Hoy quiero hacer mención sobre la situación política de Costa Rica con respecto a la aprobación de la agenda del Tratado de Libre Comercio con los Estados Unidos.
Es despreciable la posición del Partido Acción Ciudadana (PAC) de utilizar técnicas deplorables para trabar la gestión de los proyectos de ley que darán implementación al tratado. El PAC se ha inmiscuido en una actitud que es anti-constitucional y un claro irrespeto a la voluntad del pueblo costarricense que ya se pronunció a favor del tratado.
Bajo la teoría moderna del estado, la soberanía de la nación descansa en los ciudadanos, y estos, por razones de escala poblacional, la han depositado en sus representantes, que vienen a ser ustedes, los diputados de la asamblea legislativa. Así lo indican claramente los artículos 2, 3 y 4 de nuestra Constitución Política. Esto quiere decir que ustedes no son más que intermediarios, portadores del sentir del pueblo que los ha elegido y toda desviación de esa visión es traición a ese pueblo, como claramente lo expone el texto constitucional. Este principio tiene además otra consecuencia: cuando el pueblo ejerce directamente su soberanía, ustedes los diputados han sido suplantados por el pueblo, y no les queda espacio para ejercer su voluntad personal, sino que deben someterse indiscutiblemente a la decisión de la nación. Por este argumento sólo es que su posición ante el tratado es una burla directa al marco constitucional del país y por ende, un irrespeto a la soberanía absoluta del pueblo.
Es importante recordarle al PAC que la cantidad de diputados que tiene en la asamblea legislativa es consecuencia de la gran cantidad de votos que obtuvo su candidato presidencial Ottón Solís, pero no porque el pueblo lo apreciara como potencial presidente. La mayoría de los votos que obtuvo Solís fueron de ciudadanos que protestaron por la manipulación que hizo Oscar Arias de la Sala Constitucional y que le permitió ser candidato. Esto significa que políticamente, el PAC es un partido débil, pues el apoyo a sus personeros y su ideología es mucho menor de lo que imaginan.
Pero fuera de los argumentos jurídicos con que fácilmente se demuestra la falsedad en el actuar del PAC, hablemos por un momento de un tema caliente en Latinoamérica. La posición del PAC es consecuencia de la actitud soberbia y ebria en ego de su líder Ottón Solís, quien derrotado en el referéndum, no acepta que el pueblo considera que se ha equivocado. Por esto, se ha enfrascado en una discusión político-ideológica. La verdad es que el partido no piensa en el crecimiento económico del país, sino en defender sus ideales perdedores. El tratado es una pieza clave de inserción de la ínfima economía costarricense en un mundo que, nos guste o no, ya está globalizado. Y mientras perdemos tiempo, países como la China comunista, Irlanda y Polonia, entre otros, ya han logrado índices de crecimiento económico y reducción de la pobreza admirables. Desde su apertura económica, China ha sacado a 250 millones de personas de la pobreza. Irlanda, en 12 años, ha pasado de ser uno de los países más pobres de Europa, a tener un PIB por cápita de 32mil dólares (2.66 veces el de Costa Rica). Polonia, hasta hace poco un pobre país del ex-bloque soviético, aumentó la inversión extranjera en un 100% entre finales de los 90 y el 2004 y el fenómeno de crecimiento económico no es ajeno a los demás países de Europa del Este.
¿Por qué? La respuesta es sencilla. Mientras nuestros países se hunden en un círculo de pobreza, desempleo y delincuencia, estos otros países han tomado a la globalización con los brazos abiertos, haciéndolos cada vez más Investor Friendly, incorporándose a mercados multinacionales (como China en Asia y los países de Europa del Este con la Unión Europea, o México con el NAFTA). Porque no importa cuál es la ideología gobernante (el comunismo en China o el recién estrenado capitalismo en el Este de Europa), lo importante es una visión generalizada de hacer a los países cada vez más competitivos para atraer inversión extranjera.
Al Sr. Solís y sus sirvientes, un mensaje claro: en lugar de irrespetar al pueblo costarricense, de alejarnos cada vez más de la inserción en la economía mundial, y de enfrascarse en un debate ideológico-populista inútil, dediquen el tiempo a pensar en cómo hacer de este país un músculo de competitividad y eficiencia, que atraiga a los inversionistas extranjeros, y que nos ayude a progresar en un contexto mundial que se torna cada vez más competitivo y exigente.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Germany bullies Liechtenstein
Recent European news headlines had a very shocking topic: supposedly, thousands of German citizens are being investigated by federal authorities for a tax evasion scandal that could amount into the hundreds of millions of euros. Apparently, these people had fortunes invested into financial institutions of the Principality of Liechtenstein.
But what is more troubling is Germany’s position towards the Principality. Traditionally, Liechtenstein has been a European tax haven with a strict bank secrecy code. Germany is now accusing Liechtenstein of actively encouraging tax evasion for European citizens, and threatens the tiny country with sanctions and isolation.
Prince Alois of Liechtenstein has stepped up, protecting his country, businesses and customers, accusing Germany of a persecution and publicly denouncing Germany’s stance over the issue.
Now, let’s talk a little bit about this topic. Even though Germany is presenting itself as a deeply wound victim, the matter of fact is that it is known that the German government obtained the information causing the scandal by questionable means. The Financial Times reported on Wednesday that the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), a German spy agency, obtained the information by buying it from an ex-employee of LGT Treuhand AG, one of Liechtenstein’s financial institutions. If this were true, it would mean that the Germans obtained this information not only illegally, but also violated Liechtenstein’s jurisdiction and sovereignty by conducting secret-investigative operations into a foreign country. Furthermore, under modern legal doctrine, the way this evidence was obtained is not legal, thus causing its immediate invalidity under the principles of fairness, justice and equal opportunities of legal defense.
But even more troubling is Germany’s current position against Liechtenstein. Called already a battle between David and Goliath, Germany is bullying the tiny principality, taking advantage of its size and influence in the European Union, to manipulate Liechtenstein into changing its jurisdictional framework and the core principles of its financial center. That, under any circumstance, has a name: it is called “abuse of power”. The current aggressive stance of Germany against the principality reminds me of Condolezza Rice and the USA’s frequent policy of international confrontation, lately used against North Korea, Iran and others that simply do not abide to American tastes.
It is truly a deception to see the German government engage into such practices of foreign policy. The Germans must understand and respect that every country has its law system that must be respected, such as they want their own to be. The road to resolve this conflict does not reside on bullying Liechtenstein: it is not the principality’s fault that German citizens want to evade taxes. Instead of falsely accusing and threatening foreign countries, it is the cause of the issue that the German government should really be examining and resolving.
But what is more troubling is Germany’s position towards the Principality. Traditionally, Liechtenstein has been a European tax haven with a strict bank secrecy code. Germany is now accusing Liechtenstein of actively encouraging tax evasion for European citizens, and threatens the tiny country with sanctions and isolation.
Prince Alois of Liechtenstein has stepped up, protecting his country, businesses and customers, accusing Germany of a persecution and publicly denouncing Germany’s stance over the issue.
Now, let’s talk a little bit about this topic. Even though Germany is presenting itself as a deeply wound victim, the matter of fact is that it is known that the German government obtained the information causing the scandal by questionable means. The Financial Times reported on Wednesday that the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), a German spy agency, obtained the information by buying it from an ex-employee of LGT Treuhand AG, one of Liechtenstein’s financial institutions. If this were true, it would mean that the Germans obtained this information not only illegally, but also violated Liechtenstein’s jurisdiction and sovereignty by conducting secret-investigative operations into a foreign country. Furthermore, under modern legal doctrine, the way this evidence was obtained is not legal, thus causing its immediate invalidity under the principles of fairness, justice and equal opportunities of legal defense.
But even more troubling is Germany’s current position against Liechtenstein. Called already a battle between David and Goliath, Germany is bullying the tiny principality, taking advantage of its size and influence in the European Union, to manipulate Liechtenstein into changing its jurisdictional framework and the core principles of its financial center. That, under any circumstance, has a name: it is called “abuse of power”. The current aggressive stance of Germany against the principality reminds me of Condolezza Rice and the USA’s frequent policy of international confrontation, lately used against North Korea, Iran and others that simply do not abide to American tastes.
It is truly a deception to see the German government engage into such practices of foreign policy. The Germans must understand and respect that every country has its law system that must be respected, such as they want their own to be. The road to resolve this conflict does not reside on bullying Liechtenstein: it is not the principality’s fault that German citizens want to evade taxes. Instead of falsely accusing and threatening foreign countries, it is the cause of the issue that the German government should really be examining and resolving.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Super Bowl 2008 - Favorite Ad
This sunday was Super Bowl XLII, and as usual, I didn't miss it. Today I want to share with you the ad that I liked the most.
You all should know that the Super Bowl is famous for the game but also for the high quality and creativity of the TV ads that are presented during the game. Sure, advertisers that pay $3 million for 30 seconds of TV space definitively want to present a super ad that will make the greatest impact, therefore, we find them to be perhaps the best ads of the whole year.
So here it is, my personal big winner:
Bridgestone
Squirrel
Flashback:
Favorite Super Bowl 2007 Ad
Bud Light
Carlos Mencia
Carlos Mencia Superbowl Commercial Bud Light Immigrant Ad
Añadir a mi perfil | Más Videos
You all should know that the Super Bowl is famous for the game but also for the high quality and creativity of the TV ads that are presented during the game. Sure, advertisers that pay $3 million for 30 seconds of TV space definitively want to present a super ad that will make the greatest impact, therefore, we find them to be perhaps the best ads of the whole year.
So here it is, my personal big winner:
Bridgestone
Squirrel
Flashback:
Favorite Super Bowl 2007 Ad
Bud Light
Carlos Mencia
Carlos Mencia Superbowl Commercial Bud Light Immigrant Ad
Añadir a mi perfil | Más Videos
CIA used waterboarding
During the last days several news pieces have appeared confirming that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) tortured several prisoners with a method called waterboarding. According to CIA director Michael Hayden, three terrorism suspects were tortured using this technique.
Even though acts of terrorism are despicable by nature, and individuals engaged into terrorist activities are a threat to the stability of our societies, that does not mean that the civilized world should move back and engage into activities that are today widely condemned and considered barbaric.
Throughout the western world torture is considered a crime. It is not a figure with exceptions, but rather a generally condemned and punished act.
But now that the world's most powerful country has admitted torturing terrorism suspects, will the figure of torture continue to be prohibited, or will it be now generally allowed for certain special cases? Let us remember that several important political figures of western civilization have faced judiciary processes related to torture: Augusto Pinochet faced detention in London and permanent legal persecution until his death; Alberto Fujimori is now facing several charges that are, in one way or another, related to questionable ways of handling political opponents, and lots of people of old dictatorial regimes in Brazil and Argentina have gone to or are currently in jail for the same reason.
Mr. Hayden tried to reduce the importance of the incident by acknowledging that the waterboarding technique was used on only three suspects. Does this mean that torturing few people is acceptable, and only wide-spread torturers are to be legally prosecuted? I don't think so. Analogically, we all know that both murderers and genocides are processed for killing, with the latter generally receiving heavier sentences than the former, but in the end, both are incarcerated for the crime of assassination. Period. Both are criminals. Period.
The United States of America should not allow their image to be stained under the national security threat excuse. It is true that after September 11th, 2001 attacks, the topic of security is top priority for the USA and many other countries, but for that very same reason is it important to act impeccably and honorably, demonstrating the world that progress and our way of life can be defended without having to resort to acts and techniques that make us resemble a little bit to the enemy we want to avoid and extinguish. Torturing suspects is something I expect to hear someday from the security forces of forgotten African regimes or dictatorships, not from the United States of America.
Even though acts of terrorism are despicable by nature, and individuals engaged into terrorist activities are a threat to the stability of our societies, that does not mean that the civilized world should move back and engage into activities that are today widely condemned and considered barbaric.
Throughout the western world torture is considered a crime. It is not a figure with exceptions, but rather a generally condemned and punished act.
But now that the world's most powerful country has admitted torturing terrorism suspects, will the figure of torture continue to be prohibited, or will it be now generally allowed for certain special cases? Let us remember that several important political figures of western civilization have faced judiciary processes related to torture: Augusto Pinochet faced detention in London and permanent legal persecution until his death; Alberto Fujimori is now facing several charges that are, in one way or another, related to questionable ways of handling political opponents, and lots of people of old dictatorial regimes in Brazil and Argentina have gone to or are currently in jail for the same reason.
Mr. Hayden tried to reduce the importance of the incident by acknowledging that the waterboarding technique was used on only three suspects. Does this mean that torturing few people is acceptable, and only wide-spread torturers are to be legally prosecuted? I don't think so. Analogically, we all know that both murderers and genocides are processed for killing, with the latter generally receiving heavier sentences than the former, but in the end, both are incarcerated for the crime of assassination. Period. Both are criminals. Period.
The United States of America should not allow their image to be stained under the national security threat excuse. It is true that after September 11th, 2001 attacks, the topic of security is top priority for the USA and many other countries, but for that very same reason is it important to act impeccably and honorably, demonstrating the world that progress and our way of life can be defended without having to resort to acts and techniques that make us resemble a little bit to the enemy we want to avoid and extinguish. Torturing suspects is something I expect to hear someday from the security forces of forgotten African regimes or dictatorships, not from the United States of America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)