O que é este blog?

Este blog trata basicamente de ideias, se possível inteligentes, para pessoas inteligentes. Ele também se ocupa de ideias aplicadas à política, em especial à política econômica. Ele constitui uma tentativa de manter um pensamento crítico e independente sobre livros, sobre questões culturais em geral, focando numa discussão bem informada sobre temas de relações internacionais e de política externa do Brasil. Para meus livros e ensaios ver o website: www.pralmeida.org.

quinta-feira, 22 de fevereiro de 2018

Diario da viagem para a Filladelfia - Hipolito da Costa





Diário da minha viagem para Filadélfia: Hipólito da Costa; edição crítica: Tânia Dias
Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Casa de Rui Barbosa; Belo Horizonte: Editora UFMG, 2016, 260 p.; ISBN: 978-85-7004-339-9;
Índice: 

Permito-me recordar um artigo (tenho outros) que fiz sobre o nosso grande viajante e primeiro jornalista independente:
Intérpretes do Brasil: ensaios de cultura e identidade , 2004
Relação de Publicados n. 479. Relação de Trabalhos n. 1243.

Intervenção federal no RJ: guerra contra o crime organizado


O presidente da CD expõe as razões da intervenção federal no RJ. Alguns fingem não ver os problemas, muitos são ingênuos, a maioria quer que se faça alguma coisa, qualquer coisa...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
DISCURSO DO PRESIDENTE DA CÂMARA, DEPUTADO RODRIGO MAIA, NA SESSÃO QUE APROVOU A INTERVENÇÃO NA SEGURANÇA DO RIO DE JANEIRO!

1. Desde a redemocratização do Brasil, marcada pela promulgação da Constituição de 1988, é a primeira vez que o Executivo Federal decide intervir num Estado, numa Unidade da Federação, no caso o Rio de Janeiro. Mais forte do que isso, pela segunda vez na história da República, o Governo intervém num Estado federado em plena vigência das liberdades democráticas e submete o seu ato ao rito constitucional disposto na Carta de 1988.

2. Estamos seguindo a Constituição democrática de 1988. Por isso, Câmara e Senado têm de votar o decreto de intervenção, aprovando-o ou suspendendo-o, como estabelece o art. 49, inciso IV, da Constituição Federal. Somos chamados a superar diferenças ideológicas, conceitos diversos de gestão da máquina pública, para mostrar união contra um inimigo comum a todos os homens e mulheres de bem, um inimigo comum a todos que têm espírito público: o crime organizado.

3. Estamos numa guerra contra o crime. A nossa arma é a Constituição e a nossa missão é defender a democracia, dando aos Estados os poderes excepcionais previstos na Constituição para assegurar a manutenção da ordem e do Estado Democrático de Direito. As Forças Armadas, a Força Nacional, a Polícia Federal e a Polícia Rodoviária Federal estão sendo convocadas pelo Presidente da República, que é o seu comandante, para uma missão fundamental na defesa da democracia: combater e vencer o crime organizado.

4. Não se trata de intervenção militar — longe disso —, vamos votar aqui um decreto de intervenção do Governo Federal no Estado do Rio de Janeiro. Diga-se, de forma clara e direta: se fosse uma intervenção militar, esta Casa — com toda razão e com todo o meu apoio e energia — a derrotaria. Estamos nos preparando para votar um decreto de intervenção constitucional e democrática em um dos entes da Federação da nossa República. Isto está previsto no art. 84 da nossa Constituição. Infelizmente, essa intervenção torna-se urgente e necessária porque o poder estadual exauriu sua capacidade para impor autoridade.

5. É necessário asseverar isso: o Governo do Rio de Janeiro sucumbiu à desordem. Torna-se urgente e inadiável fazer prevalecer a ordem, levar de volta a paz de espírito às ruas do Rio de Janeiro e as de todo o País também. A intervenção fará a máquina do Estado convergir todo o seu poder e todos os seus instrumentos para a vitória contra o crime, contra os criminosos, contra os bandidos.

6. A intervenção é um instrumento constitucional, é dispositivo do livro basilar das democracias: a Constituição. A democracia é o poder do povo para o povo. Quando esse poder exercido pelo Estado é sequestrado, é roubado, é espoliado pelo crime organizado, só resta a esse mesmo Estado reagir usando as suas ferramentas, as armas que a Constituição nos dá para combater os bandidos. A intervenção é, neste momento, a maior das ferramentas.

7. O art. 49, inciso IV, da Constituição diz expressamente que cabe ao Congresso Nacional, por meio de votações em maioria simples, na Câmara e no Senado, aprovar ou suspender a intervenção já decretada pelo Chefe do Poder Executivo. O texto constitucional é claro quando fala em suspensão do decreto. A eventual rejeição do ato presidencial o suspenderia — e ele já produz efeitos desde a sua publicação. Ou aprovamos ou rejeitamos o decreto presidencial. Não cabe, portanto, a esta Casa eventuais emendas modificativas — é o que diz a nossa Constituição.

8. Não é razoável imaginar que o Rio consiga superar sozinho a exaustão da autoridade e a falência da gestão. É por isso que a intervenção federal se impõe. E é por isso que os três Poderes da República, cada um deles cumprindo seu papel constitucional, com a independência e a harmonia previstas na Carta Magna — e, sobretudo, ouvindo o apelo da sociedade —, agem firme e decisivamente para dizer aos criminosos e aos bandidos:

9. “Basta! Basta de assistir a famílias destroçadas por tragédias! Basta de nos chocarmos com a imensurável dor de pais e mães que perdem seus filhos e filhas brutalmente assassinados, em alguns casos cidadãos ou cidadãs, crianças mortas dentro de suas próprias casas por balas perdidas, vítimas inocentes tragadas pela criminalidade e transformadas em estatísticas. Basta de ver as nossas metrópoles como cidades partidas e medievais, onde muralhas e aparatos sofisticados de segurança são necessários e até indispensáveis para garantir ao cidadão o simples direito de andar nas ruas. Basta!” Conheço esta Casa. Sei que neste grave momento ela não faltará à sua responsabilidade.

10. O nosso papel não é apenas chancelar a intervenção no Rio, onde ela se impõe agora e já, mas é também o de deixar claro que o Estado brasileiro e nós, o Congresso Nacional, não seremos omissos onde e quando o crime organizado seguir ameaçando a autoridade do Estado. Afinal, cabe ao Estado — e só a ele — o uso coercitivo da força para manter a lei e a ordem. Ao colocar aqui, como Presidente da Câmara e como Deputado do Rio de Janeiro, a minha posição, faço-o com todo respeito a cada partido político, a cada um dos Parlamentares, a cada grupo ideológico representado neste Plenário.

11. E este Plenário é a representação do conjunto da sociedade brasileira. Sras. Deputadas, Srs. Deputados, o Governo Federal assegura ter realizado extensos estudos sobre todos os passos dessa intervenção. Ela é um caminho árido, é uma estrada na qual todas as forças do Estado, sob o comando do Presidente da República, só têm uma saída: vencer — vencer o crime organizado, vencer sem recuo. Estou certo de que o Poder Executivo sabe bem disso. Esta Casa acompanhará, avaliará e fiscalizará todos os atos dessa intervenção, que seguramente não encontrará limites nem orçamentários, nem burocráticos ou de qualquer ordem para assegurar a vitória do Estado e da sociedade sobre a bandidagem, sobre os criminosos, que a todos ameaçam.

12. O crime não pode vencer. Os criminosos têm que ser derrotados. Há uma frase de Winston Churchill que diz: “Na guerra é inútil dizer que vamos fazer o possível. Precisamos fazer tudo que for necessário.” Convoco cada um dos presentes a debater e deliberar o decreto presidencial da intervenção no Estado do Rio de Janeiro. Este é o papel necessário que nos cabe agora.

quarta-feira, 21 de fevereiro de 2018

O Itamaraty na Cultura Brasileira - Alberto da Costa e Silva (org.)


O Itamaraty na Cultura Brasileira


Organizador: Alberto da Costa e Silva
Realização: Instituto Rio Branco
1a. edição: Instituto Rio Branco, 2001 (grande formato, ilustrada)
Produção Executiva: Arte 21 – Escritório de Arte e Projetos Culturais
Coordenação Geral de Produção: Karla Osório Netto
Programação Visual: Lumen Argo – Arte e Projeto Evandro Salles

Sumário da 1a. edição:
O Itamaraty na Cultura Brasileira, Celso Lafer *15
Diplomacia e Cultura, Alberto da Costa e Silva *26
Varnhagen, História e Diplomacia, Arno Wehling *40
Ritmos de Uma Vida: Brazílio Itiberê da Cunha Músico e Diplomata, Celso de Tarso Pereira *58
Joaquim Nabuco, Evaldo Cabral de Mello *88
Pai e Filho (Luis Guimarães Júnior e L. G. Filho), Sérgio Martagão Gesteira *106
Aluízio Azevedo, A Literatura como Destino, Massaud Moisés *136
Domício da Gama, Alberto Venancio Filho *158
Oliveira Lima e Nossa Formação, Carlos Guilherme Mota *180
Gilberto Amado Além do Brilho, André Seffrin *198
A Vida Breve de Ronald de Carvalho, Alexei Bueno *214
Ribeiro Couto, o Poeta do Exílio, Afonso Arinos Filho *232
Viagem à Beira de Bopp, Antônio Carlos Secchin *252
Guimarães Rosa, Viajante, Felipe Fortuna *270
Antônio Houaiss, A Cultura Brasileira e a Língua Portuguesa, Leodegário A. de Azevedo Filho *288

Vinícius de Moraes, O Poeta da Proximidade, Miguel Sanches Neto *302
Vinícius, Poeta e Diplomacia, na Música Popular, Ricardo Cravo Albin *316
João Cabral, um Mestre sem Herdeiros, Ivan Junqueira *336
O Fenômeno Merquior, José Mario Pereira *360
Os Autores, *380
2a. edição: Editora Francisco Alves, 2002 (brochura)
Acréscimo de Nota final (sobre funções e títulos diplomáticos), por José Roberto de Andrade Filho

Proposta de 3a. edição: (formato a definir)


Paulo Roberto de Almeida (21/03/2018)

Reforming Multilateral banking - Amar Bhattacharya


Time to reform the multilateral development bank system

G-20 finance ministers established an Eminent Persons Group on Global Financial Governance last April to review “the challenges and opportunities facing the international financial and monetary system” with a central focus on the multilateral development bank (MDB) system.
In a recent paper, prepared jointly with the Center for Global Development and the Overseas Development Institute at the behest of the Eminent Persons Group, we assess the role of the multilateral development system and the reforms needed to support the new global agenda. Unleashing the system’s potential will require greater coherence and political commitment across shareholders. The Eminent Persons Group will make their recommendations by October 2018, providing the last good opportunity to shape the future of the MDB system.
The milestone agreements of 2015 launched an ambitious global agenda to revitalize growth, deliver on the Sustainable Development Goals and take the necessary actions to mitigate climate change and adapt to its effects. While there is broad-based commitment to this agenda, progress on tangible actions has been lagging and the scale and urgency of the challenge insufficiently understood.
There is an urgency to the reforms. The coming decades will see the largest urban expansion in history, concentrated in emerging markets and developing countries. More infrastructure needs to be built in the next 15 years than the existing stock of infrastructure in the world. If this is not built in a sustainable way, it will become far more costly to retrofit to achieve low-carbon pathways, build resilience against shocks including climate change, and provide affordable access. It is also the last opportunity to address the demographic transitions occurring in the developing world, especially in Africa.  At the same time, major opportunities exist in the potential of new technologies and the capacity of the private sector.
MDBs are uniquely placed to play a central role in realizing the ambitions of the new global agenda. They can support policy and institutional reforms and build institutional capacity, enhance the quality of projects and programs, and scale up for transformative change. The unique financial structure of the MDBs allows them to leverage contributions from their shareholders and multiply them into financing at low cost, and use this financial capacity in turn to crowd in financing from other sources. MDBs can also help tackle spillovers, most importantly in the areas of climate action, disease containment, conflict prevention, migration, and economic and financial instability. Despite these inherent strengths, MDBs are constrained by their financial and institutional capacities, effectiveness of instruments, and unclear mandates and governance shortcomings. What can be done?
First, the concept of “graduation” based on per capita income needs to be adjusted. MDBs can add value across all income groups and drive the frontiers of growth and development where financial markets are imperfect and where knowledge and capacity gaps exist. A more adaptive framework would determine MDB engagement not just on income level, but on the development impact on the country and sector and the value of the engagement to the system as a whole.
While MDBs could do more everywhere, the multilateral development system could do far more in three underserved client groups: (i) fragile states; (ii) high-debt countries; and (iii) upper middle-income countries.
Fragile states cannot put in place the full array of policy and institutional arrangements of non-fragile states. Frameworks need to be tailored to local conditions and implementation capacities. The multilateral system needs to be more flexible in its operations in these places.
High-debt countries are often avoided by the multilateral system even though there is a risk of a vicious cycle: If no one is prepared to invest in infrastructure in high-debt countries, growth cannot recover and debt becomes relatively higher over time. The issue is the definition of the threshold for “high-debt” and the ability of countries to manage their debt obligations. We recommend that the multilateral system prioritize and strengthen debt management capabilities, especially when taking on large amounts of private debt to finance infrastructure.
Upper middle-income countries are often the source of innovation in financing and a conduit for learning. There are pressures for the multilateral system to disengage from upper middle-income countries. However, such a retreat would put greater pressure on business models (profits are reliably made from activities in these countries),  and would have the unintended effect of stripping countries and multilateral institutions of accountability at a global level. If China, Russia, and Brazil are not included, should other developing countries be held to high global standards on sustainability? How can multilaterals be held accountable for global results if they are not engaged in the largest developing country economies?
Second, MDBs individually and collectively need to become far more effective in unlocking private investment. MDBs are looking for ways to improve their catalytic role in mobilizing private financing. The G-20 Hamburg principles for MDB financing based on “reform, investment, and catalyzation” as laid out in the World Bank Group’s cascade approach is a good starting point. MDBs now need to improve their instruments and platforms for risk sharing and for mobilizing private investment and finance.
Third, there is scope for enhancing the effectiveness of the MDB system as a whole. Individual MDBs each perform well, according to evaluation results, but their impact could be enhanced if they cooperated more as a system.
One example is in infrastructure where multilaterals still principally deliver bespoke projects that are hard to scale up because they are demanding and time-consuming to prepare. But multilaterals are starting to collaborate more to build such systems. They have been key drivers on a multi-stakeholder initiative, SOURCE, whose website explains that it “provides support to national and subnational governments and public agencies in improving infrastructure project bankability, quality and delivery, in increasing investment and crowding-in private finance, in strengthening their technical capacities and abilities to manage risks.”
Locally, multilaterals are supporting client governments to develop institutions that will take on project planning, and preparation, as well as problem-solving in implementation. These national platforms permit financing from several different sources (including local currency long-term capital) to be pooled for a number of different projects.
Through these global and national efforts, multilaterals are helping develop platforms that can be scaled up. A noteworthy feature of current platforms is that they mobilize both multilateral and private capital as complements. The multilateral involvement assures the private sector of adequate due diligence in the platform approach, as well as permitting an apportionment of risk to different parties according to their ability to manage it. The participation of the private sector permits governments to achieve more.
Fourth, shareholders need to reach consensus on capital and governance to unlock the financial potential and effectiveness of the MDB system. The platform approach will require a sharp expansion in multilateral activity. Such an expansion is not feasible under current business and financial models that tend to hem MDBs in (for example, the use of paid-in capital and shareholder mandates are a disincentive to innovation). Research suggests that institutions with greater developing country voice have greater risk tolerance, while those dominated by advanced economies are more cautious financially.
One option for doing more is to encourage multilateral institutions to divest themselves of loans once projects have been built and start to yield a steady stream of revenues. After construction is completed, project risk is substantially lower and private capital should be more affordable. More rapid asset turnover by multilateral institutions would allow for engagement in many more projects.
The bottom line is that multilateral institutions are the best mechanism today for leveraging public resources. By our calculations, each dollar of paid-in capital could reasonably translate into $50 of public investments if properly allocated.
The current reform of the multilateral development system typically asks “are multilateral institutions doing the right things and, if so, should they be doing more?” By and large, the answer is “yes.” But when a different question is posed, “are we making sufficient progress on issues where the multilateral system can make a difference?” the answer is invariably “no.”
With so many issues on the table, we believe that the greatest risk to the system lies in active inertia, a tendency to make changes on the margin that fall short of a collective response that is scaled to the task at hand. For this reason, we recommend that there be periodic structured discussions on the performance of the multilateral development system in three fora: at the Development Committee of the World Bank, the United Nations’ quadrennial High Level Political Forum Summit on the Sustainable Development Goals, and the G-20. This may seem messy, but absent discussion and agreement in multiple places, little will change. The world cannot afford not to get the most out of the multilateral development system.

terça-feira, 20 de fevereiro de 2018

Erasmo vs Lutero, o humanista contra o intolerante - Michael Massing (NYRB)



Luther vs. Erasmus: When Populism First Eclipsed the Liberal Elite

Lucas Cranach the Elder: Martin Luther, circa 1532; Hans Holbein the Younger: Portrait of Erasmus, 1523
Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam, the leading figure of the Northern Renaissance, is widely considered the greatest of early humanists. Five hundred years ago, he faced a populist uprising led by a powerful provocateur, Martin Luther, that resulted in divisions no less explosive than those we see in America and Europe today.
Between 1500 and 1515, Erasmus produced a small library of tracts, textbooks, essays, and dialogues that together offered a blueprint for a new Europe. The old Europe had been dominated by the Roman Church. It emphasized hierarchy, authority, tradition, and the performance of rituals like confession and taking communion. But a new order was emerging, marked by spreading literacy, expanding trade, growing cities, the birth of printing, and the rise of a new middle class intent on becoming not only prosperous but learned, too.
Erasmus became the most articulate spokesman for this class. Moving from city to city in search of good libraries, fine wine, sparkling conversation, and skilled printers, he produced a new “design for living” based on the principles of tolerance, pluralism, concord, and virtuous conduct. In his 1515 essay Dulce bellum inexpertis (“War is sweet only to those who have not experienced it”), he denounced the ceaseless wars waged by rash princes. In The Education of a Christian Prince (1516), he offered a guide to good governance, urging sovereigns to pursue not their own interests but those of the people. In The Praise of Folly (1511), he mocked the pretensions and delusions of kings and courtiers, popes and theologians—part of his campaign to discredit the ruling class and open the way for renewal.
At the heart of Erasmus’s program was his revision of the New Testament. To reform Christendom, he felt, the text on which it was based had to be purified. This was the Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Bible. For a thousand years, this document had served as the scriptural foundation of the Roman Church. Many of its doctrines and institutions were based on specific words and phrases in the Vulgate. Yet a close inspection of the text raised many questions about its sacred status. It was marred by spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, clumsy constructions, and scribal blunders.
In 1500, Erasmus set out to learn Greek so that he could read the Gospels and Epistles in the language in which they had originally been written. (After the fall of Rome, knowledge of Greek had more or less disappeared from the Latin West.) He also began hunting down old manuscripts of the Greek New Testament; by comparing and collating them, he hoped to conjecture what their authors truly meant.
In early 1516, after months of exhausting writing, editing, and proofreading in the print shop of Johann Froben in Basel, Switzerland, the work was done. In addition to providing a revised Latin translation of the New Testament and a parallel Greek text (the first ever printed), Erasmus offered hundreds of annotations explaining the changes he had made. In them, he argued for a new way of reading the Bible—not as a collection of miracles, prophecies, and supernatural acts, but as the story of a transcendent being whose simplicity, humility, and compassion could encourage readers to change their ways and follow a more pious path.  
The publication of Erasmus’s revised New Testament was a milestone in biblical studies. It gave scholars the tools to read the Bible as a document that, while divinely inspired, was a human product that could be deconstructed and edited in the same manner as a text by Livy or Seneca. As copies began circulating, the magnitude of Erasmus’s achievement was immediately recognized. Not since Cicero had an intellectual figure so dominated Western discourse as Erasmus did in that enchanted spring of 1516. “Everywhere in all Christendom your fame is spreading,” wrote John Watson, a rector in England with whom he was friendly. “By the unanimous verdict of all scholars, you are voted the best scholar of them all, and the most learned in both Greek and Latin.”
The term “Erasmian” came into use to describe those who shared his vision. But those Erasmians represented only a small sliver of society. Erasmus wrote exclusively in Latin, for the highly educated, Latin-speaking elite. Dazzled by his readings in ancient Greek, Erasmus began promoting knowledge of that language as no less essential than Latin. “Almost everything worth learning is set forth in these two languages,” he wrote in one of his many educational texts. In these, Erasmus proposed a new curriculum for Europe, with instruction in Latin and Greek at its core.
Knowledge of geography, history, astronomy, and nature was all to be imparted through readings in the classical authors specified by Erasmus. His educational program was, in short, highly elitist, seeking not to prepare ordinary citizens for a productive life but to train an aristocracy of culture and taste that could guide the rest of society. This curriculum became the basis for upper-class schooling in Europe until well into the nineteenth century; through it, knowledge of the classical canon would become a ruthlessly clear indicator of class.
In his own day, Erasmus mocked all who mangled grammar and lacked Greek. “Barbarian” was his favorite term of abuse, directed at medieval schoolmasters, scholastic theologians, and others who were rhetorically impaired. He and his fellow humanists gilded their letters with citations from classical writers to signal their membership in the fraternity of learning. As for vernacular tongues, the use of which was spreading across Europe, Erasmus dismissed them as vulgar.
“It is important for scholars to confine themselves to those languages that have almost exclusively been used in learned writing,” he declared. “The reason is that they do not depend for their guarantee on ordinary people. The people are poor custodians of quality.” In short, Erasmus—that champion of a common humanity—was a world-class snob.
Around the same time that the Erasmians were celebrating the dawn of a new enlightened era, a very different movement was gathering in support of Martin Luther. An Augustinian friar then in his early thirties, Luther had developed his own, unique gospel, founded on the principle of faith. Man, he thought, can win divine grace not through doing good works, as the Latin Church taught, but through belief in Christ. No matter how sincerely one confessed, no matter how many alms one gave, without faith in the Savior, he reasoned, no one can be saved. When Luther made this “discovery,” in around 1515, he felt that he had become “altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates.”
With this new conviction, Luther became disturbed by the Church’s use of indulgences. These dispensations, by remitting the penalties imposed on sinners for their transgressions, reduced the amount of time they had to spend in purgatory before being admitted to heaven. In return, the Church expected a financial contribution. To Luther, this seemed to turn repentance into a form of barter. In protest, he prepared (in Latin) a set of theses for debate that challenged the pope’s authority to grant indulgences. On October 31, 1517, he posted them on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg (though historians now question whether he physically affixed them to the door).
Soon appearing in print (in both Latin and a German translation), the Ninety-Five Theses quickly spread across Germany. Indulgences were but one of many instruments Rome used to extract money from the German people, and Luther’s protest fanned their resentment. Initially, the Vatican ignored him, assuming the matter would blow over, but the friar—driven, blunt, fearless—spoke out ever more forcefully against what he considered Rome’s arrogance, greed, and corruption. In addition to writing thick theological tracts in Latin, he produced sharp popular pamphlets in German. In them, Luther used an earthy, folksy, and sometimes scatological idiom that helped carry his ideas far beyond the educated elites who were drawn to Erasmus and his high-minded program of social and scriptural renewal.  
In his famous 1520 tract To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, Luther (writing in the vernacular) offered his own reform program. Along with a piercing attack on Rome’s oppressive practices, he proposed twenty-seven measures to protect both the souls and pocketbooks of the German people. He also rejected the idea that the clergy make up a separate spiritual class superior to the laity. All Christians, he declared, are priests of equal standing, free to read and interpret the Bible for themselves. Such attacks on privileged elites endeared him to Herr Omnes, “Mr. Everyman.”
Because of such defiance, Luther was ordered to appear before Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, at the Diet of Worms in April 1521. Refusing to recant his writings, Luther made his famous stand on behalf of his conscience as a Christian. For that, he could have been seized on the spot and burned as a heretic, but with the German people mobilizing behind him, any effort to arrest him would have caused a riot. So Luther was able to leave Worms, resume his writing, and set in motion the Reformation.
Initially, Luther admired Erasmus and his efforts to reform the Church, but over time Luther’s inflammatory language and his stress on faith instead of good works led to a painful separation. The flashpoint was the debate over whether man has free will. In dueling tracts, Erasmus suggested that he does, while Luther vehemently objected; after that, the two men considered each other mortal enemies.
Beyond that immediate matter of dispute, however, their conflict represented the clash of two contrasting world views—those of the Renaissance and the Reformation. Erasmus was an internationalist who sought to establish a borderless Christian union; Luther was a nationalist who appealed to the patriotism of the German people. Where Erasmus wrote exclusively in Latin, Luther often used the vernacular, the better to reach the common man. Erasmus wanted to educate a learned caste; Luther, to evangelize the masses. For years, they waged a battle of ideas, with each seeking to win over Europe to his side, but Erasmus’s reformist and universalist creed could not match Luther’s more emotional and nationalistic one; even some of Erasmus’s closest disciples eventually defected to Luther’s camp. Erasmus became an increasingly marginal figure, scorned by both Catholics, for being too critical of the Church, and Lutherans, for being too timid. In a turbulent and polarized age, he was the archetypal reasonable liberal.
Even as his reputation faded, Erasmus worked to complete his blueprint for Europe. In The Complaint of Peace, he decried the nationalist enmities that were splitting the continent. “The English are hostile to the French, for no other reason than that they are French,” he wrote. “The Scots are disliked by the British, solely for being Scots. Germans don’t agree with French, Spaniards don’t agree with either. What perversity—for the mere name of a place to divide people when there is so much which could bring them together!”
Disturbed by the growing bitterness between Catholics and Protestants, Erasmus called on Christians to put aside their private hatreds and bitter quarrels, and instead nurture a spirit of accommodation so that peace could reign. On Mending the Peace of the Church, as he titled the tract, was a resonant appeal for religious tolerance—a formative document in the development of that tradition.
As his end approached, Erasmus sought to warn his fellow Christians of the catastrophe he saw looming—in vain. After his death, in 1536, Europe descended into a century of religious-fueled violence, culminating in the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648)—the continent’s most destructive conflict before World War I. Erasmus’s ideas about tolerance, peace, and clemency were ruthlessly suppressed. Both Catholics and Protestants dismissed him as a weak, vacillating man who lacked ardor and conviction, and whose commitment to an irenic form of Christianity founded on the Gospels was as objectionable as it was obsolete.
Yet Erasmus’s vision of a united Europe in which people of differing beliefs share a common citizenship would live on, providing an intellectual haven amid the eruptions of nationalism, xenophobia, racism, and nihilistic violence that periodically ravaged the continent. Despite its snobbism and elitism, Erasmian humanism offered an alternative to the apocalypse.
Luther underwent his own reverses. When, in 1524–1525, the German peasants—inspired in part by his writings—rose up against their spiritual and secular overlords, Luther, fearing anarchy, denounced them as mad dogs who deserved to be stabbed, smitten, and slayed. With that, the common man turned irrevocably against Luther. A wrenching dispute over whether the body of Christ is present in the bread of communion led to an irreparable breach with the Swiss branch of the Reformation. And Luther’s uncompromising insistence on the rectitude of his own beliefs alienated many moderates, and not just Catholic ones.
By the time of his death, in 1546, Luther had become an isolated reactionary, his work eclipsed by a younger and more dynamic reformer, John Calvin. Even so, Luther would go down in history as the founder of Protestantism, the man who broke the spiritual stranglehold of the Roman Church. Luther’s brand of Bible-based ardor founded on pure faith would exercise a profound influence on Western culture, not least in America.

Embaixador Alberto da Costa e Silva: Percursos Diplomáticos (15/01/2018)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r2xkrayOZs

Palestra Percursos Diplomáticos - Embaixador Alberto da Costa e Silva

Neste link se pode assistir à palestra do Embaixador Alberto da Costa e Silva na série Percursos Diplomáticos, criada pelo IPRI em cooperação com o Instituto Rio Branco.
Esta palestra foi excepcionalmente gravada no Rio de Janeiro:

O evento foi realizado em 15 de janeiro de 2018, por ocasião da visita dos alunos do Instituto Rio Branco (IRBr) à Federação das Indústrias do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (Firjan). Além de diplomata, o embaixador Alberto da Costa e Silva é poeta, ensaísta, historiador e membro da Academia Brasileira de Letras (ABL). É um dos maiores estudiosos da história e da cultura da África.

Academia.edu: impacto em um ano dos papers Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Apenas consultando o Analytics do Academia.edu, quanto ao impacto global de meus arquivos no espaço de um ano:

Your Impact from February 01, 2017 to January 31, 2018
10,535
Unique Visitors
3,751
Downloads
19,830
Views
117
Countries
Country12-Month Visitors
Brazil8524
United States595
Portugal177
Argentina84
France83
1,425
Cities
City12-Month Visitors
Brasília935
São Paulo835
Rio De Janeiro733
Belo Horizonte328
Porto Alegre278
0.1%
Top 0.1% By Views
Research FieldTop % By 12-Month Views
Direito0.1%
Brazil0.1%
Brazilian History0.1%
International Economic Relations0.1%
Brazilian Studies0.1%
333
Job Titles
Job Title12-Month Visitors
Graduate Student450
Faculty Member285
Undergraduate245
Adjunct236
Alumnus181
122
Traffic Sources
Source12-Month Views
Direct4263
Google2740
google.com.br2306
diplomatizzando.blogspot.com.br1948
Academia.edu Profile1623
82
Searches
Search12-Month Views
Google2727
planejamento de medio e logo prazo na administração publica2
deuda soberana reestructuración2
regulação governamental2
quarta revolução industrial2