Brazil to grant tax incentives for World Cup venue construction
10:15, May 18, 2010
Brazilian Finance Minister Guido Mantega said on Monday that the government will grant tax concessions for the construction and renovation of stadiums that will stage the 2014 World Cup matches.
In an official statement, the ministry said that the 12 host cities - Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Belo Horizonte, Porto Alegre, Curitiba, Brasilia and Cuiaba.
Concederá Brasil beneficios fiscales para construir estadios de Mundial 2014
Actualizado a las 2010:05:18.11:15
El ministro de Hacienda de Brasil,Guido Mantega, informó este lunes que el gobierno concederá beneficios fiscales para la construcción y reforma de estadios que van a recibir partidos de la Copa del Mundo de Fútbol 2014.
En un comunicado oficial, el ministerio señaló que las 12 ciudades sede -Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Belo Horizonte, Porto Alegre,Curitiba, Brasília, Cuiabá, Manaus, Fortaleza, Salvador, Recife y Natal- podrán tener exenciones impositivas para todas las mercaderías y bienes destinados a la construcción, ampliación, reforma o modernización de estadios.
El gobierno está preocupado con el atraso en las obras de infraestructura para el torneo, especialmente en la reforma de estadios, e incluso amenazó con reducir el número de ciudades sede.
La Federación Internacional de Fútbol Asociado (FIFA) comunicó a las autoridades brasileñas su insatisfacción por el atraso de las obras, aunque descartó que pueda estar en riesgo la realización del evento en el país sudamericano.
Representantes de la entidad terminan esta semana una inspección técnica a los estadios, además de revisar el cronograma de obras en las 12 ciudades elegidas. (Xinhua)
18/05/2010
Gobierno brasileño anunció beneficios fiscales para sedes de Mundial-2014
Colombia | Lunes, 17 de Mayo de 2010, 17:28hs | Fuente: AFP
El gobierno de Brasil anunció el lunes que concederá beneficios fiscales a las obras de reformas y construcción de estadios en 12 ciudades de cara al Mundial de fútbol de 2014 que organizará el país sudamericano, informó el lunes el Ministerio de Economía.
"El ministro de Economía, Guido Mantega, decidió conceder beneficios fiscales para la construcción y reforma de los estadios que van a recibir los juegos de la Copa del Mundo 2014", indicó en una nota esa secretaría.
Según se informó, las 12 ciudades que acogerán la Copa "podrán conceder exoneración" del Impuesto sobre Operaciones relativas a Circulación de Mercaderías y Servicios (ICMS) que se cobra en cada estado, en beneficio de operaciones de bienes y servicios destinados a las obras.
También se va a exonerar a las sedes del Impuesto sobre Productos Industrializados (IPI, federal) para produtos extranjeros y nacionales y del Impuesto de Importación.
Las 12 ciudades que acogerán la Copa son Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Belo Horizonte (sudeste), Porto Alegre, Curitiba (sur), Brasilia (centro), Cuiabá (centro-oeste), Manaus (norte), Fortaleza, Salvador, Recife y Natal (noreste).
En abril el gobierno de Brasil había cerrado un acuerdo con la Federación Internacional de Fútbol (FIFA) para exonerar del pago de impuestos sobre servicios y operaciones destinadas a organizar el Mundial-2014.
"El camino de exonerar a FIFA de impuestos se da a partir de la evaluación que Brasil va a ganar mucho más con el calentamiento de la economía que será en función de la realización del Mundial", dijo entonces el ministro de Deportes brasileño, Orlando Silva.
A través del mismo se exonera también a las empresas contratadas por la FIFA para tareas vinculadas al Mundial, al Comité Organizador local y a la cadena de televisión que transmita la competencia.
Una vez aprobado por el Congreso, entraría en vigor entre el 1º de enero de 2011 y el 31 de diciembre de 2015, se indicó.
llu/jb
U.S. Is Skeptical on Iranian Deal for Nuclear Fuel
By DAVID E. SANGER and MICHAEL SLACKMAN | Published: May 17, 2010
WASHINGTON — The United States, Europe and Russia responded with extreme skepticism to Iran's announcement on Monday that it had reached an agreement to ship roughly half of its nuclear fuel to Turkey, saying they would continue to press for new sanctions against Tehran.
Nonetheless, officials from several countries said that the deal, negotiated with the leaders of Turkey and Brazil, was a deftly timed attempt to throw the sanctions effort off track.
The terms were similar to those of an accord made with the West last October that fell apart when Iran backtracked. Since then, Iran has added considerably to its stockpile of low-enriched uranium, meaning that it would keep on Iranian territory about half of its current supply — or about enough fuel for one nuclear weapon if it chose to make one. The earlier deal was attractive to Washington because it would have deprived Tehran of enough known fuel to make a weapon, leaving breathing space for negotiations.
Rejecting the new deal, however, could make President Obama appear to be blocking a potential compromise. And the deal shows how Brazil and Turkey, which for their own economic interests oppose sanctions, may derail a fragile international consensus to increase pressure on Iran.
The sanctions are aimed primarily at an issue that the deal does not address: Iran's refusal to halt further enrichment, as the United Nations Security Council has demanded for four years, or to answer international inspectors' questions about evidence suggesting research into possible weapons designs and related experiments. The inspectors have also been blocked from visiting many suspect facilities and laboratories, and from interviewing key scientists and engineers.
The deal agreed to Monday in Tehran calls for Iran to ship 2,640 pounds of low-enriched uranium to Turkey, where it would be stored for one year. In exchange, Iran would have the right to receive about 265 pounds of uranium enriched to 20 percent by other countries for use in a reactor that makes isotopes for treating Iranian cancer patients.
But the White House noted that even while striking the deal, Iran insisted on Monday that it would continue its new effort to enrich fuel at a higher level, taking it closer to bomb-grade material. "While it would be a positive step for Iran to transfer low-enriched uranium off of its soil as it agreed to do last October, Iran said today that it would continue its 20 percent enrichment, which is a direct violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions," Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said in a statement.
Mr. Gibbs made clear that the administration would continue to press forward with sanctions until, as he said, Iran demonstrates "through deeds — and not simply words — its willingness to live up to international obligations or face consequences, including sanctions."
A senior administration official who has been deeply involved in the Iran standoff said the agreement announced Monday "is not a solution for the core of the Iranian enrichment program."
Sergei B. Ivanov, the deputy prime minister of Russia, was similarly skeptical at a lunchtime speech in Washington. He said he expected the sanctions resolution to "be voted in the near future," and said that the new Iranian accord should not be "closely linked" to the sanctions effort. "Iran should absolutely open up" to inspectors, he said. That statement was significant because Russia had been reluctant to join sanctions several months ago. China, which has also been hesitant, issued no statement.
White House officials were clearly angered at the leaders of Turkey and Brazil, whom Mr. Obama had met personally in Washington during last month's Nuclear Security Summit to urge them to be careful not to give the Iranians a pretext to avoid complying with United Nations demands. Mr. Obama followed up those meetings with detailed letters in the last week of April outlining specific concerns, a senior administration official said. But those letters appeared to have limited influence on the outcome.
Turkey's ambassador to the United States, Namik Tan, described the agreement as a "confidence-building measure," and said he was disappointed in the Obama administration's reaction. "I would have expected a more encouraging statement," he said.
"We don't believe in sanctions, and I don't believe anybody can challenge us, and certainly not the United States," Mr. Tan said. "They don't work."
Iranian officials applauded the deal as a breakthrough, with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying at a news conference in Tehran that the agreement would be "to the benefit of all nations who want to live freely and independently."
Iranian officials said they would send a letter confirming the deal to the International Atomic Energy Agency of the United Nations within a week.
"This shows that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, but rather peaceful nuclear technology," said Ramin Mehmanparast, the Foreign Ministry spokesman, in a televised news conference. "Such interactions must replace a confrontational approach."
Diplomats in Vienna said the atomic agency had not been formally notified about the deal, but added that Tehran's agreement to a swap outside its own territory was potentially significant.
Yet many analysts suggested that the deal was meant to transfer blame for the conflict to the West, while derailing sanctions that had appeared possible within weeks.
"Iran has a history of forging a deal and then going back on it," said Emad Gad, an expert in international relations at the Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. "It lets the situation get really tense and then reaches an agreement."
There appear to be reasons to be skeptical. In Tehran, the Foreign Ministry spokesman told a person attending the news conference that Iran would not, for example, suspend its program to enrich uranium to 20 percent — closer to weapons grade.
Iran has said that its nuclear program is peaceful, while the West has charged that it is aimed at building weapons.
As international pressure for new sanctions grows, Iran is preparing for the June 12 anniversary of last year's disputed presidential election, which led to months of protests and conflict.
The earlier agreement fell apart under political pressure in Iran when nearly every political faction criticized it as compromising Iran's right to nuclear energy. Then and now, Iran's negotiating team argued that the deal was in the nation's interest because it effectively confirmed Iran's right to enrich uranium.
If successful, the agreement would enhance and underscore the continued rise of Turkey and Brazil as global forces. Ferai Tinc, a political analyst writing in the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet, said, "Ankara was neither a full supporter of Iran nor an advocate of violence and sanctions against it, but stood strongly for promoting a diplomatic resolution."
David E. Sanger reported from Washington, and Michael Slackman from Cairo.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: May 17, 2010
Earlier versions of this article misidentified the newspaper running an article by the Turkish analyst Ferai Tinc. The newspaper should be Hurriyet, not Millyet.
Tehran promises exit from labyrinth
Published: May 17 2010 20:02 | Last updated: May 17 2010 20:02
Iran's offer to deposit enriched uranium in Turkey, brokered by that country and Brazil, may just prove to be a way out of the labyrinth of dead ends that is the nuclear negotiating game with Tehran.
In a joint declaration by the three countries' foreign ministers, Iran proposes to transfer 1,200kg of low-enriched uranium to Turkish territory within a month, subject to monitoring by itself and the International Atomic Energy Agency. In return it expects to receive 120kg of higher-enriched uranium from global powers, which it needs for medical isotopes, in no more than a year's time.
This bears more than passing resemblance to a deal supposedly agreed last year, which quickly fell apart. Under those terms, Iran would have sent LEU to Russia in return for medical isotopes from France. But there are three reasons why the new plan has a greater chance of sticking.
First, it overcomes the snags of the earlier deal's roundabout uranium transfer and guarantees the return of Iran's LEU unless the nuclear powers make good on their side of the bargain. Second, an offer in writing – with new concessions such as depositing LEU in a single batch and forgoing a simultaneous barter on Iranian soil – suggests that Tehran's fractious politics are combining with renewed efforts by the west at sanctions on Iran to make its leaders see the need for a deal.
Most important is the role played by Turkey and to a lesser degree Brazil. Both are currently sitting on the UN Security Council, where they have resisted the nonetheless rising pressure for sanctions. It is in these emerging powers' interest to show they have an alternative. Both are positioning themselves as independent players bridging the mistrust between the west and the Muslim world (in Ankara's case) and the developing world generally (in Brasília's).
For Iran it is clearly easier both to trust and to save face by dealing with Turkey – a Muslim country with an outspoken (though moderately) Islamic government. While no one will be surprised if the mercurial mullahs again throw a tantrum and pull back from a seemingly more co-operative stance, the offer must be given serious consideration. If Iran means business, it is the best chance to forestall a military conflict with Israel that would spell disaster for the region and the world.
What is certain is that this development gives Turkey and Brazil a bigger stake in securing a peaceful outcome – and Iran a reason not to make them look like dupes. That is undeniably a positive change.
Brazil's Iranian mission defies critics, brings possible results
May 17, 2010 3:50pm | by Jonathan Wheatley
Brazil has come in for some tough criticism of its "friends with everyone" foreign policy, including the FT, which recently had a go under the headline "Brazil's cuddly ways are barrier to seat at the top table."
But the weekend's news of a deal to swap Iranian nuclear fuel in Turkey could vindicate Brazilian diplomacy. The idea that Iran would abandon its alleged nuclear weapons programme in favour of a peaceful nuclear energy programme in response to amicable talks rather than under the threat of UN-backed sanctions seemed unrealistic, even naïve. But it may well have paid off. Even a US official conceded today that the latest news was "potentially a good development."
If so, Celso Amorim, Brazil's foreign minister, can be forgiven some self-satisfaction. "We are holding conversations in a respectful manner and with conviction . . . Our language is not that of pressure. Our language is that of persuasion, friendship and cooperation," he told reporters in Tehran on Monday.
It is not the first time Mr Amorim has made thinly disguised criticism of the US position on Iran. During a visit to Brazil by Hillary Clinton, the American secretary of state, in March, he drew parallels between the US's failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and its assertions over an Iranian nuclear weapons programme.
Whatever Brazil may achieve, Iran is clearly grateful. Over the weekend it released Clotilde Reiss, a French teacher imprisoned for taking part in anti-government protests in June 2009 and sending photographs of the events to the French embassy. Her release, recognised by all concerned as the fruit of Brazilian diplomacy, was described by Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, Iran's president, as "a present to Brazil".
As the FT's David Gardner noted earlier on beyondbrics, it could all dissolve into yet another false diplomatic dawn. But Brazil's initiative might also help avert war with Iran. It has certainly been worth trying.
Iran creates illusion of progress in nuclear negotiations
In the long-running diplomatic battle between Iran and the West, Iran appears to have scored a victory on Monday.
By Glenn Kessler | Washington Post Staff Writer | Monday, May 17, 2010; 2:54 PM
By striking a deal to ship some of its low-enriched uranium abroad, Iran has created the illusion of progress in nuclear negotiations with the West, without offering any real compromise to the United States and its allies, who have demanded substantive negotiations on Tehran's broader program.
Nearly eight months ago, the United States, France and Russia proposed a swap of nuclear fuel -- to support Iran's research reactor -- as a confidence-building measure that would have, in effect, paused the Iranian program and allowed for international talks to proceed. Now, however, in reaching a similar agreement with Turkey and Brazil, Iran has succeeded in narrowing the discussion. What was supposed to be a sideshow has become the main event.
As initially laid out, the swap proposal would have removed about 70 percent of Iran's stockpile of low-enriched uranium for conversion into fuel for a nuclear reactor. But because Iran has continued to enrich uranium since the plan was first raised, a deal based on the same terms would remove only about 50 percent of the country's stockpile.
In the meantime, Iran has started enriching uranium to an even higher level -- from 3.5 percent to 19.75 percent -- and Iranian officials said they will keep doing so, even though the need for that enrichment has now been negated by the swap deal announced Monday.
The Obama administration now faces the uncomfortable prospect of rejecting a proposal it offered in the first place -- or seeing months of effort to enact new sanctions derailed.
Ironically, the swap proposal has nothing to do with the sanctions under consideration by the U.N. Security Council, which relate to Iran building another nuclear facility in secret and failing to heed previous demands to stop enriching uranium.
And the brief text of the deal makes only glancing reference to the possibility of talks with the countries that had previously led the negotiations -- the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China -- citing "the common concerns based on collective commitments according to the common points of their proposals."
Significantly, the text does not mention whether Iran's nuclear program would be on the table in future talks. Tehran, which insists the program is solely for energy purposes, has repeatedly said it is not up for discussion, and the Brazilian-Turkish deal reaffirmed Iran's right to enrich uranium and even offered the prospect of cooperation "on nuclear power plant and research reactors construction."
The text gives Iran the right to terminate the deal at any point. It also says the new fuel must be delivered within a year, which might be a technical impossibility.
U.S. officials were highly skeptical of the Brazilian and Turkish efforts in the first place -- Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had tough conversations last week with her counterparts -- but because they currently hold rotating seats on the Security Council, the Brazilians and Turkish have clout. In Tehran, Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim declared that the deal "takes away any grounds for sanctions," suggesting it will take significant efforts to convince either country otherwise.
Brazil and Turkey, which were represented by their presidents in the talks, invested significant diplomatic cachet in the negotiations. It is rare for non-permanent members of the Security Council to intervene in a process led by nuclear powers, and in many ways the result could be seen as a revolt by smaller powers over the rights to nuclear power and prestige.
More importantly, the deal gives China -- a veto-holding member of the Security Council long reluctant to support new sanctions -- an excuse to delay or water down any new resolution.
The best hope for U.S. officials is Iranian intransigence. The Iranians could haggle over the details and implementation of the agreement until it collapses, much as Tehran first agreed to a swap deal with the United States and its allies before backing away.
Iran now must present a letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna explaining the details of the transaction, which U.S. officials privately hope will begin the process of unraveling it.
E.U. faces tough questions as euro continues to slide
By Anthony Faiola | Washington Post Foreign Service | Tuesday, May 18, 2010
LONDON -- The once-mighty euro, which briefly plunged to a four-year low against the dollar on Monday, may be doomed to keep falling whether or not European leaders can contain the region's roiling debt crisis.
The euro clawed back from a deep spiral in Asian trading Monday, closing down 0.2 percent at 1.239 against the dollar. But after its slide of almost 4 percent against the greenback over the past week, analysts say the euro's continued fall over the coming months may be inevitable given the economic turmoil gripping the region.
Assuming there is no full-blown run, the decline may not be all that bad for Europe -- a weaker currency, after all, would make German BMWs and Spanish wines cheaper overseas, heightening demand. By the same token, a surging dollar would make U.S. products less competitive.
For Europe, the real danger is yet to come. If the euro's fall accelerates, investors could begin to question the viability of what was considered the world's most ambitious monetary experiment when it was introduced 11 years ago. There could even be pressure to eject members of the 16-country eurozone if they cannot get their finances in order, although there is currently no mechanism to do so.
"There are still no guarantees the euro can pull through intact from this crisis," said Jane Foley, research director at Forex.com in London. "No matter how this goes, the euro is likely to suffer looking ahead."
The euro's fall was prompted by fears that the problems currently faced by Greece, with its mounting debt, will spread to other nations in the region, including Spain and Portugal. To ease those fears and prop up the euro, the European Union last week created a $1 trillion fund to help governments cope with their massive budget shortfalls and avoid defaults on obligations to investors. In addition, the European Central Bank agreed to buy up the debt of nations in crisis; it said Monday that it had already scooped up $20 billion worth of debt since last week.
Still, the rescue plan is contingent on Greece and other nations slashing government spending. Doing so might help them close their budget gaps, but it will probably slow economic growth and increase unemployment.
With Europe already expected to see only minimal growth this year, some analysts fear that new cuts could push the region back into recession, triggering a continued fall in the euro.
Conversely, if nations in crisis fail to make painful cuts -- giving into public pressure and labor unions -- the euro's fall could be even worse. Nations including Greece would likely be forced into defaulting with investors, pounding the already troubled banks and pension funds, particularly in Germany and France, that hold much of their debt. The fallout could spark another banking crisis like the one seen after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in late 2008, but this time centered in Europe.
"The euro is caught between a rock and a hard place at the moment, and it is hard to see how it can extract itself from this uncomfortable position in the near term at least," said Howard Archer, chief European economist for IHS Global Insight in London.
A currency's value is a reflection of the strength and credibility of the country -- or, in the euro's case, countries -- that use it. One of the currency's biggest problems remains the vast imbalances within the eurozone, which includes economic powerhouses like Germany and minnows like Greece.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Sunday conceded that the $1 trillion fund had only bought the region time to harmonize those differences, particularly when it comes to government deficits. Germany is pressing its neighbors to adopt balanced budget laws similar to one, passed last year, that set a firm cap on its national deficit.
Yet narrowing transnational differences won't be easy, in part because there is broad dispute over the E.U.'s ability to implement fiscal limits. Last week, after the E.U. executive body suggested that governments submit their national budgets for review -- before handing them over to their own legislatures -- several leading French political figures immediately protested that such a procedure would be unconstitutional. Politicians from other European countries voiced similar complaints, in effect killing the suggestion before it got off the ground.
There is a silver lining to the euro's decline. One of the biggest problems for countries such as Greece and Spain is the relative strength of the euro compared with their now-defunct national currencies -- a gap that has made their exports far less competitive. As the euro drops in value, particularly against the dollar and the Japanese yen, Greek cheeses and Spanish olive oils are becoming more cost-competitive exports.
"I think the bigger story is that the euro hasn't fallen more than it has given the kind of pressure it has come under," said Jakob von Weizsäcker, a fellow at Bruegel, a Brussels-based economic think tank. "This drop could actually help with the adjustment process that Europe needs to go through, and make the region healthier in the long run."
Correspondent Edward Cody in Paris contributed to this report.
UPDATE: Brazil Economy Prepared For Euro-Zone Contagion -Central Bank Chief
MAY 17, 2010, 1:00 P.M. ET
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--The Brazilian economy is "well prepared" to handle a spillover effect from Europe, though it is too early to assess what kinds of challenges the country could face, Central Bank Governor Henrique Meirelles said Monday.
The worst case scenario, "as has happened before, but which we think is unlikely, could be problems with international channels of credit...and flow of funds," Meirelles said, speaking to reporters in New York.
He said he expects Brazil to be shielded due to "robust growth, led by domestic consumption which is anchored on job creation." He also said reserve levels are high and should help the economy withstand foreign shock. The central bank's foreign reserves are now around $250 billion.
Market participants around the world continue to question long-term fiscal and economic outlooks for several heavily indebted euro-zone members even after the passing of a nearly $1 trillion rescue package.
"We are prepared to face the crisis, if it happens," Meirelles said, adding that country is even better prepared than they were in 2008 when the decline of Lehman Brothers sent the global financial system on a downward spiral.
Economists at Brazil's largest private bank last week raised their growth expectation for the country to 7.5% from their previous forecast of 6.5%.
Higher growth forecasts have heightened concerns of Brazil's economy overheating and inflation becoming problematic.
But Meirelles downplayed fears of inflation getting out of control, saying that 2011 inflation targets have remained stable.
In addition, he said many analysts' expectations for Brazil's economic growth fail to factor in potential knock-on effect from European sovereign debt woes.
As part of the country's moves to maintain growth levels, monetary policy makers in April raised the key reference lending rate 75 basis points to 9.5%, their first rate hike in 20 months.
Just last week, Finance Minister Guido Mantega announced public sector spending cuts of 10 billion reals ($5.65 billion).
"The fiscal measures are very welcome," for keeping inflation at bay, Meirelles said.
The central bank will be publishing a new outlook on inflation next month, which will give a better indication of how tightening measures have worked.
Iran's Nuclear Coup
Ahmadinejad and Lula expose Obama's hapless diplomacy.
What a fiasco. That's the first word that comes to mind watching Mahmoud Ahmadinejad raise his arms yesterday with the leaders of Turkey and Brazil to celebrate a new atomic pact that instantly made irrelevant 16 months of President Obama's "diplomacy." The deal is a political coup for Tehran and possibly delivers the coup de grace to the West's half-hearted efforts to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb.
The Iranian nuclear "deal" announced on May 17 is an exceedingly odd one: It includes only one of the parties to the underlying dispute. The United States and its European partners are now in an uncomfortable jam.
The fuel-swap deal agreed to (Guardian) last October--before Iran scuttled it (AFP)--was never intended to solve the nuclear problem brought on by Iran's insistence on developing a uranium enrichment program (which gives it the option of building a nuclear arsenal). The goal was to jumpstart diplomatic negotiations while building mutual confidence. This new plan may do the former (though neither Iran nor anyone else has promised to return to the table), but it will not do the latter.
Iran says that it will continue to enrich uranium to 20 percent, in flagrant violation of UN Security Council demands, helping strengthen its ability to covertly produce highly enriched uranium. And the way the "deal" has been announced--it is designed to squeeze the United States by making it look like the bad guy if it says no--certainly will not build any confidence.
The announcement, made by Brazil and Turkey, obviously complicates (Politico) efforts to impose a new round of sanctions on Iran. It also signals problems for the ongoing NPT Review Conference. The United States and its allies would (reasonably) like an agreement that states in violation of the NPT be barred from trade in sensitive technologies. But the announcement affirms a "right of all State Parties, including the Islamic Republic of Iran, to develop research, production, and use of nuclear energy (as well as nuclear fuel cycle including enrichment activities) for peaceful purposes without discrimination." This augurs poorly for Brazilian cooperation on any enrichment constraints.
The right choice for the United States may ultimately involve welcoming the announced fuel swap. But the political difference between this and the deal that was struck last October is stark. No one should breathe easier about the Iranian program as a result.
Why Brazil is a Broker with Iran
May 17, 2010
Iran on May 17 signed an agreement brokered by Brazil and Turkey to ship low-enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for nuclear fuel for its medical research reactor. It is not clear whether the agreement will frustrate a U.S.-sponsored new round of sanctions by the UN Security Council. Nor is it clear that the Iranians will be reliable partners when it comes to implementation. To many in Washington, Brazil has been "naïve," playing the role of Iran's "useful idiot." Others see Brazil's move as more perniciously anti-American, the combination of rooted nationalism and an upcoming presidential race.
However the latest chapter of this crisis unfolds, it is important to understand Brazil's new diplomatic assertiveness. In the past few years, Brazil opened more than thirty new embassies in Africa, and the government of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva launched a Middle East policy that includes growing trade and political consultations with Iran, the Arab world, and Israel. The dominant perception in Brasilia today is that problems diplomats could afford to ignore only a few years ago now require a response. As is normally the case with rising powers, Brazil is now redefining its own national interests in ever-expanding terms.
Brazil, currently a nonpermanent member of the Security Council, has insisted that UN sanctions against Iran will be both ineffective and counterproductive. It shares the view held by a number of developing-world nations that the Nonproliferation Treaty has become a tool for the strong to lay down the law on the weak at their own discretion. Nuclear Israel and India will not be punished for sitting outside the regime, and may even be rewarded, say these countries, but Iran will be denied its rights under the NPT to enrich uranium to fuel a medical research reactor. No wonder, the argument goes, countries will have an incentive to abandon a regime that is in need of deep repair. Here Brazil believes it has the moral authority to speak up because it is the only non-nuclear member of the BRIC group (the major emerging-nations group that includes Russia, India, and China) and because it has willingly relinquished any ambitions to acquire a nuclear weapon.
This policy trend is unlikely to change no matter who succeeds Lula in the October presidential elections. There might be a partial pullback from current diplomatic exposure in places like Africa or the Middle East, and even a change in rhetoric. But the quest for upward mobility will remain in place, and so will the fundamental belief that the winds are blowing to Brazil's favor. As U.S. Ambassador to Brasilia Tom Shannon recently put it (FT), "As Brazil becomes more assertive globally and begins to assert its influence, we are going to bump into Brazil on new issues and in new places." This is because in the Brazilian view, existing models of governance have failed to produce a fair and stable international system.
The revenge of the middle powers
Brazil and Turkey's announcement of a nuclear fuel deal with Iran has done more than complicate U.S. plans for a U.N. sanctions resolution. It also threatens, or promises, to upend the political order that has held sway in the Security Council for decades -- one in which the five permanent members of the U.N.'s most powerful body make all the critical decisions on key security matters.
Not since the run-up to the Iraq war have the council's middle and small powers sought to foil the ambitions of the big five. Despite intense pressure from the United States, Mexican ambassador Adolfo Aguilar Zinser and Chile's envoy Juan Gabriel Valdés refused to back the U.S. drive to war. They were both driven from their jobs (Zinser after ripping the U.S. for cultivating "a relationship of convenience and subordination"), and the United States invaded anyways.
In announcing today's deal, Brazil's Foreign Minister Celso Amorim and his Turkish counterpart Ahmet Davutoglu made it clear that they were rejecting the Obama administration's case for sanctions and asserted Iran is entitled to its rights, under the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to enrich uranium and develop its own capacity to produce nuclear fuel for peaceful nuclear power. Today's pact makes no mention of the three U.N. Security council resolutions demanding that Tehran cease its enrichment of uranium until it can persuade the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that it is being used solely for peaceful purposes. "This plan is a route for dialogue and takes away any grounds for sanctions," Amorim told reporters in Tehran.
The move reflects deeper reservations among many key middle powers -- including countries like Egypt, Indonesia, and South Africa -- that the big five powers are preparing to use this month's ongoing NPT review conference in New York to impose greater restraints on the rights of developing countries to develop nuclear fuel programs in the name of preventing proliferation. They fear that any effort to restrict Iran's right to develop its own fuel might be used against them in the future.
Addressing the General Assembly last month, Egypt's U.N. ambassador, Maged Abdelaziz, who chairs the 118 nation Non-Aligned Movement, said it is crucial to "preserve the right of non-nuclear powers to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and not to allow a fuel bank or any kind of supply arrangement that is going to decide on behalf of the countries concerned what are their developmental needs and how [they should] deal with this fuel."
The accord may be sufficient to drive a wedge between the United States and its European allies, on the one hand, and Russia and China, on the other. Moscow and Beijing have both professed their preference for a negotiated settlement over Iran's nuclear program. And they have both pressed Iran to accept the fuel swap as a way of showing it is serious about resolving the nuclear standoff.
The Britain, France, Germany, and the United States favor a fuel swap as a confidence-building measure aimed at enhancing international trust in Tehran's nuclear intentions. But they harbor suspicions that Iran has cut the deal to evade U.N. sanctions and that it has no intention to adequately addressing international concerns about its nuclear activities.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs delivered a carefully measured response to the nuclear pact, saying the U.S. welcomed the deal to ship nuclear fuel off Iranian soil, but that Tehran's assertion that it will continue enriching uranium "is a direct violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions." He urged Iran to report the agreement immediately to the IAEA, where its commitment can be tested.
Gibbs said the U.S. would continue to press Iran to "demonstrate through deeds-and not simply words-its willingness to live up to international obligations or face consequences, including sanctions." He said that the U.S. expected Iran to comply with all U.N. resolutions, including those calling for full cooperation with IAEA inspectors and the suspension of Iran's enrichment of uranium. "Given Iran's repeated failure to live up to its own commitments, and the need to address fundamental issues related to Iran's nuclear program, the United States and the international community continue to have serious concerns," he said.
Despite their frustrations, U.S. officials were cautious not to criticize the Brazilian and Turkish role in pushing a deal that is all but certain to weaken their case for sanctions. The approach contrasted with that of the Bush administration, which initial sought to punish former allies that opposed its quest for a war resolution in Iraq, according to U.N. diplomats.
In the aftermath of the invasion, "allies loyal to the United States were rejected, mocked, and even punished" for their refusal to back a U.N. resolution authorizing military action against Saddam Hussein's government, Chilean U.N. ambassador Heraldo Muñoz wrote in a book on the matter.
But the latest deal came under fire from analysts who said it would do nothing to stop Iran's uranium enrichment and would leave Iran with enough low-enriched uranium to be reprocessed into weapons-grade fuel if Tehran acquires the technological knowhow to do it. "This is a poorly negotiated deal that doesn't serve U.S. interests and may only worsen the situation," said David Albright, a former U.N. nuclear weapon inspector who tracks Iran's nuclear program. "Here you have a subgroup of nations weighing in and saying the enrichment program is not subject to further negotiations."
The arrangement requires Iran to ship 1,200 kilograms of low-enriched uranium to Turkey within the next month. In exchange, Iran will receive fuel rods containing 120 kilograms of a more purified form of reprocessed uranium for Iran's Tehran medical reactor within one year. If any provision of the pact is breached, Turkey would be required to return the uranium to Iran. Turkey and the IAEA (which has not yet signed on) will monitor the stored uranium in Turkey.
The deal hinges on Tehran's ability to negotiate a deal with the France, Russia, the United States, and the IAEA (the so-called Vienna group) to assure the delivery of fuel rods for the research reactor to Iran. "The nuclear fuel exchange is a starting point to begin cooperation and a positive constructive move forward among nations," according to the pact. It should replace and avoid "all kinds of confrontation through refraining from measures, actions, and rhetorical statements that would jeopardize rights and obligations under the NPT."
Iran first expressed interest in the fuel swap after the IAEA presented the proposal to Tehran in October. But Iran quickly reversed course. In the weeks leading up to the deal, the United States has expressed skepticism over Iran's intention to implement a fuel swap. "I have told my counterparts in many capitals around the world that I believe that we will not get any serious response out of the Iranians until after the Security Council acts," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said.
The decline and fall of America's supporters?
Posted By Daniel W. Drezner | Monday, May 17, 2010 - 1:00 PM
If realists have a literary trope, it's talking about the decline and fall of great powers -- and Steve Walt does not disappoint in this post about, "the impending end of the Atlantic Era."
He makes a good case. The European project as we know it is in serious trouble. The United States is in much better shape. That said, there are weeks when we no longer seem like the center of the diplomatic universe. Brazil and Turkey are negotiating deals with Iran, and regionalism in the Pacific Rim seems to be passing America by.
Still, my take is that what's going on is a combination of two separate problems. If either one is fixed, then I suspect that the shift in greast power politics will not be terribly acute.
The first is the decline in the "supporters" of the U.S.-led system -- Japan and Europe. International relations theory likes to stress the importance of hegemonic states. When it comes to creating stable world orders, however, this only works when supporter states are willing to sign up (click here and here for scholarly takes on this point). I agree with Walt that, in the near term at least, both of America's principal supporters are going to be turning inward.
The second is whether the United States can adapt to this shift in the distribution of power, and here I'm on the fence. There are ways in which U.S. support for the shift from the G-8 to the G-20 showed some creative adaptation to new realities. The G-8 was overweighted towards European countries, exaggerating their influence. In shifting from the G-8 to the G-20, EU members saw their power diluted. The United States, in contrast, maintains stronger bilateral ties with each of the other G-20 members than most do with each other. If one thinks of the United States as the central node in a more networked governance arrangement, then one can see how the reforms made to date do not weaken American influence.
The thing is, this only holds if rising powers such as Brazil and India want to be supporters of a U.S.-led system, or if they want to posit an alternative. This is where some of that strategic vision and adroit diplomacy that the Obama administration allegedly possesses in ample quantities would make a difference. To date, however, that is not what I see from this administration. To be fair, they were handed a foreign policy mess, and have done an admirable job of accelerating the clean-up that began in the Bush administration's last two years. What they have not done -- yet -- is articulate a message that will win it new supporters in world politics.
The National Security Strategy is due to be rolled out any week now, and this is precisely the kind of issue it needs to address. So I'll be paying very close attention to see if the strategy document addresses this problem.
Argentina empezó a levantar las barreras a productos de Brasil
Durante el fin de s Durante el fin de semana, se liberó el ingreso a camiones que transportaban pollos y otros alimentos. Dicen que fue para bajar el tono a la polémica durante el viaje de Cristina a la cumbre entre Europa y el Mercosur. Y para evitar represalias.
18/05/2010 | Por: Eleonora Gosman
Así como llegó en silencio, sin que mediara comunicación oficial de gobierno a gobierno, la medida verbal del secretario de Comercio Guillermo Moreno -quien avisó que se restringirá el ingreso de alimentos procedentes de Brasil similares a fabricados en Argentina- ingresó en vías de ser levantada.
Hubo un gesto de liberar camiones que transportaban productos avícolas hacia Buenos Aires y que estaban detenidos en la frontera. Pero fuentes empresariales de la capital paulista dijeron a este diario que aún no desaparecieron todos los problemas.
Lo que había, señalaron a esta corresponsal, fue una decisión de bajar el tono de la polémica mientras dure la cumbre de Mercosur y Unión Europea, en el marco de la cita América Latina-Europa ocurrida en Madrid, para retomar las negociaciones de libre comercio entre ambos bloques. En San Pablo cuestionan la "falta de sentido de oportunidad" del gobierno argentino de haber planteado el freno a importaciones de alimentos, tanto de Europa como de Brasil, apenas una semana antes de realizarse esa cita entre las dos partes, luego que las discusiones comerciales fueran congeladas en 2004.
En los entornos de la Federación de Industrias del Estado de San Pablo no ocultaron su extrañeza respecto de las declaraciones de la presidenta Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner quien en Madrid negó la existencia de restricciones comerciales.
Desde la semana pasada, la FIESP reclamaba en forma insistente que Argentina había puesto barreras a productos brasileños sin siquiera avisar a las autoridades nacionales. Hasta el canciller Celso Amorim debió salir a expresar la preocupación que causaban esas trabas. Y el ministro de Desarrollo e Industria Miguel Jorge tuvo que comunicarse con su colega Débora Giorgi para saber de qué se trataba y reclamar por camiones de comestibles perecederos que estaban frenados. Las autoridades aduaneras el sábado pasado levantaron, literalmente, las barreras. Pero los empresarios temen para la falta de garantías: "No sabemos si el gobierno argentino no volverá a aplicar ese tipo de restricciones".
Ayer, en Madrid, Cristina Kirchner negó que existan bloqueos informales contra alimentos europeos y brasileños. En efecto no hubo papeles, ni siquiera circulares internas. Pero sí una charla entre Moreno y los mayoristas de alimentos cuyos términos trascendieron inmediatamente. En esa conversación el secretario de Comercio había advertido a los grandes supermercados que debían eliminar de las góndolas productos enlatados o congelados que pudieran desplazar a las marcas nacionales. Se habló de latas de tomates italianas, de aceites vírgenes españoles y de granos de choclo brasileños. También se supo que habían caído en desgracia aves y sus derivados, lo que afectaría a sectores muy poderosos de la industria paulista. A estos sectores pertenecían los camiones cuyo paso fue liberado durante el fin de semana. Y también pasaron choclos en lata y carnes elaboradas.
Lo cierto es que no solo protestó Brasil. También la Unión Europea criticó en un comunicado las obstrucciones argentinas. Ayer, la Presidenta -que tiene la misión de conducir las negociaciones con la Unión Europea hasta julio próximo por ser la titular pro tempore del Mercosur- se defendió en forma indirecta al señalar que el "proteccionismo no está solo en las aduanas y en los puertos" sino también en los subsidios de los gobiernos a los productores domésticos. Es la queja principal que enarbola la Argentina contra Europa, y también contra Brasil. Esto es lo que abona el temor empresarial brasileño, especialmente en San Pablo, donde descreen de un retroceso argentino durable respecto de las trabas a los alimentos importados.
Argentina niega trabas a importar alimentos
Realidad. Hay empresas locales a las que los súper les suspendieron pedidos
18/05/2010
La presidenta argentina, Cristina Fernández, negó ayer que su gobierno haya impuesto restricciones a la importación de alimentos. Importadores de ese país recibieron la noticia como un "alivio" pero en Uruguay las ventas siguen suspendidas.
"No hubo restricciones de ninguna manera a las importaciones de alimentos``, dijo ayer la mandataria argentina en Madrid ante los reclamos de la Unión Europea y los países de la región por el anuncio que hizo el secretario de Comercio Interior, Guillermo Moreno, a las cadenas de supermercado de restringir las compras de productos que tengan un sustituto de industria nacional.
Esta medida ya complicó las exportaciones de Monte Cudine en Uruguay -que vio suspendidas las ventas de sopas y arroz saborizado- al tiempo que la Unión de Exportadores estimó que podría perjudicar a unas 70 pymes que exportan alimentos a la vecina orilla. La Unión de Exportadores incluso planteó el tema al gobierno y reclamó aplicar medidas extremas.
La semana pasada, embajadores de países de la Unión Europea (UE) también expresaron su preocupación ante la Comisión de Relaciones Exteriores de la UE por el supuesto plan de Argentina de limitar el ingreso de ciertos productos que compiten con alimentos que se producen en ese país.
Anuncios Google
"No tenemos que asustarnos de que haya intereses comerciales de un lado y del otro. Tenemos que ser muy sensatos, realistas, inteligentes, y ver la película entera y no la paja en el ojo ajeno``, señaló Fernández ayer en declaraciones que recogió el canal Todo Noticias.
"Una visión más completa nos va a permitir encontrar soluciones a escala global de los problemas que estamos teniendo``, agregó.
La supuesta limitación a la entrada de alimentos, anunciada verbalmente por el secretario de Comercio Interior, Moreno, a los supermercados, pretende proteger a la industria nacional ante un posible aumento de importaciones desde Europa por la creciente depreciación del euro, pero por las dudas de recibir sanciones las cadenas ya lo extienden a otros países. La UE había expresado en un comunicado la semana pasada que "tales restricciones, de concretarse, serían incompatibles con la normativa de la Organización Mundial de Comercio y con los compromisos adquiridos por Argentina en el marco del G-20``.
Brasil, primer socio comercial de Argentina, también expresó su inquietud por este asunto e incluso dijo que tomaría represalias de mantenerse las trabas.
En medio de la polémica, la ministra de Industria, Débora Giorgi, intentó poner "paños fríos" a esta situación y dijo días atrás que "van a ingresar todos los productos importados que el mercado demande``. Sin embargo, en los hechos algunos importadores argentinos de alimentos ya estaban cancelando los pedidos de compras.
"Alivio". Esa fue la sensación con la que la Cámara de Importadores argentina (CIRA) se quedó ayer luego de escuchar la declaraciones en España de la presidenta argentina.
El encargado de Relaciones Institucionales de esta cámara, Miguel Ponce, dijo ayer que los comentarios de la mandataria trajeron "tranquilidad" y "alivio" y anunció que la solución al conflicto esta más cerca.
Esta gremial mantuvo ayer una reunión con Moreno, para analizar cuáles son las dificultades que enfrentan algunos sectores en las aduanas. Precisamente ayer el gobierno argentino liberó algunos camiones brasileños de choclo que estaban detenidos en la frontera.
En ese sentido, para medios brasileños hubo presiones de la Unión Europea y Brasil y, por eso, el gobierno argentino se vio obligado a flexibilizar la decisión de restringir la importación de alimentos no frescos.
Por otro lado, Ponce informó que luego del encuentro con Moreno cada sector importador presentará en una próxima reunión con el secretario de Comercio Interior cuáles son las dificultades puntuales que tiene cada uno para luego plantearle un propuesta integral para terminar con el conflicto.
"El objetivo que tenemos es que los alimentos continúen llegando a la mesa de los argentinos en precio y forma", declaró. En base a AP y La Nación
Acuerdo Argentina-Brasil permite saltear el puerto
Privados. Protestan porque buques no paran en Montevideo
18/05/2010
Según el Centro de Navegación, Argentina está trabando el tránsito de mercadería por el puerto de Montevideo. Un acuerdo bilateral con Brasil permite que mercadería argentina con destino a Brasil no ingrese a terceros puertos.
"Lo que detectamos y tenemos pruebas es que la Secretaria de Puertos y Vías Navegables de Argentina está trabando el tránsito por el puerto de Montevideo de las exportaciones desde ese país a Brasil", dijo a El País el presidente del Centro de Navegación Mario Baubeta. "Investigan para otorgar a buques de tercera bandera permiso de transporte de productos desde Argentina a Brasil y si hacen escala en Montevideo no se los dan", agregó.
Para el empresario esto puede tener consecuencias muy negativas para el país por la pérdida del pasaje de miles de contenedores por la terminal portuaria capitalina y afecta el proyecto de país logístico que impulsa el gobierno y que Montevideo sea un puerto hub (de distribución de carga).
Expresó que el tema le fue comunicado al canciller Luis Almagro el pasado viernes siete de mayo, a quien le plantearon la inquietud de que el asunto fuera parte de la negociación con el gobierno argentino. "La Cancillería lo tomó con mucha responsabilidad, porque puede afectar la logística del país", afirmó Baubeta.
Anuncios Google
La organización que preside mantendrá una reunión con el agregado comercial argentino Atilio Berardi, que pidió el encuentro, de quien aguardan explicaciones por esta situación.
Emilio Cazalá, periodista especializado en temas marítimos, fluviales y portuarios de El País, explicó que existe un acuerdo bilateral entre Argentina y Brasil, por el cual las mercaderías argentinas no pueden ser transbordadas a otro puerto, sino directamente al país de destino. Agregó que este es un tema que Uruguay puede plantear en el Mercosur, porque se trata de un acuerdo extra bloque entre dos miembros del acuerdo regional.
Cazalá señaló que este acuerdo bilateral afecta el transporte de productos perecederos de la Patagonia, que suelen transitar por Montevideo con destino a Brasil y que a veces van directamente al país norteño. Añadió que esto perjudica al puerto de Montevideo, pero no a las compañías navieras. En tanto, fuentes de la Cancillería y de la Administración Nacional de Puertos (ANP) consultadas por El País coincidieron en que este tema "no está formalmente en la agenda", con Argentina, pero no descartaron incorporarlo.
Pérdidas. Para Baubeta, la amenaza no es sólo por la pérdida de cargas en tránsito, sino también porque esto generara menos posibilidad de bodegas para trasladar exportaciones.
Alertó que la medida puede llevar a armadores a reprogramar su trafico, dejando al puerto de Montevideo por fuera. Expresó que más del 50% de la mercadería que pasa por el puerto de Montevideo es en tránsito y un gran porcentaje "está amenazado" por esta medida. Según Baubeta "se está hablando de 100 mil contenedores en el peor de los casos".
Dijo que "ya se está notando" el efecto nocivo de esta medida, de la que se beneficia el estado de Río Grande del Sur (Brasil).
"Un empresario argentino que exporta a Brasil tiene que embarcar en buque con bandera argentina o brasileña. Si no las hay, pueden darse waivers (permisos) a terceras banderas. Armadores han contratado buques de menor porte para trasladar mercadería entre el Sur argentino y Montevideo, que luego siguen a Brasil. Pero, si no lo pueden hacer, evitan Montevideo y esto beneficia a Rio Grande", explicó "Hay una acción decidida y persecutoria para que las cargas no hagan Montevideo", sostuvo Baubeta.
Indicó que hay un borrador de acuerdo de transporte marítimo del Mercosur -que se concretó en una reunión a la que la delegación uruguaya no concurrió-, cuyo articulado establece que servicios dentro de puertos de Mercosur para terceros países también deben ser con buques con bandera del Mercosur.
Consideró que esto beneficiaría directamente a Brasil y que es "un ataque al tránsito por Uruguay", puesto que estos países "no quieren que su carga transite por acá".El Centro de Navegación es una asociación civil sin fines de lucro fundada en 1916. Está constituida por empresas y entidades establecidas en el país vinculadas al transporte por agua, a la actividad portuaria y al comercio internacional. Reúne a los agentes marítimos, operadores portuarios, terminales de contenedores y depósitos particulares de carga.
Una nutrida agenda
Los presidentes de Argentina y Uruguay, Cristina Fernández y José Mujica, se reunirán el próximo viernes 4 de junio en la estancia presidencia de Anchorena (Colonia), con un amplio temario referido a las relaciones bilaterales entre ambos países.
Al bloqueo del puente San Martín que une Gualegaychú con Fray Bentos y que realizan "ambientalistas" argentinos y el monitoreo conjunto de la calidad de las aguas del Río Uruguay (que se analiza en el ámbito de la Caru), se suman otros asuntos que el gobierno uruguayo considera prioritarios.
Entre ellos se encuentran el dragado del canal Martín García, los avances en el tráfico de gas boliviano a través de Argentina hacia Uruguay y las trabas comerciales del país vecino que perjudican el acceso de productos nacionales a ese mercado.
En el encuentro entre los mandatarios también está previsto que participen unos 8 ministros de cada país, cuyas áreas guardan relación con los temas a tratar.
El País Digital
Thomson Reuters se quedó con una editorial jurídica de Brasil
Martes 18 de mayo de 2010
La editorial estadounidense Thomson Reuters anunció ayer que se quedó con la editora brasileña Revista Dos Tribunais, una de las más reconocidas del mundo jurídico. Los términos y condiciones del acuerdo no fueron divulgados. La profesión jurídica en Brasil es de gran magnitud y se encuentra en constante crecimiento, a tal punto que en la actualidad cuenta con el mayor índice de abogados per capita, después de Estados Unidos. Al mismo tiempo, tiene una base creciente de estudios jurídicos grandes y medianos. La adquisición de Revista dos Tribunais presenta una oportunidad estratégica para Thomson Reuters. Luego de esta operación, la empresa estadounidense intentará transformarse en líder en servicios de información, software y servicios online de avanzada para la industria de la información jurídica brasileña, que hasta el momento se encuentra principalmente en soportes en papel.
Se debilita el real en Brasil por tercer día seguido
Martes 18 de mayo de 2010
El real brasileño cayó ayer por tercer día consecutivo, presionado por un movimiento global de aversión a los activos de riesgo que provocó la crisis de deuda que hoy sufre Europa. La moneda se depreció 0,44%, hasta cerrar en 1,812 para la venta en el mercado interbancario de Brasil. "La fuente de preocupación es el mercado europeo. Pese a la aprobación del paquete (de ayuda financiera) aún se ve mucha incertidumbre, lo que provoca aversión al riesgo", explicó José Roberto Carreira, gerente de cambio de Fair.
Con todo, ayer se percibió algún respiro en el mercado paulista luego de que se conociera que la inflación, medida en siete de las mayores ciudades de Brasil por el índice de precios IPC-S, de la Fundación Getulio Vargas, se desaceleró más de lo esperado en la segunda semana de mayo, al redondear un avance de apenas 0,64%. La suba de precios es una de las granes razones que está impulsando al Banco Central de Brasil a elevar las tasas de interés de referencia de la economía y desalentar, así, el crecimiento económico.
Ahora, los analistas esperan que el banco central eleve en 75 puntos básicos la tasa Selic, a 10,25%, el próximo 9 de junio, y que concrete de este modo el segundo incremento consecutivo.
Así y todo, el mercado prevé que la economía se expandirá un 6,3% este año, y que marcará así el ritmo más rápido desde 1986, cuando el producto bruto interno de Brasil creció 7,49%.
Ayer, el jefe del banco central de ese país, Henrique Meirelles, aseguró que las expectativas de inflación para el próximo año son "relativamente estables" y que, además, Brasil "se comprometió a reducir la inflación a la meta que fue fijada por el banco".
Buenas noticias del principal comprador argentino
Brasil a full: dato récord de empleo y gran previsión de crecimiento
La generación de puestos se dio en el terreno formal, informó el Ministerio de Trabajo del vecino país. El pronóstico de expansión fue hecho sectores empresarios y bancarios.
AGENCIAS San Pablo ()
Martes 18 de mayo de 2010
La economía de Brasil creó una cifra récord de empleos formales para abril, dijo hoy el Ministerio del Trabajo, remarcando la fuerza del crecimiento en la mayor economía de Latinoamérica.
Brasil añadió 305.068 empleos formales en abril, en el cuarto mes consecutivo de aperturas de plazas laborales, agregó el ministerio.
Por su parte, la principal patronal industrial de Brasil y los analistas del sector bancario elevaron hoy sus previsiones de crecimiento de la economía del país para este año, que como mínimo se expandirá un 6%, según sus cálculos.
La Confederación Nacional de la Industria (CNI) elevó medio punto sus previsiones, hasta una subida del 6% del Producto Interior Bruto (PIB), un salto que se apoyará principalmente en la mejoría de la industria, según una nota divulgada por el ente económico.
Los cálculos del mercado bancario son aún más optimistas y predijeron una mejoría de la economía del orden del 6,30%, según el boletín semanal del Banco Central, también divulgado hoy.
La economía brasileña ha creado un total de 962.327 empleos formales en lo que va del año y espera acabar el año con 2,5 millones de nuevas plazas, dijo a periodistas en Brasilia el ministro del Trabajo, Carlos Lupi.
En mayo, el país debería registrar la creación de entre 240.000 y 280.000 empleos formales, añadió Lupi.
Las cifras de empleo fueron dadas a conocer sólo días después de que el Gobierno tomó medidas para enfriar la economía, que muchos afirman que está en peligro de sobrecalentarse.
El Ministerio del Trabajo dijo la semana pasada que planea recortar su presupuesto 2010 en 10.000 millones de reales adicionales (casi 5.500 millones de dólares), con lo que los recortes presupuestarios totales llegarán a un 1 por ciento del Producto Interno Bruto (PIB).
La mayor parte la fuerza de trabajo brasileña no está registrada en el Ministerio del Trabajo y pertenece a la vasta economía informal. El Gobierno del presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva busca incrementar el número de empleos formales en el país.
EL PRESIDENTE LULA FIRMÓ NUEVOS TRATADOS ECONÓMICOS CON SU PAR IRANÍ
Irán, Turquía y Brasil alcanzan un acuerdo sobre combustible nuclear
El pacto, al que se llegó tras 18 horas de negociaciones, podría ayudar a terminar el enfrentamiento diplomático de Teherán con Occidente por su programa nuclear
REUTERS Teherán ()
Martes 18 de mayo de 2010
El ministro de Asuntos Exteriores de Turquía, Ahmet Davutoglu, anunció ayer un acuerdo entre Irán, Turquía y Brasil sobre el procedimiento para el intercambio de uranio poco enriquecido iraní por uranio con un mayor grado de pureza. "Sí, se logró tras casi 18 horas de negociaciones", expresó el ministro.
