domingo, 19 de febrero de 2012

Falklands: Why Chile must support the United Kingdom

"Mientras haya gente que sufra hambre, cualquier esfuerzo por Malvinas es obsceno." 
Martín Caparrós, Argentine writer



The Falkland Islanders are British, and they want to remain so. Chileans should wholeheartedly support them.


Remember 2004, when in the midst of winter Argentina cut off the gas supply to Chile? If you don't, read 'What sort of neighbour is this?'. Think of the Laguna del Desierto arbitration in 1994, when Argentinians broke the rules and occupied the lands in dispute, and finally they were favoured to them. Let alone the Beagle conflict in 1978, when Argentina's junta unilaterally repudiated the arbitration, which had favoured Chile, then almost a war broke up.

The above are just a few examples of the tense relationship between both countries. The question now is, why should Chile back Argentina —a notorioulsy corrupt and chaotic nation—, in the bilateral dispute over the Falkland Islands? Is our long history of conflicts and mistrust with Argentina a reason to support the UK? Of course not. In this post, we argue that in this bilateral dispute, Chile must uphold the right to self determination of the kelpers (Falklands Islanders).

This stance should not lead to a quarrel with our neighbour. In fact, Argentinians are not only our neighbours — they're family. Even more importantly, they're our first trade partners —incidentally, they block our exports and subsidise their industry— and if they ask for Chile's support, they may have it, up to the point where this doesn't lead to enmity with the UK, with whom we hold a long history of friendship, collaboration — even admiration. Chile's diplomats face a big challenge: keep good terms with our neighbours, whilst we strengthen our relationship with the UK.

On the right to self determination, it's patent that the islanders are British, they speak English and are happy to remain part of the UK. Chile has to make clear to Cristina Fernández, the populist ruler of Argentina, that if they want to claim the Falkland Islands as theirs, they have to start by doing something to lure the islanders to the Continent. Being a country where half the population lives under the poverty line and constantly threatening the kelpers may not do the trick, but it's not our business to tell them how to do it. We just want them to accept the reality: kelpers are Brits.

This is, in essence, a bilateral conflict. Argentinians can't claim we have betrayed them if we support the kelpers, because the right to self determination is blessed. At least this time the Argentinian leader goes to United Nations and doesn't occupy the islands after a drunken session by the generals, as it happened in 1982. "After the Falkands, Chileans are next", an Argentine general claimed back in the day. At the time, Chile had every right to support the enemy of our enemy. However, it must be said over and over again that Britan should not be our friends just because of something as silly as a conflict with Argentina — we really want to be allies with the British as we've always been. This time though things are a bit better and a war is unthinkable, so we must keep our cool in this conflict and encourage Argentinians to look for a diplomatic resolution to their problem. Luckily, it looks like they've done so.

It was rumored that Argentina would ask the Chilean government to cancel the only flight from the Falklands to Chile's southernmost city, Punta Arenas, by LAN, our flagship airline. If they do that, they'll cross the line. Argentina must also play their cards carefully and Mr Piñera has to flex his diplomatic muscles to make clear to Fernandez that we will not accept this kind of meddling in our business.

This all boils down to the following dilemma: whether the Falklands belong to whoever occupies them (res nullius), or if the rights inherited from the Spanish crown still prevail (uti possedeti). The former makes sense and an agreement can be reached; the latter is preposterous. If that was the case, the whole map of The Americas has to be revisited.

Perhaps if Argentina persuades the world that the Falklands belong to them, also Mexico can have Texas back, Germany can claim Alsace, and so on. And maybe in supporting Argentina, Chile will also have to give up all its northernmost territory, claimed by Bolivia. Or maybe the current Chilean government should rethink its vague support for the Argentinian demand, as it currently says it does. Hm, actually, thinking carefully about it, we are better off supporting the UK.

sábado, 11 de febrero de 2012

Le temen a los católico-romanos

EEUU es una teocracia

La iglesia Romana --célebre por su férrea defensa de pedófilos que cobija-- se ha declarado en pie de guerra por una ley federal que el gobierno civil de EEUU intenta promulgar, la cual buscaría asegurar el derecho de todas las norteamericanas a usar anticonceptivos para así controlar los hijos que desean tener. Ante las protestas, Obama reculó.

Según esta medida, todos los empleadores debiesen garantizar, dentro de la cobertura de los seguros de salud, la cobertura por el costo de los anticonceptivos. Dentro de este proyecto, se contempla una excepción, que sería la iglesia Romana e instituciones relacionadas. Increíblemente, arguyen que vulnera la "libertad de conciencia" de empresarios católicos. Esto es ridículo por dos motivos.

Primero, la libertad de conciencia corre cuando uno es vulnerado, no cuando uno es el intermediario. Vale decir, a una mujer no se le puede obligar a emplear anticonceptivos, pero difícilmente un plan de salud vulnera a un católico-romano si éste es un empleador que sólo debe asegurar que el seguro de salud contratado por sus trabajadores incluya anticonceptivos. La decisión final es de la empleada si los toma o no. ¿Acaso vulnera a un empleador que su empleada tome la píldora? Simplemente ridículo.

Segundo, un empleador no puede imponer sus propias visiones de mundo a sus empleados. Si alguien trabaja para un mormón, ¿estarán prohibidos los coffee breaks en la empresa? Sería ridículo. Exactamente lo mismo con los anticonceptivos.

En último término, lo importante es que la decisión la tome cada individuo. Y al garantizar el acceso a los anticonceptivos, las mujeres pueden libremente elegir si los emplea o no. Al impedirles o dificultarles el acceso, se les está hipócritamente obligando a optar por una opción, que es no tomarlos. Esto es inaceptable en una sociedad libre. Muy mal los católico-romanos, como siempre, sosteniendo contra toda lógica que su libertad se ve conculcada. Acá lo único importante es que se respete la libertad de cada cual para decidir su propio plan de vida.

Esta situación revela como siempre que Obama no tiene agallas para ser presidente. Es elocuente que por un lado, el político más sólido en estos momentos para asumir el mando de la gran nación del norte, Mitt Romney (mormón), el año 2005 obligó en Masachussets a que los hospitales romanos proporcionasen la píldora de emergencia a quienes lo solicitasen, si es que eran víctimas de una violación (cuestión sensata, por cierto). Pero ahora, lamentablemente Romney titubea. El ultraconservador Rick Santorum, ha dicho que con esta medida Obama "avanza hacia una Revolución Francesa", aludiendo al exterminio masivo de católicos en la Francia revolucionaria. Esto es entendible, ya que ese chiflado sólo representa a lugares como Iowa o Colorado, los menos ilustrados y los más conservadores de la unión americana.

En términos menos incendiarios que los de Santorum, Romney ha criticado a Obama, y se ha alineado con los romanos. Una forma idiota de coquetear con el voto duro ultraconservador por parte de un candidato reconocido por su talante moderado. Una lástima que el norteamericano mejor capacitado para sacar a EEUU de la crisis tenga tan pocas bolas como el actual moreno presidente.