Trump and the future he promises to America. The Panama News is in a rebuilding mode and is mostly a volunteer organization. Do you have different musical tastes and want to have an online “show” here? There is room for more than one. Send us an email if you are interested.

Bruce Springsteen – Atlantic City

Archie Shepp – Cry of My People

Bebo & Cigala – Lagrimas Negras

Black Stalin – Burn Dem

Grateful Dead & Bob Dylan – Chimes of Freedom / Joey

Linda Ronstadt – Desperado

La Resistencia

Lord Cobra – Crooked Salesman

Otis Rush – So Many Roads

Romeo Santos – Inocente

Burning Spear – Not Guilty

Chrissie Hynde – Back On the Chain Gang

Hello Seahorse! – Criminal

Led Zepellin – No Quarter

Peter Tosh – Burial


little donor button

Unexpected problems with the new Pacific Side locks


Not the problems that have long been predicted but remain to be seen…

Leaky new Pacific Side locks

Both the Panama Canal Authority and the GUPC consortium that is building the new locks admit the problem but downplay its importance. The ACP says that all “imperfections” that are detected “should be repaired.” So far, however, the public has not received a coherent explanation of why there are leaks in a gate sill of the new Pacific Side locks.

Canal pilots and tugboat captains have for years warned that the combination of cross-currents caused by the locks’ design and prop wash from tugs inside the locks chambers are likely to buffet ships around when they are in the chambers, especially when it’s windy. If that becomes a problem there have been various fixes discussed. But we won’t know if it will be a problem until the locks are working.

Correction: An earlier version of this story had the leak in the chamber wall. Actually, it is in one of the sills at the bottom of the connection between two chambers, on which the sliding gates roll.


little donor button

Grounded by the Mexican billionaire: globalization on the corporate template

Neither on the front nor on the back of these cards does Claro provide the information which they said it was my fault for not knowing -- but in any case my Internet stick did not run out of time because of what they alleged, but because their system went down.
Neither on the front nor on the back of these cards does Claro provide the information which they said it was my fault for not knowing — but in any case my Internet stick did not run out of time because of what they alleged, but because their system went down.

Corporate consumer relations tactics by the US business schools’ book

Grounded by the Mexican billionaire

by Eric Jackson

Late on a Sunday afternoon, it was about time for my Claro.com wireless Internet modem to run out of time. I pay $15 plus taxes — a little more than $16 — to get a month’s worth of Internet service. Out here in the boonies of Cocle, Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim’s company has a monopoly. There are no phone lines, no cable TV lines, and no other wireless Internet service provider’s signals reach here. I had just had a Claro.com cell phone donated, which would allow me to recharge the chip without going into town to have a Claro dealer do it. It was a matter of going to the mini-super, getting $15 worth of prepaid cards, taking the chip from my modem stick and putting it in the cell phone, punching in the codes from the prepay cards, getting a confirmation message that the $15 had been successfully registered, and, no further prompt message forthcoming, taking the chip out of the cell phone, putting it back into the modem and getting into a Sunday night work shift.

On Wednesday morning my Internet connection went dead. I was getting the signals that typically mean one of two things. Either the system was down — as sometimes happens when a lightning storm disables the tower to and from which my modem sends and receives — or the time on the modem chip has expired. There were no storm clouds on this El Niño drought morning, but maybe they were working on the line. It was no huge deal anyway, because I was about to start on a book chapter, working from copious notes and editing photos that had been taken over a too-prolonged period. If the system was down for a while, I didn’t need to be working online anyway. I could wait for the service to come back. This is Panama, where time is not supposed to be money, but just time.

Got my work done after a long session, went to bed and conked out before I got through three more pages of the science fiction novel I’m reading. Roosters crowing and a dog’s insistent wet nose got me up sometime around the crack of dawn. After going out to check the state of the water system and to harvest that day’s crop of long Chinese green beans — while Baroncito The Wonder Dog busily sniffed to see who had been by in the night and renewed his scent markers on all the right trees — my canine friend and I went back inside, I got the coffee maker going and I sat down in front of the computer. It was Thursday morning and the Internet connection was still down.

That’s something of an emergency for The Panama News, which might mean inquiries and arrangements with Claro, and might mean working out of an Internet cafe that day. As in, get on the bus and go into Penonome.

This was an extra added annoyance because this is August, a slow month for readership and donations, a time when expenses don’t go away but bus money (etc.) must be carefully rationed. This reporter was living close to the edge.

At the Claro place upstairs from the supermarket right near the entrance to town, I explained the situation to the lady. She took my chip and put it into a device of hers, and said that I had no time on that chip. But wait, I said, I recharged it on Sunday, and it went out on Wednesday morning. But she said that I never did recharge it, because after receiving the confirmation message I was supposed to confirm the confirmation and set the chip to monthly Internet service. Well, then, how was it that I had Internet service on Monday, Tuesday and into Wednesday morning? I didn’t get an explanation I believed, but to get online again I had to buy another month of Internet service, which she entered onto my chip. This was a plan changer, because the money for another month’s worth of service was my bus fare for things I planned to be doing.

Thus recharged, I went down to the market area to get the bus back home, put the stick in the mini-laptop I carry around — and got the same signal that means that the system is down or there is no money in the chip.

I got off the bus, went back, and the lady at Claro made a call, told me that the prepay card system was down and I had to go to the claim center, next to Super 99 a couple of miles up the Pan-American Highway. No big deal — like all rich gringos all I had to do is jump in my car and I’d be there in no time flat. But no refund at this place — go away, take it to the complaint center.

A walk of several miles is good for this reporter  Maybe not the sun. I got to the Claro claim center sweaty and annoyed, and found myself in a line behind three senior citizens and a young man, and all had the same complaint as mine. Their prepaid Internet service went out on Wednesday morning and should not have.

The lady at the claim center said that the system was down and that soon enough I would get service back on my new Claro.com recharge. But what about the money I put in on Sunday night? She gave me a variation on the theme. She said by not confirming the confirmation in the unspecified by Claro way, my stick was paying at a different rate, by the gigabyte instead of by the month. And miraculously, after about two and half days’ use, just when the whole system went down I ran out $15 worth of service. She looked on a screen in the back and said that this is what it was — but of course, I didn’t get to see the screen. No refund or credit.

So how do you say “Stick ’em up!” in Mexican Spanish? Or do they use the terminology they learn at MBA programs in the United States?


little donor button

Harrington, La Asamblea: foco de corrupción


ACP boardLa Asamblea: foco de corrupción

por Kevin Harrington-Shelton

Para entender la violencia en nuestras calles, hay que mirar hacia la Asamblea que hace nuestras leyes, para encontrar su origen. Allí a diario se da fe que en Panamá, ni los diputados respetan las leyes que ellos mismos dictan. Y si los diputados no dan un buen ejemplo, ¿por qué esperar que el pueblo las cumpla?

Hoy, el Órgano Legislativo presentó OTRO caso de corrupción de este tipo.

Aun cuando la ciudadanía sigue preocupada por huelgas y demás complicaciones de la Ampliación, hoy la Comisión de Infraestructura Pública y Asuntos del Canal reniega de su responsabilidad, de exigirle a la Autoridad del Canal la rendición de cuentas SEMESTRAL a que tiene derecho el pueblo panameño — tal y como manda la ley que la propia Asamblea aprobó. Pero hoy, en vez de ese informe SEMESTRAL, se aceptó un informe TRIMESTRAL. Y la diferencia entre estos dos informes es enorme.

Hoy las vistas en televisión fueron elocuentes — al mostrar que ese informe TRIMESTRAL fue entregado a puerta cerrada (y ante sólo 6 diputados). En contraste, la ley manda que el informe SEMESTRAL se presente ante el Pleno (cuyas sesiones son transmitidas a todo el país por radio y televisión). Y lo más importante: que cualquiera de los 71 diputados podría re-preguntar sobre cualquier tema — en vivo. Y todo el país quedaría mucho mejor enterado.

Porque, con todo respeto a todos los diputados, ninguno de ellos podría explicar la Ampliación con sólo leer los números (mudos) de tales informes TRIMESTRALES — al menos no para explicársela a los sindicatos canaleros. Y eso no es sano para nuestra democracia.

¿Qué se esconde, que desde que se aprobó dicha ley en 2006, ningún ministro para Asuntos del Canal, ni Administrador alguno, se haya atrevido a presentar NI UN SOLO informe SEMESTRAL? ¿Cuál es el miedo de los diputados en exigírselo? Y, ¿a qué obedece el silencio de periodistas, ONGs y sociedad civil, que tanto dicen promover la transparencia?

Pero lo que es absolutamente reprobable es que se desconozca una parte de esa ley.

Con todo respeto a quien preside dicha Comisión, al avisar recibo del informe TRIMESTRAL, el HD Juan Carlos Arango del Partido Popular omitió mencionar la existencia de los informes SEMESTRALES. La ley 28 de 2006 (Gaceta 25590) a la que se refirió –de manera incompleta– no podría ser más clara al respeto: “En el caso de la rendición de cuentas a la Asamblea Nacional, el Presidente de la Junta Directiva y el Administrador de la Autoridad del Canal de Panamá, deberán comparecer personalmente AL PLENO del Órgano Legislativo, UNA VEZ POR SEMESTRE, o cuando la Asamblea lo requiera.”


Spanish PayPal button

53 journalist groups urge Obama to end information control excesses

oil spill
When there is an oil train accident, is protecting the reputations of regulators or avoiding a debate about public safety really a “national security issue” or an occasion for official secrecy “to avoid public panic?” Photo by DOT

Journalism groups urge Obama to end excessive information controls

by 53 US journalist organizations

Fifty-three journalism and open government groups today called on President Barack Obama – yet again – to stop practices in federal agencies that prevent important information from getting to the public.

The national organizations sent a letter to Obama Monday, August 17, urging changes to policies that constrict information flow to the public, including prohibiting journalists from communicating with staff without going through public information offices, requiring government PIOs to vet interview questions and monitoring interviews between journalists and sources.

This was the second letter the groups sent to the White House regarding government transparency. The first letter, sent July 8, 2014, and a follow-up letter sent August 5, 2014, were met with a non-response response from the White House on August 11, 2014.

“President Obama pledged to lead the most transparent administration in history, but we have yet to see this promise fulfilled,” said David Cuillier, chair of SPJ’s Freedom of Information Committee. “His term may be coming to a close, but it’s not too late to make some real changes in the way officials work with journalists to improve the accuracy and speed in which important information is relayed to the public.

“The United States Freedom of Information Act celebrates its 50th anniversary on July 4, 2016. Now is the perfect time for the President to change the practices of his administration and participate in a public dialogue toward improving the flow of information to the American people,” Cuillier added.

The most recent letter, like prior letters, outlines specific examples of excessive information control, considered by many journalists as a form of censorship:

• Officials blocking reporters’ requests to talk to specific staff people;
• Excessive delays in answering interview requests that stretch past reporters’ deadlines;
• Officials conveying information “on background,” refusing to give reporters what should be public information unless they agree not to say who is speaking.
• Federal agencies blackballing reporters who write critically of them.

Mark Horvit, executive director of Investigative Reporters & Editors, says these types of policies “fundamentally restrict the quality of the information that citizens get about what government agencies are doing. When researchers, administrators and experts cannot speak freely, it becomes impossible to get a full and honest picture of a government program or policy. Such secrecy only fuels distrust and gives members of the public a right to wonder what is being done in their name, with their money,” he said.

Kathryn Foxhall, SPJ FOI Committee member, calls these types of restraints alarming and forms of censorship.

“Surveys of journalists and public information officers demonstrate that the restraints have become pervasive across the country,” Foxhall said. “This information suppression is fraught with danger – especially when it concerns the health and safety of the American people.”

A recent review found that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had a culture of unsafe handling of dangerous pathogens and that some staff feared reporting incidents. Last year the Food and Drug Administration announced it had smallpox, among other dangerous materials, in an apparently uninventoried storage for decades in violation of some of the most solemn of international treaties. All the employees working around those situations for years were forbidden to speak to reporters without surveillance by the PIOs, as was all other staff in those agencies, Foxhall explained.

“Some federal officials have said these policies are appropriate because employees can become whistleblowers to report wrongdoings. These whistleblower policies do not work,” she said.

Beth Parke, executive director for the Society of Environmental Journalists, agrees that when interviews are denied or delayed, when environmental test results, enforcement data or scientific findings are suppressed, the public is cheated.

“Readers, viewers and listeners rely on local media. What’s safe to drink when a spill causes a water crisis? What does it mean when oil-by-rail explodes? When press officers block access to people who could answer detailed questions, there are consequences — for public health and for democracy. We have a right to know, and journalists have a job to do,” Parke said.

“Social media messaging is not transparency,” she continued. “Connecting journalists who have questions to people with answers who can speak on the record is transparency. Public access to government science is transparency.”

Never before has such a broad-based coalition of journalism and good-governance organizations spoken out on this issue. The growing number of examples of “mediated access” have not just frustrated journalists but have led to specific cases of important information not reaching the public.

“Transparency can’t just be a buzzword or an applause line,” said Joshua Hatch, Board Vice President and Legal Committee Chair, Online News Association. “It has to be a commitment from the highest levels to every hall of government. Without it, journalists are hamstrung, the public is kept in the dark and democracy suffers.”

While journalists acknowledge and appreciate the assistance PIOs often provide in helping schedule interviews and putting reporters in touch with the appropriate contacts, for example, many say access is all too often hindered instead of helped.

“Throwing PIO roadblocks in the path of journalists contravenes the spirit of open government and free flow of information,” said Bruce D. Brown, executive director, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “While we appreciate the role of PIO as a facilitator, there is no substitute for reporters speaking directly to sources.”

In addition to the letters, the organizations previously provided the White House with resources on the issue and a list of obstruction examples. They asked the administration to set up an avenue through which such incidents can be reported.


little donor button

Gandásegui, Los ejercicios militares Panamax 2015

Si cae gobierno por los rabiblancos… Foto por US SouthCom

Los ejercicios militares Panamax 2015

por Marco A. Gandásegui, hijo

En Panamá se ha vuelto una práctica común la censura de la prensa. Hasta la fecha, los medios de comunicación bloquean todas las noticias sobre la huelga de los 1,700 trabajadores de la Cervecería Nacional. Igualmente, a principios de este mes no dieron a conocer los ejercicios Panamax 2015 que organizó el Comando Sur de EEUU “para defender el Canal de Panamá”. El Comando Sur invitó a 19 fuerzas armadas de igual número de países para enfrentar “amenazas comunes” y reunirse para conocerse mejor. Entre los 19 participantes, Panamá tuvo la suerte de ser invitada.

Según el jefe militar de un país latinoamericano, “el enfoque de ese ejercicio es desarrollar operaciones entre nuestras unidades y tener la oportunidad de enfrentar de cerca nuestra realidad de amenazas regionales”. Obviamente, el comandante se refería a las maniobras con sus contrapartes del Comando Sur. “Al trabajar juntos, prevenimos acciones que amenacen la seguridad marítima y que buscan prevenir la libre navegación y desestabilizar la región”. En su momento, los jefes del Comando Sur de EEUU identificaron a “lo campesinos e indígenas” panameños como los enemigos a combatir. ¿Estarán pensando los ejércitos de algunos países latinoamericanos reprimir a quienes protestan en Panamá? ¿Crear en Panamá otro Haití ocupado por fuerzas extranjeras?

El jefe del Comando Sur de EEUU fue más explícito y señaló que al final de este ejercicio, “las relaciones que se hayan establecido y el entendimiento mutuo alcanzado, nos servirán mucho en el evento de tener que establecer juntos una fuerza de coalición para un evento real”. PANAMAX 2015 lo organizó EEUU entre el 27 de julio y el 7 de agosto, con la participación de representantes de 15 países latinoamericanos: Belice, Brasil, Canadá, Colombia, Chile, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Francia, Jamaica, Guatemala, Honduras, México, Nicaragua, Panamá, Paraguay, Perú y República Dominicana. Además, estuvieron en los ejercicios efectivos militares de Canadá, Francia y Reino Unido. EEUU no invitó a Argentina, Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador ni Venezuela.

El gobierno panameño no participó en la organización de los ejercicios militares a pesar de ser el objeto de las estrategias y operaciones desplegadas. EEUU está entrenando y mantiene a nivel operativo a dos divisiones militares en Panamá. Por un lado, el Servicio Nacional de Fronteras (SENAFRONT) y, por el otro, el Servicio Nacional Naval (SENAN). Washington desarrolla estos planes a pesar de que la Constitución Política de Panamá prohíbe la organización de fuerzas armadas en el país. EEUU y los gobiernos panameños ignoran este mandato.

Según un artículo publicado por el periodista militar de EEUU, Alex Sanchez, los ejercicios Panamax se realizan con el fin de prevenir acciones de los ‘carteles mexicanos’ o la ‘guerrilla colombiana’. También destaca la posibilidad de una acción “multinancional para retomar el control del Canal de Panamá si ocurriera un incidente como el del Canal de Suez en 1956” (sic). Agrega que también hay que estar “preparados para enfrentar a un gobernante autoritario como el general Manuel Noriega si llegara al poder”. Los escenarios son ‘hollywoodenses’, dice Sanchez. Pero EEUU siempre tiene que estar preparado para invadir nuevamente a Panamá.

Es lamentable que periodistas escriban sin conocer la historia y menos la situación de los países latinoamericanos y, en particular, la de Panamá. El contraalmirante Jon Mathenson, subcomandante de las fuerzas navales del Comando Sur y de la IV Flota de EEUU, aseguró que el ejercicio PANAMAX “está diseñado para responder en caso de una petición del país anfitrión. Señaló también que entre las amenazas se incluye “el crimen organizado transnacional”. Destacó que los ejercicios militares se realizaron “promoviendo la paz, la estabilidad y la prosperidad”. Las autoridades panameñas – incluyendo el Ministerio de Seguridad Pública – no se pronunciaron durante los ejercicios militares.

En los ejercicios del año pasado – 2014 – el Comando Sur creó un escenario fantasioso para desarrollar los ejercicios Panamax. Crearon una nación – Nueva Centralia – que estaba bajo ataque. Según sus comunicadores, “un grupo de violentos terroristas amenazaban el comercio mundial. La solución del problema dependía de las Fuerzas Multinacionales Sur (MNFS), al mando del Comando Sur de EEUU”. Para completar la fantasía, el Comando Sur invita a las fuerzas militares de la región para proteger el Canal de Panamá y “honrar los esfuerzos de Panamá para proteger su soberanía”.

EEUU todavía no entiende que sólo los panameños defendemos nuestra soberanía. Es una lección que aprendimos y aplicamos en el siglo XX.


Spanish PayPal button