Mundo:Is there an Obama doctrine?

By his own admission, Barack Obama received his Nobel peace prize when his accomplishments were still “slight”. But he has big plans—including signing a new nuclear-arms reduction treaty with Russia and, eventually, ridding the world of atomic weapons altogether. When he collected his prize in Oslo on December 10th, he also gave a thought-provoking acceptance speech. To some it hit the rhetorical heights of Cicero (Simon Schama, a historian, in the Financial Times). For others (David Brooks, in the New York Times), there were echoes of Reinhold Niebuhr, a theologian with a gloomy view of human nature. The question now obsessing America’s commentariat is whether this speech outlines an “Obama doctrine” in foreign policy. If so, what is it?

Mr Obama has never claimed to be a pacifist. Yet his critics on the right seemed surprised, pleasantly, when he said in Oslo that “there will be times when nations—acting individually or in concert—will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.” Bill Kristol, the neoconservative editor of the Weekly Standard, praised his “hardheaded and pro-American tone”. Sarah Palin appeared to like his observation that “evil does exist in the world”. (She also reminded Americans that they could read her own musings on man’s fallen state in her new book.) John Bolton, on the other hand, remained in a grump. George Bush’s former ambassador to the United Nations took exception to Mr Obama’s acknowledgment that the world would “not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes”. Sometimes Mr Obama is accused of soft-headed idealism (eg, for extending a tentative hand to Iran and North Korea’s Kim Jong Il, to whom he passed a letter last week), and sometimes of a hard-hearted realism that pays too little heed to human rights. When Iran cracked down on pro-democracy protesters in June, he muted his criticism for fear of disrupting the nuclear talks. His administration has made less fuss than some about human rights in China. In Oslo he defended his decision to treat with repressive regimes by arguing that “sanctions without outreach” and “condemnation without discussion” could end in stalemate. On December 14th Hillary Clinton, his secretary of state, took up the refrain. “Our principles are our north star,” she said, “but our tools and tactics must be flexible.”

So is this a distinctive Obama doctrine? Mr Bush’s officials also talked to North Korea and Iran, and By his own admission, Barack Obama received his Nobel peace prize when his accomplishments were still “slight”. But he has big plans—including signing a new nuclear-arms reduction treaty with Russia and, eventually, ridding the world of atomic weapons altogether. When he collected his prize in Oslo on December 10th, he also gave a thought-provoking acceptance speech. To some it hit the rhetorical heights of Cicero (Simon Schama, a historian, in the Financial Times). For others (David Brooks, in the New York Times), there were echoes of Reinhold Niebuhr, a theologian with a gloomy view of human nature. The question now obsessing America’s commentariat is whether this speech outlines an “Obama doctrine” in foreign policy. If so, what is it?

Mr Obama has never claimed to be a pacifist. Yet his critics on the right seemed surprised, pleasantly, when he said in Oslo that “there will be times when nations—acting individually or in concert—will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.” Bill Kristol, the neoconservative editor of the Weekly Standard, praised his “hardheaded and pro-American tone”. Sarah Palin appeared to like his observation that “evil does exist in the world”. (She also reminded Americans that they could read her own musings on man’s fallen state in her new book.) John Bolton, on the other hand, remained in a grump. George Bush’s former ambassador to the United Nations took exception to Mr Obama’s acknowledgment that the world would “not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes”. Sometimes Mr Obama is accused of soft-headed idealism (eg, for extending a tentative hand to Iran and North Korea’s Kim Jong Il, to whom he passed a letter last week), and sometimes of a hard-hearted realism that pays too little heed to human rights. When Iran cracked down on pro-democracy protesters in June, he muted his criticism for fear of disrupting the nuclear talks. His administration has made less fuss than some about human rights in China. In Oslo he defended his decision to treat with repressive regimes by arguing that “sanctions without outreach” and “condemnation without discussion” could end in stalemate. On December 14th Hillary Clinton, his secretary of state, took up the refrain. “Our principles are our north star,” she said, “but our tools and tactics must be flexible.”So is this a distinctive Obama doctrine? Mr Bush’s officials also talked to North Korea and Iran, and got along well enough with China and Russia. What makes Mr Obama most different so far, argues Peter Beinart of the New America Foundation, a think-tank, is his conviction that an economically stricken America needs to pare down its foreign commitments. When Mr Obama said at West Point at the beginning of December that he was sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, he also said that he refused to set goals “that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests”. By definition, a superpower has to sally forth into the world.

economist

Mundo:The accord delivered by the Copenhagen climate talks is hardly far-reaching

The accord offers to enhance long-term co-operative action against climate change, and recognises the need to provide help to poor countries for adaptation. It provides a way to bring together the offers of emission reductions made by various countries before the conference began—and, should they so wish, to raise them—as long as they are confirmed in the next few months, and gives a special status to the idea of holding global warming to no more than 2ºC. It finds words that provide a way forward on the vexed issue of monitoring reductions undertaken by developing countries off their own bat, which is important not least because it is something the American Senate wants reassurance on with respect to China. It offers short-term funding for projects in developing country of $30 billion, and aspires to a long-term system that would, in principle, provide $100 billion a year for mitigation and adaptation from 2020 onwards. And, perhaps the component of clearest value from outside the world of climate politics, it moves forward on REDD, the plan for reducing deforestation.

Nor does the accord provide a solution to the fundamental flaw of the negotiating process; that the Kyoto protocol, the only instrument with which the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) can act on emissions, imposes obligations only on the developed countries that have ratified it. It requires nothing from developing nations, even China, the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide. And it requires nothing of America.

The UNFCCC's discussions on "long-term co-operative action", which began in Bali two years ago, are meant to produce a new agreement that does tie in America and the other big developing economies, while maintaining the convention’s commitment to "common but differentiated responsibilities". When the accord was announced by heads of government at various different press conferences on Friday, many believed on the basis of earlier drafts circulating that the accord would be accompanied by a mandate requiring by this time next year that the ongoing long-term co-operative action talks deliver the text of a legally binding agreement. The leaders then, for the most part, disappeared into the night, leaving their delegations to sort out the details of where the accord fits into the rest of the negotiations.

The expected mandate for a legally binding treaty vanished at much the same time, and a concerted effort to keep the accord from being adopted by the conference by a small group of countries kept things going all night, very nearly succeeding a few hours before dawn.

Some procedural legerdemain, coupled with the fact that the vast majority of the countries present preferred this accord to no accord, managed to get the text adopted in such a way that it will enter into force

Presidente da França defende jogos Olimpicos Rio 2016

O presidente da França, Nicolas Sarkosy, defendeu nesta segunda-feira a candidatura do Rio de Janeiro para sediar a Olimpíada de 2016. Durante sua rápida visita ao Brasil, Sarkozy disse que a França apoia integralmente a candidatura brasileira para sediar os Jogos Olímpicos.
Bem-humorado, o presidente francês cobrou, em troca do apoio à candidatura do Rio, que o Brasil também fique ao lado da França na sua pretensão de sediar os Jogos Olímpicos de Inverno de 2018.
Folha - France

China Oil Deal Is New Source of Strife Among Iraqis

When China’s biggest oil company signed the first post-invasion oil field development contract in Iraq last year, the deal was seen as a test of Iraq’s willingness to open an industry that had previously prohibited foreign investment.
A Chinese guard at the Ahdab oil field southeast of Baghdad.
One year later, the China National Petroleum Corporation has struck oil at the Ahdab field in Wasit Province, southeast of Baghdad. And while the relationship between the company and the Iraqi government has gone smoothly, the presence of a foreign company with vast resources drilling for oil in this poor, rural corner of Iraq has awakened a wave of discontent here.
“We get nothing directly from the Chinese company, and we are suffering,” said Mahmoud Abdul Ridha, head of the Wasit provincial council, whose budget has been cut in half by Baghdad in the past year because of lower international oil prices.The result has been a local-rights movement — extraordinary in a country where political dissent has historically carried the risk of death — that in the past few months has begun demanding that at least $1 of each barrel of oil produced at the Ahdab field be used to improve access to clean water, health services, schools, paved roads and other needs in the province, which is among Iraq’s poorest.
The ripples are traveling far beyond this province, too. Frustrations have spilled over into sabotage and intimidation of Chinese oil workers, turning the Ahdab field into a cautionary tale for international oil companies seeking to join the rush to profit from Iraq’s vast untapped oil reserves.
Because Iraq is so heavily dependent on oil revenue, any international hesitation by oil companies to invest could mean years of continued economic and political instability in the country. All oil revenues go directly to the government in Baghdad and are the foundation of the national budget.
The Iraqi government has so far rejected the locals’ demands, but people here are clearly beginning to feel that something new is possible.
“No one would have dared to ask for such a thing during Saddam’s regime; if he did, he would definitely be executed,” said Ghassan Ali, a 43-year-old farmer who lives near the oil field. “But now we are a democratic country, so we have the right to ask for our rights like any other province in Iraq.”
The basis of the complaints here is that, aside from the hiring of a few hundred residents as laborers and security guards at salaries of less than $600 a month, the Ahdab field — a roughly $3 billion development project — has provided no local benefit.
Some local farmers began reacting by destroying the company’s generators and severing electrical hoses, angry because they believed that their fields were being unfairly handed over to the company. Other residents began expressing outrage that very few jobs were being opened to them.
China National Petroleum says it needs relatively few workers because it is still in the exploration phase of its 23-year project at the Ahdab field. Oil production is not scheduled to begin for two and a half years.
Now, the field’s 100 or so Chinese workers rarely leave their spartan compound for fear of being kidnapped, the company said, even though the Iraqi government recently deployed extra security to the area.
But the Iraqis’ anger has been increasingly channeled into an above-board labor movement, expressing concerns about workers’ rights, local government authority, pollution, transparent hiring practices and public accountability, among other issues.
The New York Times

Oscar Race May Heat Up at Festival in Toronto

September ritual America’s film industry looks north to Toronto’s film festival for help in making sense of its own year-end awards race.he number of Oscar nominees will be up this year as 10 films, not 5, will get a shot at best picture, thanks to a surprise change in rules governing the Academy Awards.

But the number of films in the thick of the race — and on screens across the country — will be sharply down, unless the sprawling festival, which plans to screen 271 feature-length movies between Sept. 10 and Sept. 19, can somehow change the game.

“The question is, will there be enough movies, really, to make the awards season exciting?” said Bob Berney, co-founder of a new film distributor called Apparition.

Mr. Berney’s company will be in Toronto, doing its best to create excitement with its drama “Bright Star,” a love story about John Keats and his muse Fanny Brawne, directed by Jane Campion, with Abbie Cornish and Ben Whishaw in lead roles, and with “The Young Victoria,” about Queen Victoria, directed by Jean-Marc Vallée, with Emily Blunt in the lead.

In fact, the Toronto festival did become a game changer last year when a handful of little pictures bounced into prominence there.

In an all-night bidding war, Fox Searchlight Pictures won rights to “The Wrestler,” which made Mickey Rourke a relentless presence through the six-month awards cycle. At the same time, at Toronto Fox Searchlight kicked off its campaign for “Slumdog Millionaire,” the eventual Oscar winner, only weeks after having scooped it up from a faltering Warner Independent Pictures. And Sony Pictures Classics used the festival to set Anne Hathaway on her path to an Oscar nomination as best actress for “Rachel Getting Married.”

Suddenly, an ill-formed Oscar race had contours.

But it will be harder for Toronto work its magic this year, because a financially troubled American film industry is heading into a season that promises to be noticeably short of movies.

Notwithstanding the festival’s full schedule — the number of features being screened in Toronto is actually up about 9 percent from last year — American film companies are currently scheduled to release 40 percent fewer movies between September and December than they did last year, according to a count by Film-releases.com.

The count will rise somewhat, as distributors fill in their schedules, possibly with titles like “Creation,” a love story about Charles Darwin, directed by Jon Amiel, with Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly in lead roles, or “Life During Wartime,” a kaleidoscopic story about relationships from the director Todd Solondz, with Ally Sheedy and Paul Reubens in the cast Both films are looking for buyers in Toronto.

Companies like Summit Entertainment and Fox Searchlight have said they will be looking for movies at the festival. But anything less than a buying frenzy — and there has been no sign of that recently — would leave schedules short of movies as the awards season unfolds.he diminished nature of the season ahead became apparent on Aug. 21, when Paramount Pictures — stung last year by heavy spending on “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” which never quite found its footing in the awards quest and accompanying box office derby — suddenly bumped Martin Scorsese’s drama “Shutter Island” into next year, moving it out of the current Oscar race altogether.
nytimes

Jabor:Foi bom pra você?

Não precisei dizer pra aquele moreno que eu estava afim.
Acho que ele leu meus pensamentos.
Foi ótimo.Ainda bem ,que existe o viagra.

Política:Lula diz que crise no senado não é problema dele

"Não é um problema meu [a permanência de Sarney].
Eu não votei para eleger Sarney presidente do Senado nem votei para ele ser senador do Maranhão. Também não votei no [Michel] Temer [PMDB-SP para a Câmara] nem no [senador] Arthur Virgílio [PSDB-AM].

Não votei para ninguém. Eu votei para os senadores de São Paulo. E somente o Senado que o elegeu é que pode dizer", disse Lula.

kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk