The Financial Bubble is Ready

Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove [ The music is We'll Meet Again by Vera Lynn]

>> Haga clic aquí para la versión en castellano

Dubai’s House of Cards
Dubai is the leading exponent of housing bubbles that have occurred worldwide.  Eccentricity of management has turned a city in the middle of the desert in a field full of hotels and skyscrapers. It was a time – the golden era – when anything was little for the Emirate.

But the crisis has beaten hard Dubai. Works have stopped and credit flow is dead blocked. Up to the point that, yesterday the state holding announced a moratorium on payment of $ 4 billion debt – the same holding that built the famous Jumeira Palm Island. This did not sit well with international markets.

The problem is that the Emirate owes $ 80 billion and markets begin to have doubts about its solvency. As soon as the moratorium on debt payment was announced markets felt down. The worst financial crisis could recur. But instead of banks’ cessation of payments we may now witness States’ suspension of payments.

Speculative Bubble Emerging
Meanwhile, in another part of the planet – the United States – the policy of the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates near zero is fuelling a wave of speculative capital that can initiate the next crisis. Many warn that a new bubble is brewing, and several specialists see in this quantitative easing an equivalent outcome Japan had for its crisis of the early 90s. Low Japanese interest rates did contribute definitely to the outbreak of the Asian crisis in 1997.

Ben Bernanke, an academic on the Great Depression, monitored the most massive injection of liquidity into the world’s largest economy, committing himself not to make the mistake of the 30s when the Fed officials pursued a strict and rigorous monetary policy that only aggravate the crisis further enough. The lack of available money in 1930 is regularly considered the reason why the crisis lengthened for a decade. The little response to current liquidity injections shows that the situation is all but comforting and that new limits of monetary policy may further alter the global imbalances that the crisis left uncovered.

One of these speculation operations is the so-called carry trade; investors borrow in $ (0%) headed for invest in other currencies that offer higher interest rates such as Australia, Brazil and New Zealand. Much of the flow in the capital markets moves ahead that direction. Hence the importance that Asian and Oceania assets are acquiring versus Europe and US assets. Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore assets are rising to levels that are incompatible with the reality that replicates the real estate bubble of US in the 90s and Japan in the 80s – when the Imperial Palace Gardens in Tokyo came to cost more than the entire US state of Washington.

Despite this, former Fed Governor Frederick Mishkin assumed that there is no evidence that a speculative bubble is emerging, since not all bubbles present risks to the economy. Mishkin split good from bad bubbles. The former are instigate by a credit boom, whereas expectations lead to increased demand, generating a rise in asset prices, encouraging lending against those assets and positive feedbacks cycle until it explodes.

The second category of bubbles what Mishkin calls “pure irrational exuberance bubble” is less harmful because there is no credit boom, and if no credit boom occurs the bursting of the bubble can not damage the system – e.g. the bubble in technology in the ’90s and the dotcom’s of 2000, had no global impact. For Myshkin the rise of the credit stirs the bubbles. Now, there is no credit boom in small scale. But bubble is building on the macro scale of speculative capitals, those who move billions of dollars of pension funds, the very same that play in the stock market or speculate on the gold and oil at the expense of the dollar. And at macro levels, everything where bubbles get involved presage awful signs for the economy. Otherwise, it’s like thinking that a bomb may have some positive effect.

Future generations’ fate is at stake in Copenhagen

Negotiators will try to reach a political compromise on fighting climate change in Copenhagen

Negotiators will try to reach a political compromise on fighting climate change in Copenhagen. Countries including the United States are backing away from commitments made two years ago to fight climate change.

Only globally coordinated international law that is binding and can be enforced through sanctions when violated is capable of possibly preventing Greenland’s ice sheet from significantly melting, semi-arid regions from drying to the point where millions of people are forced to flee and extreme weather conditions from a state of irreversible damage even wealthy countries’ economic powers.

If we continue to build coal-fired power plants and increase our use of gasoline and diesel vehicles, then we will literally be burning up many people’s futures. Approximately half of the carbon dioxide generated by that exhaust will remain in the atmosphere for centuries to come, and will continue to accumulate – unless we reduce output by at least 50 percent – and will raise temperatures in the lower atmosphere, the surface of the Earth and gradually the inner-regions of the ocean to levels which homo-sapiens have never experienced.

Only after a delay of decades will the full level of warming be reached, which will only be complete after centuries. Sea levels will continue to rise for centuries even without further warming of surface temperatures.

Humanity has never had to solve a long-term problem such as this, which is why our present political infrastructure is of little use for this phenomenal task. We need global domestic policies such as those of the European Union that already exist for a small portion of the international community.

.

Carry out the polluter-pays principle

Burning coal is like burning people's futures

As yet, every country deals with the external effects of supplying energy in its own ways. Nearly all countries go so far as to promote global warming by reducing the prices of all or some fossil fuels for all or some portions of their populations, and they saddle succeeding generations or the general public – but not the emitters – with external effects such as health costs, air pollution or climate damage. Each year, direct or indirect subsidies account by approximation for 300 billion Euros ($450 billion) worldwide. Nearly all humans pay nothing for the emission of hazardous substances such as illness-causing diesel soot, and fainthearted European emissions trading of carbon dioxide is still far removed from an actual internalization of such external effects.

In Germany a kilowatt hour of electricity generated by a black coal-fired plant should cost 7 euro cents more with adherence to all environmental costs and 8.9 euro cents in the case of brown coal, which means that wind power, with an electricity-compensation price of 8.5 euro cents today, would already be cheaper than energy generated by brown coal. All the same, the large electricity distributors continue to speak of subsidizing renewable energy sources and most citizens parrot what they say.

Energy providers in Europe would only be acceptable choices as suppliers if their portfolios included a portion of renewable energy sources larger than the overall average. At much less than 2 percent, they lie miles beneath today’s average of 11 percent of energy coming from renewable sources.

.

What would a Copenhagen Protocol a success?

First of all, when it includes binding and stronger emissions reductions for all industrialized countries by 2020 of at least 25 percent measured against the output of emissions in 1990.

Second, if the integration of countries with emerging markets – which encompass about half of all humans and in several of which the per-capita emission level is rapidly approaching our own – were to succeed along with initial reduction measures through partial financial compensation of their reduction and adaptation measures through global emissions trading amongst industrialized countries.

Third, if industrialized countries give financial support for measures to adapt to the changing climate to particularly affected developing nations.

All of the above was already covered in the declaration of the 13th United Nations Climate Change Conference on Bali.

Industrialized nations should help emerging countries adapt to climate change

But now several countries are hesitating, including the United States. Its new president is being limited by the long-term effects of erroneous politics led by a public and its representatives who are so unwilling to see the facts that the average US citizen will remain the front-runner when it comes to emissions for a long time to come.

Fourth, I would like to see a commitment to a long-term objective of emission equality, recognition of the equal rights of every human to produce emissions, and therefore much stronger emissions reductions for strong emitters such as the United States and the United Arab Emirates as a precondition for global emissions trade – adherence to the polluter-pays principle. Emissions would cost money and the market would initiate a rapid alteration to the energy supply system. We would only need a five-thousandth of the potential energy of the sun, and every country would have the bulk of its energy resources (sun, wind, water) within its borders. The conflicts connected to the appropriation of oil and gas would be things of the past.

But even should this succeed, coming generations will still have to carry the burden because we did not undertake the comparatively marginal effort of emissions reduction as compared to the cost of adaptation. This is in part because we did not initially know about the issue, and then nearly all of us suppressed it, and in part we still do not want to recognize it.

Should nothing be accomplished in Copenhagen, the possibility that in the 22nd century many cities with millions of inhabitants on weakly protected coastlines will further sink rapidly increases. Even before that occurs, millions of people will have been displaced from regions of industrialized nations distressed by water.

Bank Secrecy: the Key to International Transparency

>> Haga clic aquí para la versión en castellano.

Bank secrecy and tax havens have now become a key factor for international transparency. Their linking to corruption and money-laundering has been uncovered by the financial crisis. This is one of the reasons why developed countries must tackle corruption internationally, a curse that uses secrecy to screen dirty money transfers. In this interactive map you can have a look on the transparency level in 180 countries surveyed and here is the index.

While New Zealand, Denmark and Singapore top the list of the most transparent countries in the world according to this survey of « perception of corruption », Spain lost four places in the ranking (28^th to 32^nd), France gets back from 23^rd to 24^th position, UK move back one place, same as US – demonstrating that the perception of corruption has risen. In the presentation at its headquarters in Berlin, the organization has emphasized the fight against tax havens noting that « there must be no safe haven for corrupt money ». Like every year, countries at war are perceived as the most corrupt, with Afghanistan and Somalia as the worst two.

In Latin America, Venezuela is one of the world’s most corrupt countries, ranking 162, while Chile and Uruguay are located as the least corrupt sharing 25^th place, followed by Costa Rica (43) and Cuba (61). Brazil shares with Colombia and Peru where 75, Mexico shares the 89 with Rwanda and Argentina is 106. China is located in 79^th.

Since 1955, the organization publishes annually an index of perceptions of corruption ranging from a score of ‘10’ for a country perceived as « transparent » to ‘0’ for one seen as « corrupt. » Transparency International does not spare criticism of industrialized countries in a time when governments attempt to revive the economy by injecting a huge mass of public capital on growth aid programs.

The first defendant is bank secrecy « affecting efforts to fight corruption and recover stolen assets”. In that sense, IT downplays its own index, indicating that the problem of banking secrecy concerns « many countries that lead the classification », such as Switzerland in fifth place and Luxembourg on the 14th. So, the report points that

« The money derived from corruption should not be able to find refuge areas. It’s time to end the excuses.»

As for the great revival plans launched by the industrialized countries, Transparency International warns its perverse effects.

« When you spend a lot of public money very quickly and the authorities that control programs are being overwhelmed, the risk of corruption increases. It is a major risk factor », said the president of Transparency in Germany, Sylvia Schenck.

One thing is clear under current circumstances: the existence of tax havens made easier the crisis to strengthen; hence, the obligation to besiege these sources of corruption.

Does Russia Really Want to Resume Death Penalty?

As 2009 comes to an end, the clock is ticking for Russia’s constitutional court to reach a decision on capital punishment. The moratorium on the death penalty is currently due to expire with the dawning of the New Year.

A shot to the head was how Russia used to deal with violent crime

It’s a problematic issue, or so the opinion polls would suggest. Recent surveys say that up to 80 percent of Russians are in favor of a return to state-ordered execution, a practice which has been kept at bay for the past decade by a legally-binding document.

The 1999 moratorium on the death penalty was a condition for Russia to become a member of the Council of Europe. And although the Council would have preferred complete abolition, it agreed to the suspension while waiting for Moscow to commit ratifying a protocol which would completely proscribe capital punishment. But this, the Russian Federation has failed to do so far.

What’s more, the constitutional court attached a condition of its own to the moratorium. It stated that no tribunal in Russia would be allowed to hand down a death sentence until such time as jury trial – abolished in 1917 by the Bolsheviks – had been introduced in all regions of the federation.

With Chechnya, which is currently the only remaining republic not to use jurors, on the edge to adopt the practice in a few weeks time, Russia has a decision to make. It can go for extend the moratorium, reintroduce the death penalty or do away with it once and for all.

Mixed opinions

Which way the court will decide is anything but clear. Although many officials and experts addressing the hearings earlier this week spoke out against a resumption of judicial killings, some made cases in favor.

The Ria Novosti news agency reported Communist lawmaker Vadim Solovyav as saying the abolition of capital punishment could “contribute to the growth of criminality in Russia.” And he is not the only one to think that way.

But that line of argument holds little sway with the abolitionists. Friedericke Behr, Amnesty International researcher on Russia said such thinking is poorly-documented: “Research in many countries has shown that having a death penalty makes no difference to crime rates.”

Any decision to reintroduce the death penalty will not go down well in Strasbourg

Even so, President Dmitry Medvedev does not appear to be in a hurry to do away with it. His representative to the constitutional court, Mikhail Krotov, said the Kremlin supported “a stage-by-stage abolition of capital punishment.”

Exactly what that means is unlikely to be revealed before the court rules afresh in the coming weeks. But the pure fact that such masked statements are being thrown about is cause enough for concern, says Allison Gill, Director of Human Rights Watch Russia.

“The signal is that Russia is still holding back from putting itself in with the requirements of the Council of Europe,” Gill says. And that, she believes, stems from a reflex among Russian policy-makers to want to sign up to international and European institutions without wanting to fully commit to them. “I think there is an instinct on the part of certain Russian politicians to maintain a position of Russian exceptionalism,” she said.

Different is not always good

Only being different on this particular issue could have substantial implications for Moscow’s relationship with the Council of Europe. Russia is the only country which has not ratified protocol 6 – the abolition of the death penalty – and has frequently cited public opinion as the reason.

But in a country not renowned for curving to public pressure, such reasoning doesn’t really echo. “If the government has a political will to abolish the death penalty,” Gill said, “they could make a convincing case to the Russian public.”

At present the polls claim one in eight Russians would back the eye-for-an-eye way of thinking. Yet Friederike Behr says surveys on capital punishment are often manipulated from the outset.

“It’s all in the way you ask the questions,” she said, adding that the mention of publicly exposed vicious crime motivates the public to grant pollsters the kind of statistics they have been publishing in the past weeks.

Paradox polls

Russian police fail to inspire a sense of security in the population

Allison Gill agrees that such surveys cannot be taken as gospel, not least because the same public that flies the flag for state-ordered execution is deeply critical of the system which passes the sentences.

“On the one hand, Russians might be in the majority pro-death penalty, but on the other hand they also mistrust their own law enforcement system and their courts,” Gill said. “They don’t think they’re going to get a fair hearing.”

And some clearly don’t. As Behr points out, Russia has got it wrong on many occasions. “People have been sentenced to death and have been executed and then found to be not guilty,” she said. “There are people here who were on death row when the moratorium was introduced and who were then released later on because they were found to be innocent.”

It’s the age-old argument which applies to any state that still sentences its criminals to death, but it seems particularly pertinent in a country where so many people have so little faith in the justice system. As Allison Gill asks “how can that justice system be responsible for handing out the ultimate penalty?”

(Sources: RIA Novosti, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch)

>> click here to translate this page to Spanish
>> click here to translate this to French

South is the First Victim of Global Warming

Several surveys confirm that poor countries will be the first victims of climate change, even if, being low emitters of greenhouse gases, they are less responsible.

A report published early September 2009 by Maplecroft –  a British cabinet expertise on global risks – shows that the most vulnerable countries to global warming are Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan and Sierra Leone. Twenty-two of the 28 countries exposed to “extreme risk” are located in sub-Saharan Africa.

In the meantime, the Asian Development Bank presented in Manila the results of a conclusive report: melting of Himalayan glaciers threatens the food security and water availability of 1.6 billion inhabitants of South Asia. In New York, Rob Vos, director of the UN  Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), ruled that ” If we do not reduce significantly GHG emissions, the damage to the [economies of] poor countries as a percentage of GDP[ gross domestic product] will be up more than ten times greater than in the United States and most other developed countries ” [1] . Mr. Vos commented on the report by his department. According to the conclusions, investments should be done every year in climate change mitigation and adaptation to its effects by 1 % of world’s GDP, i.e. more than 500 billion dollars.

A few months earlier, in May 2009, the United Nations had issued a report about the international strategy on risk reduction -launched in 2000. The document operates the first synthesis of knowledge about natural disasters that have occurred between 1975 and 2008. Even if he admits the document is not exhaustive, the text nevertheless represents a unique body of knowledge.

Between 1975 and 2008, 8.866 disasters have killed 2.284.000. Regarding flooding, the risk of death increased by 13% between 1990 and 2007. The picture is not, if we dare say, equally catastrophic. The absolute number of human or economic losses increases throughout the period, but it remains proportionately stable because of demographic and global GDP growth.

But according to UN experts, the situation would deteriorate because of climate change and ecosystems degradation. The latter is a factor too often ignored. Albeit not apple to apples, ecosystems manage to cushion the impact of natural disasters. Regarding climate change, it will increase the risk of disasters. The vulnerability of populations is one of the other factors that accentuate the risks. Action by Governments (earthquake standards, etc.) becomes crucial: Japan and the Philippines suffer roughly the same number of typhoons, but they cause 17 times more deaths in the Philippines than in Japan.

Have a look on Mr. Rob Vos’ press conference here enclosed:

[1] 2009 World Economic and Social Survey: Promoting Development, Saving the Planet.

Sustainable Cities for Freedom and Environment (3)

The city and its operation

Previous articles outlined the way to configure cities in order they become sustainable or not. Sustainability depends on the city functionality itself as well – the aim of this third article.

Adam Smith in his invisible hand hypothesis stated that market optimizes the distribution, enabling better allocation of resources without public intervention. It can also operate by creating unwanted situations to market players (cases of monopoly, cartels, lack of coordination, etc.) and then worsening the social scene.

For instance, the decision to travel by private car instead of using public transport can outcome the worst case scenario. In this direction, several investigations have revealed that it would take less to London bus users – as in any other city – than motorists to move from one place to another if there were less cars. Hence the idea of Mayor Livingston of an expensive access to London downtown by private car in order to provide greater flexibility to surface and underground public transport.

Urban planning is therefore absolutely essential for coexistence and progress. Consequently, European citizens from the early nineteenth century claimed to eliminate obstacles (walls down!). They claimed broaden their cities, which became progressively constrained by sea, hills, and old walls – now absolutely unnecessary, with severe communication problems, crowding and hygiene.

In this context, it was clear to Ildefonso Cerdà when designing the Eixample (urban expansion) of Barcelona that the city should be open, cosmopolitan, outside connected by well done road and rail networks… But above all, it had to be habitable for citizens. The city would grow in small islands: city blocks chamfered, with large inner garden patios, thus uniting the best of countryside life with the advantages of the city. Even then, many Barcelonans turned these courtyards into dedicated warehouses, small factories, and even buildings.

The Cerdà’s pioneering urban planning (1860) through areas, gardens and building expansions – quite different from the internal reform of Haussmann (1852) in Paris – is our daily bread. Managements of urban municipalities generally deal with this responsibility. They have to operate with long-term vision – avoiding short-termism that under-sizes capabilities and services with serious further quicken consequences. In this direction, planning must address a number of priority issues on water, air, noise, energy, waste, health, housing, and transportation.

Cleaner Water
Human intervention in water availability has quantity and quality implications as water used in cities floods back to environment, thus closing a cycle already enforced. Thus, sewage without any treatment, returning to their natural environment, creates serious pollution of rivers and aquifers. To avoid such an issue, the European Water Charter (1968) marked a series of objectives that have been largely completed in the EU-15 – while it remains outstanding work in some of the new 27 Member States of the Union.

In addition, water consumption has to be rationalized: in most large cities, a cubic meter of clean water is less expensive than a Coke at a bar, then increasing produced waste. Consequently, it is essential to charge water waste, starting with a low prices block about 60 liters a day – subsequently changing basic allowance – and then becoming gradually more expensive.

Air
The topic is most evident in cities where sustainability is not shining for its excellence. The most valuable asset – what we breathe 24 hours a day – is consumed in very inadequate conditions. The air of London in the mid 1950s, with frequent smog waves, became suffocating. Following these situations a clean air policy arose, with the first laws, specifically British, in 1955. European Countries came after with further regulation mechanisms.

In summary, the most essential is to ensure clean air, with sensors networking and a very long series of measures that would not exceed the allowable cap, forcing the phasing out of most harmful emission sources.

Noise
Everyone agrees – starting with psychologists and psychiatrists – that noise is one of the environmental factors that affect most the quality of life. From small discomforts, more or less anecdotal, to levels of irreversible disorders in the human mind.

Definition of noise is well known:

“The sound, or set of sounds that are perceived by human beings, and that alter the acoustical medium within they normally move.”

…with the additional peculiarity that everything depends on the inevitability of impact also. Regarding the latter, a noise is obliged to be heeded, and even foreseeable at the time – as when a summer storm occurs, or when the passage of a train at a fixed time takes place, or when children voices arise from the playground in the courtyard of a school near you – and then the sound waves seem justified, and the trouble is diluted. Not at all when the roar of an uncontrolled neighbor turntable in its 50 watts comes to you, or when it deals with crying on Friday night in usually quiet streets, on these occasions everything just become the most detestable.

Among the most aggressive acoustic dealings, the continuous traffic of suburban highway (along with hundreds of miles of noise barriers) should be condemned – and what about major arteries within metropolitan area, and even in the formerly quiet streets in ancient downtowns?  In these ways, some motorists “do their best” traveling at full speed – as if they were in Silverstone. And it is certainly no less remarkable ambulances, day or night roistering circulating, carrying patients or not, whose sirens wailing penetrate your eardrums at completely unnecessary noise levels.

But most of all, among the most inconvenient and unnecessary noises, the urban cleaning must be pointed: the unpleasant scavenging machines in the vicinity of 100 dB, apart the absurd beep when they reverse or their stressful light pollution – equipments that go together with by “air gun carriers’”, top-mask and earplugs outfitted, raising dust clouds in the din with a volume of noise just about unbelievable – especially when you compare with the very human scavengers who still survive. All these issues must be fought, and there are many resources to do so, starting with the municipalities – now the main causing actors of noise.

Otherwise, cities as microcosm would become unsustainable.

Related posts:

>>Sustainable Cities for Freedom and Environment (1) – An Overview on Urban Developmental Evidences
>>Sustainable Cities for Freedom and Environment (2) – Prospects, Proposals and Local Agenda-21

The debate on French national identity: an off-topic nationalist manipulation

>> Cliquez ici pour la version française

Who does not perceive that the French government, especially the president and his namesake minister on ‘organized evictions’, is engaged in a great manipulation!

Pétain and Hitler meet at Montoire

First recovering (recovering trends and recuperating far-right voters, this is not brand new), then diverting classic emotions through woolly smoker screen approaches, in the absence of the real deal with economic and social problems (crisis, employment deficit, housing, etc..), instead of facing — together with national representants — local and international challenges of all kinds.

No surprise, of course, we never expected anything from them. Not to speak of those — the government and other relatives — who condone the worst. But the opposition Socialists? Opposed so little that they endorse this false debate, a shameful nationalist manoeuvre, symptom of an opportunist and reactionary policy, rather than strengthen Europe and think and act more internationally yet. French leaders not only go on sinking at high speed into the economic wall but they mostly precipitate the disastrous consequences by a nationalist suicidal policy –worthy of their own incompetence. Promising tomorrows, even if we yet know the song.

By dint of whipping the undocumented, this eternally frustrated France is questioning itself whether it is in order too, and probing if it is able therefore to exhibit the evidence of its identity. M. Sarkozy, have you ever heard of egotism, this narcissistic tendency to be analyzed and to talk about oneself? (Unless you think you are God’s gift to mankind…)

Being myself son and grand-son of Spaniards, I can say that this debate makes me want to vomit because with such approaches, this dear country sinks deeper into the darkest mess conservatism.

Drug trafficking and imperialism

US imperial mentality in the fight against drug trafficking

>>Haga clic aquí para la versión en castellano

At a recent conference [1], the original and always rightly incisive Noam Chomsky, referred to US military bases installed in Colombia, with the official purpose of assisting the Government of Bogotá in the war on drugs.

Mexico's Federal Police officers escort suspects of working for a drug trafficking gang, as they are shown to the media in Mexico City

He called to consider a similar case but with different actors. Suppose, he said, that Colombia, China or any other country claim their right to establish military bases in Mexico, in order to fumigate and destroy US tobacco plantations in North Carolina or Kentucky, traditional breeders of this plant. The plan would be enhanced by blocking the production areas through the action of air and naval forces, while sending inspectors to verify the overall elimination of such plantations. All this would aim to prevent tobacco trafficking towards countries suffering its effects.

Chomsky points out that smoking has provided evidence to be more lethal than alcohol, which in turn is more harmful than the use of cocaine or heroin, and these are, in turn, more harmful than cannabis. If in addition to the number of deaths caused by harmful products inhaled by smokers, we take account of those caused to “passive” smokers – though their number is difficult to determine – it is quite sure that the overall lethal outcome of nicotiana tabacum will exceed that of the remaining drugs as a whole. It would be quite logical to pursue more actively tobacco growers than coca’s.

Clearly this assumption is not plausible in the reality of today, not only because tobacco in most countries is not a banned substance while many drugs are. However, when facing this relentless logic, what should be asked is why this happens. Why the US, who say they feel adversely affected by drugs that come from south of the Rio Grande, naturally attributed the right to deploy their armies in Colombia to combat coca growers in the area, and it is even conceivable that no other country could do likewise when its interests are affected similarly.

For Chomsky, the answer is simple and it has an unquestionable bottom: the imperial mentality that exists in the US, so deep-seated in North American minds that it pass unnoticed. Should we add here that this frame of mind also exists – on a smaller scale – in many Western countries.

However, the results so far obtained seem to justify the effort committed. The “war on drugs” has lasted more than four decades in Colombia and has intensified over the past ten years, neither the food nor drug trafficking have declined. The reasons offered by Chomsky leaves no doubts. Several studies show that well-funded prevention and treatment of drug addiction are much more effective than coercive measures used in this endless war. And the preventive or curative treatment of drug-consumers in this business-has a performance cost-effectiveness improved over 20 times to the attacks against growers supplier-side-in “chemical warfare” waged to destroy the fields of drugs.

According to Chomsky, only two scenarios would explain the current situation: Either the US leaders have been consistently fools for 40 years, or the purpose of the war on drugs is very different than what is proclaimed. If one excludes no further the hypothesis of insanity, then what may be the real reasons for this alleged war?

Inside the US two main facts are obvious: the cleaning of the socially less useful (which has led the US into the world’s first place on top of prison population rate) and, as with the “war on terror”, dependence and subjugation of a population terrorized by the danger of drugs, to stop showing its angry opposition to economic policies that have led to the largest social imbalance that the US has ever suffered.

Meanwhile, abroad, the war on drugs is a way of hiding in Colombia – and other countries –some of the most iniquitous antisubversive operations. Colombia is the second country in the world (after Sudan) with more population driven out their homes, while local oligarchies and multinationals occupy the land abandoned by farmers and transform them into mining, agro-industrial production, intensive livestock or infrastructure for industry – whose benefits hardly benefit to concerned populations.

Now it’s time to ask whether Obama will follow the winding road – yet partly covered by his predecessors but in opposition to which he has not revealed much indignation as he showed with e.g. Guantanamo – or on the contrary, he has enough support, resources and intentions to leave the swamped problem that Chomsky clearly presents and whose resolution is difficult and complex, since it not only depends on the White House decisions, although they can point the beginning of a new path.

[1] Noam Chomsky, Militarizing Latin America. In chomsky.info. August 30, 2009