MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Trump tells Davos forum “America First”, but it does not mean America alone
President Trump declared America “open for business” in a speech on Friday to global to political and business elites in Davos, Switzerland, while taking a hard line on trade and vowing to make commerce with other countries “fair and reciprocal.” Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesWHY DOES MercoPress HAVE DIFFERENT STORIES IN ITS SPANISH VERSION, TO ITS ENGLISH VERSION?
Jan 27th, 2018 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What is MercoPress's critiria in deciding one story over another one to go published in their respectively different versions???
Here, I thought you'd find this story interesting too. After all, if I was a True Falklander, I might just be as interested in what is happening to my neighbor to the East as I am to someone three times as far away as Britain, Canada, or Australia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFpWi-HH9Nk (Make sure you watch and “hear” the whole thing ;) ”
Congratulations PE, for once you have posted something constructive....hope the project succeeds.
Jan 27th, 2018 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes Bauer. ... I also find it VERY interesting that there doesn't seem to be a Commentary Feature, in the Spanish version. But the funniest part is that our illustrious English speaking cultures spent years talking about “corruption in those backward countries”. And since the Reagan era, and Falklands Shameful British war on the Islanders home it seems that we have increasingly been the ones to exhibit our own “corruption” much more widely diffused officially fostered through the press, nicely groomed and more complexly while subtly proliferous than any “banana country” or “ruthless middle eastern dictatorship” could ever dream of having. I must say I have heard many facetiously comment how the British are actually the masters in “inventing” corruption. But I'm not too sure what they mean by that.
Jan 27th, 2018 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse -1The project sounds interesting, but what is this LaRouchePAC organisation's involvement? La Rouche is that nutty American conspiracy theorist who stood for president several times there, I doubt his involvement can signal anything positive.
Jan 28th, 2018 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@PE
I wondered why the Spanish version had different stories, too. Perhaps it is something to do with their different audiences. Also there was commenting on the Spanish language site until last year, but hardly anyone ever did and that is probably why it was removed.
You are so innocent. ... It's nearly heartwarming. Nearly
Jan 28th, 2018 - 03:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are so prejudiced, implying that l'm lying or something just because I'm British. It's sad that your mind is so closed you can't consider someone else's point of view.
Jan 28th, 2018 - 04:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@PE
Jan 28th, 2018 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Don't go overboard ....I liked the report but don't use it to expose your 'not-so-moderate' personal views...no country has a perfect record when you look at history, events need to be taken in context, not out of it, and many times it's what happened before is what determines what happens later, even if 50 years apart.
No. No country has a perfect record. But some countries have nearly not fought a war at all in 200 years, while others have killed hundreds of thousands, destroyed cities, cultures, entire societies and not stop warring the planet for 200 years. So I think there is a contrasting enough historical profile at hand to have rich conversations on the subject. Britain has nonetheless before this horrendous record in the area of War and Peace contrasting Argentina, has done amazingly well in using public commutations to water the difference down almost to the point of making Argentina seeming to be “the bad country” and Britain“ the good one”. A media venues and technologies talent of cosmic proportions I would say
Jan 28th, 2018 - 07:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I can't believe you're just totally denying the existence of the War of the Triple Alliance, where Argentina and Brazil ganged up on their much smaller neighbour and killed approximately 50% of the entire population of Paraguay, not to mention taking half its pre-war territory.
Jan 28th, 2018 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse +1We'd have a much richer discussion if your comments were based in reality, Patrick.
I try that with all of you every now and then . But it really feels like I'm wasting my time.
Jan 28th, 2018 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ya well .... I didn't mean exactly 200 years. The WTA was in 1864 . A hundred years before I was born. A hundred years before that, in 1776 The French were the first and only true settlers of des Iles Malouines, which they later formally gave or sold to Spain. Who then let the Argentine run and eventually keep.
@PE
Jan 28th, 2018 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Try saying 100 years next time...
Look, if you want to have a serious discussion, then you need to look at history. Europe has been at war on and off for over 2000 years. Empires have risen and fallen, countries have formed and been swallowed up, or partitioned, or freed themselves. It was kill or be killed. Alliances were mostly for expedience, and changed as soon as the balance of power changed. None of the countries were nice and they didn't care about your 'rights of everyone to the planet earth'. The Pope divided the whole world between Spain and Portugal, as if it wasn't already owned by the people living there. That is the environment where Britain was formed, and France and Spain too.
Argentina was different. Its main issues were border disputes with neighbours and federalism vs unitarianism, and it fought several wars over those things. But it was never really at risk of being conquered by its neighbours. Plus by the time Argentina declared independence, the Enlightenment had happened and there were all these new ideas about rights and democracy, so it became a republic. And unlike the US, it never became strong enough to think of joining the scramble for colonies and becoming a major power. It could only have a local influence.
@DT
Jan 28th, 2018 - 10:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +1You took the words out of my mouth....the WTA was indeed a bloody war, carried out by the peace-loving South Americans...and PE seems to forget that 200, or even 150 years ago, wars occurred for multiple, and selfish reasons, and that today would probably be avoided through negotiation...at least trying, before getting 'down to business'...
He also omits WII, or does he think that Hitler and his countryman Mussolini waged war against Britain for 'just reasons ? He also forgets that, despite the “horrendous record in the area of War and Peace contrasting Argentina”, it was the former that built Argentina's infrastructure...what nasty Brits...
“in 1776 The French were the first and only true settlers of des Iles Malouines, which they later formally gave or sold to Spain. Who then let the Argentine run and eventually keep.”
Am not even going to bother challenging his above comment, because it is too absurd.
@JB
Jan 29th, 2018 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes. PE is never satisfied with the truth. Britain really has fought a lot more wars than Argentina, but he wants to say they are a totally peaceful country and everything bad comes from the English-speaking media. Clearly not true; they've had wars with 3 of 5 neighbours and fought with Brazil over control of the 5th, and nearly came to the point of war with Chile before deciding the Falklands would be an easier target. Not to mention all the civil wars and coups, which he would like to discount.
If he wants to see the effect of culture, it might be more appropriate to compare the wars in the English-speaking colonies of the US, Canada, Australia and NZ with the Spanish speaking ones of Latin America, though the latter are intermediate between settler colonies and the type where locals formed the majority of the population and the colonial power just administrated.
Anyway, things really have changed since then; most of the wars we've been involved with recently have been America trying to be 'world policeman', and screwing it up. Apparently Argentina also got involved in the first Gulf War when the very pro-US Menem was president, so we've fought on the same side most recently.
Correction;1764, two hundred years before I was born. Sorry @Jack, maybe you wanted me to include that Britain too was claiming the islands? It's not what I was talking about. I wouldn't call it absurd, just for that! ... So since I was talking about the first true settlers on the islands, the French, I mentioned them, and then I mentioned their negotiation of transferring that title and right to the Spanish. I simply got mixed up with the year the Spanish requested successfully that the British leave the islands, 1776 . Sorryyy
Jan 29th, 2018 - 08:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Demon. Our provinces WERE the equivalent of the American Colonies. Argentina was like a “mini mirror” of the US. It simply started much smaller weaker and less productive. Don't forget America was built by strongly religious emigrants, very disciplined hard working god fearing people, and in greater numbers. In comparison we were going slow and sparsely populated. The States was never not a giant. Everything America did was ten times larger and busier than any other planet on the country. Yet it's really interesting to see this sort of symmetry between North America and the Southern Cone at an extremely different scale and pace.
@PE
Jan 29th, 2018 - 08:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Our provinces WERE the equivalent of the American Colonies.”
They were similar in some ways, but I think the 13 colonies were a lot more self-governing and each had their own laws and administration, even their own official religions (different types of Christianity), while still colonies. Yet they did manage to federalise without bloodshed, though the US had a big civil war eventually.
But I agree the US is not very comparable to any other country. Surely Argentina should be more similar to Canada or Australia, countries that are also mostly populated by immigrants, have a lot of space and a low population, and lots of natural resources.
Canada had some border disputes, and helped the UK in both world wars, but it isn't expansionist, and neither is Australia, thought they claim a big chunk of Antarctica just like Argentina does.
So I would say a country's circumstances determine how many wars it gets involved with, much more than the culture, or the number of wars affects the culture, perhaps.
I'm not sure I agree with that. Different countries don't always resort to war given the same circumstances.
Jan 29th, 2018 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0True, but the circumstances make a big difference. Until recently It was nearly impossible for most countries in Europe to avoid war, and until recently no one really saw anything wrong with making war.
Jan 29th, 2018 - 11:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Also, for most of history countries have stuck to invading their neighbours. It was a rather unique combination of circumstances that allowed countries in Europe to build trading posts and make colonies around the world, when their own neighbours at home were far too strong to defeat.
But it's not any more moral to conquer a weaker people next door, than to conquer a weaker people on the other side of the world.
Reading in between the lines; it is neither “America First” nor “America alone [or NOT alone - as he rants from time to time]”. It is “DT FIRST and DT ALONE” - all the way [DT = Trump & Co. AND Familty]
Jan 30th, 2018 - 02:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@:o))
Jan 30th, 2018 - 03:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0depending on which side of the aisle you're sitting, you'll always be able to come up with 'some' argument to defend 'this' or 'that' position...it's like trying to convince someone else that the soccer team you root for, is better than theirs....quite pointless, in fact.
@DT & PE
Just a thought that went through my mind while reading your above posts....would it be fair to say that countries that have been through really devastating wars (foreign or civil), or experienced serious and prolonged civil unrest, say in the last 100 years, are the ones in which today, the people have reached a collective maturity, often lacking in the ('more peaceful' ?) 3rd world, and have learned to value the things that are 'truly' important in life ?
@JB
Jan 30th, 2018 - 04:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Good question. Going through serious and even devastating wars hasn't really seemed to put any countries off starting more, prosperity and more cooperation the neighbours has. But wars do cause social change, for example the Triple Alliance war eventually led to the freeing of the slaves in Brazil, losing the Falklands war resulted in the angry Argentine people forcing the Junta from power and the return of democracy, and WWII in much of Europe led to governments taking a more 'hands on' approach to solving problems like poverty. One might be led to think that having a large number of citizens trained in fighting leads governments to treat them with more respect.
On the other hand there are plenty of war-town countries in Africa that have experienced no benefit whatsoever, where if people value the truly important things, it's because that's all they have got.
@DT
Jan 30th, 2018 - 06:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Although not excluding other countries, but I was thinking basically of the countries actively involved in the “WWI” and “WWII”...am not saying the aggressors necessarily learned their lesson, the first time around, but they all came out stronger, and more united after going through real hardship. Learning the hard way, how to separate the important from the 'not-so-important'. And again, not saying this excludes the possibility of more wars, as we have seen, but the 'people' seem to be less prone to support wars (unless attacked at 'home'). Obviously, after a few generations, people can forget what happened, or see it in a different perspective to those who experienced it.
Countries that haven't gone through wars, or during which the population as 'a whole' did not suffer the consequences of, tend to be less aware of the horrible reality of war, or what can happen when events get out of control (internally).
Africa is a whole different story...it's pre-colonial era, during and after, has no equal on any other continent, and therefore hard to compare.
JB,
Jan 30th, 2018 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have myself thought something like what you are trying to describe or explore often. I've concluded a lot of times that it seems almost obvious to me when thinking for example of such a momentous event in human history as the creation of the EU, as it took a lot of strife and toil killings and destruction of beauty and achievements to finally start getting it through our heads that we must try a little harder to get along better, essentially to me expressed when observing the social manner of Europeans, and their superior sense of civil and urban respect compared that of the Americas. A honed-in refinement that American countries which mainly grew recently and rapidly over vast expanses free for the taking unchallenged in their settlements, did not cultivate. It seems to show in our respectively different personalities. But while reading your comment, I was pondering over these similar ideas, and thought also that there are a lot of inconsistencies in this “theory” if one thinks only in terms of war versus countries unbattered by wars. This “theory” must be much more complex and I think it involves many other things that we don't easily take into consideration. Ultimately our imperfect human nature seems to prevail and what has the greatest influence is mostly how we raise and educate our young, meaning ourselves as societies. There are so many different cases throughout history which exemplify either rudeness or refinement in how good we are with one another or towards the whole of society irrespective of concentrated sufferings or easy abundance, that it really is hard to find “a formula”. We may become really passive when we are comfortable in our inventions, and yet we will still be “passively cruel” to one another. It's a hard to gauge it, yet we definitely must start on this brainstorming conversation as a world. I think we are well overdue the creation of a new political science, the Creation of Human Civilization, as a human science of design.
@JB
Jan 30th, 2018 - 10:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think there definitely are cases where hardship and a shared purpose draws a country together, but there are so many variables. For Western Europe and Japan it seems to be true, but not so much for the countries that became communist.
It is quite worrying though, that the generation that fought and remembers WWII are coming to the end of their lives. I think it's perfectly true that younger generations do not understand the reality of war, and seeing missiles dropped on Iraq on the TV news does not help with that. People take modern wars too lightly, thinking we can go in and fix some country with smart bombs and minimal casualties. It doesn't work like that.
@PE
Yes, avoiding more wars was a big reason for the creation of the EU, and I wish we weren't leaving it. People take peace for granted when it has been so long, thinking it's the natural state rather than something that people actively worked for.
@PE
Jan 31st, 2018 - 06:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”.....when observing the social manner of Europeans, and their superior sense of civil and urban respect compared that of the Americas....
Your observation points out one of the big differences, imo, between 'peoples' who have and 'peoples' who haven't , generally speaking, ever experienced prolonged hardship, i.e., Europe versus South America. While South America did have its wars (over territorial disputes), they are ancient history in people' minds if compared to Europe's. What I'm saying is that wars, even if not necessarily 'recent', do go creating cultural tendencies to be more respectful and more cautious in their actions, something (the younger) nations that don't remember the horrors of war, tend to ignore.
@DT
PE's comment “This “theory” must be much more complex and I think it involves many other things that we don't easily take into consideration.” goes to show that the subject is indeed complex, but if people really learned from past experiences, they wouldn't repeat the same mistakes...
Another thought : those nations whose citizens have been brought up with the clear notion that their freedom stops where the next person's starts, tend to be less tolerant when their 'toes are stepped on'. Usually the ones who fought for freedom and know that it comes at a cost. Exactly those “that fought and remember WWII”.
@JB
Jan 31st, 2018 - 09:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To be honest it surprises me to hear you say Europeans have experienced prolonged hardship and South Americans haven't. There are no zero hunger programs in Britain and no one is living under the international poverty line. Everyone can get a reasonable education and live in a house with running water and electricity.
Perhaps the difference is that in Europe everyone experienced the hardship, both the rich and the poor joined the army and suffered rationing, and the enemy was something external that could be defeated. That tends to bring a country together. Plus people tend to have the mindset that they can control their own destiny. Ordinary people in Latin America have often not had much control over their own lives and government, and perhaps the feeling has stuck.
What bothers me about the younger generation is two things. Firstly the rise of neo-nazi ideas on the right, as in the marches we've seen in the US, but also in Europe and stirred up in the UK by Brexit. Secondly the people on the left who want to shout down all dissent against their ideas, and think free speech is a form of oppression. Both have forgotten the important values that we were defending in WWII, and that the things they advocate for can as easily be turned against them.
@DT
Feb 01st, 2018 - 05:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The spirit of what I'm saying is that the European wars appear to have done more to mold the minds and attitudes of the people in a more positive manner (with regards to mutual respect, higher moral standards) than those in South America.
In the context of this discussion, I use 'hardship', as the experience of having one's life turned upside down overnight, suddenly being deprived of a way of life you worked hard for, allied to losing control over your life for no fault of your own.
Although life for those under the poverty line in underdeveloped or developing countries, is pretty dire, their situation is not the result of wars; it's the result of decades of lousy governments...and particularly here, made up of people who act as if they were in the early 1800's, when they were the law and at the same time placed themselves above it....and the population's complacency does not help.
As to the younger generations, trying to resuscitate and defending past (extreme) political models, imo, most have no clue what they're talking about as they weren't even born when such events took place...they seem to be dissatisfied with what they have - or don't have - but are not prepared to go about getting it in a rational manner...they think they can change the world by repeating the exact same experiments and reach different results...
Agree totally with your last two paragraphs..
@JB
Feb 02nd, 2018 - 12:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0That certainly is a different kind of hardship, and I don't know if Brazil ever had that kind of total war that involves the whole population. Maybe some of the wars of independence in South America count but I don't know much about them. Less major wars just don't have the same effect, as we've seen with Iraq, Afghanistan, the Falkland etc.
Your 'population's complacency' was kind of what I was meaning when I said many Latin Americans don't seem to believe they have control over their own lives. And the current situation is only going to increase that feeling, since Temer took over the presidency without another election, and has been passing policies the people did not vote for.
When it comes to our younger generations, I think it's just a case of not learning from history. Something you experienced yourself makes a much bigger impact than something you only read about in a book. And they are unhappy because our lives seem to be getting worse, so they want to do something about it, something radical.
@DT
Feb 02nd, 2018 - 02:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The 'wars' in which Brazil fought (over territorial disputes, mainly during the 1800s) were never waged close to the important urban centres (Rio J, S.Paulo, few towns in the NE), and the rebellions which popped up every now and again, were very localized, so other than the soldiers and the populations directly involved, these military ‘adventures’ did not impact the population as a whole. Besides learning about these events during Brazilian history lessons at school, and usually not exactly as they happened, the WTA, by far the most serious, explains, up to a point, why Paraguay is the poorest country in southern S.America.
” Something you experienced yourself makes a much bigger impact than something you only read about in a book.'..
Absolutely right...the combination of being inexperienced and reading about events that didn't, or don't impact you directly, lead to a certain romanticization, or romanticism concerning those same events.
The Paraguayan war was big enough to change Brazil, as according to Wikipedia it lead to freeing of the slaves (only 130 years ago, not long at all really). But of course no one is alive to remember it now.
Feb 02nd, 2018 - 08:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In some ways the second world war was romanticised immediately, with all the films about it. But until now there were always people around who remembered the reality. Soon we'll be like Brazil and have no wars that impacted the population directly.
Was the history you learned at school not very accurate then? My lessons were accurate enough, but they missed out a lot...
@DT
Feb 04th, 2018 - 10:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The roots of the movements which ended slavery (1888) go back to the 1820's, just after D. Pedro I (married to the Austrian princess Leopoldina), became emperor of Brazil, and along with Jose Bonifácio de Andrada e Silva (his prime minister), let their opinions be known that they were against it. But as the economy (mainly in the northeast, sugar cane plantations), depended on slavery, it took another 60 years to end it.
The Brazilian history I learned at school, in hindsight, was a romanticized version of reality, not necessarily done to mislead, but I think to make people 'proud' of their history. To me , they focused too much on irrelevant detail instead of on the main events and how they shaped the nation. British history was rather more practical and down to earth.
Damn, 60 years is a whole lifetime. There must have been thousands of people who lived their whole lives in slavery, just because it took the government so long to abolish it.
Feb 05th, 2018 - 12:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Britain ended slavery in the empire for humanitarian reasons despite the fact the economy still depended on it. The freed slaves were replaced with workers from India and China who weren't treated very well either, but at least they were not slaves.
What happened after it was abolished, anyway? Did growing sugar cane become uneconomic?
You probably learned more British history than I did. We were only taught about a few time periods, which did not include such minor matters as the civil war, the Napoleonic wars, or the British Empire. I really wish they had provided an overview of all the history and how it fit together. I suppose for newer countries like Brazil and the US it is easier to include everything important though.
@DT
Feb 05th, 2018 - 01:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Official estimates put the number of African slaves brought to Brazil around 1,5 million, having started (according to first registers) about 1540, and mainly up in the NE region (Pernambuco).
The Portuguese crown, already before that, had got the blessing of the Pope to enslave them, under the pretext of converting them to Christianity. Those that converted were better treated, but not much.
Britain, which had quite a bit of influence with the Portuguese crown, specially after having transported the Royal family and members of the Court, to Brazil in 1808, to save them from Napoleon, was also pushing for the end of slavery with Dom Pedro...but it carried on, as the rich landowners openly defied Dom Pedro and the government in Rio.
After slavery was officially abolished, most of the ex-slaves carried on working with their ex-owners, but no longer as slaves, and around the same times, there was massive emmigration from Italy to Brazil (hundreds of thousands), so there was no shortage of labour. Many Italians though, who didn't like the way they were treated either, left Brazil and went to the Argentine.
Sugar cane carried on being very important, as it still is today, but since has spread to other regions of Brazil as well.
Don't know about that (having learned more than you), but we started off with medieval times, going upto the end of the 19th century. I thought it was pretty interesting, specially when you saw how events in Britain and Europe influenced and /or affected Brazil.
Nice popes they had in those days, being A-OK with slavery, not to mention dividing up the world between Spain and Portugal regardless of who was already living there.
Feb 05th, 2018 - 09:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And it seems those rich landowners in the North East were a problem for the government both then and now, holding back progress and screwing ordinary people over. Maybe they weren't so rich once they had to pay their workers wages, but the economy did not collapse.
A lot of the history we learned was from the 20th century, and some of it hadn't happened yet when you were at school, so I also learned things you didn't. ;) I've always been interested in history so I wish we'd learned more. It is pretty cool seeing how things fitted together and countries influenced each other, though I bet back then Britain influenced Brazil more than the reverse.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!