CONTRA EL PINGALISMO CASTRISTA/
"Se que no existe el consuelo
que no existe
la anhelada tierrra de mis suenos
ni la desgarrada vision de nuestros heroes.
Pero
te seguimos buscando, patria,..." - Reinaldo Arenas
Earlier
this year, I was invited to a barbecue at the home of a Texas oilman,
Steve Espinosa, and his wife, Norma. Their two-story house sat on an
unnamed road, nestled in a community called the Condominio Riviera
Atlantico, about ten miles from Luanda, the rapidly expanding capital of
Angola. There were no sidewalks or footpaths in the area, and there
wasn’t much movement on the street. But there were plenty of cars:
Porsche Cayennes, Audis, and BMWs, all tucked neatly into identical
carports adjacent to identical houses. Espinosa, a burly man in cargo
shorts and a Brooklyn Industries T-shirt, answered the door and held out
a beer. He steered me through a sparsely furnished living room, past a
humidor filled with Cuban cigars, and onto the patio, where several of
his friends and colleagues were snacking amiably on ostrich meat. There
was a second kitchen beside the pool in the back yard, with a sink, a
large refrigerator, and a Weber grill.
For the
past two years, Luanda—not Tokyo, Moscow, or Hong Kong—has been named,
by the global consulting firm Mercer, as the world’s most expensive city
for expatriates. Luanda’s lure, and its treasure, is oil. José Eduardo
dos Santos, who has presided over Angola for more than thirty-five
years, long ago realized that foreign oil companies were the key to
power, and he has worked diligently to accommodate them. In the past
decade, tens of thousands of American and European employees of
international oil conglomerates, fortified by generous cost-of-living
allowances, have descended on Luanda. (Multinational companies base
their overseas salaries on the comparative costs of housing, clothes,
food, and other commodities.)
The
country now produces 1.8 million barrels of oil a day; in Africa, only
Nigeria produces and exports more. The boom has transformed a failed
state into one of the world’s fastest-growing economies. Exxon-Mobil,
Chevron, the French company Total, and BP all have significant
operations in Angola, along with firms—Schlumberger and Halliburton
among them—that provide the complicated logistical support required to
drill and maintain deep offshore wells. Most of the foreign workers live
with their families in well-guarded suburban communities with names
such as Bella Vista and Paraíso Riviera.
At the
height of the British Empire, colonial rulers lived by a credo: “Make
the world England.’’ The oil expatriates of Luanda have taken that
message to heart. Few would work there if they couldn’t live as they do
at home, but their comforts have been hard to come by. Almost nothing is
made in Angola, so nearly every car, computer, crate of oranges, tin of
caviar, jar of peanut butter, pair of bluejeans, and bottle of wine
arrives by boat. Every day, a trail of container ships backs up from the
port through the Bay of Luanda and out into the sea.
Grotesque
inequality long ago became a principal characteristic of the world’s
biggest and most crowded cities. But there is no place quite like
Luanda, where the Espinosas’ rent is sixteen thousand dollars a month, a
bottle of Coke can sell for ten dollars, and Range Rovers cost twice
their sticker price. Per-capita income in Angola has nearly tripled in
the past dozen years, and the country’s assets grew from three billion
dollars to sixty-two billion dollars. Nonetheless, by nearly every
accepted measure, Angola remains one of the world’s least-developed
nations. Half of Angolans live on less than two dollars a day, infant
mortality rates are among the highest in the world, and the average life
expectancy—fifty-two—is among the lowest. Obtaining water is a burden
even for the rich, and only forty per cent of the population has regular
access to electricity. (For those who do, a generator is essential, as
power fails constantly.) Nearly half the population is undernourished,
rural sanitation facilities are rare, malaria accounts for more than a
quarter of all childhood deaths, and easily preventable diarrheal
diseases such as rotavirus are common.
Because
the oil companies routinely pay most large expenses for their foreign
workers in Angola, a dollar bill can quickly begin to feel like Monopoly
money. Before I visited the Espinosas, I asked at my hotel if it could
provide a car and driver for the ten-mile journey from the center of the
city to the suburb of Talatona. The clerk at the front desk told me it
would cost a hundred and fifty dollars. There weren’t many alternatives,
so I agreed. Later, I saw him waving frantically at me in the lobby. He
explained that he had been wrong about the taxi: it would actually cost
four hundred and fifty dollars, each way. I found another ride.
The
trip took two hours. It was a Friday afternoon, and the single rutted
road that runs south toward Luanda Sul was jammed with commuters,
trucks, tractors, and a stream of the unregulated Toyota minivans—candongueiros—that
pass for public transportation. Children worked the roadway, selling
soccer balls, popcorn, phone cards, toilet seats, and multicolored
polyester brooms. I stopped at the Casa dos Frescos, a grocery store
favored by expatriates, to buy some Scotch for my hosts, but a fifth of
the Balvenie cost three hundred dollars, so I settled for a mediocre
bottle of wine, for sixty-five. The woman in front of me, juggling an
infant and a cell phone, unloaded her groceries on the checkout counter.
She had a couple of steaks, a few pantry items, and two
seventeen-dollar pints of Häagen-Dazs ice cream, along with juice and
vegetables. The bill was eleven hundred and fifty dollars. She didn’t
seem fazed, and I later learned that the store was famous for its
prices. A few years ago, the Casa dos Frescos had been the site of what
locals refer to as “the incident of the golden melon.’’ An enraged
French customer, having paid a hundred and five dollars for a single
melon, sued the store for profiteering. The case was thrown out of
court, in part because the man not only bought the melon but also ate
the evidence.
For
dinner, Espinosa grilled steak and part of a thirty-five-pound tuna
that he’d caught the previous week on the Kwanza River. When oil people
leave Angola, he told me, they often sell their freezers, packed with
American beef, to their successors. “People can charge ten thousand
dollars for a well-stocked freezer,’’ he said. He mentioned that a
friend once tried to sell him a roll of aluminum foil for a hundred and
forty dollars. Espinosa grinned and rolled his eyes. “That crazy
Randy,’’ he said. “In the end, I think I paid thirty dollars.’’
“T.I.A., man,’’ he said, shrugging his shoulders and using a favorite acronym: “This is Angola.”
Angola
endured four centuries of servitude and slavery before gaining
independence, in 1975, and Luanda was once the world’s busiest slave
port. The National Museum of Slavery, about an hour from the city, is
housed in a spare colonial structure that sits on a promontory
overlooking the Kwanza River. There isn’t much to see—drawings of slaves
crammed into steerage for the trip across the Atlantic, a display of
shackles, and some brief historical notes—but the simplicity is powerful
and disturbing. The building is the last place that slaves came before
they were blessed by a priest, put on a boat, and shipped to the markets
of Rio de Janeiro, New Orleans, and the Dominican Republic. Millions
passed through the region, many of whom died before they reached their
destination.
The Portuguese arrived in 1575,
took control soon afterward, and remained in power until 1974, when a
military coup finally toppled the government in Lisbon. Nationalists had
been fighting in Angola for more than a decade, and when the colonists
pulled out of the country the fleeing citizens took everything that
could be moved. Ryszard Kapuscinski, in “Another Day of Life,’’ his
memoir of that time, described the efforts to cram the entire city into a
series of wooden crates and ship most of it to Lisbon. “I don’t know if
there had ever been an instance of a whole city sailing across the
ocean, but that is exactly what happened,’’ he wrote. “On the streets
now there were only thousands of cars, rusting and covered with dust.
The walls also remained, the roofs, the asphalt on the roads, and the
iron benches along the boulevards.”
Angola has
millions of acres of rich, arable land and an unusual abundance of
mineral wealth, particularly diamonds. One Brazilian businessman told me
that turning Angola into a farming nation and lowering its dependence
on oil revenues should not be that difficult. “My country sells many
thousands of tons of crops to China each year,” he said. “Angola is
closer to China, and the countries have a strong relationship. The land
is tremendously fertile. Why not grow those crops here and steal the
Brazilian market?” With spectacular waterfalls, some of the world’s most
elusive bird species, miles of untouched beaches, and what surfers
regard as nearly perfect conditions, there are also promising
opportunities for tourism.
But Angola lacks the
infrastructure for any of those industries; the roads are so poor that
the biggest farms often burn crops, because they cannot get them to
market before they rot. Chevron began drilling during the
nineteen-fifties; before independence, and even after oil became the
nation’s most valuable commodity, exports of sisal, maize, coffee, and
cotton as well as diamonds and iron ore contributed significantly to the
country’s economy. That ended with the exodus of the Portuguese; few
Angolans had been trained to manage factories or farms. Trade vanished,
the communications systems fell apart, and the economy collapsed.
For
the next twenty-five years, Angola fell into one of the most
destructive civil wars in modern history. At least a million people
died. By most estimates, roughly ten million land mines were buried—many
of them remain active—scarring a territory twice the size of Texas and
making large-scale agricultural planning nearly impossible. The war was
fought as much for oil and diamonds as for ideological reasons, but it
also served as the last major proxy battle of the Cold War. The United
States, still struggling to accept the loss in Vietnam, refused to cede
the territory to the Russians, who were equally committed to retaining a
foothold in southern Africa. The UNITA rebels, backed by
the C.I.A. and South African mercenaries, were led by Jonas Savimbi, a
murderous despot who embraced Maoist principles. The Marxists—the
Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (M.P.L.A.)—with support
from the Russians and led by Agostinho Neto, who later became the
country’s first President, relied on an unusual mixture of Eastern
European economic advisers and Cuban soldiers. Both sides often
condemned the influence and the power of Western oil companies, but Neto
understood that his regime and the country probably wouldn’t survive
without them. He made sure that American oil companies were protected
and, in turn, won financial backing from companies such as Chevron.
“It
was a true witches’ cauldron,” one foreign official who spent years in
Angola told me. The hostilities ended only in 2002, when assassins shot
Savimbi in the head. (“The best use of bullets in the history of
munitions,’’ another longtime resident of Luanda said.) President dos
Santos, who is seventy-two, became the head of the M.P.L.A. in 1979,
after Neto died. The Party still uses that acronym, although it
officially abandoned Marxism more than twenty years ago.
After
hundreds of years of strife, Angola has been a peaceful country for
little more than a decade. No society forged in that kind of conflict
can quickly find its footing. “I spent my first two years here hunting
for water,’’ Nicholas Staines, who until recently served as local
director of the International Monetary Fund, told me one afternoon, as
we sat in the garden outside the I.M.F. office. “And I mean hunting. I
would walk out of my house with a fistful of cash, and my wife would
say, ‘Don’t come back till you find some water.’ So I would hunt for the
nearest water truck and say, ‘Where are you going? How much is that
person paying you? I will double it.’ That is how you got water in
Angola just a few years ago.’’
Then, suddenly,
there were hundreds of people with unimaginable wealth and few
restraints. Tales of excess became commonplace, and often they are told
with pride. One businessman famously distributed Rolexes to guests as
party favors at a wedding. Each member of parliament recently received a
new hundred-thousand-dollar Lexus. Isabel dos Santos, the President’s
forty-two-year-old daughter, is typically described as the richest woman
in Africa; Forbes puts her net worth at more than three
billion dollars. She was educated in London, at King’s College, and owns
the biggest building, with the most expensive apartments, in Luanda. In
2011, as president of the Red Cross, dos Santos paid Mariah Carey a
million dollars to perform for two hours at the organization’s annual
gala. The show was sponsored by Unitel, Angola’s principal mobile-phone
company, which she also owns.
Dos Santos is one
of the city’s most ambitious restaurateurs. One day, I had lunch at
Oon.dah, on the first floor of the Escom Center, another of her
properties; the house specialty, the Wagyu Beef Hamburger, sells for
about sixty dollars, and a half pound of tenderloin goes for twice that.
A bottle of Cristal champagne costs twelve hundred dollars. Displaying
such wealth in a country as impoverished as Angola can be a challenge.
One member of the President’s inner circle owns a Rolls-Royce, but there
are few good roads in Luanda. So every Sunday he loads the car into a
trailer, takes it to the Marginal—a recently renovated two-mile-long
promenade along the South Atlantic—drives it for a while on the
capital’s only smooth road, loads it back into its trailer, and has it
hauled away.
Angola is widely regarded as one of
the world’s most egregious kleptocracies. The bulk of the country’s
wealth is controlled by a few hundred oligarchs—Presidential cronies,
generals, and their families. “The default position of Angolan
businessmen is above the law,’’ Ricardo Soares de Oliveira, an associate
professor of politics at Oxford University, writes in “Magnificent and
Beggar Land,’’ his comprehensive new account of Angola’s recent history.
“Whether it is a matter of capital flight, money laundering, the
unilateral abandonment of partnerships with foreigners, the non-payment
of loans and import duties, conflict of interest between public and
private roles . . . These are not occasional whims, but the very stuff
of Angolan private sector life.’’
Last
year, the nation ranked a hundred and sixty-first out of a hundred and
seventy-five countries on Transparency International’s corruption scale
and a hundred and eighty-first on the World Bank’s most recent Ease of
Doing Business index. In one category, resolving bankruptcies, Angola
came in last. Twice in a week, my driver was hustled for money by
traffic cops. The officers were patient and polite, but they lingered in
a way that made it clear that it would be wise to hand over a hundred
kwanzas, the equivalent of about a dollar. One night, as I pulled into
the parking lot of a popular restaurant, a man suddenly appeared at the
door. “We pay him,’’ my companion said. “This way, we will probably get
the car back when we leave.” We then paid another man to seat us in a
nearly empty restaurant, and another to bring us a fifteen-dollar bottle
of Evian. That was before we ever saw our waiter.
The
next afternoon, I needed batteries for my tape recorder. The only store
I could find that carried them charged sixteen dollars (and gave me a
handwritten receipt). Then the salesman punched the official figure, six
dollars, into the cash register; the extra ten dollars was for him.
Angola has several dozen universities, more even than South Africa. But
few have functioning libraries, and degrees are bought as often as they
are earned. More than one person told me that in order to graduate from
Agostinho Neto University, the largest academic institution in Angola,
even some of the most talented students are forced to pay bribes.
Antonio, an official of a major oil company who was educated at several
of Luanda’s best international schools, said that he had entered the
university but quickly dropped out. “It was a giant step backward,” he
said. “A complete waste of my time.” (Few Angolans were willing to be
identified by more than a first or middle name. The constitution
protects freedom of speech and assembly, but the government has grown
increasingly intolerant of criticism.)
Antonio
is a thin, contemplative man with an oval face and a head of loose,
springy curls. He and two of his friends, Pedro and Marisa, joined me
one night for dinner at La Vigia, a popular restaurant where diners can
select fish from a tank near the cash register. “It is really hard to
find honest people here,’’ Pedro said. “Everywhere you go, even every
small business, somebody is trying to cheat you.” Like Antonio, Pedro
had graduated from premier schools, and, despite his comments, he
expressed optimism about the country’s long-term future. Marisa, who
attended college and business school in Europe, said that when she is
stopped by the traffic police she simply refuses to pay—“and eventually
they go away.’’ The three, all in their thirties, agreed that although
they might prefer to live abroad, there has never been a better time to
be a well-educated Angolan. The government requires foreign oil
companies to hire local residents, and, for those who are qualified, the
prospects for lucrative jobs are excellent.
“We
can function effectively in a foreign environment,’’ Pedro said. “That
makes us unusual.’’ His English, which he said he learned from watching
American police shows on TV, was letter-perfect. He told me that he and
his colleagues often see job applicants who, despite having graduated
from the country’s best tech programs, “barely know how to turn on a
computer.” The three friends stressed more than once that, owing to
their education and relative prosperity, they were far from typical. Yet
they represent the vibrant and promising new Angola that is struggling
to emerge. None of them have known any leader other than dos Santos.
International human-rights groups regularly denounce him, but his power
remains absolute. “A lot of people see him as the King of Angola,’’
Pedro said. “He kind of owns the country. People almost can’t look him
in the eyes—he’s that powerful.’’
Marisa added,
“It’s like your father who is very mean to you. You go to dinner every
day, and he shows up, and you smile and say, ‘Hi, Daddy.’ You say
nothing instead of saying, ‘What have you done to me, you are
horrible.’ ’’ Marisa, who is single, runs the procurement operation at
an oil-services firm. Just that day, she had interviewed a
twenty-five-year-old prospective employee who was the father of seven
children. “That’s pretty normal,” she said. “Not necessarily seven kids,
but having children by the time you’re in your early twenties.” Marisa
lives in the center of town and commutes through heavy traffic to an
office on the outskirts of the city. She rises at five, a driver arrives
by six, and she is at the office shortly after seven. “There is
tremendous pressure to have at least one child before you hit thirty,’’
she said. “But things are changing.’’ She said that she recently heard a
woman explain on a radio show why lesbians exist: they weren’t loved by
men, and therefore looked to their mothers—or perhaps a sister or a
cousin—for a model of what love should look like.
“The
same principle applied to homosexuals or violent people,’’ Marisa said.
“You become violent because your parents are violent—that is the view.
You become a lesbian because you didn’t have a father figure. This is
ridiculous and offensive. But it’s also a great step forward, because we
are speaking in broad daylight, on the radio, about lesbians and
homosexuals. They are not accepted, but they are not going to be killed.
This is an advance.”
Luanda
aspires to become the Dubai of Africa, but it has a long way to go. In
1975, the city had half a million residents; today there are almost six
million. Hotels, luxury apartment buildings, shopping arcades, and
modern office complexes compete for space in the city center with
shantytowns made from corrugated tin and heavy cardboard and with tens
of thousands of people who live on mounds of dirt, in the scrapped
remains of rusted and abandoned vehicles, or out in the open, next to
fetid, unused water tanks. To make room for development, President dos
Santos has cleared many slums in the past decade, usually without
warning or compensation. He has promised to provide displaced occupants
with housing farther away from the city center, but the government has
struggled with the furious pace of population growth.
Construction
cranes are visible everywhere. (It pays to look up as you walk the
streets: there are no scaffoldings to protect pedestrians from falling
debris, and workmen occasionally toss empty water bottles from the
skyscrapers.) The city often smells of sewage and stagnant water, but it
has grand ambitions. After almost a decade of delays, the nearly
completed Intercontinental Hotel and Casino, a ziggurat of glass, steel,
and reinforced concrete, hovers over the harbor. An eight-lane
highway—Luanda’s first genuinely modern road—runs along the city’s
horseshoe-shaped port. Between the highway and the water, pedestrians
amble along the Marginal, enjoying spectacular sunset views. Across the
bay, connected to the city by a causeway, ostentatious night clubs with
names like Chill Out and Miami Beach line the shores of the neighborhood
known as the Ilha, which for many years was an abandoned strip of sand
used mainly by local fishermen.
Most expatriates
leave Luanda after a few years, but some choose to stay. One afternoon,
I visited Tako Koning, a Canadian petroleum geologist, who lives on the
seventh floor of an older building in the center of Luanda with his
wife, Henriette, an energetic and engaging English teacher. Koning is
sixty-five, with a thick mustache, heavy-lidded blue eyes, and slightly
shaggy hair. He worked for Texaco for thirty years, first in Canada and
then in Indonesia and Nigeria; in 1995, he and Henriette moved to
Luanda. Koning retired from Texaco when it merged with Chevron, in 2001,
and now works as a consultant. The couple’s apartment is comfortable
but not luxurious. (Because power failures are so common, Henriette
refuses to enter the elevator, preferring to climb the seven flights. “I
don’t do African elevators,’’ she told me.) The rent—six thousand
dollars a month—is reasonable for a place in the center of the city with
excellent views.
From
their terrace, the city looks like an archeological cutaway. Henriette
pointed to a building across the street. “You can see they are not well
off, because during power outages the building is dark,” she
said—meaning that they lacked a backup generator. In another nearby
building, occupied by diplomats and oil executives, a three-bedroom
apartment rents for as much as twenty thousand dollars a month. I could
see the new BP headquarters, a twenty-five-story building called Torres
do Carmo, and the massive glass headquarters of Sonangol, the state oil
company. “That’s the French Embassy,” Henriette said, pointing to a
stolid town house. “And now look straight down.” Below us, rows of tin
roofs were wedged tightly between apartment buildings. “They were
displaced during the civil war,” she said. “Now they live on the street
right next to the diplomats and millionaires.”
The
Konings often entertain young Angolans, including the three I had
recently met. The couple has supported students, and Tako, who was born
in the Netherlands but lived mostly in Canada, contributes his time to a
variety of schools and engineering societies. “You quickly realize that
you can make a bigger difference here than in a place like Toronto,’’
he said. “It can be very satisfying.’’ I asked what he thought of
expatriates who seemed to avoid interacting with Angolans. He shrugged.
“The thing about Americans that I always loved is that you jumped in and
got things done,’’ he said. “You rolled into Europe after World War II
with the Marshall Plan. The countries were destroyed, but you put them
back together. I understand that the U.S. wanted to hold off the
Russians—there are always geopolitical reasons. But what matters is what
you did.”
In Angola, he added, “you can’t
simply hit a switch and say everything is normal just because the war
has ended and the country has oil.” China essentially provided its own
Marshall Plan: as the world’s biggest oil consumer, it buys nearly two
million barrels a day from Angola, more than from any other country, and
Chinese firms are building schools, roads, bridges, ports, and one of
the largest housing developments in Africa, in nearby Kilamba. The
buildings, designed for middle-income residents, are still mostly
unoccupied, but they take up thousands of acres—pastel high-rises, just a
few miles beyond the city limits, that look like a sub-Saharan Co-op
City.
“We never planned to stay here forever,’’
Koning said. “We have two children and a grandchild in Toronto. But the
longer you stay the deeper your roots go down. And we know people.’’ I
went to a local place for a beer with him one night. Many of the street
people waved, and several approached, eagerly but pleasantly. Koning
says he doesn’t think it makes sense to hand out money, but he pays a
man to watch his car, more as charity than for security. When people
need medicine and clothing, he and Henriette often chip in.
The
political landscape is troubling, though. In Luanda, security forces
regularly stop protests and arrest those who try to attend them. In
2012, two activists disappeared after an anti-government protest. For
more than a year, Angolan officials denied any knowledge of their fate.
Late in 2013, after sustained protests by human-rights workers, the
attorney general admitted that the two men had been kidnapped and
probably murdered. Residents of Luanda are understandably afraid to test
their freedom. When Koning and I got to the bar, we were joined at a
table in the garden by a Russian diamond dealer. “We produce more
diamonds than anyone else on earth, my dear,’’ he said in a very slight
Russian accent. “But keep it to yourself.” There was also a dance
teacher, a couple of other journalists, and an American woman who did
not give her name or discuss her profession. The weather was dry and
clear, and at night the air became softer, more fragrant and inviting.
The others were relaxed, but the woman, who I later learned worked for
an international N.G.O., looked anxious. “You can’t write about me,’’
she said, when I told her that I was a journalist. “It’s not safe. I
will get death threats.’’ After a few moments of awkward silence, she
stood up, said she couldn’t trust me, and walked out.
Foreign
embassies routinely warn their citizens about crime in the capital.
“Avoid walking around Luanda, especially after dark,’’ the British
Foreign Office advises. One should also avoid “wearing jewelry or
watches in public places” and “walking between bars and restaurants on
the Ilha do Cabo,” as well as “crowded places like markets.’’ The U.S.
State Department is even more blunt: “The capital city, Luanda,
continues to maintain a well deserved reputation as a haven for armed
robberies, assaults, carjackings, and overall crimes of opportunity.
However, reliable statistical crime data is unavailable in Angola.’’
Many foreign workers are forbidden by their employers to drive cars
there; those who want to spend a weekend in the countryside need to get
permission well in advance. One afternoon, about an hour before I
planned to meet some people near my hotel, one of them called. “What
time should we pick you up?’’ she asked. I told her that I would walk
the five hundred yards to our meeting spot. She tried to dissuade me,
but when I insisted she urged me to lock my bag, passport, and wallet in
the safe in my hotel room. “Bring a Xerox of the passport page and some
money,’’ she said. “And do not show your phone on the street.” I made
it to the meeting and back without incident.
Most
expatriates said that their concern about crime was the main reason
they avoided the city. At times, though, the fears seemed exaggerated.
Not long after I arrived, I had dinner in the suburbs with a French
journalist and some Americans. My colleague told one of the guests that
she lived in the center of Luanda, a block or so from the Skyna Hotel,
which is on the Avenue de Portugal, the city’s version of Fifth Avenue.
The Skyna is enormous, extremely well known, and readily picked out of
the skyline. “Where is that?” the guest, who had lived in Angola for
more than a year, asked. “I’ve never heard of it.”
Americans
can earn twice their usual salary in Angola, but there are few easily
accessible cultural institutions or opportunities for entertainment.
There’s the Slavery Museum and the Portuguese fortress of São Miguel,
which overlooks the port, but in Luanda there’s not a single commercial
movie theatre. “It’s all Netflix here,” Steve Espinosa told me. “If your
Internet connection is good enough—otherwise you are out of luck.”
There are more significant challenges. Exxon-Mobil, among other
companies, carries out random urine tests on its workers, and those who
fail are sent home. The company isn’t really looking for drugs such as
cocaine, heroin, or marijuana; rather, it wants to make sure that
employees are taking their malaria medicine. (The concern is
understandable, but long-term use of malaria preventives can cause
serious liver damage.)
Foreigners typically stay
for two or three years; the Espinosas have been there for six. Two of
their children attended the Luanda International School, which is only a
couple of miles from where they live. The campus is beautiful and
modern, with computer systems and well-kept playing fields. The staff is
made up largely of foreign teachers, who tend to move every few years
among the world’s élite international schools. Fees, which are almost
always paid by oil companies, come to about fifty thousand dollars a
year. Some companies even pay when they don’t have a student who needs
the seat. “If Chevron or BP wants to transfer somebody in the middle of a
year,’’ one teacher said, “these companies have to be certain that
children can attend a good school.”
Students are
typically driven to school, waved through a security gate, collected
after class, and then driven back to the safety of their housing
cluster. Nobody takes a bus, rides a bike, or walks. There are also many
local students at the international school—mostly children of Angola’s
élite, which can be a problem in civics classes, given the government’s
deplorable human-rights record. A few weeks earlier, the mother of an
important minister spoke at the school. “It’s hard for people like that
to admit the truth about issues like free speech and hard for us to
ignore it,” one teacher told me. “So we try to walk a line.” (One
report, released in March by the International Federation for Human
Rights, which represents more than a hundred and seventy human-rights
groups throughout the world, found that journalists and human-rights
workers in Angola are subject to “judicial and administrative
harassment, acts of intimidation, threats and other forms of
restrictions to their freedom of association and expression.”)
For
those who prefer the protected life, the cocoon can extend all the way
to Houston. The Houston Express, operated by Atlas Air, flies three
times a week between George Bush International Airport and Luanda’s
Quatro de Fevereiro Airport. Tickets are usually available only through
the oil companies. Most seats, which sell for about ten thousand
dollars, are in business class. People who fly on a commercial airliner
from the U.S. typically change planes in Paris or London. On my flight,
there were about two hundred and seventy-five passengers, all but a few
of them men. It felt like a military transport.
Nobody
is sure how long Angola’s expat exceptionalism can last. The plummeting
price of oil has already forced Halliburton, Baker Hughes, and
Schlumberger to cut thousands of jobs throughout the world. So far,
Angola has mostly been spared. (No official from any oil company would
agree to talk to me about its presence in Angola.) But if the United
States stops buying Angola’s oil, and if China’s rate of economic growth
continues to slow, major foreign companies would be unable to sustain
their current staffing levels and expenditures.
Oil
revenue accounts for more than ninety per cent of Angola’s
foreign-exchange earnings, and there are many risks for a country that
relies too heavily on one commodity. Economists call it the resource
curse. For years, oil experts predicted that by 2020 Nigeria and Angola
would account for twenty-five per cent of America’s crude imports; the
shale revolution in Texas and North Dakota put an end to such
speculation. Within a few years, the United States might not need any
Angolan oil. The current price of a barrel of oil is about fifty
dollars, but just a few months ago the Angolan government, for the
purposes of its 2015 budget, assumed that the average price would be
eighty-one dollars. That gap will prove hard to close. The dos Santos
government announced earlier this year that it would cut the budget by a
quarter, and it has said that it will work harder to diversify the
economy. Few economists who study Africa believe that it will be easy.
“They
say that they will diversify the economy all the time,’’ Gustavo Costa,
the Luanda correspondent for the Portuguese newspaper Expresso,
told me. “There has always been that opportunity. And in theory, at
least, it’s still there. But the government has built a certain kind of
society—for themselves. You can call it prosperity if you want, but it
is incredibly fragile. It all could end tomorrow.”
In what the Obama administration describes as a “years-long” coalition
effort to “degrade and destroy” ISIS, the United States has reentered
conflict in the Middle East. The White House heralds its close
cooperation with Arab allies, including a number of petrostates such as
Saudi Arabia and Qatar, describing their cooperation as vital to the
success of the campaign.
But petrostates are unlikely to be good
allies for the U.S. campaign in Iraq and Syria. The reliance of those
countries on oil and gas revenues distorts both foreign policy decisions
and their implementation. First, petrostates have weak foreign policy
institutions, producing policy that is of poor quality and strongly
driven by personalities. Second, the vast flow of oil income enables the
states to back nonstate actors in conflicts, but their weak civil
service cannot control the flow of arms or funds. Third, oil income also
enriches private citizens, some of whom directly fund terrorist
organizations such as ISIS. Thus, largely through ineptitude, those
states have helped to foster Syria’s civil war, indirectly facilitating
the rise of ISIS.
The idiosyncrasies of oil-rich states make them
poor partners for the United States in this instance and in future
conflicts. As allies, petrostates are especially likely to draw America
into unnecessary and intractable conflicts.
In particular,
Washington should largely disentangle itself from the Saudi alliance and
from reliance on Saudi intelligence and diplomatic services. Keeping
Saudi Arabia at arm’s length will help to minimize involvement in Middle
East conflicts that are not vital to U.S. interests.
Algunas noticias son más mediáticas que otras, y reciben tratamientos
diferentes en la prensa y las redes sociales. Sin embargo, algunas
muchísimo más trascendentes que otras no llaman tanto la atención al
comenzarse a conocer, aunque con el tiempo hay que seguirlas porque
afectan a todos.
Una de esas que todavía no ha ocupado toda la
atención que merece con relación al tema cubano es la relacionada con
los precios del petróleo en el mercado mundial y su incidencia en las
economías de diferentes países, y muy especialmente cómo repercute en
Cuba.
La finca de los hermanos Castro es una versión real del
Macondo de García Márquez: si aumenta el precio del petróleo en el
mercado mundial, no le conviene al gobierno, pues se encarecen las
importaciones, pero si desciende tampoco le conviene, porque se limitan
las posibilidades de sus mecenas, además de que disminuyen los ingresos
que obtienen por exportar petróleo.
Durante muchísimos años la
dictadura recibió petróleo subsidiado de sus patrocinadores de turno.
Los soviéticos hasta 1991, y después la Venezuela de Chávez y Maduro. En
todos los casos, el precio que supuestamente pagaría el gobierno cubano
era muy inferior al que imperaba en el mercado mundial, y en ocasiones
ni en esas condiciones preferenciales era pagado por los hermanos
Castro.
El régimen exporta parte del petróleo recibido de
Venezuela; lo mismo hacía con parte del que recibía de la Unión
Soviética. Es al mismo tiempo importador y exportador de petróleo. Pero
no exporta el que se produce en el país, sino parte del que recibe de
sus benefactores.
Ahora, cuando baja el precio del petróleo en el
mercado mundial no le conviene al régimen, pues no solamente vale menos
el petróleo que reexporta, sino que el principal benefactor del régimen,
el gobierno venezolano, tiene menos recursos para subsidiar a Cuba y
otros países y mantener la estrategia de petróleo barato a los “amigos”
clientelares a cambio de “solidaridad” con las revoluciones castrista y
bolivariana.
Nicolás Maduro primero envió emisarios a la OPEP, el
impúdico monopolio petrolero, solicitando reducir la producción para que
el precio se elevara. No tuvo éxito, porque algunos países árabes no
tienen interés en hacerlo, con la intención golpear a Rusia, que intenta
apoderarse del suministro petrolero al fabuloso mercado chino, y
también para golpear a enemigos regionales en el Medio Oriente, como el
Irán de los ayatolas y naciones que apoyan al Estado Islámico.
Al no lograrlo, Maduro acusó a EEUU de provocar la crisis y dañar el medio ambiente, diciendo que la técnica del fracking
(perforación hidráulica) provocaría terremotos y grandes desgracias a
la nación del norte. Gracioso ver al inculto venezolano hablando de lo
que no sabe y “preocupado” por el destino de la primera potencia
mundial, a quien tantas veces amenazó con no venderle petróleo.
En
una movida desesperada, ahora partió hacia China —con escala en Rusia— a
pedir dinero a los asiáticos en calidad de préstamo de emergencia (que
no obtendrá fácilmente por todo lo que ya debe a China), y
posteriormente continuar viaje al Medio Oriente para repetir el ruego de
disminuir la producción, algo que los sauditas no parecen interesados
en hacer, al menos de momento.
Lo grave de esta situación, para el
régimen, es que en la medida que Venezuela se adentre más en la
recesión y la crisis que ya la corroe, habrá más limitaciones para el
envío de petróleo subsidiado a la Isla y para el pago de otros
“servicios” que el régimen brinda a Venezuela, como médicos, maestros y
entrenadores, y leoninos contratos donde empresas cubanas se benefician
escandalosamente a costa de recursos de la contraparte venezolana.
Otro
querido amigo de los “buenos tiempos” castristas, el gobierno ruso, ha
recibido duros golpes con las sanciones occidentales por la intervención
en Ucrania, lo que unido al descenso de los precios del petróleo
provocó la devaluación del rublo y que Rusia entrara en una profunda
crisis, que Putin ha señalado -optimistamente- que se necesitarán dos
años para superarla y recuperarse, lo que hace difícil que ahora pueda
ayudar demasiado a los “camaradas” cubanos, más allá de brindis con
vodka y nostalgias de cuando Moscú ordenaba y La Habana despilfarraba.
Otros
amigos del régimen productores de petróleo también deben reestructurar
sus economías por la crisis de precios antes que pensar en lanzar
salvavidas a Raúl Castro: Ecuador busca soluciones con apoyo chino,
Brasil puede protegerse mejor, aunque su economía no está en el mejor
momento, y los escándalos de Petrobrás no aconsejan demasiados manejos
turbios con Cuba en estos tiempos. Bolivia no produce lo suficiente para
ayudar a Cuba, México nunca mostró demasiado interés en hacerlo en este
rubro, y Argentina está abocada a una crisis energética de
incalculables proporciones. Irán, golpeado también por sanciones, no
está en condiciones de ayudar en estos momentos, y ni Khadafi ni Saddam
Hussein existen. Angola, Guinea Ecuatorial y Argelia no enviarían
demasiado petróleo gratis a Cuba, si enviaran alguno.
Fidel Castro
por 48 años, y ahora Raúl Castro con más de 8 en el poder, fueron
capaces de perder dinero y recursos tanto si el precio del petróleo
subía como si descendía.
Un verdadero aporte en el arte de gobernar con eficacia ¿no?
No
por gusto Raúl Castro estuvo dispuesto a negociar desde hace más de 18
meses con “el imperio” diabólico, después de más de medio siglo de
choques, tirantez y acusaciones descabelladas sobre supuestos proyectos
de invasión y malignas intenciones.
¡Sorprendente! Y estos
“líderes”, con sus camarillas de aduladores y correveidiles, pretenden
“perfeccionar” el socialismo y hacerlo eficiente, próspero y
sustentable.
Seashore smeared with oil near Port Kavkaz/ www.dw.de
(Reuters) - A
leak on a major Russian oil pipeline caused a spill in the Black Sea
near the port of Tuapse on Wednesday where officials said stormy weather
was hampering efforts to assess and respond to the mishap.
"Some quantity of oil has spilled into the sea," Sergei Proskurin, first deputy captain of the port of Tuapse, told Reuters.
He
said the size of the spill was unclear and that emergencies services
were working to deploy temporary floating barriers to contain the spill
but were being delayed by the stormy conditions.
Tuapse
is a busy industrial and oil port but is located close to many Russian
Black Sea resorts. It is just 118 km (73 miles) from the town of Sochi
which hosted the 2014 Winter Olympics.
Two
Tuapse residents told Reuters they had seen oil in the sea and in a
river along which the pipeline runs toward the Tuapse oil refinery
operated by state oil firm Rosneft.
"I
can see dark spots on the river... The sea is stormy. I can't say it is
fully covered in oil but there is plenty of oil in the port and on
berths, not to mention the coast line," said a worker at the refinery
who asked not to be named.
Russia's
emergencies ministry confirmed the leak but declined to comment on the
size of the spill. Russian pipeline monopoly Transneft was quoted by
local media as saying the pipeline was shut after the leak.
Rosneft said work at the refinery was unaffected as it was drawing crude from its stocks.
Just in time for Christmas,
there’s a surprise present for consumers: plummeting oil prices. They
have fallen forty per cent since July—gasoline now costs well below
three dollars a gallon—saving Americans hundreds of millions of dollars a
day. This has been a mini-stimulus for the economy, and one that was
almost completely unexpected. Before the summer, prices had been high
for years. Despite a lot of geopolitical turmoil and macroeconomic
anxiety, the oil market had been remarkably stable, and it seemed
possible that, as one study put it, “hundred-dollar oil is here to
stay.” But in a matter of months all that changed.
So
what happened? At the most basic level, it’s a simple supply-and-demand
story. Europe’s continued troubles and a slowdown in the Chinese
economy muted the demand for oil. Meanwhile, the U.S. shale-oil boom and
a rebound of drilling in Libya boosted supply. “Libya’s ramping up of
production caught people genuinely off guard,” Steven Kopits, the
managing director of Princeton Energy Advisors, told me. “That’s the
kind of thing that’s hard to predict unless you have really good
intelligence assets on the ground.” The result was that the market was
producing many more barrels of oil a day than were consumed. As oil was
dumped on the market, prices inevitably fell.
In
the oil market, though, nothing is simple. The real story of the past
few months isn’t that oil prices have fallen; it’s that they’ve fallen
so far so fast, and that they may still have a long way to go before
hitting bottom. That suggests that the stability of the past few years
has yielded to a new era of volatility, in which small changes in supply
and demand will lead to big price swings.
Such
volatility is exactly what the history of oil prices would lead us to
expect. Commodities are more volatile than other assets—the price of
copper fluctuates a lot more than that of a television set—and oil has
historically been more volatile than most other commodities; a 2007
study found that in the U.S. it was more volatile than ninety-five per
cent of other products. The biggest reason for this volatility is that
short-term supply and demand for oil are what economists call
“price-inelastic,” which means that they don’t respond much when the
price of oil changes. People don’t immediately start driving less when
gasoline prices spike—they just pay more for gasoline. On the supply
side, drilling projects take a long time to start up or to shut down, so
higher prices don’t immediately translate into more supply, or lower
prices into less. This means that the way prices typically return to
normal—through increasing supply or diminishing demand—doesn’t really
happen in the oil market. So a two- or three-per-cent change in supply,
which is about how much the shale boom and the Libyan rebound added to
global daily production, can spark a huge move in price.
In
recent years, hedge funds and commodity-index funds have put hundreds
of billions into the oil market, and studies suggest that this flood of
investment may have increased the market’s volatility. By its nature,
oil trading is beset by uncertainty. It’s not just the precarious
geopolitics of where most of the world’s oil reserves are. There’s also
the fact that predicting future demand requires forecasting the
performance of the entire world economy.
You might think that the existence of OPEC would guarantee stability. But OPEC is weaker than it once was, thanks to the emergence of big non-OPEC oil producers, like the U.S. Besides, enforcing stability at a time of falling prices is easier said than done. OPEC’s
members face a classic collective-action problem. They’d be better off
ultimately if they all agreed to curb production—Saudi Arabia, in
particular, would have to cut back—but individually they have a greater
incentive to continue pumping. And the Saudis know from history that
cutbacks don’t always work. In the early nineteen-eighties, they slashed
output in an attempt to prop up energy prices. “They cut production and
cut production and cut production, and all it did, more or less, was
wreck their economy for the next twenty years,” Kopits said. “This time
around, they’re drawing a line in the sand and saying We’re going to
keep pumping, and everyone else is going to have to adjust around us.”
The shale-oil boom has added to uncertainty, too. OPEC
has no control over what U.S. producers do. And even though shale-oil
producers often face higher production costs than traditional drillers
do (which should make them quick to cut production when prices fall),
many also have debt payments to make and fixed costs to meet if they
don’t want to go out of business. So they’re likely to keep pumping,
since that keeps revenue coming in until (they hope) the price recovers.
But continuing to pump, of course, makes it harder for prices to
stabilize.
It
would be a mistake for oil producers to expect a return to the high,
stable prices of recent years. By the same token, American consumers
shouldn’t get too used to cheap gas, since in the long run low oil
prices erode the conditions that brought them about. Producers are
already starting to adjust: ConocoPhillips just announced that it’s
cutting its drilling budget. And, because cheap oil gives everyone an
economic boost, eventually it leads to higher demand. We’re awash in oil
right now. Soon enough, we may be wondering where it all went.
el regimen de la habana siempre se encuentra en el lado contrario de lo que resulta positivo para la mayoria del mundo, excepto un grupito de naciones como rusia y venezuela y en menor medida arabia saudita. la disminucion de los precios del crudo que beneficia las economias nacionales y tiende a mejorar la economia mundial, tiene un impacto negativo para la habana, por la via de las presiones a que se somete el ya grave estado de las petro-finanzas venezolanas y por la disminucion de la facturacion del petroleo y derivados que el des-gobierno reexporta. --------------------
Se repitieron las ofertas
de exploración en aguas profundas, en tierra y aguas someras, pero la
novedad fue la recuperación secundaria de yacimientos en explotación.
La recuperación secundaria disminuye la viscosidad
del crudo y la porosidad de las estructuras geológicas, haciendo más
productivos los pozos.
La actual producción de Cuba es de 25
millones de barriles anuales de petróleo equivalente (petróleo y gas),
lo que representa algo más del 40% del consumo. El resto se importa de
Venezuela.
La estatal Cubapetróleo (Cupet) sostiene
que su principal meta es mantener los niveles productivos actuales, pero
muchos de los pozos ya tienen varios años.
La oferta es la
formación de una empresa mixta para "la recuperación secundaria", una
apuesta de 142 millones de dólares por bloque, con un contrato por 30
años y cuya inversión se recupera en 2,1 años. Pero el negocio está
calculado para un precio de 95 dólares el barril, más alto que el
actual.
"Desde julio de
2004, cuando (la española) Repsol perforó el primer pozo exploratorio
(Yamagua) en aguas profundas cubanas, ha habido otros seis intentos
fallidos", dijo esta semana a la AFP Piñón.
En ese decenio,
compañÃas de España, Brasil, Noruega, Canadá, India, Malasia,
Venezuela, Angola, Vietnam y Rusia contrataron bloques, de forma
individual y colectiva, y Cuba pareció entrar en la era petrolera.
Sin
embargo, tras los fracasos con la Scarabeo, sólo quedan en aguas
profundas la venezolana PDVSA (desde 2007), la angolana Sonangol (2010) y
el dúo ruso Rosneft-Zarubezhneft, según el reporte oficial de la
Carpeta.
- Altos costos de exploración y bajos del petróleo -
La Cartera consigna además que en aguas
someras solo explora la rusa Zarubezhneft y se están ofertando ocho
bloques, algunos de ellos en negociación. En tierra exploran
Petrovietnam, Seherrit y Med Australia, y 25 bloques están en oferta.
En
el dinámico mundo de la energía se producen cambios diariamente.
Desde que escribí en agosto mi tercer artículo sobre la revolución
energética que se ha producido en Estados Unidos en los últimos
cinco años, mucho ha cambiado. Específicamente, el precio del barril
de petróleo en el mercado mundial ha bajado dramáticamente un 27%
desde principios del verano hasta la fecha (hoy domingo 9 de
noviembre cerró en $78.65 el barril; a principios de junio estaba a
$115 el barril).
Esta
baja en el precio del petróleo ya ha traído cambios enormes en la
geopolítica mundial. En el futuro inmediato, todavía mucho más
cambiará si este nivel de precios, entre $78 y $85 por barril, como
todo parece indicar, se mantiene en el 2015. El petróleo a ese
precio representa una ganancia de un trillón de dólares
($1’000,000’000,000, es decir, un millón de millones en español)
para los consumidores en el mundo entero.
Esta
semana, cuando en la elección congresional de EEUU el Partido
Republicano ganó el control del Senado con un aumento de 8 senadores
(quizás 9 cuando se celebre una elección especial en Lousiana en
diciembre, donde el candidato republicano es favorito para ganar) se
produjo el otro gran evento reciente.
Los
cambios que el control del Congreso (Cámara de Representantes, donde
el Partido Republicano ganó 18 escaños adicionales, y Senado, en el
que en enero controlarán 53 ó 54 asientos frente a 46 ó 47) por los
republicanos, comenzando en enero del 2015, traerán a EEUU en el
campo energético serán sísmicos. El desarrollo de estos dos temas, y
como afectarán a EEUU y el resto del mundo en el próximo año, es el
tema de este cuarto artículo. Durante el nuevo año, según se
produzcan más acontecimientos, continuará esta serie de artículos.
Algunos analistas y expertos previeron la caída en el precio del
petróleo durante el verano, pero pocos pensaron que sería tan súbita
y tan grande. Sin embargo, al nivel presente, la producción de
petróleo en EEUU no será afectada significativamente.
La
nueva tecnología de fracking (fraccionamiento hidráulico)
para extraer petróleo de las formaciones rocosas de shale
(esquisto) es productiva por lo menos hasta un precio de $60 por
barril. Casi nadie prevé que los precios bajen a ese nivel, pero
aunque así fuera, los nuevos pozos de petróleo que utilizan la
tecnología de fracking son diferentes a los pozos
tradicionales. Cuando el precio del petróleo baja y hace estos pozos
económicamente improductivos, pueden ser clausurados y fácilmente
reabiertos cuando el precio sube de nuevo.
Además, algunas compañías como Whiting Petroleum, basada en Denver,
Colorado, y una de las dos grandes compañías que han desarrollado
los yacimientos del campo Bakken, en Dakota Norte, junto con
Continental Petroleum, tienen una estrategia interesante para
enfrentar precios mas bajos en el mercado, como los de ahora:
compran acciones futuras a precio más bajo, y cuando el precio baja,
lejos de perder, ganan dinero. De esa manera, se protegen y pueden
soportar precios más bajos.
Para
los consumidores americanos -y para el resto del mundo que no es
productor de petróleo- los nuevos precios más bajos han sido una
enorme bonanza económica. Cada consumidor americano ahorrará como
$700 por año con la gasolina a menos de $3.00 por galón, como está
ahora por primera vez en dos años.
Para
el resto del mundo significará grandes ahorros en la importación de
petróleo, presupuestos más bajos, y un nivel de inflación mucho
menor. China ahorra más de $2 billones (un billón en inglés son mil
millones) por cada dólar que baje el precio del barril de petróleo.
Para la India, estos nuevos precios significan un ahorro de más de
$40 billones.
Pero
para ciertos países gobernados por regímenes autoritarios y
dictatoriales, como Rusia, Irán y Venezuela, estos nuevos precios
son ruinosos. Para Arabia Saudita y los Emiratos del Golfo Pérsico
representa pérdidas multimillonarias de dólares en exportaciones,
pero Arabia Saudita en particular, con reservas de 737 billones de
dólares, puede fácilmente soportar este nivel de precios por largo
tiempo.
Rusia, Irán y Venezuela no pueden. Rusia basa su presupuesto en un
barril de petróleo a $100. Pero tiene reservas de 454 billones de
dólares. Sin embargo, las tremendas pérdidas en divisas a precios
alrededor de $80 significan que los proyectos expansionistas del
Presidente Vladimir Putin quedan paralizados. De la misma manera,
las mejoras necesarias en la infraestructura de Rusia, incluyendo en
la exploración y producción de los pozos petroleros de Siberia,
también tendrán que ser pospuestas.
Irán
basa su presupuesto en el petróleo a $136 por barril y tiene bajas
reservas por motivo de las restricciones comerciales provocadas por
las sanciones impuestas por EEUU y la Unión Europea, a pesar de
haberse relajado en meses pasados. Por otro lado, Irán produce y
exporta gas natural, y en China sobre todo tiene un cliente a largo
plazo. Pero los nuevos precios del petróleo han limitado mucho su
capacidad para hacer daño en el Medio Oriente y en su apoyo a grupos
terroristas, lo cual es una bendición para el resto del mundo.
Venezuela es el país que más y mayores riesgos enfrenta en el futuro
inmediato. Venezuela necesita el petróleo a $120 por barril. De
manera que desde principios del verano está sufriendo pérdidas
ruinosas en sus recaudaciones por la exportación de petróleo, las
cuales han caído a muy bajos niveles debidos al deterioro de su
infraestructura de producción.
Por
cada dólar que baja el precio de un barril, Venezuela pierde entre
450 y 500 millones de dólares en sus ganancias por la exportación de
petróleo, y sus entradas dependen en un extraordinario 90% de la
exportación de petróleo. Además, el año pasado Venezuela tuvo un
déficit fiscal del 17% de su Producto Interno Bruto (PIB). Con un
nivel de inflación del 60% anual (el mayor del mundo), reservas de
solo 20 billones de dólares y una deuda externa gigantesca, la cual
ya malamente puede pagar, el país está al borde de la quiebra.
Cuanto tiempo puede sobrevivir bajo estas condiciones es la gran
pregunta.
Claro que los problemas de Venezuela son mucho mayores debido a su
ayuda, a través de PetroCaribe, a países de la Cuenca del Caribe,
incluyendo, por supuesto, a Cuba. Todos estos países sufrirán muy
pronto las consecuencias de la ruina venezolana, pero ninguno como
Cuba.
El
gobierno de Cuba ya hace años viene previendo el momento cuando los
subsidios de Venezuela se reduzcan o terminen. Se ha asegurado de
otros suministradores como Angola, Irán, Brasil, Rusia y otros
exportadores de petróleo. Recibe ayuda económica de Rusia y de
China, y esta misma semana se reportó que tiene planeado producir
hasta un 24% de su energía de fuentes renovables para el año 2030.
Además, todavía aspira a desarrollar las reservas de petróleo en sus
aguas adyacentes.
Pero
para esto falta mucho tiempo, el tiempo que el régimen cubano no
tiene. Cuba probablemente nunca se verá en la situación que afrontó
a partir de 1991-92, cuando perdió los subsidios económicos y el
suministro de petróleo de la Unión Soviética, pero una reducción
inmediata en la ayuda de Venezuela puede afectar seriamente al
régimen en el futuro próximo.
Casi
tan importante, si no mucho más, que la caída en los precios
del
petróleo, ha sido -y será- el impacto de las elecciones
congresionales ganadas el pasado martes 4 de noviembre por el
Partido Republicano. El control del Senado por los
republicanos, y
por consiguiente del Congreso, ya que la mayoría en la
Cámara no
solo se mantuvo, sino que aumentó, logrará que en enero del
2015,
los grandes cambios previstos (y predichos en esta serie de
artículos desde hace casi tres años) en lo que puede ser un
renacimiento económico en Estados Unidos, se logren antes
que un
nuevo presidente sea electo en el 2016.
Ya
los líderes republicanos de ambas cámaras han anunciado lo que será
su programa de gobierno para el 2015. La primera ley que
probablemente aprobará el Congreso, quizás en el mismo enero, será
la construcción y apertura del viaducto Keystone XL, desde la
provincia occidental de Alberta, en el oeste de Canadá, al Golfo de
México. Este importante proyecto, paralizado innecesariamente por
razones estrictamente políticas por el Presidente, producirá por si
solo una tremenda bonanza económica para EEUU.
El
Presidente dijo durante la campaña presidencial del 2012 que este
proyecto solo crearía 50 empleos (lo que le ganó el premio de 4
“Pinochos” del Washington Post por una de las mentiras mas grandes
del año). En verdad, de acuerdo con varios estudios recientes,
creará al menos 45,000 empleos durante su construcción -y hasta
medio millón de nuevos empleos para el 2035.
Pero
no solo eso, sino que existen al menos 25 otros proyectos
relacionados con la construcción del viaducto Keystone XL en Canadá
y EEUU que pueden convertir a Norteamérica (incluyendo a México) en
un productor de 17.5 millones de barriles de petróleo diarios, casi
igual a la producción de Arabia Saudita y Rusia sumadas.
Otros dos proyectos de ley planeados por los republicanos en enero
del 2015 son casi tan importantes como el anterior. Uno es la
abrogación de la ley federal de 1975 que prohíbe la exportación de
petróleo americano. El otro es el relajamiento en las regulaciones
para construir plantas y terminales para la exportación de gas
natural licuado a Europa en la costa este, y a Japón y China desde
la costa oeste de EEUU.
Hay
más de 25 proyectos esperando por su aprobación, y estas
plantas/terminales demoran como dos años en construirse, de manera
que el tiempo apremia. Claro que estos tres proyectos de ley, de ser
aprobados por el Congreso en enero, pueden ser vetados por el
Presidente.
Pero
los tres proyectos cuentan con apoyo bipartidista (en el Senado
quizás cuente con 65 votos; se necesitan 66 para anular un veto
presidencial), y es muy posible que el Presidente, debilitado
políticamente como ha quedado, y con solo dos años restantes en su
segundo período, firme cada una de estas tres leyes. En estos
momentos solamente se puede imaginar el efecto positivo que esto
produciría en la industria privada en general, pero más que todo en
la industria energética en particular.
Solo
se puede imaginar el efecto que esto produciría en la industria
privada en general, pero en la industria energética en particular
será impactante. Los empresarios de negocios verían con optimismo un
nuevo clima en el cual la economía funcionaría con mas libertad,
menos regulaciones y menos interferencia del gobierno federal. Una
tasa de crecimiento mayor que el 3% anual sería fácil de visualizar.
Tres
otras medidas que pueden beneficiar mucho a la economía americana y
contribuir a un mayor crecimiento económico, son la apertura de la
gran reserva ANWR en el norte de Alaska (10 billones de barriles de
petróleo), la apertura en general a la exploración y perforación en
tierras federales del oeste de EEUU, donde se encuentran mas del 80%
del petróleo y gas natural en el país, y finalmente, la liberación
al mercado del petróleo contenido en la Reserva Estratégica de
Petróleo situada en varias cuevas en las costas del Golfo de México.
Esta
Reserva, una reliquia de los tiempos de Carter y Ford, cuando
primero la OPEP (Organización de Países Exportadores de Petróleo)
restringió la exportación de petróleo a EEUU después de la segunda
guerra entre Israel y Egipto, ya no es necesaria, debido a que EEUU
es el primer productor de petróleo en el mundo. Pero contiene 700
millones de barriles de petróleo, los cuales, si se liberan
lentamente, pueden ayudar a bajar todavía más el precio de la
gasolina en EEUU y aumentar la capacidad exportadora de petróleo
americano al resto del mundo.
Adicionalmente, la aprobación de otras dos leyes más generales se
contempla por el liderazgo congresional republicano. Una es rebajar
la tasa a los impuestos corporativos, que ahora están en un 39.1%,
los mas altos en el mundo desarrollado. En contraste, en la Unión
Europea promedian menos del 24%. El Presidente y los demócratas
públicamente apoyan una rebaja al 29%; los republicanos prefieren el
25%. Pero claramente hay apoyo bipartidista a la medida, y esto
sería quizás el mejor estímulo que pudiera recibir la economía.
La
otra ley propone invitar a los capitales de compañías
multinacionales americanas en el extranjero, que se calculan puedan
llegar a dos trillones de dólares (dos millones de millones en
español), para que sean repatriados sin pagar impuestos, solo con la
condición de que sean invertidos en EEUU para crear empleos.
Pero
el Presidente y su partido demócrata irracionalmente amenazan con
cobrar hasta un 50% de impuesto a las compañías que accedieran a
repatriar esos capitales, algo obviamente absurdo. Aquí no hay
ningún espacio para negociar, pero tres trillones de dólares
invertidos para crear empleos posiblemente producirían al menos tres
millones de nuevos trabajos. El impulso para la economía sería
incalculable.
Sin
embargo, estas dos últimas medidas, y hasta las tres anteriores
(excepto la aprobación del viaducto Keystone XL, la abrogación de la
ley que prohíbe exportar petróleo americano, y el relajamiento de
las restricciones para exportar gas natural, las que SÍ cuentan con
apoyo bipartidista) no serán fácilmente aprobadas por el Congreso, y
si lo fueran, indudablemente serían vetadas. De manera que todas
ellas son proyectos a largo plazo, casi seguro para después que una
nueva administración llegue a Washington en 2017.
Todo
esto, lo que hasta el pasado martes solo era una gran esperanza para
el 2017, cuando un nuevo presidente (o presidenta), sin importar de
que partido, tomara posesión del cargo, ahora puede ser realidad,
mucho antes de lo que nadie hubiera pensado.
El
mundo desde el nuevo año 2015 puede ser un mundo distinto, de mayor
prosperidad y de mayor cooperación internacional, en el cual Estados
Unidos otra vez se convierta en el motor de la economía mundial.
Ya
no es un sueño, ya no hay que esperar tres años más. Ya puede ser
realidad.
La actriz estadounidense Mia Farrow reconoció que la firma
estadounidense de relaciones públicas MCSquared PR, contratada por el
Gobierno de Rafael Correa, le pagó para que visitara el pozo petrolero
Aguarico 4 y defendiera a Ecuador en la contienda legal que mantiene con la petrolera estadounidense Chevron.
En febrero de 2011, una corte ecuatoriana ordenó a la petrolera el
pago de una sentencia de US$18 mil millones —luego reducida a US$9,5 mil
millones— en concepto de indemnización por la supuesta contaminación
derivada de la explotación de pozos petroleros en el país.
“Ellos pagaron mis honorarios por dar conferencias —lejos de esa suma. No hubiese ido si no creía en la causa”. (The Washington Free Beacon)
Farrow admitió haber recibido dinero de MCSQuared PR a través de un mensaje en la red social Twitter, que horas después fue eliminado.
Según la investigación publicada por The Washington Free Beacon, Farrow
cobró US$188.000 para viajar a Ecuador, visitar el pozo petrolero y
atacar a la empresa estadounidense. La actriz negó que se tratara de
esa cifra. El desembolso es parte de un contrato
que MCSquared PR celebró con el Gobierno ecuatoriano por US$6,4
millones, según consta en los registros del Departamento de Justicia
estadounidense.
La actriz no habría sido la única estrella de Hollywood en recibir un
pago. Entre los registros de la firma contratada por Ecuador figura un
desembolso de US$330.000 a American Program Bureau, la compañía que representa al actor Danny Glover, quien también visitó Ecuador en el marco de la campaña que lleva adelante el Gobierno de Correa contra Chevron.
“Chevron nunca ha operado en Ecuador. Texaco Petroleum (TexPet), que
se convirtió en una subsidiaria de Chevron en 2001, fue un socio
minoritario en el consorcio para la producción de petróleo en Ecuador
junto con la petrolera estatal Petroecuador, desde 1964 hasta 1992″, sostienen desde el sitio web de la petrolera.
En marzo de este año, una corte del Estado de Nueva York determinó que el proceso judicial en Ecuador fue resultado de fraude y crimen organizado, y consideró el fallo inejecutable.
ISIS NOW CONTROLS seven oil fields and two small refineries in
northern Iraq, bringing in as much as $2 million per day, as experts
warn that the oil flow will continue translating into terror funds for
militants if unchecked.
Petróleos de Venezuela, PDVSA, la estatal petrolera venezolana está
dispuesta a vender CITGO, su filial en Estados Unidos cuando tenga una
propuesta provechosa. Así lo informó su presidente, Rafael Ramírez.
"Nosotros en el momento que tengamos una propuesta que sea conveniente a nuestros intereses saldremos de CITGO", precisó.
Ramírez, también vicepresidente del área económica del gobierno de
Nicolás Maduro calculó el valor de la empresa refinadora de petróleo y
comercializadora de gasolina, en Estados Unidos en unos $10,000 millones
de dólares.
"Es un tema importante, pero no tenemos ninguna urgencia. La revisión
de nuestros activos internacionales siempre ha estado en nuestra
agenda".
Sin embargo, para Leonardo Buniak, economista y calificador de riesgo, la eventual venta de CITGO podría tener dos objetivos.
“Una de las razones podría estar orientada a protegerse de una
eventual resolución judicial que podría intentar embargos contra
Venezuela por las demandas que enfrenta en el CIADI” (Centro
Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones).
Venezuela se retiró del CIADI en enero de 2012, luego que en 2009 el
ex presidente Hugo Chávez decretó la nacionalización de los activos de
76 petroleras internacionales que operaban en la Faja Petrolífera del
Orinoco (en el oriente de Venezuela).
La otra razón, según Buniak, es que Venezuela en este momento tiene
una severa crisis de balanza de pago y liquidez monetaria
internacional.
“CITGO tiene una red importante de refinerías y un valor de mercado
asociado a su posicionamiento en el mercado de EE.UU., su venta estaría
vinculada a generar caja para financiar el problema de balanza de pago y
superar el problema de escasez de divisas que tiene Venezuela”, agregó.
“Protegerse de eventuales sanciones judiciales sería una acción de un estado forajido” concluyó.
¨Saturno jugando con sus hijos¨/ Pedro Pablo Oliva
Seguidores
Carta desde la carcel de Fidel Castro Ruz
“…después de todo, para mí la cárcel es un buen descanso, que sólo tiene de malo el que es obligatorio. Leo mucho y estudio mucho. Parece increíble, las horas pasan como si fuesen minutos y yo, que soy de temperamento intranquilo, me paso el día leyendo, apenas sin moverme para nada. La correspondencia llega normalmente…”
“…Como soy cocinero, de vez en cuando me entretengo preparando algún pisto. Hace poco me mandó mi hermana desde Oriente un pequeño jamón y preparé un bisté con jalea de guayaba. También preparo spaghettis de vez en cuando, de distintas formas, inventadas todas por mí; o bien tortilla de queso. ¡Ah! ¡Qué bien me quedan! por supuesto, que el repertorio no se queda ahí. Cuelo también café que me queda muy sabroso”. “…En cuanto a fumar, en estos días pasados he estado rico: una caja de tabacos H. Upman del doctor Miró Cardona, dos cajas muy buenas de mi hermano Ramón….”. “Me voy a cenar: spaghettis con calamares, bombones italianos de postre, café acabadito de colar y después un H. Upman #4. ¿No me envidias?”. “…Me cuidan, me cuidan un poquito entre todos. No le hacen caso a uno, siempre estoy peleando para que no me manden nada. Cuando cojo el sol por la mañana en shorts y siento el aire de mar, me parece que estoy en una playa… ¡Me van a hacer creer que estoy de vacaciones! ¿Qué diría Carlos Marx de semejantes revolucionarios?”.
Quotes
¨La patria es dicha de todos, y dolor de todos, y cielo para todos, y no feudo ni capellanía de nadie¨ - Marti
"No temas ni a la prision, ni a la pobreza, ni a la muerte. Teme al miedo" - Giacomo Leopardi
¨Por eso es muy importante, Vicky, hijo mío, que recuerdes siempre para qué sirve la cabeza: para atravesar paredes¨– Halvar de Flake[El vikingo]
"Como no me he preocupado de nacer, no me preocupo de morir"- Lorca
"Al final, no os preguntarán qué habéis sabido, sino qué habéis hecho" - Jean de Gerson
"Si queremos que todo siga como está, es necesario que todo cambie" - Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa
"Todo hombre paga su grandeza con muchas pequeñeces, su victoria con muchas derrotas, su riqueza con múltiples quiebras" - Giovanni Papini
"Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans" - John Lennon
"Habla bajo, lleva siempre un gran palo y llegarás lejos" - Proverbio Africano
"No hay medicina para el miedo"-Proverbio escoces "El supremo arte de la guerra es doblegar al enemigo sin luchar" -Sun Tzu
"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother" - Albert Einstein
"It is inaccurate to say I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office" - H. L. Menken
"I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented" -Elie Wiesel
"Stay hungry, stay foolish" - Steve Jobs
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert , in five years ther'ed be a shortage of sand" - Milton Friedman
"The tragedy of modern man is not that he knows less and less about the meaning of his own life, but that it bothers him less and less" - Vaclav Havel
"No se puede controlar el resultado, pero si lo que uno haga para alcanzarlo" - Vitor Belfort [MMA Fighter]
Liborio
A la puerta de la gloria está San Pedro sentado y ve llegar a su lado a un hombre de cierta historia. No consigue hacer memoria y le pregunta con celo: ¿Quién eras allá en el suelo? Era Liborio mi nombre. Has sufrido mucho, hombre, entra, te has ganado el cielo.
Para Raul Castro
Cuba ocupa el penultimo lugar en el mundo en libertad economica solo superada por Corea del Norte.
Cuba ocupa el lugar 147 entre 153 paises evaluados en "Democracia, Mercado y Transparencia 2007"
Cuando vinieron a buscar a los comunistas, Callé: yo no soy comunista. Cuando vinieron a buscar a los sindicalistas, Callé: yo no soy sindicalista. Cuando vinieron a buscar a los judíos, Callé: yo no soy judío. Cuando vinieron a buscar a los católicos, Callé: yo no soy “tan católico”. Cuando vinieron a buscarme a mí, Callé: no había quien me escuchara.
Un sitio donde los hechos y sus huellas nos conmueven o cautivan
CUBA LLORA Y EL MUNDO Y NOSOTROS NO ESCUCHAMOS
Donde esta el Mundo, donde los Democratas, donde los Liberales? El pueblo de Cuba llora y nadie escucha. Donde estan los Green, los Socialdemocratas, los Ricos y los Pobres, los Con Voz y Sin Voz? Cuba llora y nadie escucha. Donde estan el Jet Set, los Reyes y Principes, Patricios y Plebeyos? Cuba desesperada clama por solidaridad. Donde Bob Dylan, donde Martin Luther King, donde Hollywood y sus estrellas? Donde la Middle Class democrata y conservadora, o acaso tambien liberal a ratos? Y Gandhi? Y el Dios de Todos? Donde los Santos y Virgenes; los Dioses de Cristianos, Protestantes, Musulmanes, Budistas, Testigos de Jehova y Adventistas del Septimo Dia. Donde estan Ochun y todas las deidades del Panteon Yoruba que no acuden a nuestro llanto? Donde Juan Pablo II que no exige mas que Cuba se abra al Mundo y que el Mundo se abra a Cuba? Que hacen ahora mismo Alberto de Monaco y el Principe Felipe que no los escuchamos? Donde Madonna, donde Angelina Jolie y sus adoptados around de world; o nos hara falta un Brando erguido en un Oscar por Cuba? Donde Sean Penn? Donde esta la Aristocracia Obrera y los Obreros menos Aristocraticos, donde los Working Class que no estan junto a un pueblo que lanquidece, sufre y llora por la ignominia? Que hacen ahora mismo Zapatero y Rajoy que no los escuchamos, y Harper y Dion, e Hillary y Obama; donde McCain que no los escuchamos? Y los muertos? Y los que estan muriendo? Y los que van a morir? Y los que se lanzan desesperados al mar? Donde estan el minero cantabrico o el pescador de percebes gijonese? Los Canarios donde estan? A los africanos no los oimos, y a los australianos con su acento de hombres duros tampoco. Y aquellos chinos milenarios de Canton que fundaron raices eternas en la Isla? Y que de la Queen Elizabeth y los Lords y Gentlemen? Que hace ahora mismo el combativo Principe Harry que no lo escuchamos? Donde los Rockefellers? Donde los Duponts? Donde Kate Moss? Donde el Presidente de la ONU? Y Solana donde esta? Y los Generales y Doctores? Y los Lam y los Fabelo, y los Sivio y los Fito Paez? Y que de Canseco y Miñoso? Y de los veteranos de Bahia de Cochinos y de los balseros y de los recien llegados? Y Carlos Otero y Susana Perez? Y el Bola, y Pancho Cespedes? Y YO y TU? Y todos nosotros que estamos aqui y alla rumiando frustaciones y resquemores, envidias y sinsabores; autoelogios y nostalgias, en tanto Louis Michel comulga con Perez Roque mientras Biscet y una NACION lanquidecen? Donde Maceo, donde Marti; donde aquel Villena con su carga para matar bribones? Cuba llora y clama y el Mundo NO ESCUCHA!!!