Tomado de: 100 mitos de la historia de México.
Autor: Francisco Martín Moreno
Paginas: 73-79
El 14 de Diciembre de 1859 Melchor Ocampo y Robert McLane suscribieron el proyecto de un tratado diplomático entre México y los Estados Unidos. A primera vista, ninguno de los artículos del tratado favorecía a nuestro país. Benito Juarez, al parecer, había permitido que, a cambio de cuatro millones de dólares -dos de los cuales quedarían en las arcas estadounidenses para cubrir las injustas e interminables reclamaciones de guerra-, los gringos obtuvieran los derechos de paso por el Istmo de Tehuantepec y por Sonora -de Guaymas a Nogales-; asimismo, el documento abría la posibilidad para ambos países de auxiliarse militarmente, según determinadas circunstancias. Así pues, todo parece indicar que el tratado McLane-Ocampo entregaba la soberanía de una parte del territorio nacional a cambio de un par de millones de dólares.
Juarez, entonces, se comporto igual que Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, el mayor vende patrias de nuestra historia? Aunque la respuesta es un NO! rotundo, la iglesia católica y los conservadores han insistido en que Juarez traiciono Mexico al permitir que se suscribiera el Tratado McLane-Ocampo. Este mito debe ser aclarado, pues solo así podrán comprenderse los verdaderos fines que animaron a Juarez a suscribir ese documento.
LAS MENTIRAS, LAS FALSAS IMPUTACIONES
Desde 1860 los profesores de las escuelas religiosas y los historiadores clericales han difundido la mentira de que Juarez traiciono a México con el Tratado McLane-Ocampo. Curiosamente, en cada una de sus palabras aun se percibe el eco del Manifiesto que Miguel Miramon publico el 1 de Enero de 1860. En la parte medular de este documento -cuyo original se encuentra en el Archivo General de la Nación- se lee lo siguiente:
Por medio de su gobierno establecido en Veracruz, [los liberales] intentan vender la integridad, el honor y la seguridad de la patria, por un tratado infame que deja en la frente de las personas que lo firman, un sello indeleble de traición y de escandalo. [El tratado] se contrae a concesiones de territorio o de vías de transito para los ciudadanos y tropas de los Estados Unidos, que arruinarían nuestros puertos y nuestro comercio y que servirían a aquella república para irse extendiendo sobre nuestro país.
Sin embargo, lo que el general Miramon afirmaba en su Manifiesto era solo una cortina de humo que pretendía ocultar la verdad [Esto según Francisco Martín Moreno]
LA VERDAD SOBRE EL TRATADO MCLANE-OCAMPO
Cuando estallo la guerra de Reforma a causa del violentisimo rechazo de la iglesia católica y de los conservadores a la Constitución de 1857, los ejercitos liberales y los conservadores-eclesiásticos iniciaron una lucha feroz que ensangrento el suelo mexicano. Luego de dos a;os de batallas ninguno de los bandos se alza a con la victoria. Por ello, un ano antes de que se suscribiera el Tratado McLane-Ocampo los clericales y los archiconservadores decidieron buscar el apoyo de Francia y España para derrotar a sus enemigos y provocar el retroceso político, económico y cultural de nuestra patria. Los clérigos y los conservadores estaban dispuestos a conceder todo lo que fuera necesario y aun mas, por medio del Tratado Mon-Almonte -suscrito el 26 de Septiembre de 1859, es decir, tres meses antes que el de McLane-Ocampo-, el cual les proporcionaría los recursos y apoyos necesarios para enfrentar a los liberales, después de reconocer las deudas reales y ficticias que nuestro país tenia con España y Francia.
Para los liberales esta situación era mucho mas que peligrosa: si Francia y España se sumaban a la iglesia y a los conservadores mediante el Tratado Mon-Almonte, el futuro de la República estaba perdido. Así, a finales de 1859, Benito Juarez se vio obligado a buscar una alianza con el gobierno estadounidense. La situación era difícil, ya que, como lo señala José Manuel Villalpando:
[los] estadounidenses no darían su apoyo a cambio de nada, razón por la cual Juarez admitió, en Veracruz, las negociaciones con el enviado estadounidense, Robert McLane, a quien su gobierno dio instrucciones precisas de negociar un tratado ventajoso para ellos a cambio de la promesa de suministrar armas y dinero y, si se daba la ocasión, incluso de intervenir militarmente a favor de los liberales.
Juarez y Melchor Ocampo, que en aquellos momentos era el ministro de Relaciones Exteriores, tenían claro que las pretensiones estadounidenses eran desmesuradas -desde el inicio de las negociaciones los gringos insistían en comprar la península de Baja California-, pero también sabían que era fundamental detener el inminente ataque de las fuerzas clericales y conservadoras a Veracruz, donde se había refugiado el gobierno republicano, ya que Miramon -gracias al respaldo económico de la iglesia y de España- contaba con un poderoso ejercito y con el apoyo naval necesario para atacar a los liberales.
El Benemérito sabia que no podía ceder ni un solo metro del territorio nacional -pues el, a diferencia de Santa Anna, tenia solidas convicciones patrióticas-, por lo tanto, durante las negociaciones con McLane se negó a ceder la península de Baja California, aunque otorgo el libre transito de las mercancías estadounidenses. El Tratado McLane-Ocampo no establecía obligaciones para México en el sentido de entregar ni un solo metro cuadrado del suelo Patrio! Por lo tanto, los conservadores y los historiadores oficiales registrados en las generosas nominas del clero mienten al acusar a Juarez de haber vendido a los extranjeros una parte del territorio nacional. Incluso, la insistencia de Juarez de que se ratificara el tratado tenia -además de las razones políticas que analizare mas adelante- un sentido estrictamente económico: el paso por el Istmo de Tehauntepec permitiría establecer polos de desarrollo marítimo, ferrocarriles, comercial e industrial en el trayecto de Coatzacoalcos a Salina Cruz, un hecho que, sin duda, garantizaría la prosperidad de una de las regiones mas pobres del país.
Asimismo, con la firma del Tratado McLane-Ocampo el gobierno jurista logro un acuerdo fundamental: ambas naciones quedaron comprometidas a auxiliarse militarmente. La victoria era clara: se había conseguido la ayuda estadounidense para derrotar a la iglesia y a los conservadores, y como dijo Patricia Galeana en su conferencia "Las Leyes de Reforma y el Tratado McLane-Ocampo": "este acuerdo permitió el reconocimiento de Estados Unidos al gobierno liberal de Benito Juarez y, con ello, evito que el régimen republicano desapareciera"
Sin embargo, no debe pensarse que la habilidad diplomática de Benito Juarez y Melchor Ocampo se limito a la obtención del reconocimiento del gobierno estadounidense a cambio del derecho de transito por algunas franjas del territorio mexicano. El acuerdo, para tener vigencia, debía ser ratificado por el congreso de ambas naciones, lo cual les dio a los liberales un buen tiempo para prepararse: con el país en guerra, el Congreso no podía sesionar, y cualquier acuerdo se pospondría hasta la victoria sobre la iglesia y los conservadores. Los hechos propiciaron que la ratificación de los acuerdos fuera innecesaria: el clero y los conservadores fueron derrotados y el Congreso estadounidense no ratifico el tratado, porque sus integrantes solo vieron en el nuevas anexiones territoriales que fortalecerían a los estados esclavistas que ya se preparaban para la guerra de secesión.
Juarez tenia un as bajo la manga para ganar tiempo!, y el tratado nunca fue ratificado!, por lo cual, en términos estrictamente jurídicos, nunca existió! McLane suscribió la nada jurídica, mientras que Juarez y Ocampo le amarraron las manos a los norteamericanos , pues el tratado solo permitía la intervención militar si se obtenía el consentimiento del gobierno liberal, el cual jamas aceptaría una moción de esa naturaleza.
Juarez, a diferencia de la iglesia y de los conservadores, no fue un vendepatrias, aunque a fuerza de mentiras sus eternos enemigos traten de utilizar el Tratado McLane-Ocampo para acusarlo. Juarez sabia que si vendía Baja California obtendría millones de dólares y que con tales recursos podría aplastar a los reaccionarios, pero ni así estuvo dispuesto a vender el territorio. Como acusarlo de traidor por entregar al país a los gringos a través del tratado cuando nunca vendió nada y si se preservo la soberanía? Si hubiera sido, un traidor habría repetido las acciones de Santa Anna, de Su alteza Serenísima, el peor enemigo en la historia patria, y habría tenido muchas oportunidades de echar mano de cualquier recurso para derrotar a los reaccionarios y hacerse del poder. Acaso Juarez no habría podido tener conversaciones secretas, como las tuvo Santa Anna, con el presidente Polk para vender parte del territorio y ganar dinero en lo personal, volviéndose, además, inamovible políticamente después de barrer a sus enemigos? Juarez no era un bandido ni un traidor como Su Bajeza. Su conducto es una evidencia de honestidad. El siguiente texto, redactado por el propio zapoteco, deja constancia de ello:
La idea que tienen algunos [...] de que ofrezcamos parte del territorio nacional para obtener el auxilio indicado, es no solo antinacional sino perjudicial a nuestra causa [...] que el enemigo nos venza y nos robe, si tal es nuestro destino; pero nosotros no debemos legalizar ese atentado, entregando voluntariamente lo que nos exige por la fuerza. Si la Francia, los Estados Unidos o cualquiera otra nación se apoderara de algún punto de nuestro territorio y por nuestra debilidad no podemos arrojarlo de el, dejemos siquiera vivo nuestro derecho para que las generaciones que nos sucedan lo recobren.
Benito Juarez, le pese a quien le pese, no fue un traidor, y el Tratado McLane-Ocampo resulto una jugada política de grandes alcances que contribuyo a la derrota de la iglesia y de los archiconservadores.
lunes, 21 de noviembre de 2011
jueves, 10 de noviembre de 2011
The Persistence of the Innovaror's Dilema
The Persistence of the Innovator's Dilemma
Scott Anthony
2011-11-10T17:13:17Z
In 1995, a young Harvard Business School Professor co-authored an article in Harvard Business Review, "Disruptive Technology: Catching the Wave." He and his co-author proposed a new causal mechanism that explained the surprising failure of highly-regarded companies. The most punishing innovations, they argued, were the ones that were easy to dismiss at first blush — simple, affordable solutions that took root outside the mainstream market. The authors called these "disruptive" solutions and provided a straightforward prescription for leaders looking to turn disruption into an opportunity. They suggested that companies should find a customer who loved the disruptive solution despite its limitations and create a separate organization to commercialize it.
Of course, that young HBS professor was Innosight co-founder Clayton Christensen. Since then, he has written over a half-dozen books and many more Harvard Business Review articles, almost all of which touch on disruption in some way. Academic journals have dissected the disruptive innovation theory and hundreds of thousands of students around the world have seen Christensen's famous model.
Yet, the innovator's dilemma persists. Just ask executives at Blockbuster Video, Sony, Nokia, Microsoft, Hertz, Kodak, Delta, and nearly all newspaper companies. That's not to say that there haven't been success stories. But they're notable because they are exceptions.
So, why has this dilemma persisted?
Capital markets is one explanation. As this argument holds, the short-term pressure of the capital markets, coupled with management incentives tied tightly to stock prices, make it hard for companies to investment in new growth businesses. Even if companies know what they need to do, their investors won't let them. Investors aren't necessarily irrational, since they could presumably back up-and-coming disruptors themselves. There is at least one strike against this argument. In markets such as India, Korea, Japan, and China, companies that have different corporate governance models seem equally likely to suffer from the innovator's dilemma.
Perhaps the root problem is leadership limitations. Leaders in established companies seeking to drive disruptive growth have to meet the challenge laid down in 1935 by F. Scott Fitzgerald: "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." Yet, in Chapter 9 of The Silver Lining, I described a stream of research suggesting that only about 5% of leaders have the ability to pass Fitzgerald's test. Every once and a while a Steve Jobs, a Jeff Bezos, or an A.G. Lafley appears, but perhaps their rarity leads to the dilemma's persistence.
Maybe the real challenge lies within. Over the past few decades there has been a fascinating set of research into cognitive biases that lead smart people to make bad decisions.* These biases are particularly acute for companies trying to drive disruptive innovation. Consider the "halo effect," which holds that people who are demonstrably good at one thing are perceived to be good at non-related tasks. The halo effect leads companies to assuming their best operators can seamlessly shift into innovation work. Some can, but many cannot. Confirmation bias, disaster neglect, the fundamental attribution error and many others make it easy to simultaneously discount the need to respond to disruptive threats and overestimate the organization's ability to step into new markets.
There are surely other explanations — for instance, people don't always have high levels of interest in transforming a system that confers certain powers on them — but my own view is that the dangerous combination of leadership limitations and cognitive biases makes the innovator's dilemma an intensely difficult problem to solve.
Perhaps further clarity in the root cause of the persistence of the innovator's dilemma can help increase the number of success stories. Any other ideas?
* Dan Ariely, Michael Mauboussin, Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman, and Duncan Watts all write accessibly on the topic.
Scott Anthony
2011-11-10T17:13:17Z
In 1995, a young Harvard Business School Professor co-authored an article in Harvard Business Review, "Disruptive Technology: Catching the Wave." He and his co-author proposed a new causal mechanism that explained the surprising failure of highly-regarded companies. The most punishing innovations, they argued, were the ones that were easy to dismiss at first blush — simple, affordable solutions that took root outside the mainstream market. The authors called these "disruptive" solutions and provided a straightforward prescription for leaders looking to turn disruption into an opportunity. They suggested that companies should find a customer who loved the disruptive solution despite its limitations and create a separate organization to commercialize it.
Of course, that young HBS professor was Innosight co-founder Clayton Christensen. Since then, he has written over a half-dozen books and many more Harvard Business Review articles, almost all of which touch on disruption in some way. Academic journals have dissected the disruptive innovation theory and hundreds of thousands of students around the world have seen Christensen's famous model.
Yet, the innovator's dilemma persists. Just ask executives at Blockbuster Video, Sony, Nokia, Microsoft, Hertz, Kodak, Delta, and nearly all newspaper companies. That's not to say that there haven't been success stories. But they're notable because they are exceptions.
So, why has this dilemma persisted?
Capital markets is one explanation. As this argument holds, the short-term pressure of the capital markets, coupled with management incentives tied tightly to stock prices, make it hard for companies to investment in new growth businesses. Even if companies know what they need to do, their investors won't let them. Investors aren't necessarily irrational, since they could presumably back up-and-coming disruptors themselves. There is at least one strike against this argument. In markets such as India, Korea, Japan, and China, companies that have different corporate governance models seem equally likely to suffer from the innovator's dilemma.
Perhaps the root problem is leadership limitations. Leaders in established companies seeking to drive disruptive growth have to meet the challenge laid down in 1935 by F. Scott Fitzgerald: "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." Yet, in Chapter 9 of The Silver Lining, I described a stream of research suggesting that only about 5% of leaders have the ability to pass Fitzgerald's test. Every once and a while a Steve Jobs, a Jeff Bezos, or an A.G. Lafley appears, but perhaps their rarity leads to the dilemma's persistence.
Maybe the real challenge lies within. Over the past few decades there has been a fascinating set of research into cognitive biases that lead smart people to make bad decisions.* These biases are particularly acute for companies trying to drive disruptive innovation. Consider the "halo effect," which holds that people who are demonstrably good at one thing are perceived to be good at non-related tasks. The halo effect leads companies to assuming their best operators can seamlessly shift into innovation work. Some can, but many cannot. Confirmation bias, disaster neglect, the fundamental attribution error and many others make it easy to simultaneously discount the need to respond to disruptive threats and overestimate the organization's ability to step into new markets.
There are surely other explanations — for instance, people don't always have high levels of interest in transforming a system that confers certain powers on them — but my own view is that the dangerous combination of leadership limitations and cognitive biases makes the innovator's dilemma an intensely difficult problem to solve.
Perhaps further clarity in the root cause of the persistence of the innovator's dilemma can help increase the number of success stories. Any other ideas?
* Dan Ariely, Michael Mauboussin, Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman, and Duncan Watts all write accessibly on the topic.
miércoles, 9 de noviembre de 2011
The Weakest Link in the U.S.
The Weakest Link in The U.S. Economy
Ndubuisi Ekekwe
2011-11-09T17:08:39Z
Apple used 49,400 employees to generate revenues of $65 billion in 2010. Its outsourcing partner, Chinese Foxconn, employed nearly a million people for $59 billion in the same year. In the U.S., Apple focuses on creating high-paying jobs while it outsources the low-paying ones to Asia. For companies from Dell to HP to Intel, outsourcing provides competitiveness. It makes the shareholders happy and helps produce good earnings. Every global company has the right to pursue opportunities to remain competitive. But the state of events happening in the U.S. economy right now calls for solutions which these very companies could provide.
The U.S. economic crisis could be traced to the structural economic changes which globalization facilitated. American companies are out-innovating most of their citizens. All across the nation, there are still community colleges and trade schools where students graduate and quickly join the unemployment pool, because the jobs for which they have been trained are not available — they weren't available even when they were enrolling. And those jobs may never be back — they are in Asia now. Still, no one is asking to shut down — or even change — these schools.
As the nation goes through this generational transformation, we must understand that the solution to the problem isn't far-fetched. The U.S. economy is innovating at the top, but is failing badly at the bottom. That a U.S. engineer with a Ph.D. in some high tech company creates up to ten jobs in Asia means that ten Americans are displaced from work. Some like this new model, where few are paid very well, and many are left unemployed. But, no one will like a neighborhood where for every mogul, there are ten homeless families. Yet that is what the system is setting up today.
Breaking the Cycle With a New Model
The U.S. will remain the epicenter of global innovation with its good universities and top-focused innovative companies. But for it to break this cycle of boom and bust, it needs a new model. America needs a system that works for the citizens, companies and the nation. That a Chinese company hires more people than the top ten U.S. high tech companies combined, despite getting the bulk of its business from them, shows that there is a weak link in the economy. And when families are broken with no jobs, it's difficult for a nation to hold up.
America's solutions may not necessarily come from Washington, but from the compassionate patriotism of American companies. Can the shareholders demand less and reduce the pressure to outsource? Can the citizens pay a little more to keep those making products in U.S. competitive? It is possible that what has worked for the U.S. in the last few decades may not be attainable in the new global arena?
This is not about building fences to protect against globalization; it is about developing a roadmap for U.S. companies. One lesson learned from the last recession is that every company needs a healthy economy in order to function. When the meltdown began, practically every company suffered. As the crusade for environmental sustainability wages on, now is the time for U.S. companies to begin a discussion on business sustainability at home. If they fail to do that, it is very possible that they may not have the right economic climate in which to do business.
The temptation to think that because revenue is coming in from overseas, and that what happens in China may not affect us, is erroneous. Even if China will eventually lead the world, it is decades away from that, politically and economically. A broken U.S. economy poses severe dangers because across most nations, opportunities will dry up. A sustainable U.S. economy that provides opportunities at the bottom is not just a problem for the president, but for every American employer. It is time to fix this link and rediscover innovation at the bottom.
Ndubuisi Ekekwe
2011-11-09T17:08:39Z
Apple used 49,400 employees to generate revenues of $65 billion in 2010. Its outsourcing partner, Chinese Foxconn, employed nearly a million people for $59 billion in the same year. In the U.S., Apple focuses on creating high-paying jobs while it outsources the low-paying ones to Asia. For companies from Dell to HP to Intel, outsourcing provides competitiveness. It makes the shareholders happy and helps produce good earnings. Every global company has the right to pursue opportunities to remain competitive. But the state of events happening in the U.S. economy right now calls for solutions which these very companies could provide.
The U.S. economic crisis could be traced to the structural economic changes which globalization facilitated. American companies are out-innovating most of their citizens. All across the nation, there are still community colleges and trade schools where students graduate and quickly join the unemployment pool, because the jobs for which they have been trained are not available — they weren't available even when they were enrolling. And those jobs may never be back — they are in Asia now. Still, no one is asking to shut down — or even change — these schools.
As the nation goes through this generational transformation, we must understand that the solution to the problem isn't far-fetched. The U.S. economy is innovating at the top, but is failing badly at the bottom. That a U.S. engineer with a Ph.D. in some high tech company creates up to ten jobs in Asia means that ten Americans are displaced from work. Some like this new model, where few are paid very well, and many are left unemployed. But, no one will like a neighborhood where for every mogul, there are ten homeless families. Yet that is what the system is setting up today.
Breaking the Cycle With a New Model
The U.S. will remain the epicenter of global innovation with its good universities and top-focused innovative companies. But for it to break this cycle of boom and bust, it needs a new model. America needs a system that works for the citizens, companies and the nation. That a Chinese company hires more people than the top ten U.S. high tech companies combined, despite getting the bulk of its business from them, shows that there is a weak link in the economy. And when families are broken with no jobs, it's difficult for a nation to hold up.
America's solutions may not necessarily come from Washington, but from the compassionate patriotism of American companies. Can the shareholders demand less and reduce the pressure to outsource? Can the citizens pay a little more to keep those making products in U.S. competitive? It is possible that what has worked for the U.S. in the last few decades may not be attainable in the new global arena?
This is not about building fences to protect against globalization; it is about developing a roadmap for U.S. companies. One lesson learned from the last recession is that every company needs a healthy economy in order to function. When the meltdown began, practically every company suffered. As the crusade for environmental sustainability wages on, now is the time for U.S. companies to begin a discussion on business sustainability at home. If they fail to do that, it is very possible that they may not have the right economic climate in which to do business.
The temptation to think that because revenue is coming in from overseas, and that what happens in China may not affect us, is erroneous. Even if China will eventually lead the world, it is decades away from that, politically and economically. A broken U.S. economy poses severe dangers because across most nations, opportunities will dry up. A sustainable U.S. economy that provides opportunities at the bottom is not just a problem for the president, but for every American employer. It is time to fix this link and rediscover innovation at the bottom.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)