Depois do crescimento

Em todas as áreas azuis a população deixou de crescer e envelhece.

Estagnação demográfica, envelhecimento e o fim da energia barata.

Olhando para o gráfico da demografia mundial entre 1961 e 2015, verificamos que a taxa de crescimento começou a cair em 1969 (2,1%), estando em 2015 nos 1,18%. No entanto, a população continua a crescer, sobretudo no continente africano.

As regiões com maior rendimento per capita do planeta—Estados Unidos, Canadá, Europa ocidental, Austrália, Japão—estão em processo de envelhecimento acelerado e estagnação demográfica. Mas não só: China, Brasil e Rússia, por exemplo, encontram-se em situação semelhante. O crescimento demográfico em países como o México, ou na América do Sul à exceção do Chile e Brasil, em França, na Arábia Saudita e Turquia, no Casaquistão e na Mongólia, Índia, Paquistão, Malásia, Indonésia e Nova Zelândia, situa-se entre os 2 e os 3 filhos por mulher, havendo assim nalguns destes países renovação geracional efetiva. Só em África se verifica ainda aquilo a que poderíamos chamar uma explosão demográfica, sobretudo nas regiões subsarianas e no centro do continente.

África já é o segundo continente mais populoso do planeta, depois da Ásia central e do sul. Até 2030 terá mais 493 milhões de pessoas (passando dos atuais 1.186 milhões para 1.679 milhões), e em 2050 haverá mais 1.292 milhões do que hoje, ou seja, o continente africano terá então uns 2.478 milhões de almas. Se pensarmos apenas nos grandes países de língua portuguesa, em 2030 Brasil terá +20 milhões de pessoas (207.848 > 228.663), Angola, +14 milhões (25.022 > 39.351), e Moçambique, +13 milhões (27.978 > 41.437).

Olhando para o mapa acima percebe-se até que ponto os países que deixaram de crescer demograficamente (a Península Ibérica, se nada fizer, perderá 700 mil pessoas até 2030), ou acolhem população jovem de outros continentes, ou morrem de velhos, provavelmente no meio de grandes convulsões sociais. Falta, porém, saber como programar o inadiável rejuvenescimento destas sociedades demograficamente estagnadas, sem causar dramas como os que hoje afligem a Europa, lançando os países numa corrida populista em direção ao abismo. Precisamos de discutir sem complexos estes temas.

Uma das origens da estagnação demográfica e económica é o fim da energia barata, bem como de outras matérias primas que, tal como o petróleo e o gás natural, só são baratas se forem abundantes e de fácil acesso. Durante algumas décadas o endividamento público e privado escondeu a realidade dos preços, ou seja, que os recursos necessários à economia e à vida das pessoas se tornaram demasiado caros quando comparados com os rendimentos declinantes do trabalho. Hoje, com as bolhas financeiras a rebentarem por toda a parte, o crescimento real praticamente estagnado, desemprego e falta de novos empregos, percebe-se que a queda da procura agregada mundial veio para ficar (ainda que possa aumentar até 2030-40, moderadamente, pelo efeito induzido pelo crescimento da população mundial) e vai impor alterações radicais nas sociedades. Poderá mesmo interromper a globalização competitiva baseada no desenvolvimento assimétrico, provocando o regresso das soberanias nacionais. Também neste ponto há necessidade de abordar os temas com imaginação, nomeadamente no que toca à sempre possível fragmentação da União Europeia e do euro. A este propósito, o Brexit, por um lado, e a experiência alemã, por outro, serão provavelmente os melhores observatórios para acompanhar este problema e esta discussão. 

Algumas ilusões tecnológicas devem, entretanto, ser afastadas da nossa imaginação e sobretudo da nossa agenda política. Uma destas ilusões é a das energias renováveis. A outra é a de que o nosso maior problema são as alterações climáticas, as quais, por sua vez, legitimam a corrida ruinosa pelas energias eólica e fotovoltaica, ou a criação de novas bolhas especulativas, como o chamado mercado das emissões de carbono. Finalmente, a ideia de substituir tabalho humano por máquinas inteligentes não é nova e acelera há alguns anos na vertente informática, da inteligência computacional e da robótica. Esta aceleração poderá resolver alguns problemas associados ao envelhecimento e à estagnação demográfica, mas padece do mesmo mal que as indústrias tradicionais: precisa de muita energia, e se esta for cara, os produtos finais, sejam estes de natueza material ou imaterial, serão igualmente caros, mantendo-se assim a tendência já instalada e de longo prazo (60 a 100 anos) para a quebra acentuada da procura agregada mundial. No entanto, a combinação entre conhecimento e crise poderá ser a mistura necessária para uma transição pacífica das sociedades perdulárias, agonísticas e desiguais contemporâneas em direção a uma ordem social mais equilibrada. Veremos...


REFERÊNCIAS

Policy Makers, like Generals, Are Busy Fighting The Last War
Econimica, Saturday, January 21, 2017

1. The Global Population of Young (Future Consumer Base) Ceased Growing...30 Years Ago.

2. The Worlds Population is Still Growing Due to a Surge in the Elderly Living Longer and High African Birthrates Offsetting Global Depopulation of Young.

The “Wind and Solar Will Save Us” Delusion

Posted on January 30, 2017 by Gail Tverberg @ Our Finite World

The “Wind and Solar Will Save Us” story is based on a long list of misunderstandings and apples to oranges comparisons. Somehow, people seem to believe that our economy of 7.5 billion people can get along with a very short list of energy supplies. This short list will not include fossil fuels. Some would exclude nuclear, as well. Without these energy types, we find ourselves with a short list of types of energy — what BP calls Hydroelectric, Geobiomass (geothermal, wood, wood waste, and other miscellaneous types; also liquid fuels from plants), Wind, and Solar.

Unfortunately, a transition to such a short list of fuels can’t really work. These are a few of the problems we encounter:

[1] Wind and solar are making extremely slow progress in helping the world move away from fossil fuel dependence.

[2] Grid electricity is probably the least sustainable form of energy we have.

[3] Our big need for energy is in the winter, when the sun doesn’t shine as much, and we can’t count on the wind blowing.

[4] If a family burns coal or natural gas directly for winter heat, but then switches to electric heat that is produced using the same fuel, the cost is likely to be higher. If there is a second change to a higher-cost type of electricity, the cost of heat will be even greater. 

[5] Low energy prices for the consumer are very important. Unfortunately, many analyses of the benefit of wind or of solar give a misleading impression of their true cost, when added to the electric grid. 

[6] If we want heat in the winter, and we are trying to use solar and wind, we need to somehow figure out a way to store electricity from summer to winter. Otherwise, we need to operate a double system at high cost.

[7] There are a few countries that use an unusually large share of electricity in their energy mixes today. These countries seem to be special cases that would be hard for other countries to emulate.

[8] Hydroelectric power is great for balancing wind and solar, but it is available in limited quantities. It too has intermittency problems, limiting how much it can be counted on. 

[9] If we need to get along without fossil fuels for electricity generation, we would have to depend greatly on hydroelectric power. Hydro tends to have considerable variability from year to year, making it hard to depend on.

[10] There has been a misunderstanding regarding the nature of our energy problem. Many people believe that we will “run out” of fossil fuels, or that the price of oil and other fuels will rise very high. In fact, our problem seems to be one of affordability: energy prices don’t rise high enough to cover the rising cost of producing electricity and other energy products. Adding wind and solar tends to make the problem of low commodity prices worse.   

[...]

If we want to operate a double system, using wind and solar when it is available, and using fossil fuels at other times, the cost will be very high. The problem arises because the fossil fuel system has many fixed costs. For example, coal mines and natural gas companies need to continue to pay interest on their loans, or they will default. Pipelines need to operate 365 days per year, regardless of whether they are actually full. The question is how to get enough funding for this double system.

[...]

A different pricing system that works much better in our current situation is the utility pricing system, or “cost plus” pricing. In this system, prices are determined by regulators, based on a review of all necessary costs, including appropriate profit margins for producers. In the case of a double system, it allows prices to be high enough to cover all the needed costs, including the extra long distance transmission lines, plus all of the high fixed costs of fossil fuel and nuclear power plants, operating for fewer hours per year.

Of course, these much higher electricity rates eventually will become unaffordable for the consumer, leading to a cutback in purchases. If enough of these cutbacks in purchases occur, the result will be recession. But at least the electricity system doesn’t fail at an early date because of inadequate profits for its producers.

Conclusion

The possibility of making a transition to an all-renewables system seems virtually impossible, for the reasons I have outlined above.

Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data 

By David Rose for The Mail on Sunday

PUBLISHED: 22:57 GMT, 4 February 2017 | UPDATED: 15:12 GMT, 5 February 2017

The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

[...]

In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.

[...]

Dr. Bates revealed that the failure to archive and make available fully documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by Science. Before he retired last year, he continued to raise the issue internally. Then came the final bombshell. Dr Bates said: ‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’

The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.


Harnessing automation for a future that works
By James Manyika, Michael Chui, Mehdi Miremadi, Jacques Bughin, Katy George, Paul Willmott, and Martin Dewhurst
McKinsey report

The automation of activities can enable businesses to improve performance by reducing errors and improving quality and speed, and in some cases achieving outcomes that go beyond human capabilities. Automation also contributes to productivity, as it has done historically. At a time of lackluster productivity growth, this would give a needed boost to economic growth and prosperity. It would also help offset the impact of a declining share of the working-age population in many countries. Based on our scenario modeling, we estimate automation could raise productivity growth globally by 0.8 to 1.4 percent annually.

Atualização: 24 fevereiro 2017, 12:02 wet

Draghi: ¡No pasa nada!

Alguma vez o BCE voltará a colocar no mercado o lixo financeiro que tem andado a comprar? Provavelmente, não. Hummmm...

...we decided to extend the asset purchase programme beyond March 2017, with the intention of conducting our purchases until the end of December 2017 or beyond, if necessary, and in any case until the Governing Council sees a sustained adjustment in the path of inflation consistent with its inflation aim. We will continue to purchase assets at a monthly pace of €80 billion until March. Starting from April, our net asset purchases will run at a monthly pace of €60 billion, and we will reinvest the securities purchased earlier under our programme, as they mature. This will add to our monthly net purchases. 

— in Introductory statement by Mario Draghi, President of the ECB, at the ECON committee of the European Parliament, Brussels, 6 February 2017 (more)

Como afirmou Draghi hoje, ¡No pasa nada! Ou seja, ninguém sabe como sair do ciclo de expansão monetária e repressão fiscal que disfarça o buraco negro do endividamento e da quebra agregada da procura mundial, e portanto, o QE irá prosseguir 'whatever it takes'.

Até lá, os fundos de pensões e as poupanças continuam a caminhar para zero.

Por enquanto, o negócio do BCE e do BoJ é este: 

—compram a si próprios obrigações a 0,45% e a 0,1% (150 mil milhões de dólares/mês!) que depois investem em títulos do Tesouro Americano, que paga 2,45%. Capiche? O Zé Povinho, como sempre, fica a ver navios, embora enquanto o pau vai e vem, os governantes, as administrações públicas e afins, e os pensionistas do setor público, vão recebendo regularmente os seus vencimentos. Até quando?

Vale a pena ler este post de Bill Bross na íntegra:

Happiness Runs
Janus Capital, February 6, 2017  

...in order to control volatility, and keep a floor under asset prices, central bankers may be trapped in a QE-forever cycle, (in order to keep the global system functioning). Withdrawal of stimulus, as has happened with the Fed in the past few years, seemingly must be replaced by an increased flow of asset purchases (bonds and stocks) from other central banks, as shown in Chart I. A client asked me recently when the Fed or other central banks would ever be able to sell their assets back into the market. My answer was "NEVER". A $12 trillion global central bank balance sheet is PERMANENT - and growing at over $1 trillion a year, thanks to the ECB and the BOJ. 

[...]

An investor must know that it is this money that now keeps the system functioning. Without it, even 0% policy rates are like methadone - cancelling the craving but not overcoming the addiction. The relevant point of all this for today's financial markets? A 2.45%, 10-year U.S.Treasury rests at 2.45% because the ECB and BOJ are buying $150 billion a month of their own bonds and much of that money then flows from 10 basis points JGB's and 45 basis point Bunds into 2.45% U.S. Treasuries. Without that financial methadone, both bond and stock markets worldwide would sink and produce a tantrum of significant proportions. I would venture a guess that without QE from the ECB and BOJ that 10-year U.S. Treasuries would rather quickly rise to 3.5% and the U.S. economy would sink into recession.

So what's wrong with financial methadone? What's wrong with a continuing program of QE's or even a rejuvenated U.S. QE if needed? Well conceptually at first blush, not much. The interest earned on the $12 trillion is already being flushed from central banks back to government fiscal authorities. One hand is paying the other. But the transfer in essence means that monetary and fiscal policies have joined hands and that the government, not the private sector, is financing its own spending. At an expanding margin, this allows the private sector to finance its own spending and fails to discriminate between risk and reward. $600 billion in the U.S. for instance goes into the repurchase of company stock, whereas before, investment in the real economy might have been a more lucrative choice. In addition, individual savers, pension funds, and insurance companies are now robbed of the ability to earn rates of return necessary to maintain long-term solvency. Financial Armageddon is postponed as consumption is brought forward and savings suppressed and deferred. 

more  

La La Land (a nostalgia de um sonho)

Um filme delicioso de ver e ouvir

Atores extraordinários—Ryan Gosling (Sebastian), Emma Stone (Mia)—numa realização extremamente inteligente de Damien Chazelle, e uma produção exemplar.

Todos somos alguma vez na vida os sonhos absolutos de amor e futuro deste filme. É esta memória individual e coletiva que recupera docemente em La La Land o tempo de um cinema (Week-end, Casablanca, West Side Story), de uma música (o Jazz) e de uma felicidade cultural (o Sonho Americano) cada vez mais longínquos.

Sítio oficial do filme La la Land

Trump e a guerra de juizes

Témis, titã grega que representa a lei divina.

A justiça dos homens não é divina, infelizmente

O juiz Nathaniel Gorton anulara no dia 2 de fevereiro último a tentativa —promovida em Boston pela American Civil Liberties Union— de suspender o decreto de Trump sobre o controlo de fronteiras, seguindo esta argumentação:

1) a ordem executiva de Trump não menciona em parte alguma a expressão ‘países muçulmanos”, disse Gorton

2) ao que o advogado promotor da suspensão do decreto da Casa Branca replicou: “If your honor’s question is, ‘Does the word ‘Muslim’ make a profound presence in this executive order?,’ my answer is that it doesn’t,... But the president described what he was going to do as a Muslim ban and then he proceeded to carry it out.”

3) o juiz Nathaniel Gorton acabaria por encerrar a arguição expressa no ponto anterior com a seguinte pergunta retórica: “Am I to take the words of an executive at any point before or after election as a part of that executive order?”

Entretanto, poucas horas depois, um juiz de Seattle, nomeado por Bush, garantiu a suspensão temporária em todo o território americano da interdição decretada por Trump.

A imprensa portuguesa só relatou, que eu saiba, este último incidente jurídico, esquecendo o que se passou em Boston.

Reagindo à euforia noticiosa sobre a decisão do juiz de Seattle, a Casa Branca emitiu um comunicado afirmando que o Departamento de Justiça (DOFJ) contesta a decisão, e que daria de imediato seguimento ao pedido de suspensão urgente da “ultrajante ordem” do juiz Robart.

Mais tarde o próprio Trump ‘tweetou’ sobre este incidente: “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!”

Aguardam-se novos episódios desta guerra entre o poder executivo e o poder judicial, a qual parece questionar a separação de poderes que rege as constituições de todos os estados democráticos contemporâneos. Montesquieu estabeleceu no século 18 o princípio de separação de poderes—legislativo, executivo, judicial— como forma de permitir a evolução do absolutismo para o liberalismo e a democracia. O respeito pela separação de poderes é a marca de água que separa as democracias liberais das chamadas democracias populares e das ditaduras modernas, boa parte delas herdeiras de antigos regimes absolutistas, ou coloniais, e a quem a deformação leninista-trotsquista do marxismo deu suporte ideológico, sob a designação de ditadura do proletariado e/ou comunismo.

A batalha jurídica em curso é a ponta do icebergue que Donald Trump representa e que, numa ideia simples de expressar, se resume a dois vetores de ação estratégica: 1) interrupção da deriva ruinosa do globalismo (o 'Homem de Davos' morreu, afirmou o novo embaixador dos EUA junto da União Europeia numa entrevista à RT) e 2) eleição do expansionismo chinês como o principal adversário da supremacia americana. Rússia deixa de ser um problema, e a Alemanha é uma vez mais derrotada no seu sonho de controlar a Europa ocidental. O que está em jogo é pois de uma dimensão fraturante colossal.


atualização

Quinta-feira 9/2
Juízes decidem por unanimidade rejeitar novas alegações do DOJ para repor a ordem executiva sobre o controlo seletivo de fronteiras e a imigração.

No. 17-35105
D.C. No.
2:17-cv-00141
ORDER 

Motion for Stay of an Order of the
United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 7, 2017
Filed February 9, 2017
Before: William C. Canby, Richard R. Clifton, and Michelle T. Friedland, Circuit Judges 

Per Curiam Order 

[...] 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

At issue in this emergency proceeding is Executive Order 13769, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” which, among other changes to immigration policies and procedures, bans for 90 days the entry into the United States of individuals from seven countries. Two States challenged the Executive Order as unconstitutional and violative of federal law, and a federal district court preliminarily ruled in their favor and temporarily enjoined enforcement of the Executive Order. The Government now moves for an emergency stay of the district court’s temporary restraining order while its appeal of that order proceeds. 

To rule on the Government’s motion, we must consider several factors, including whether the Government has shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal, the degree of hardship caused by a stay or its denial, and the public interest in granting or denying a stay. We assess those factors in light of the limited evidence put forward by both parties at this very preliminary stage and are mindful that our analysis of the hardships and public interest in this case involves particularly sensitive and weighty concerns on both sides. Nevertheless, we hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay. 

[...] 

IX. Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is DENIED. 

Sábado 4/2
O apelo do Departamento de Justiça dos EUA foi rejeitado pelo tribunal de recursos. A batalha segue na próxima semana.

4/2/2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
The court has received appellants’ emergency motion (Docket Entry
No. 14). Appellants’ request for an immediate administrative stay pending full
consideration of the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is denied.
Appellees’ opposition to the emergency motion is due Sunday, February 5,
2017 at 11:59 p.m. PST. Appellants’ reply in support of the emergency motion is
due Monday, February 6, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. PST. 

Sábado 4/2
O apelo do Departamento de Justiça dos EUA, entretanto enviado, reza assim:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the defendants Donald Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States; United States Department of Homeland Security; John F. Kelly, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Rex W. Tillerson, in his official capacity as Secretary of State; and the United States of America hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the February 3, 2017 Order (ECF No. 52) enjoining and restraining enforcement of portions of the January 27, 2017 Executive Order on Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.

Atualização: 10/2/2017 00:36

Onde vem escrito 'países muçulmanos'?

Apenas 12,5% da população islâmica vive nos sete países da lista de interdição temporária

Donald Trump (Twitter, 3/2/2017) “We must keep “evil” out of our country!”

O mesmo argumento que usei no passado dia 31/1 —Não há nenhuma referência islamofóbica no decreto que tem originado tanta agitação programada. Além do mais, os países objeto de prevenção reforçada foram definidos pelos seus antecessores, Obama incluído—foi esta sexta feira, 2 de fevereiro, invocado pelo juiz Nathaniel Gorton na decisão que anulou a tentativa de suspender a aplicação da ordem executiva do presidente dos Estados Unidos.

Early on Sunday, a magistrate judge in Boston issued an injunction that for seven days blocked enforcement of the order, which the White House has contended is necessary for national security.

“Where does it say Muslim countries?” U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton on Friday asked Matthew Segal, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) representing the plaintiffs in the Boston case.

“If your honor’s question is, ‘Does the word ‘Muslim’ make a profound presence in this executive order?,’ my answer is that it doesn’t,” Segal said. “But the president described what he was going to do as a Muslim ban and then he proceeded to carry it out.”

Gorton shot back, “Am I to take the words of an executive at any point before or after election as a part of that executive order?”

- See more at: Zero Hedge

O abuso das metáforas por parte do actual presidente americano não faz mais do que responder na mesma moeda à linguagem arcaica usada nos comunicados dos fundamentalistas radicais islâmicos. Podemos não gostar, mas em si mesmo não passa de um estilo de comunicação. O que é mais intrigante e importa perceber é a nova estratégia que aparentemente se esconde detrás da nova retórica tática americana. E também o que move a reação epidérmica, mas violenta, das elites que acabaram e perder as eleições. A rapidez e a sucessão vertiginosa dos tweets de Trump, mais do que o estilo ordinário dos mesmos tem, apesar de tudo, uma vantagem: iremos perceber rapidamente se o homem é apenas um amador a quem saiu a presidência do mais poderoso país do planeta, ou se, pelo contrário, tenciona mesmo levar o seu anunciado programa até às últimas consequências. Os Estados Unidos poderão estar a caminho de uma encruzilhada fatal, cujas consequências poderão ir desde uma multiplicação e intensificação das guerras regionais, até ao surgimento de verdadeiros focos de separatismo e guerra civil no interior da América.

O simples facto de Donald Trump ter dividido o parlamento desmiolado que temos é prova da sua eficácia táctica inesperada, mas também, do amadorismo proverbial das pessoas que, sem as conhecermos, elegemos em nome de um ideal democrático que não controlamos.

Trump e a prevenção do terrorismo

O inimigo principal definido por Donal Trump

O decreto executivo e o que Donald Trump realmente disse

Os Estados Unidos têm uma política de entradas no seu território bem definida, ao contrário dos países europeus da União Europeia. Em vez de dar ouvidos à propaganda, o melhor mesmo é ler o mais recente decreto sobre prevenção do terrorismo nas entradas de estrangeiros nos Estados Unidos assinado por Donald Trump.

Não há nenhuma referência islamofóbica no decreto que tem originado tanta agitação programada. Além do mais, os países objeto de prevenção reforçada foram definidos pelos seus antecessores, Obama incluído.

Portugal recebeu 720 refugiados em 2016, dos quais pelo menos 30 'emigraram' para outros países.

O decreto de Donald Trump limita a 50 mil o número de refugiados que o país acolherá em 2017.

Se compararmos o rácio população/refugiados nos dois países, teríamos que ter recebido em 2016, 1640 refugiados, mais do dobro dos que efetivamente acolhemos, para sermos tão politicamente corretos quanto a América de Trump!

Veremos quantos novos refugiados chegarão em 2017 ao nosso país. O ministro do gado botou faladura sobre este tema. Veremos em que se traduz a sua hipócrita indignação.

A retórica e a propaganda fazem muito barulho, mas a informação serve para esclarecer.


Declaração de Donald Trump no acto de assinatura da ordem executiva (vídeo)

Executive order

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.

Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.

Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern.

(a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security’s determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.

(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12)*, would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).

(d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.

(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.

(f) At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment.

(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.

(h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this order within 30 days of the date of this order, a second report within 60 days of the date of this order, a third report within 90 days of the date of this order, and a fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 4. Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs.

(a) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission. This program will include the development of a uniform screening standard and procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant’s likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant’s ability to make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of this order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017.

(a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.

(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.

(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.

(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest — including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship — and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.

(f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.

(g) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.

Sec. 6. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility. The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing memoranda.

Sec. 7. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive contained in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report shall be submitted within 100 days of the date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the date of this order. Further, the Secretary shall submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is fully deployed and operational.

Sec. 8. Visa Interview Security. (a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1222, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions.

(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected.

Sec. 9. Visa Validity Reciprocity. The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If a country does not treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable.

Sec. 10. Transparency and Data Collection. (a) To be more transparent with the American people, and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter:

(i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation, or material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national security reasons since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later;
(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and

(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including honor killings, in the United States by foreign nationals, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and

(iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.

(b) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the date of this order, provide a report on the estimated long-term costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels.

Sec. 11. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

<fim do documento>


* Legislação em vigor, anterior à presidência de Donal Trump

8 U.S. Code § 1187 - Visa waiver program for certain visitors

(a) Establishment of program The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State are authorized to establish a program (hereinafter in this section referred to as the “program”) under which the requirement of paragraph (7)(B)(i)(II) of section 1182(a) of this title may be waived by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and in accordance with this section, in the case of an alien who meets the following requirements:

[...]

(12) Not present in Iraq, Syria, or any other country or area of concern

(A)In general Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C)—

(i) the alien has not been present, at any time on or after March 1, 2011—

(I) 

in Iraq or Syria;

(II) 

in a country that is designated by the Secretary of State under section 4605(j) of title 50 (as continued in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)), section 2780 of title 22, section 2371 of title 22, or any other provision of law, as a country, the government of which has repeatedly provided support of acts of international terrorism; or

(III) 

in any other country or area of concern designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security under subparagraph (D); and

(ii) regardless of whether the alien is a national of a program country, the alien is not a national of—

(I) 

Iraq or Syria;

(II) 

a country that is designated, at the time the alien applies for admission, by the Secretary of State under section 4605(j) of title 50 (as continued in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)), section 2780 of title 22, section 2371 of title 22, or any other provision of law, as a country, the government of which has repeatedly provided support of acts of international terrorism; or

(III) 

any other country that is designated, at the time the alien applies for admission, by the Secretary of Homeland Security under subparagraph (D).

— in Legal Information Institute. URL (consultado em 31/1/2017): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187

A dúvida de Trump

Quem é o inimigo principal? A China, ou a Rússia?

Irá Donald Trump abandonar a teoria estratégica que dominou a diplomacia mundial desde 1904, ou, pelo contrário, o que está em causa, como sugere Immanuel Wallerstein, é saber se os Estados Unidos estarão finalmente preparados para ceder à China a missão estratégica de conter o expansionismo potencial da Rússia, esse famoso Coração da Terra descrito por Halford John Mackinder?

Most politicians, journalists, and academic analysts describe the relations of China and the United States as one of hostile competition, especially in East Asia. I disagree. I believe that the top of both countries' geopolitical agenda is reaching a long-term accord with the other. The major bone of contention is which of the two prospective partners will be the top dog.

—in “China and the United States: Partners?”
Immanuel Wallerstein. Commentary No. 441, Jan. 15, 2017

A verdade é que a Grande Rússia, czarista, soviética, ou putiniana é mesmo o coração da Eurásia, e é muito grande! Trata-se de um país continental com autonomia energética e alimentar, onde é possível ensaiar mísseis balísticos, bem como tentar aplicar a teoria do socialismo num só país. Ou seja, a sua inércia geopolítica é incomensurável, sendo que qualquer exercício de contenção sobre a elasticidade das suas fronteiras internas e próximas (Rimland) obriga a esforços económicos e humanos de incalculáveis custos, que sucessivas derrotas militares (Napoleão e Hitler, mas também Clinton, Bush e Obama) comprovaram tragicamente. A Alemanha tentou conquistar este Heartland e só não foi absorviva pela União Soviética porque os seus inimigos ocidentais da véspera lhe deitaram a mão imeditamente após a chegada das tropas russas a Berlim. O preço da ambição alemã foi, no entanto, a expansão da fronteira elástica da Mãe Rússia ao longo da chamada Cortina de Ferro e mesmo até ao interior da Alemanha, dividindo a sua capital em duas metades.

“From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.”  

—Winston Churchill

A América e a Europa ocidental, apesar de serem as mais ricas regiões económicas do planeta não têm disponibilidades financeiras e anímicas suficientes para continuarem a suportar os custos de um cerco geopolítico cada vez mais caro e com perdas colaterais cada vez maiores, de que a crise migratória, a par da radicalização social e política de um e outro lado do Atlântico são as maiores ameaças recentes à sua estabilidade. Mas se assim é, porque pretende Donald Trump uma trégua com Moscovo, provocar a Alemanha, e atacar Pequim? Não seria mais lógico aproximar-se da China e encomendar-lhe parte dos custos de contenção da ameaça russa?

Segundo Immanuel Wallerstein, este é o caminho, mas tem um senão: implica que os Estados Unidos cedam o seu papel de potência dominante à China, como outrora os ingleses acabariam por fazer relativamente à sua antiga colónia. Uma tal cedência, porém, é o contrário do que diz a consigna Make America Great Again.

Nada disto faz sentido. Aparentemente. Salvo se estivermos em presença de uma manobra perversa por parte dos Estados Unidos, nomeadamente depois de constatarem que o seu declínio prossegue de forma imparável e a sua sociedade está cada vez mais dividida e violenta, ao contrário de uma União Europeia e de uma moeda, o euro, que parecem resistir a todas as tentativas (americana, inglesa e russa) de as destruirem. A manobra seria esta: criar atrito com a China, provocar a União Europeia, dar espaço de manobra à Rússia, e esperar que os temores da China comecem a aflorar nas conversas privadas entre Washngton e Pequim. É que a autonomia energética chinesa chegou virtualmente ao fim. Sem energia abundante e barata mais limpa que o carvão, até hoje usado, e sem o petróleo/ gás natural do Médio Oriente e da Ásia Central, o colapso ecológico, mas também económico de Pequim, poderá estar a menos de duas décadas de distância. O crescimento real do PIB chinês não ultrapassa hoje os 5%. Ou seja, mais do que a América, cuja suficiência energética e alimentar continua a ser evidente, é a China—a qual faz parte do famoso Rimland do Coração da Terra— que precisa de conter a Rússia! Chegados aqui, os americanos bem poderiam recolher a penates e lamber as feridas de um século de imperialismo violento.

Conclusão: os Estados Unidos desejam secretamente ceder a supremacia à China, mas sem perder a face.



REFERÊNCIAS À TEORIA GEOESTRATÉGICA DE MACKINDER

A modernidade pós-medieval começa em 1415 (tomada de Ceuta pelos portugueses), ou em 1453 (queda de Constantinopla), ou em 1492 e 1500 (descoberta do continente americano), ou em 1522 (conclusão da primeira viagem de circum-navegação), e termina, segundo H. J. Mackinder, pouco depois de 1900. Este foi o tempo que levou a conhecer e desenhar o mapa da Terra até às suas mais ínfimas paragens. Depois desta aventura, o mundo tornou-se uma realidade geopolítica fechada, não havendo mais nenhuma 'última fronteira' a descobrir ou conquistar, mas tão só territórios delimitados por nações e estados, compondo placas tectónicas e geopolíticas cujos movimentos e atritos marcam o pulsar, por vezes violento, entre as comunidades humanas que nelas habitam.

Como escreveu Harold John Mackinder na sua famosa conferência de 1904 (traduzo livremente),

Quando os historiadores num remoto futuro olharem para o grupo de séculos por que estamos a passar, com uma perspetiva comprimida como aquela que nos dá a ver as dinastias do Egito, poderá muito bem acontecer que descrevam os últimos 400 anos como a época colombiana, e digam que a mesma acabou pouco depois de 1900. 

CITAÇÕES

##

“Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island; Who rules the World Island commands the World.”(Mackinder, Democratic Ideals and Reality, p. 150) 

Competition for gaining control over natural resources between Russia and the United States together with geopolitical and strategic factors characterized the geopolitics of Central Asia. Control over natural resources as well as market access is indeed the main motto of the foreign policy direction of both states. In fact, it may be said that outlined in 1904 through his speech, the “Heartland theory” was a founding moment for geopolitics. His argument regarding the control of the Eurasian landmass (Europe, Asia, and the Middle East), is still considered as the major geopolitical prize.  

—in “Heartland Theory” of Mackinder & its Relevancy in Central Asia Geopolitics
By Suban Kumar Chowdhury and Abdullah Hel Kafi
IndraStra. Saturday, June 25, 2016

##

In Europe, North America, South America, Africa, and Australasia there is scarcely a region left for the pegging out of a claim of ownership, unless as the result of a war between civilized or half-civilized powers. Even in Asia, we are probably witnessing the last moves of the game first played by the horsemen of Yermak the Cossack and the shipment of Vasco da Gama. Broadly speaking, we may contrast the Columbian epoch with the age which preceded it, describing its essential characteristic as the expansion of Europe against almost negligible resistances, whereas medieval Christendom was bent into a narrow region and threatened by external barbarism. From the present time forth, in the pos-Columbian age, we shall again have to deal with a closed political system, and none the less that it will be one of worldwide scope. [...] 

European civilization is, in a very real sense, the outcome of the secular struggle against Asiatic invasion. [...] 

...the settled peoples of Europe lay gripped between two pressures—that of the Asiatic nomads from the east, and on the other three sides that of the pirates from the sea. From its very nature, neither pressure was overwhelming, and both, therefore, were stimulative. [...] 

It is probably one of the most striking coincidences of history that the seaward and the landward expansion of Europe should, in a sense, continue the ancient opposition between Roman and Greek. Few great failures have had more far-reaching consequences tan the failure of Rome to Latinize the Greek. The Teuton was civilized and Christianized by the Roman, the Slav in the main by the Greek. It is the Romano-Teuton who in later times embarked upon the ocean; it was the Graeco-Slav who rode over the steppes, conquering the Turanian. Thus the modern land-power differs from the sea-power no less in the source of its ideals than in the material conditions of its mobility. [...] 

For a thousand years a series of horse-riding peoples emerged from Asia through the broad interval between the Ural mountains and the Caspian sea, [...] 

The all-important result of the discovery of the Cape road to the Indies was to connect the western and the eastern coastal navigations of Euro-Asia, even though by a circuitous route, and thus in some measure to neutralize the strategical advantage of the central position of the steppe nomads by pressing upon them in the rear. 

—in The Geographical Pivot of History
H. J. Mackinder
The Geographical Journal
Vol. 23, No. 4 (Apr. 1904), pp. 421-437

##

Mackinder’s article argued that the coming of steam power, electricity, and the railways were, at last, permitting continental nations to overcome the physical obstacles that had hampered their development in the past. 

In particular, the railway was enabling tsarist Russia to exploit its vast internal resources and to make strategic inroads in the far east and towards India that its imperial rival Great Britain could not counter. Land power was thus eroding the geopolitical advantages that had been enjoyed by the western sea powers. 

The rest of the 20th century bore witness to Mackinder’s thesis. The two world wars were struggles for control of what the author called the “rimlands”, that swathe of territories running from eastern Europe to the Himalayas and beyond, just outside the Asian “heartland” itself. Soviet domination of that region during the cold war caused many a US geopolitician (Nicholas Spykman, for example) to recall Mackinder’s theories. And the recent projection of US military power into Afghanistan and various central Asian republics has rekindled interest in the hypothesis. 

—in The pivot of history
Paul Kennedy
The Guardian, Saturday 19 June 2004 12.02 BST