Ciro Di Costanzo criticizes the euphoria of the Mexican government over the integral migratory reform approved in the United States, which the majority of Latin American organizations and leaders have met with wariness and even outright condemnation. The reform plans, among other sweeping changes, to give citizenship to all undocumented immigrants who have been living in the country for over 5 years. Di Costanzo postulates that the bill approved by the Senate and under debate in the House of Representatives does not represent a real victory for Mexico or for any Mexicans living on American soil.
Carlos Escudé believes that the possibility of a theocratic and fundamentalist regime such as the Iranian possession of nuclear arms, returns us to the debates of 1945 and 1949 in the US, between those who initially supported the preemptive war against the Soviet Union –including the pacifist philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell– as well as those more idealistic who proclaimed that the uranium of the world should be managed by the UN (Baruch Plan). Escudé returns to these debates again by reanalyzing those old discussions regarding the possibility of the Soviets utlizing the nuclear bomb. In the process, he reveals why such debates nowadays are more relevant than ever, especially in the context of the Iranian threat.
Javier Ortiz writes about the US plans regarding the border with Mexico, and about the Spanish efforts to stop its own illegal immigration, and says that for both countries it is like trying to repair a pipeline in bad condition: an escape is soldered, but the next instant, the water pressure provokes yet another leak. Ortiz believes that the social and economic development in the origin countries of the immigrants must be bolstered, so as to improve the living conditions of potential immigrants to the point where immigration is no longer the only escape.
Martin Varsavsky continues the discussion about the possibility to form a political party made up of native citizens and immigrants -concerned with humanity as a whole instead of only one’s nation. He see an opening for this party now. He writes against the current policies concerning immigrants in the United States and Europe and he says it is more common for the countries to take advantage of the immigrants instead of the other way around. Varsavsky states that investment in education, political reform, family planning and business will provide better and long-lasting solutions to this problem.
Pedro Cavallero says that recent American funding cuts to Latin America and the increased sponsoring of Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia demonstrate the widening gap within the Americas. Cavallero notes that the strong opposition that has halted the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, and the EU enlargement process further weakens its ties. Although, he does point out the possibility of an Atlantic Triangle (US–UE–Latin America), he concludes that such a triple partnership is highly unlikely due to a weakened inter-American axis: an Atlantic rendezvous can only take place upon the foundation of sustained and mature relations.
By Juan Gabriel Tokatlian (for Safe Democracy)
Juan Gabriel Tokatlian explain that two differentiated models exist today in the fight against terrorism: the American, which looks to deter it through force as well as making it impractible in American soil, and the European, whose aim is to overcome the asymmetry in force in a longer term, not inmediate, and not exclusively through punitive means (dissuasion, development and dialogue). Tokatlian believes that the community of democratic nations today confronts a crucial dilemma: adopt the American model or further develop the European model. The Occidental ideal –and perhaps its own destiny– is at stake in this crossroad.
Seventy percent of the 3,000 millions of poor in the planet (half of the world population) are women and girls. Two-thirds of the illiterate of the world are women. Bernardo Kliksberg believes that notwithstanding the fact that the conditions of women have improved in the last fifty years, the outstanding challenges are of a great importance: discrimination and exclusion of women have lasted too much in the world –he warns– and it is high time we all contribute to eradicate it.
Jean-Luc Marret analyzes the logisitics of terrorism and defines it as a complicated mass of machinery and discusses its organizational dynamics, networks, rapid transmission of decisions, and finally draws upon Abu Nidal’s Fatah as a present day illustration of such a structure. As stated by Marret, the structure is geared in two directions: the relationship maintained by leaders and is influenced by the constraints of security. He adds that terrorist networks are dependent on four elements: membership numbers, theater of operations, place of origin, and logistical support, and explains it.