Violencia con Armas de Fuego: El Viejo Mundo v. El Nuevo Mundo.

“Ejecución y difamación es una táctica del Nuevo Orden Mundial para censurar a la gente.”

“El Nuevo Orden Mundial pretende destruir las tradiciones y monumentos que llevan cientos o miles de años de existencia. Es un club internacional de hombres poderosos que tienen más en común entre ellos que sus propios compatriotas como militares, políticos y socios económicos.  Exterminan y difaman a toda la gente en su camino y esperan que se les olviden.”

Sólo a veces es la muerte evitable. A veces a propósito, mayormente sin saber, nosotros construimos sociedades peligrosas con fallos en la estructura social que a consecuencia, trabaja para aislar a la gente para privar de derechos civiles y empujarles a la periferia. La clase baja tiene limitaciones económicas, educativas y representativas (para votar) porque la clase media apoya las leyes y la política de la clase gobernante que pretenden mantener el sometimiento de los pobres.

La gente que vive en la periferia luchan entre ellos porque compiten para pocos recursos. El “centro” del capital no es para ellos porque está siendo guardado por la policia, pagado por los ricos. Aquí es donde el poder legislativo, político y económico controla los elementos del estado – el estado semi-fallido.

La violencia con armas de fuego en toda América (salvo Canadá), desde los Estados Unidos hasta el punto de Argentina y Chile es muy diferente que la violencia con armas en África, Europa, Asia y Oceanía. Los motivos de la violencia con armas difiere de como está distribuida y su prevalencia. La similitud de violencia con armas entre el viejo mundo y el nuevo mundo se trata del control del territorio, espacio, tierra, región, zona, estado, país, califato, comunidad, manzana, ciudad, pueblo, isla, ruta de comercio y sobre todo, recursos naturales (el dinero). Aunque puedes decir que el robo cuenta por mucho del uso ilegal de armas de fuego, los países de América tienen las problemas graves del narcotráfico y la guerra contra las drogas que contribuye a la mayor parte del día a día violencia con armas.

El tráfico de las drogas a través de América va de sur a norte y acaba en las manos de los norteamericanos y europeos para consumir. Los estadounidenses consumen más drogas ilegales que cualquier otro país del mundo. Brasil, Colombia, Venezuela, México y todos los países de sus alrededores están plagados de violencia de bandas de narcotraficantes que amasan sus imperios y reciben protección personal a través del dinero generado del trafico de drogas, la extorsión y los sobornos pagados a agentes policiales. El comercio ilegal de las armas es por lo tanto parte a las drogan porque uno es necesario para proteger al otro. Algunos países de Centroamérica y el Caribe sufren de mucha violencia del narcotráfico a causa de su geografía. Los cárteles pasan por ¨caminos¨ estrechos y como un embudo, la violencia se concentra en países como Honduras. Con una cifra de homicidio a 82 por cada 100,000 residentes, Honduras es el país con más homicidios con armas de fuego en el mundo. Nicaragua, Guatemala y El Salvador también están estirados por el narcotráfico y violencia que han causado una crisis humanitaria que es la inmigración irregular de niños desde Centroamérica hacia los Estados Unidos.

La violencia actual que ocurre en países centroamericanos ha llegado a niveles bélicos principalmente por la política americana durante las administraciones de Ronald Reagan y George H.W. Bush que apoyaron a los ¨Contras¨ (comandos anti-izquierdista) para cumplir las campañas anticomunistas a través de golpes de estado y operaciones secretas contra ideologías izquierdistas como marxismo-leninismo, comunismo, o cualquier banda afiliada con las ideas y creencias de Che Guevara y Fidel Castro. Reagan autorizó la asistencia de la CIA para fundar y entrenar a los ¨Contras¨ para luchar contra los Sandinistas en Nicaragua.  Y quién puede olvidar la invasión estadounidense de Panamá en 1989 para deshacerse de Manuel Noriega, un antiguo empleado de la CIA y narcotraficante dictador militar. El gobierno estadounidense ayudaba establecer los cárteles de drogas con los mismos Contras, prácticamente en paro, que luchaba contra los izquierdistas (soldados a narcotraficantes).  El escándalo Irán-Contra era real, no una conspiración elaborado por periodistas. El acontecimiento del escándalo destaca lo poco que sabemos sobre la profundidad de las operaciones en América Latina.

La guerra contra las drogas continúa clandestinamente cuando el gobierno estadounidense ayuda crear parte del caos. Un ejemplo es la ¨Operación Rápido y Furioso¨ . El nombre tomado de una película de acción, describe el escándalo de la venta de armas de los Estados Unidos a cárteles mexicanos. Entre 2006 y 2011, la agencia de Alcohol, Tabaco, Armas de fuego y Explosivos (ATF) vendían armas a los que creían que formaban parte de bandas narcotraficantes para ¨rastrearlos.¨ Al final, las armas de fuego de la ATF se encontraban en escenas de crímenes brutales en México y el gobierno mexicano perplejo porque no tenía información previa de la operación.

Cuanto más hacen esfuerzo para parar el tráfico de drogas, la gente tiene que pagar más dinero y los cárteles ganan más dinero, se compran más armas, se ponen más violentos y controlan más territorio. Los cárteles siempre están buscando nuevas rutas para transportar las drogas y las armas. La violencia ¨se atasca¨ en países pequeños como Honduras, El Salvador y Jamaica, países que tiene lo más homicidios (por 100,000 habitantes) con armas del mundo. Jamaica ha llegado a ser muy peligroso últimamente porque envíos de cocaína y otro contrabando ha desviado para viajar a través del Caribe vía Jamaica. Si las drogas fuesen legalizadas o parcialmente legalizadas los cárteles tendrían menos dinero para fundar su conflicto armado. También los norteamericanos y europeos pueden dejar de tomar drogas completamente lo cual nunca pasará.

Hay menos violencia con armas en Europa y Asia que América. Las leyes de Europa preserva el derecho a las armas para los que tienen permiso de caza o si son agentes policiales. En España por ejemplo, si quieres comprar una escopeta primero hay que conseguir un permiso de caza. Las pistolas están muy restringidas para el público general.  En los Estados Unidos, comprar un arma no requiere nada más que el dinero porque la Constitución de los Estados Unidos dice que poseer armas y formar una milicia son partes de su independencia y seguridad nacional. Entonces, poseer un arma en Estados Unidos es una cosa de cultura. Resulta que para cada 100 estadounidenses hay 88 armas. Es el pueblo con mayor cantidad de armas del mundo. Puede ser porque ciudades como Chicago, Il ,USA, cuenta más de 500 homicidios por año, la mayoría a bases de violencia con pistolas. Altas cifras de homicidios con armas son comunes en ciudades con 100,000 habitantes o más. No debe ser así.

Algunos países en Europa tienen muchos propietarios de armas pero no padecen de la violencia con armas como América. Las capitales Europeas como Madrid, España, que tiene una población parecida a Chicago (incluyendo las cercanías) tiene aproximadamente 30 homicidios al año, y sólo una parte de la cifra incluye homicidios con armas de fuego. Oceanía (Australia, Nueva Zelanda, Polinesia) tienen cifras de homicidios con armas parecidas a Europa.

Sólo Suiza y Finlandia acerca a los Estados Unidos en cantidad de propietarios de armas de fuego con una cifra de 47 por 100 suecos o finlandeses respectivo a sus países. Violencia con armas no es muy común entre agente de policía en Europa tampoco:

“Según Der Spiegel de Alemania, la policía alemana dispararon solo 85 balas en todo de 2011. Un recuerdo de que no todos los países del mundo son tan locos por pistolas como los Estados Unidos…La mayoría de los disparos no se apuntaron a nadie: 49 disparos de aviso, 36 disparos a perpetradores, 15 personas heridas y 6 personas muertas.” thewire.com

 En los Estados Unidos es común oír una historia de un policía que disparó 90 veces a una persona.

Las temas de raza, etnia y protección policial son partes de una sociedad que es más peligroso para las minorías, especialmente los afroamericanos que los europeo-americanos. En 2002, la policía americana mataron a 313 hombres afroamericanos. Las ejecuciones de hombres negros fue calculado como ¨cada 28 horas un hombre negro es matado por la policía.¨ La violencia con armas sale de personas que han perdido totalmente su humanidad. Es la mecanización de matar.

En Asia, casi no tiene violencia con armas en China y Japón. Japón tiene casi 1/2 de la población de los Estados Unidos (128,000,000 est. 2010) metidos en un país el tamaño del estado de California, pero sólo hay aproximadamente 2 homicidios con armas de fuego al año. Comprar una pistola en Japón es un proceso agotador, hay limitaciones del modelo, análisis psicológicos, hay que tomar un curso y hay rutinas de inspecciones. En China, posesión de armas de fuego está prohibida para los ciudadanos. La falta de acceso a las armas y bajos niveles de violencia con armas están relacionados, pero en países menos industriales es más complicado.

Una de las cosas que separa la violencia de armas en los Estados Unidos a Europa o Asia es cultura. Los estadounidenses sienten que necesitan tener un arma porque fue fundamental en formar las fronteras de América del Norte al estilo ¨Wild Wild West.¨ Al contraste,  Europa y Asia tiene estado-países antiguos formados con matrimonios, diplomacia, rutas de comercio, batallas con espadas, cañones, y mamutes cruzando los Alpes  suizos. Ir a campos de tiros o disparar a cosas en el jardín es una forma de diversión para los estadounidenses (al resto del mundo no tanto). A veces, son demasiado listos para disparar a cosas o personas que no amenace a nadie.

El continente de África y la región del Oriente Próximo tienen violencia con armas de fuego pero los conflictos del ¨viejo mundo¨ son problemas propagados por el Nuevo Orden Mundial. Reinos antiguos en África y el Oriente Próximo se formaban hace muchos siglos, interrumpidos por las invasiones de Europeos que re-dibujó estas zonas durante los siglos XVIII, XIX y XX. Países modernos como India, Pakistán, Nigeria, Argelia, Sudan, Egipto, e Israel son zonas donde los británicos y franceses bordeaban y cruzaban países ignorando vínculos culturales,  lingüísticos y étnicos cuando formaban países nuevos.

Zonas de conflicto armado como Siria, Libia, Sudan, Malí, Israel, Yemen, Pakistán y otros, requiere armamentos de países occidentales (EE.UU, Europa Occidental y Rusia). Debido a la inundación de armas, la violencia continúa para borrar las linea que los Europeos han dejado hace un siglo. Es una puerta giratoria, pero los países occidentales tiene lo más para ganar mientras los países de conflicto sigan comprando y lanzando las armas.

Aunque parece que quitar las armas de la gente para reducir homicidios es una solución simple, no es así de fácil. Si la gente quiere matar a otro, lo harán. En Sudáfrica, donde la cifra de homicidios es más alta que los Estados Unidos, homicidios con armas de fuego sólo cuenta por 45% de ellos, pero 67% en los Estados Unidos. Hay problemas profundas que provocan la tensión entre ciudadanos en cada país.  La disponibilidad de las armas sólo exacerba las problemas, luchan una falta de recursos. Lo que es verdad es que aunque países en América están en un estado de ¨paz¨ las cifras de homicidios competen con zonas de conflictos armados. Hay que llamar la atención al público para acabar con el despliegue rápido de policías militares al estilo futurista, distópica y Orwelliano. No más tanques, granadas, y metralletas en las calles de América apuntados a los ciudadanos. El estado policial, pre Segunda Guerra Mundial del siglo XX era malo, el estado policial del siglo XXI será peor.

Por: Opton A. Martin

The Positive Correlation between Women in Parliament and Standard of Living in High Income Nations.

¨The religious heterosexual male majority has homogeneously denied women´s inclusion¨

For high income nations there is a correlation between the percentage of women in parliament (congress) and the standard of living in a society. According to the World Bank, a high income nation can be described as a country whose working citizens earn above $12,746 per capita (2013). Countries with high incomes have intricate and diverse economies that allocate taxes in order to provide services for the population that support it. The doctrine of ¨No Taxation Without Representation¨ was part of the English-speaking world´s Enlightenment period, but it still rings true today in that women, who represent 50% or more of the human population, are not properly represented in various governments worldwide.

¨Rich¨ countries are able to provide more social services from taxes than ¨poor¨ countries. High income nations have a focus on the family, health, education, equality, and security; while acts of aggression like war, the death penalty, and lengthy incarceration are not priority. In all these cases, the United States and Japan seems to be the outliers, but in two distinct ways.

Data provided for this opinion and social commentary come from a website that monitors women in government. Because of failure of transparency and disclosure of information, commentaries are made based only on the number of women in the lower house of parliament. For Americans, the graph represents the percentage of women in the House of Representatives, not the Senate.

 

women in parliaments

 

Not included on this graph is the country of Rwanda, whose parliament is composed of 63.8% women. It is currently the only country in the world where women form the majority of the lower or single house. Rwanda, although it had a devastating civil war and genocide in the 1990s is beginning to recuperate and reconcile with those who had committed atrocities. Now it is one of the fastest growing economies in Africa.

Andorra, a principality located between Spain and France, has a General Council that is 50% women.  The country has the third highest life expectancy in the world at 82 years. Andorra, like many European nations, enjoy a free healthcare system and free higher education.

Nordic countries like Finland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and Denmark have a range between 39% – 45% women in their lower houses of parliament. These countries are known for their high standards of living, low crime, human rights, and gender equality. Free education and healthcare are values that have become a thing of culture, not politics.

The Romance-speaking countries like Spain, France, Italy and Portugal vary with respect to women and their representation in government. Spain has the highest number of women in their lower house (Congress of Deputies) at 39.7%; France has the lowest at 26.2%. These countries are still bastions for Catholicism, whose doctrines are opposed to women´s reproductive rights like abortion, birth control instruments like the IUD, and contraception medication, yet politics and religion do not get in the way of women´s health.

All four of these countries also have a higher life expectancy than the United States maybe because their healthcare system is subsidized by the everyone, including the government, much like the Nordic countries, to ensure  that a larger portion of the population have free and easy access to a doctor. There is recognition among political leaders and citizens in these countries that contraception medication is not only for preventing pregnancy, but for preventative health against tumors, to regulate hormones, and some types of cancers. The Spanish government, currently ruled by the conservative People´s Party, decided to restrict women´s access to abortion and birth control. No one is really sure how the law works, or when it goes into effect, but it is understood that state-run hospitals (under social security) no longer provide abortions, it must be provided by a privately-run hospital with private healthcare*.

Anglophone countries like New Zealand, Australia, United Kingdom and Canada also have free healthcare and free higher education. They also have higher life expectancies than the United States as well.  Generally, Western Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have higher life expectancies based on their social systems that have more women in government. These high income nations can afford to balance their mixed economies in order to provide for a well-educated public where political debate on whether or not citizens should be offered free health services is a ¨no brainer.¨

¨On a substantive level, studies systematically show that female politicians are more likely to concentrate on issues that matter more to women such as daycare, gender equality, reproductive rights, flex time, elderly care, children’s welfare.1 It seems pretty intuitive that there are some issues that are more important to women and affect them more. It also seems like common sense that women would be more likely to focus on these issues than men.¨ Christine Cheng

Maternity leave, which also includes paternity leave in progressive countries, is another concept foreign to the general American citizen. Although Americans would claim that they live in the richest and best country in the world, it provides about as much subsidized, ¨free¨ healthcare and maternity leave as the Democratic Republic of the Congo – zero.

 

Maternity-leave-chart-final

 

The United States government does not have provisions for maternity leave. After giving birth, you basically have to get back to work in 3 days or quit your job.

The United States has a lot in common with countries that have poor records in human rights or countries that have very restrictive women´s reproductive rights. At 27.7% and 25.3%, Afghanistan and Iraq both currently have more women in their lower house than the United States. Only 18.2% of the House of Representatives is represented by women in the United States.  Saudi Arabia has 19.9% in their lower house and women aren´t even allowed to drive! Qatar, a major U.S. ally in the Middle East currently has 0.0% women in their government. Apparently, they currently have no restrictions on women running for positions in an Advisory Council. Qatar is technically the richest country in the world per capita, and like Saudi Arabia, is ruled by a family monarchy.

Ireland, although lauded for its high standard of living and general health of the public, has maintained a strict anti-abortion policy. There was a fire storm in Ireland in 2012 when a woman of Indian heritage, who had severe pain and was miscarrying, was repeatedly denied an abortion. She was denied because ¨Ireland is a Catholic country and the fetus still had a heartbeat.¨ She eventually died of sepsis (septicemia). Another case involves a woman in Ireland – apparently suicidal – who was also repeatedly denied an abortion. They ¨legally¨forced her to submit to a C-section at only 25 weeks of pregnancy after her attempts at a hunger strike.

Pro Life Campaign spokeswoman, Dr Ruth Cullen, said the news “underlines the horror and deep-seated flaws of the government’s legislation”.

“To induce a pregnancy at such an early stage inevitably puts the baby at risk of serious harm, such as brain damage, blindness or even death,” she said.

The lower house in Ireland is composed of only  15.7% women. This could be a direct correlation of how women´s health is buried beneath the apparent Catholic theocracy in Ireland.

India, the world´s largest democracy has a huge problem with women´s rights, rape, sexual assault and other indigenous beliefs that force underage women into marriages with significantly older men. In a country with more than 1 billion people, women are only 11% of the lower and upper house of parliament. The lack of representation in India has serious consequences in that male sex offenders are often not punished for violating women.  In the heart of Africa, there is the problem of female genital mutilation, which is performed in countries, where women represent less than 11% of the parliament (Kenya, Nigeria, Cote d´Ivoire, Mali, Sudan, Congo etc). They are forced against their will to submit to a barbaric practice for the benefit of men who want women to remain virgins.

The main outlier in this correlation between standard of living and women in parliament is Japan, where women represent only 8.1% of their 480 seats of the house. Japan, which has one of the lowest birthrates in the world and second highest life expectancy, is struggling with internal issues that would need to be further studied by sociologist and anthropologists specializing in Japan. Recent sexist comments by Japanese parliament members like ¨ Breed, don´t lead¨  have cause a wave of protests. Low birth rates were attributed to both men and women: women, who under threat of losing their jobs after taking maternity leave, prefer to keep working in order to maintain their careers; and men, who have similar goals, have replaced physical contact with ¨digital contact.¨

In Iran, the Ayatollah called for a ¨population boost¨ effectively banning ¨permanent¨ birth control for men and women in various forms. Doctors can be imprisoned for performing vasectomies, abortions or other operations like installing an IUD. This is an example of a theocratic government controlling reproductive rights for men and women in a country where their lower house in parliament is only 3% women. Controlling the population by prohibiting birth control can be seen as an act of aggression in that more soldiers are wanted for an anticipated war.

The United States still hovers around 20% women in the House of Representatives and 20% in the Senate. In 2016, American citizens might have the opportunity to elect the first female U.S. president. Hillary Clinton is closer than any other women in history due to her popularity among Americans of all walks of life. But electing just the first female president is not enough to close the gender gap in congress. Hopefully in the midterm elections there will be a cultural shift to honor the demands of the nation´s women and promote the diversity that makes the United States unique. LBGT peoples and minorities should also be represented in all facets of life and protected by the law (the religious heterosexual male majority has homogeneously denied their inclusion). Americans have to decide whether civil rights for all people will be distributed by force or by principle. As Abraham Lincoln famously said:

¨A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free.¨

 

By: Opton A. Martin

 

* http://www.para-abortar.es/aborto/ley-actual-del-aborto-2014-enero/

Food, Fresh Water and Electricity Without Fossil Fuels.

“We are only limited by our lack of investment and interest.”

What is needed to feed a population of 100,000 – 250,000 people? How much does it cost to produce electricity, clean water and food? Can this all be done in a sustainable fashion without fossil fuels? 21st Century technology is doubling its efforts to supply a rapidly growing human population.

Current techniques for fresh water extraction and food production has exacerbated aquifers, rivers and lakes to the point of no return. For agricultural purposes, humans are extracting more water from wells and aquifers than is being replenished naturally by the water cycle. The unfortunate consequence of over-exploitation is that humans only start thinking of alternative methods of fresh water, food and energy production when natural sources have been depleted.

In order to understand how technology is helping with sustainability, we must look to places where fresh water is scarce, but the sun and wind are plentiful. Places like Israel, Spain, Libya, Saudi Arabia, California, Australia and China have shortages and droughts of fresh water for human consumption and the agriculture industry.

I will briefly describe some of the costs affiliated with creating a system that is relatively eco-neutral in that less atmospheric contamination is produced and water is conserved and recycled more so than current methods.

The CIA world fact book is a database that includes specific information about each country ranging from natural resources, electricity consumption, military capacity, geography, to imports and exports. It is a reliable source to compare data between countries. It currently states that 75.3% of all electricity in the United States of America is produced by fossil fuels, 9.7% from nuclear, 7.6% from hydroelectric, and only 5.3% from renewable sources. The renewable sources of electricity production include wind power, solar power and geothermic power. It is no secret that Americans consume more energy, more food, more water, and contaminate more than any other people on Earth (though the United Arab Emirates is catching up). It is said that if the whole world lived like Americans, we would need 4 Earths!

“I think we have all come to the realization that America consumes way more of the world’s “stuff” than the people we account for.  Americans make up for roughly 5% of the world’s population, but we consume much more than that.  We use 20% of the world’s energy, eat 15% of the world’s meat and create 40% of the garbage on Earth” – Jason Jeffrey Semon

Not all geographical locations are the same, nor have the availability of natural resources, but countries like Nicaragua, Germany, Spain, Iceland, Denmark and Portugal all produce between 20% – 40% of their electricity using renewable resources. Germany, which receives significantly less sun per year than the USA, produces more solar energy and exports more solar panels to countries weening themselves from fossil fuel-based energy sources.

An ideal and sustainable society is very complicated, but we can ameliorate atmospheric contamination and over-exploitation of fresh water by including new techniques to the energy and agricultural industries. For coastal cities in arid or semi-arid territories, a desalinization plant is a great way to preserve underground aquifers. Over-exploiting wells can cause environmental disasters that include sinkholes and salt water intrusions.

In the southeast part of Spain, in a city called Carboneras, is where the largest desalinization plant in Europe is located. The province of Almería, where Carboneras is located, is one of the driest places in Europe. It is also home to the largest concentration of greenhouses in the world. The province is home to a ¨sea of plastic¨, greenhouses that cover over 80,000 acres of land and exports food to a number of European countries. The province is also home to more than 640,000 people, all of which need electricity, food and fresh water in the desert.

The desalinization plant at Carboneras, Almería cost about 121 million euros to construct ($158,768,335 Sept. 2, 2014). It provides water for 7,000 hectares of greenhouses (17,297 acres) and a maximum of 200,000 residents. The desalination plant uses a lot of energy. The figures range from 1kwh/m3 – 2kwh/m3 (per cubic meter) of water. The electricity for converting brackish water into fresh water is currently generated by a coal-fired plant. The plant converts sea water into fresh water using a reverse osmosis method, which uses a membrane to physically “strain” the salt water. Price estimates vary from 0.50 euros – 1.0 euros per m3 for consumption. Coal and petroleum-fired plants are clear sources of atmospheric contamination, and are subject to fluctuating international price markets of import and export of fossil fuel.

A cheaper and cleaner way of generating electricity for a desalination plant would be wind, solar, or even wave power (using ocean waves to do work).  Roscoe Wind Farm in Texas has 634 wind turbines that produce enough energy for 250,000 homes. This wind farm was once the largest in the world and cost about $1 billion to install. It produces about 781.5 MW (megawatts) of electricity.

Andasol Guadix

Above: Andasol solar power plant in Guadix, southern Spain.

A revolutionary solar power station located near Guadix, Spain, called Andasol Solar Power Station is a parabolic trough solar power station. This solar farm uses a parabolic mirror to focus solar energy onto a tube, which in turn, heats water flowing through it. The heat or steam can then be used to power machinery or move a turbine. It also contains a system that is able to generate energy during the night using salt water. Andasol Solar Power Station cost 900 million euros ($1.1 billion) and can produce 165 million kilo-watt hours of electricity each year. To put it in perspective, about 450,000 people currently benefit from the energy produced by this station. It will reduce carbon emissions by 150,000 tonnes per year when compared to coal-fired energy plants. This is a significant victory for clean and renewable energy industries for future endeavors.

In agriculture, intensive greenhouse horticulture is becoming more popular, more sustainable and more profitable than conventional agricultural methods. Popularity comes from the agriculturist’s ability to have more control over aspects of cultivation ranging from wind, humidity, nutrient absorption, water use, temperature and pests. They have been able to reduce or eliminate chemical pesticides for pest control by using simple sticky paper, insects, arachnids and other arthropods that eat fungi or other insects. New substrate and hydroponic systems allow for agriculturists to recycle water and use less fertilizer. In a hydroponic system, the water is continuously recycled in a closed system and the water solution does not seep into the soil. This prevents fertilizers from entering the local water table, which can provoke unwanted environmental reactions like algae blooms. A water recycling system also reduces water use in that it is not “lost” through the soil.

 

Campo de Dalias_1-busco-en-el-poniente-el-ejido-1271116254

Above: Campo de Dalías, El Ejido, Almería, southern Spain. Part of 100,000 hectares (247, 105 acres) of greenhouses overlooking the north Mediterranean coast.

Intensive agriculture projects like those in Campo de Dalías and Campo de Níjar in the southeast corner of Spain is said to also reduce global warming because of its design. The greenhouses are painted white, a technique used in southern Spain, especially with housing, to reflect the solar intensity away from buildings. The glimmer of the greenhouses in the Almería province helps to reduce the overall temperature of the plants it harbors as well as the surrounding territories. Compare the white, energy-reflecting greenhouses to the vast and expansive black-top parking lots in the United States that absorb so much energy. If they would only equip all American parking lots with sun-shade solar panels – not only will it keep your car cool from the hot summer heat, it will produce enough energy for the building you are about to walk into.

As new technologies and cost-effective materials are tested, the increase in food consumption and human population does not necessarily have to degrade our environment. In traditional farming, soil is the primary medium from which crops grow. In monoculture farming, each year more fertilizer must be applied and depending on the water source, salt deposits begin to accumulate, which causes a reduction in crop yield. To avoid the environmental and production risks to crop yield, intensive agriculturalist have turned to substrate materials. Substrate is a growth medium, either organic or synthetic that replaces soil. Hydroponic growth substrate varies from place to place and is still being developed to produce the cheapest, but most effective growth medium. Some greenhouses in Spain and other parts of the world use grow bags, rockwool, perlite, vermiculite,  sand, and coconut fiber. Coconut fiber is great because it is organic and is usually a bi-product, or waste product of the coconut industry. What was once “garbage” is now a viable medium for the agricultural industry.

These techniques must be embraced if we are to ensure our food, water and energy needs in the present and in the future.

“The world is less than 40 years away from a food shortage that will have serious implications for people and governments”

 “For the first time in human history, food production will be limited on a global scale by the availability of land, water and energy,”  Dr. Fred Davies

So in the end, how much money will it cost to produce enough food, electricity, and fresh water for 250,000 people in a semi-sustainable way? I would estimate about $3 billion. At about $1 billion for each industry, $1 billion for solar/wind power, $1 billion for desalinization plants, and $1 billion to produce tens of thousands of acres of greenhouses that can sustain perhaps an even larger population than current methods. Implicating this three-pronged system can do wonders for impoverished areas of the world that struggle to survive from international donors.  It has been studied may times that international aid to places like Africa have actually made things worse.  Places like Algeria, Nigeria, Angola, South Africa, Congo and Ethiopia are well endowed with natural resources like petroleum, natural gas, minerals and metals, but the profits from these industries cannot support their current populations. They must harvest alternative energy in order to change the political, social and economic landscape of the continent. They must, in addition to meeting electricity needs, convert to clean energy for agriculture, so that, the African continent can industrialize, engage in infra-continental agricultural trade, and maintain its status as the least contaminated continent in the world.

International paternalism restricts the local economy from developing in that it gets flooded with international products, which are sold at a cheaper price than local products. $3 billion is a lot to develop wind parks, solar parks, desalinization plants and thousands of acres of greenhouses, but it is far cheaper and more effective than the $50 billion in international assistance the continent receives each year.  The more international aid that goes to the African continent, the more impoverished and more destitute the people become. The wind, sun, and ocean are three resources that are renewable and ecological sources of energy that will eventually triumph over fossil fuels, therefore, it is best to begin now before the wells dry up. We are only limited by our lack of investment and interest.

Only through environmentalism and social ecology can 21st century humans be able to meets our energy and sustenance needs, which in effect, reduce our impact on the climate and environment.

 

By: Opton A. Martin

Old World Guns v. New World Guns

“Execution and defamation is a New World Order tactic for censorship.”

“The New World Order seeks to destroy traditions and monuments, some hundreds or thousands of years old. It’s an international club of powerful men who have more in common as military, political and economic partners than their own countrymen. They exterminate and slander those in their way, those who they hope will be forgotten.”

Only sometimes is death preventable.  Sometimes knowingly, mostly unknowingly, we engineer dangerous societies with flawed socio-structural elements that are designed to push certain groups of disenfranchised people to the periphery. The lower class are limited by economic, educational, and representational boundaries, which are supported by the suburban middle class who vote for these policies.  Those living at the periphery fight against one another because they compete for the little resources that have been left for them. The the “center” is off limits, because it is being guarded – this is where legislative, political and economic power control the elements of the state – the semi-failed state.

Gun violence in the Americas (with the exception of Canada) from the United States to the tip of Argentina and Chile is very different than gun violence in Africa, Europe, Asia, and Oceania. It differs in the motives behind how gun violence is distributed and executed and the prevalence of such. The similarities between Old World Guns and New World Guns is that it all comes down to who controls the territory, space, land, turf, region, zone, state, country, caliphate, community, block, city, roadways, access, building complex, county, town, island, trade route, port – and above all natural resources (money). Although robberies could account for much of the world’s use of firearms illegally, the Americas have the problems of heavy drug trafficking and the drug war which makes up part of regular, day to day gun violence.

The flow of drugs through the Americas normally flows South-North and ends up into the hands of North Americans and Europeans to be consumed.  The citizens of the United States of America consume more illegal drugs than any other country in the world. Brazil, Columbia, Venezuela, Mexico and everywhere in between has been plagued with intense violence from gangs who amass their empires and personal protection from the money generated by the drug trade, extortion and bribery of police forces. The illegal gun trade is just as much a part of the illegal drug trade in that one is needed to protect the other – they go hand and hand. Central American and Caribbean countries suffer a great deal from the drug trade because of their geography. It is a narrow passageway for cartels coming up form the South American mainland. At about 82 homicides per 100,000 residents, Honduras has the highest murder rate of any country in the world. Nicaragua, Guatemala and El Salvador are also stretched thin by narco-trafficking and violence, which has caused a humanitarian crisis that is the irregular immigration of children to the United States.

The current war-like levels of violence and armed conflicts in Central America was propagated from the foreign policy campaigns under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush who supported the Contras (anti-leftist commandos), in covert operations and coup d’etats against left-wing ideologies including Marxist-Leninists, Communists, or any political fraction in support of Che Guevara and Fidel Castro’s revolution. Reagan authorized the CIA to help fund and train the Contras to fight against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. And who can forget the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 to dispose of Manuel Noriega, former CIA employee, and narco-trafficking military dictator. The U.S. government effectively helped to establish Latin American drug cartels with out-of-work Contras  who before fought against leftists. The Iran-Contra Affair of the 1980s was real, not a fabricated conspiracy, which highlights how little we know about how deep these operations run in Latin America.

The drug war continues in mysterious ways as the U.S. government helps to create some of the chaos, especially with their “Fast and Furious” operation of 2006-2011 in which the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) sold weapons to those they believed were tied to Mexican drug cartels (in an attempt to “track” them).  Eventually those same weapons began appearing at brutal crime scenes in Mexico, and the Mexican government was perplexed as they were not informed of these American operations.

As American police crack down,  drug prices go up, the cartels make more money, they buy more guns, they become more violent, then they control more territory. Drug cartels continue to look for newer routes for transport of guns and drugs, which at times causes the violence to “bottleneck” in small countries like Honduras, El Salvador, and Jamaica, which have the highest rates of homicides (per 100,000 people) by guns in the world. Jamaica has become especially violent since cocaine and other drug shipments have diverted to travel through the Caribbean via Jamaica. If drugs were legalized or at least partially legalized, drug cartels would have less demand ergo less money to fund their armed conflicts. Or Americans and European could stop doing drugs all together, which will never ever happen.

In Europe and Asia gun violence is far less prevalent than in the Americas. Legislation in these geographic areas generally only permit gun purchases for hunters and law enforcement officers. In Spain for example, if you want to buy a shotgun, you have to get a hunting permit, hand guns are rigidly regulated. In the United States, buying a gun doesn’t require much of anything besides money. The United States Constitution states that bearing arms and forming a militia is part of independence and homeland security, therefore, gun-ownership is a cultural thing in the United States. It is a direct result as to why there are about 88 guns per 100 Americans, making the United States the most gun-packing nation on Earth. It might also shed light on why cities like Chicago boast 500 homicides a year, the majority of them being gun-related. High gun related homicide rates in U.S. cities over 100,000 people are common – they shouldn’t be.

Some countries in Europe have relatively high gun ownership rates, but don’t suffer the amount of gun violence present in the Americas. A European capital like Madrid, Spain, which has a population similar to Chicago (including metropolitan zones) suffers from only about 30 homicides a year, with only a fraction of them being gun related. Oceania, which includes Australia, New Zealand and island nations in Pacific, have similar gun related homicides to Northern Europe.

Only Switzerland and Finland come almost close to the United States in gun possession at about 47 guns per 100 Swiss and Finns in their respective countries. Gun violence is rare in Europe even among police:

” According to Germany’s Der Spiegel, German police shot only 85 bullets in all of 2011, a stark reminder that not every country is as gun-crazy as the U.S. of A. As Boing Boing translates, most of those shots weren’t even aimed anyone: “49 warning shots, 36 shots on suspects. 15 persons were injured, 6 were killed.” – thewire.com

In the United States on the other hand, it is not uncommon to hear a story about a single police officer who shoots a person 90 times.

Crime and police protection with the theme of race and ethnicity are part of what make America an unsafe place for minorities as they are treated differently than European Americans. In 2002, police officers in the United States killed about 313 African-American men. Gun violence and police execution of a minority group has been calculated as “Every 28 hours a Black man is killed by the police in America.” Gun violence comes from those who have completely lost their sense of humanity – it’s the mechanization of murder.

In Asia, China and Japan have effectively gotten rid of gun violence. Japan has almost 1/2 of the U.S. population (128,000,000 est. 2010) crammed into an area equivalent to California, yet might have about ~2 gun-related homicides per year.  Buying a gun in Japan is an enduring process, there are strict limitations on the type, there are psychological and metal exams, a course must be taken, and it is subject to government inspections. In China, private possession of firearms is practically forbidden for citizens. The lack of guns and lack of gun related violence are clearly related, but the subject is more complex in countries less industrialized.

One of the main things that separate gun violence in the United States to gun violence in Europe and Asia is culture. Americans feel the need to have a gun because it was instrumental in carving out the North American continent in a Wild Wild West fashion, whereas Europe and Asia have older nation-states that were conquered by marriages, diplomacy, trade routing, epic battles with swords, cannons and mammoths crossing the Swiss Alps; in Europe and Asia, they have other ways of having fun besides shooting at things in their back yards, or shooting at people in their front yards.

The continent of Africa and the Middle Eastern region have some gun violence, but these current “Old World” conflicts are New World Order endeavors. Ancient African and Middle Eastern kingdoms were cut out centuries ago the same way kingdoms were formed in Asia, India, and South America until they were abruptly invaded, and geographically redrawn by Europeans in the 18th,19th, and 20th centuries. Current places like India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Algeria, Sudan, Egypt, and Israel were all cut up by the British and the French who ignored cultural, linguistic and ethnic elements when they crammed different people into a states.

Conflict zones like  Syria, Libya, Sudan, Mali, Israel, Yemen, Pakistan and more, require guns and armaments to be sent from Western nations (i.e. North America, Europe and Russia). As these zones become flooded with more weaponry, the violence continues as new fractions seek to redraw the lines that were left there by the Europeans in the first place. It is a revolving door of violence, but the Westerns nations profit the most so long as the guns keep firing.

Though it might seem simple enough as to just restrict firearm availability to reduce firearm homicides, it might not be that simple. If people want to kill each other, they will do it. In South Africa, where the homicide rate is higher than in the United States, firearm homicides account for only 45%, while in the United States the rates is about 67%.  There are deep-seated social problems that lead to friction between groups of people. The availability of firearms only exacerbates social tension of lack of resources. What is certain is that in the Americas, where many countries are at “peace” , they have just as many or more casualties, as current war zones. These problems must be addresses as to not coerce the governments of the Americas to deploy  futuristic, dystopic, and Orwellian permanent military police who will monitor the streets with tanks, machine guns and stun grenades. The police states pre World War II of the 20th century were bad, the police states of the 21st century will be worse.

by Opton A. Martin

The Cultural Shift Away From Transgenic and Genetically Modified Crops in Europe Could Be Bad Business for Spain.

¨The Practice of Local Organic Triumphs Over Foreign and Transgenic.¨

Transgenic and genetically modified crops can be bad for business in the long run due to a cultural shift and social awareness of the dangers of  ¨American style¨ agronomic business practices in European Union member states.

 The first genetically modified food in the world to be sold in supermarkets was the tomato. In 1994, the FlavrSavr tomato hit the shelves in the United States after previously being approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1992. The tomato has a deactivated gene that allows it to ripen from green to red on the vine, and an added gene that prevents rotting – essentially creating a tomato that is as hard as an apple that lasts a lot longer. Scientists and government agencies in the USA have repeatedly said that transgenic and Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) in foods are ¨safe for human consumption¨ stating that it is just as safe as conventional (non-transgenic foods). This debate is still being held between scientist on both sides of the aisle presenting evidence for and against its production and consumption, while the environmental impact is stuck in the middle, once again sacrificing the environment for the economy

The reality of transgenic foods like the tomato is that some people, who are old enough to remember, notice that nowadays, tomatoes don´t taste the way they used to, nor have the same amount of nutrients they had say thirty years ago. One example of lost nutrients is how the polysaccharide (sugar) pectin, which is naturally produced and broken down by the tomato for ripening, is reduced in genetically modified versions so that a tougher skin can resist bruising during harvesting. Pectin in humans has been shown to add to our soluble dietary fiber and reduce blood cholesterol levels. In addition, some transgenic crops are grown in sand, which has very little nutrients, henceforth, they need to be added. So what are the real benefits of producing transgenic foods?

In the past, some scientist praised genetically modified organisms in foods claiming that with the capacity  to produce more food, with fewer resources, humanity could solve world hunger and reduce food prices. Economic history shows that there was plenty of food in the world before the advent of  transgenic crops, the problem is that people die from hunger from the climate, spatial and economic reasons (drought, food is far away, or food is too expensive). According to the United Nations Environment Programme, about one-third of all food produced in the world is ¨lost or wasted¨.

¨Every year, consumers in rich countries waste almost as much food (222 million tonnes) as the entire net food production of sub-Saharan Africa (230 million tonnes).¨

One can deduce that producing more food doesn´t necessarily reduce malnutrition or hunger, but the economic implications show that having capital, water and land are most important in combating hunger.

As people in the Western world inform themselves better about the economic and environmental implications of GMO and transgenic crops, they will begin to shun them in favor of non-GMO crops that are not only more nutritious, but practicing ecological agronomics could potentially create more local jobs. Factory farms and transgenic super-plantations require very few people, are far removed from the general population, and require a lot of chemicals and machines. Why is it that the majority of the food people in New York eat come from California? – a distance of about 3,000 miles (4,828,km).

Transgenic food has taken hold of the European Union in a market that culturally has been trying to maintain their alimentary sovereignty free from ¨American style¨ crop production. The member state that produces the most transgenic or GM crops is Spain. Genetically-modified maize (corn) and potatoes are currently the only two GM crops approved in the EU. Soya, tobacco, and even trial versions for GM pest-resistant olive trees are being considered for production in Spain. About 90% of Europe´s transgenic crops – led by U.S. multinational Monsanto´s MON810 corn – is cultivated in Spain. The majority of this corn is used as animal feed for the country´s famous meat markets (hogs, chickens, cow, etc). One problem farmers and consumers face is the lack of transparency and regulation in terms of what the farmers are feeding their animals, and what people are actually eating. It has been reported that farmers feed their animals a mixture of transgenic and conventional corn, which essentially disallows farmers to chose between the two. The lack of transparency also denies its citizens to know exactly where this transgenic crop is being grown. Most Spanish citizens are against transgenic crops and would like for them to be labeled, but the European Union law states that if less than about 1.0% of the ingredients are transgenic, it does not have to be labeled.

As far as the philosophical implications of transgenic foods – namely corn or soya – is not so much as if it is used in society, but how it is used. Subjectively, I oppose the use of transgenic foods for human or animal consumption, but I have no problem if companies use transgenic crops for the production of ethanol, methanol, and other chemical compositions from transgenic crops. In the United States and Brazil, ethanol from corn (US) and sugarcane (Brazil) accounts for a large portion of combustible fuel production, replacing a significant amount of petroleum use, which contaminating slightly less than pure petroleum.

The economic implications transgenic foods might have for Spain and other member states that allow transgenic corn like Portugal, Czech Republic,Poland, and Romania might not come immediately, but permitting cultivation of more crops besides corn and potatoes to be produced might have a backlash effect. Germany is planning on prohibiting all GMO crops within its boarders.

As agro-business farmers in Europe are becoming ¨Americanized¨ in their acceptance of GMO foods, it could produce a schism in the way food is imported and exported in within Europe. Countries that are not part of the European Union, but form part of its economic region like Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, and Serbia have delayed their acceptance of genetically modified organisms. These countries along with Germany, see prohibiting genetically modified and transgenic crops as a scientific, economic and cultural an issue that has many people thinking that it is a bad idea.

Though the evidence is hard to filter and difficult to prove that GMO foods are harmful to human health, one can take a look the North American diet and see how much obesity, heart disease, cancer, and other diseases are attributed to the foods that Americans consume. The United States is the largest producer and consumer of transgenic foods in the world – and to say that transgenic food has nothing to do with the increase in deadly disease in the USA is an understatement.

If Spain continues to increment the amount of  transgenic crops and feed to hogs, chickens and other farm animals, there might be a backlash in member states whose people culturally reject the importation of animals fed with GMO in foods. The idea of local organic triumphs over foreign and transgenic.

As local regions in Europe begin to prohibit the cultivation, sale and distribution of transgenic crops, like The Free State of Bavaria in Germany,  it can be seen as a way to strengthen local business and keep unpopular enterprises like Monsanto out of their food chain.

Spain has the advantage of being the sunniest place in all of Europe, especially in the province of Almería, Spain, which boasts an average of 320 days of sun each year. It has been exploited for decades by local and foreign businesses (including Monsanto) in an area known as ¨The Sea of Plastic¨ (el mar de plástico). This desert area basically feeds europe during the winter as its climate permits crop growth all year round.

If those in the Spanish agricultural business adhere to American models in food production there will be a decrease not only in the quality of food products, but confidence and trust in food products marked ¨Product of Spain¨.  Since it is currently one of the top 10 agricultural exporters in the world there needs to be a cultural and economic shift to protect itself from transgenic foods.

By Opton A. Martin

 

 

The Interesting Relationship Between Germans and Jamaicans: Resolving an Energy Crisis by Shedding Light on it.

What Do Jamaicans and Germans Have in Common? History, Tourism, Sports, and Clean Energy: Jamaica is on its way to resolving its own energy crisis.

“Out of Many, One People” – motto of Jamaica

The economic powerhouse that is the Federal Republic of Germany has an interesting relationship with the small island nation of Jamaica. The relationship is mutual in that Jamaicans and Germans have been working together on a few projects that involve government institutions, tourism and non-governmental organizations. From a historical point of view, there have been communities of ethnic Germans in Jamaica for more than 150 years. Where is the real connection between the two distinct countries?

Jamaica was inhabited by what anthropologists and historians refer to as Arawak or Taíno peoples, who settled the islands in the Caribbean, sailing from the South American mainland, since before the common era.  In 1494, during the second voyage of Christopher Columbus to the Caribbean, the island was then known as Xaymaca by the native Taínos. At first, the island was claimed by Spain until English privateers, corsairs, and pirates attacked Spanish vessels that circulated the Caribbean. In 1655, the Spanish lost the island to the English and until this day remains part of the British Commonwealth of Nations (hence Jamaica is an Anglophonic nation).

When the English took over the island they continued – as the Spanish did – to exploit the land, and the people, to the point where they engaged in the use of imported slave labor of African peoples. Jamaica became one the largest exporters of sugar, rum and molasses (many indigenous Taínos were killed or died of disease as a result of the Spanish and English occupations).

During the 1830s, after slavery was abolished in the British colonies, 19th-century scientific racism fueled racial bitterness that Europeans had after losing a virtually free source of labor. The British-Jamaicans therefore looked to Europe for cheap labor. Indentured servants from Europe essentially paid their way to the New World by agreeing to work in the British colonies for a number of years – among this group of indentured servants came a group of about 350 Germans to a Jamaican plantation.

Since the 1830s, there have been Germans or “Germaicans” living in Jamaica. After a few generations of living in Jamaica, almost all of them have lost their German language and completely integrated as Jamaican people by culture, but their physical attributes look very much German (i.e., blond hair, fair skin, and freckles).

For almost half a century, Jamaica has become a popular tourist destination for Americans, Britons, and Europeans. Jamaica has been popular with Germans from the spread of Reggae music and Rastafari, which was made popular by the likes of Bob Marley & The Wailers, Burning Spear and Peter Tosh. It is not uncommon to see Germans who have an affinity for deadlocks, ganja, and eating I-tal food.

The exchange of cultural icons and interests are mutual in recent days as Jamaicans are surprisingly interested in the Germany national football team. Jamaicans love football(soccer), and support a variety of national teams, but one thing is for sure: Germany is a favorite. It is not uncommon to see that during the world Cup, Jamaicans are flying the flags of countries like Germany, Argentina and Brazil in support.

The most important relationship Germans and Jamaicans have nowadays has to do with clean energy. Jamaica has been importing costly and highly-contaminating diesel fuel in order to generate electricity. There is a new initiative to ween Jamaica off petroleum by installing solar panels and wind turbines. The German Ministry of the Environment has been working with a few countries in the Caribbean to outline a plan to make sustainable or green energy more available.

The Tourism industry, which has seen a lack of visitors to Jamaica in recent years, might get an upswing from new developments in clean energy cooperation from other countries besides Germany such as Spain and Cuba. The Grand Palladium Resort & Spa in Hanover, Jamaica is the largest photovoltaic (solar) plant on the island. This Spanish hotel boasts a capacity of 1.6MW from a solar roof-top system that uses photovoltaic cells manufactured by a German company called IBC solar, but installed by a local company called Sofos Jamaica based out of Kingston, Jamaica. The hotel expects to save about $730,000 each year in energy cost (not to mention the barrels of petroleum that will be saved). At a rate of 2.2 million kWh per year electricity production and 17,000 square meters of photovoltaic solar panels, Jamaica could essentially be petroleum free after building only about 1,000 of these facilities.

Jamaica’s neighbor Cuba has also been trying to cooperate in the fabrication and installation of solar panels in their respective island-nations (instead of buying them from Germany or China). Not only will it reduce their dependence on fossil fuels for energy, but also create job opportunities in fabricating, installing and maintaining photovoltaic cells all over the Caribbean.

Last but not least, the German Embassy of Jamaica has been making an effort to bring about self sufficiency for an educational center – an NGO in Cassava Piece, Kingston – with a donation of JM$2.1 million for the installation of German-made solar panels. A Jamaican-based company installed the German-made solar panels for HELP Jamaica! Educational Center. This system was installed in late 2012, and is probably the only NGO on the island that is powered with 100% clean energy.

With the realization of a market open to innovation to solve its energy problems, it is interesting to see how Germans and Jamaicans have at least a few things in common. Cooperation in clean energy tend to bring countries together, unlike their rivals in the petroleum industry, which tends to drive a firm wedge between them.

By. Opton A. Martin

 

Rajoy Viaja a la Cumbre de la Unión Africana: Agricultura y Seguridad Alimentaria, Pero Hay Otro Tema Oculto

¨No puede combatir el fuego con fuego, hay que combatir el fuego con agua¨

¿Hay otro tema oculto en la Cumbre de la Unión Africana 2014 en Malabo? Es posible que la seguridad alimentaria pasará a segundo término a la seguridad militar.

El Presidente del Gobierno de España Mariano Rajoy visitó hoy a la cumbre de la Unión Africana como invitado. Felicitó a los estados miembros por su crecimiento económico porque muchos países africanos han crecido más económicamente que España después de la crisis financiera de los años 2007/2008. Afortunadamente, Rajoy no se metió la pata como en 2012 cuando dijo ¨Aguanta, España no es Uganda¨.

Comentó sobre España y si necesitaba ayuda financiera del FMI (la economía de Uganda creció un tal 6,98% entre 2003-2013, mientras la de España fluctuó entre zero a alrededor de 1,2% en los últimos tiempos). Rajoy fue el único cabeza del estado europeo invitado a la cumbre africana y pronunció un discurso diciendo que España no tiene nada para ofrecer a África, pero si quiere un socio para más crecimiento económico que España estaría disponible. Igualmente importante, Rajoy busca apoyo de los africanos para un asiento en el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU.

Mariano Rajoy y Teodoro Obiang se ha reunido en Malabo, la capital de Guinea Ecuatorial. Obiang ha sido el dictador de Guinea Ecuatorial desde 1979 tras un golpe de estado contra su tío, Francisco Macías. Relaciones entre los dos países ha permanecido distante desde 1991 cuando Felipe Gonzales fue el último presidente español en visitar a la capital de Guinea Equatorial.

Con respecto a la cumbre Africano, Rajoy intenta mantener su distancia del dictador africano que no tiene popularidad entre todos los españoles, independientemente del partido político, pero afirmó que ¨debo estar¨. Aunque la cumbre se trata de agricultura y seguridad alimentaria, la Unión Africana tiene planes para formar una fuerza militar se llama The African Standby Force 0 Las Fuerzas Africanas de Emergencia, la cual, sería como las Fuerzas de paz de las Naciones Unidas pero controlado por líderes africanos.

Desde enero de 2014, el actual presidente de la Unión Africana es Mohammed Ould Abdel Aziz, y además, es presidente de la República Islámica de Mauritania (como Obiang, consiguió la presidencia a través de un golpe de estado).

La Unión Europea y la Unión Africana mantiene la lucha contra el terrorismo y extremismo en sus territorios. Francia luchó en el conflicto en el norte de Malí contra el Movimiento Nacional para la Liberación de Azawad, lo cual, es una banda separatista que lucha para formar un estado para los tuaregs (un pueblo bereber de nómadas del norte de África).

Entre los tuaregs separatistas, Boko Haram (un grupo terrorista basada en el norte de Nigeria), Al-Qaeda, y el grupo terrorista hoy conocido como ISIS o ISIL (Estado Islámico de Irak y el Levante), Europa y África tienen problemas de seguridad contra la propagación de movimientos separatistas y terroristas. La Primavera Árabe fue muy importante para muchos países para deshacerse de dictadores, pero ha dejado un vacío de poder en aquellos lugares.

Lo que podría ser visto en un futuro próximo es la venta de armas a países en África por parte de España. Sin embargo, vender armas a países de África sería una situación nadie gana. Si la Unión Europea y la Unión Africana quiere mantener sus fronteras como tal y reducir el terrorismo, es mejor no inundar las tierras hostiles con armas porque va a provocar más terrorismo o la guerra civil (ya hemos visto lo que está pasando en Siria).

El norte de África es donde inmigrantes y sospechosos yihadistas de muchos países intentan entrar a Europa ilegalmente. En España, la gente temen otra ataque terrorista de yihadistas como la del 11-M en Madrid en 2004. España bajo Rajoy en 2012 incrementó la venta de armas a países como Marruecos, Israel, y Arabia Saudí para razones económicas y para que los aliados pueden mantener los apartheides étnicos en sus propios países.

Aunque Rajoy dijo que no tiene nada para ofrecer a África, quizás hay algo del gabinete de Rajoy y el Partido Popular que los líderes de la Unión Áfricana quieren de él.

“La mayoría prometieron ayudar a África y ofrecieron fondos y programas. Yo no vengo a ofrecer nada porque no tengo nada que los africanos no puedan darse a sí mismos. Yo vengo a pedir que cuenten con España como socio para el crecimiento. Vengo a pedir más comercio y más inversión entre nuestros países, y vengo a reiterarles que España quiere participar en el renacimiento de África”.

Parece que hoy en día hay tres fracciones luchando para el control político y económico en África del Norte y África subsahariana. Algunos grupos usan la religión o revolución como motivo. La pregunta en cuestión es si Europa quiere mantener su relación con los dictadores de África (los que también luchan contra los yihadistas) o si quiere afiliarse con los menos conocidos en las franjas de la sociedad africana que no quieren ni dictadores ni yihadistas.

La paradoja de reformar políticamente un país es apoyar el menor de dos malos. Todos recordamos a Saddam Hussein y como los Estados Unidos luchaba para convencer a los aliados de Europa que había que intervenir en Irak. Ahora, Irak está más inestable que nunca. ¨No puede combatir el fuego con fuego, hay que combatir el fuego con agua¨ se trata de usar los recursos disponibles que no toma las vidas de las personas. Si no quiere que la violencia sectaria siga manifestándose, hay que dejar de cometer los mismos errores de apoyar dictaduras.

 

Por Opton A. Martin