Tengo un amigo francés que está leyendo un libro sobre el fin de la democracia… el autor es un francés que no me sonaba de nada... pero lo que viene a decir es que el movimiento de las naciones, definidas historicamente (y no olvidemos que la historia es la construcción social par excellance) ya no son lo que eran, y dificilmente responden a los retos de la globalización... mientras que los poderes económicos de las multinacionales, amparadas por el consenso sobre los beneficios económicos de las economías de escala, comienzan a emerger como todopoderosas en el mapa geopolítico, los estados pierden poder para contravenir esos poderes. Como mi amigo dice, cuando íbamos a la escuela había tres poderes: ejecutivo, legislativo y judicial, y un extra, los medios de comunicación. Hoy en día los medios de comunicación parecen embarcados en operaciones de lavado de cerebro, mientras que los podered tradicionales no tienen nada que decir en los temas más importantes: un ejemplo es lo de la OPA de Endesa, conflicto resuelto no en el congreso en Madrid o en Bruselas, sino en el consejo de dirección de una constructora con vocación energética. En este mapa, los Estados parecen perder sus manantiales de legitimización: ya todos nos empezamos a preguntar para que sirve. Rojos o azules, da igual, ninguno de nosotros cree en el sistema ya... Hay quien aboga por los superpaíses, o los nuevos imperios (eg La Unión Europea), pero seamos serios, los desarrollos de los últimos años son patéticos. Lo que dice Bruselas ya no va a misa: ahora cada país interpreta las cosas a su ritmo; el principio de solidaridad, uno de los principios fundadores de la Unión, no se aplica con los nuevos miembros y se ha dado cerrojazo a la entrada de nuevos países. Entre tanto los 25 no se ponen de acuerdo en nada. Cosas tan urgente como la emigración, un problema que no debería ser abandonado en favor de la subsidiaridad, se queda olvidado tras absurdas modificaciones de leyes existentes y conflictos políticos entre los 25 comisarios. Ni el parlamento ni el consejo de regiones parecen salir adelante y sin esas instituciones la UE puede convertirse peligrosamente en una caricatura de la entidad meramente económica que es hoy. Parece que los croatas han decidido que si no se les incluye en los privilegiados del nuevo imperio (ya dijimos que la opresión ha abierto el paso a la exclusión y eso en el desarrollo de la UE es particularmente evidente) ellos se montan su propio rollo. Para empezar el presidente Stipe Mesic parece querer seguir los pasos de Tito como motor y rostro del Movimiento No-alineado (a quien le interese puede leerse el relato abajo de la visita de Mesic a Cuba; si queréis leerlo y no entendéis el inglés decirmelo y lo traduciré). Este movimiento, que algunos se alegraban de haber hecho desaparecer con la caída del muro de Berlín, podría abrir una puerta a la esperanza, por lo menos de aquellos que creemos en la falsedad de teatrillos como la cumbre del G8 y la foto de las Azores. Al menos nos recuerdan el slogan “otro mundo es posible”, aunque al final se vean abocados a la necesidad de jugar en el tablero geopolítico del orden mundial- aunque este tablero no es como el del Risk, en el que las reglas vienen de fábrica. En el tablero del mundo globalizado las reglas se improvisan, y lo cierto es que nadie sabe donde nos va a llevar todo esto.



RFE/RL Balkan Report
Vol. 10, No. 9, 26 September 2006

A Weekly Review of Politics, Media, and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Broadcasts in the western Balkans

STIPE MESIC AND TITO'S GHOST IN HAVANA. When the news came in mid-September that the Nonaligned Movement (NAM) had begun its summit in Havana, the reaction of many people was "is that organization still around?" Indeed, the end of the Cold War in 1989-91 and the dissolution of two antagonistic blocs seemed to mark the end of any need for a moment whose purpose was to navigate between those blocs and exploit their antagonisms for its members' own interests.
But apparently the NAM still has some life in it. Some leaders of developing countries still welcome it as a forum to make themselves heard and possibly capture a headline or two. For international pariahs like Belarus, Burma, or Zimbabwe, it is one of the few organizations from which they have not been ousted or in which they have not been censured. For would-be great powers like India, Argentina, or South Africa, the movement provides an opportunity for them to be very big fish in an international pond.
It was Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru who coined the term "nonalignment" in a 1954 speech in Colombo in what was then called Ceylon. The movement itself was founded at a conference in Bandung, Indonesia, in the following year, as a result of the efforts of Nehru, Indonesia's President Sukarno, Yugoslavia's Josip Broz Tito, Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser, and Kwame Nkrumah of what would soon become Ghana. For Tito, it provided a stage and ideological underpinning for a foreign policy in search of direction since Stalin expelled him from the "socialist camp" in 1948 for refusing to take orders.
For decades, the NAM and its dignitaries regularly graced the socialist Yugoslav media. In 1956, Tito played host to Nasser and Nehru on the island of Brioni, now better known by its Croatian name Brijuni. At least until recently, some rooms filled with stuffed leather chairs, heavy dark wooden furniture, and solid crystal ashtrays could be seen there, in his villa along Lake Bled, or at Tito's other retreats, all of which recalled the days when he basked in his role as a leader of Nonalignment.
Yugoslavia's role in the movement brought it advantages in trade and international exposure. For some people, it meant an opportunity to travel to and work or study in distant lands. Although Yugoslav communism was generally antagonistic toward all religions, some Islamic religious leaders were now given an opportunity to represent their country in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Muslim world, and some relished their new role.
But with the collapse of communism and breakup of Yugoslavia, the NAM seemed as much an anachronism to many former Yugoslavs as their old flag. Some might view it with nostalgia, but it was clearly history. Eyes were now focused on joining the EU and regaining an important privilege that Yugoslavs had once enjoyed in socialist times but no longer did, namely visa-free travel throughout Europe.
It thus came as a bit of a surprise to many in former Yugoslavia that the NAM recently held a summit in Havana to be attended by representatives of no fewer than 118 countries, several of which were from Europe. But among the European members, only two heads of state were present. These were Belarusian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka and -- Croatian President Stipe Mesic.
It is no secret that Mesic has moved somewhat to the left in recent years. But it came as a bit of a jolt to many Croats that he would go to a gathering where no EU or NATO head of state would be present, but instead would probably see Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe.
Indeed, Mesic's appearance there sparked discussions in the Croatian media. Many commentators, including his political rivals from the governing Croatian Democratic Community (HDZ), suggested that Croatia could have been represented equally well by a deputy minister or other low-ranking official. There was also the question as to whether Croatia needed to be present in Havana at all at a time when Zagreb's main foreign-policy concern is that its prospects for EU membership seem to be on indefinite hold (see "RFE/RL Balkan Report," June 27 and August 29, 2006).
Mesic, however, maintained that he had two important reasons for going to Cuba. One was to promote trade, including with faraway countries with which Croatian firms had good relations dating back to socialist times. The second was to drum up support for Zagreb's bid for a nonpermanent seat in the UN Security Council in 2008.
Some commentators were not convinced and told RFE/RL's South Slavic and Albanian Languages Service on September 18 that the countries represented in Havana are not the ones that Croatia needs in its quest for EU membership. One expert pointed out, moreover, that UN member states support Security Council seat candidates according to the recommendations of regional blocs, so that it is vital for Croatia to line up European and not African or Asian backing. Other commentators pointed out that there were no obvious economic benefits derived from Mesic's presence at the summit.
Only a representative of Mesic's Croatian People's Party
(HNS) seemed confident that there was something to be gained by calling attention to Zagreb's historical links to nonalignment and pursuing business links in the developing world. (Patrick Moore)