Thus the other shoe dropeth. After the vehement refusal of Chavez to receive the new ambassador, Larry Palmer, the US decided to reply in kind by revoking the diplomatic visa of Alvarez in Washington.
There are two ways to look at this: the serious way or the ridiculous a la Golinger. Since we are still so close from Venezuela's fool day (December 28) I will write it both ways.
First, seriously, it is a non issue. Chavez does not want to receive Palmer because his confirmation hearings were leaked and we all learned that he said what we all knew already about Venezuela. I suppose that such a well informed ambassador was not something that Chavez wanted. Or perhaps it was a set up to corner Chavez into breaking up a relationship with the US?
The thing is that the US and Venezuela are past the need for ambassadors. The USof A in Caracas was not received by anyone from the regime for any serious discussion and was probably spending his time reading Venezuelan newspapers to be able to make reports. Visa people at the embassy apparently got more actions as we learned from wikileaks.
As for the Venezuelan one in Washington, well, he was not Venezuela's ambassador but Chavez one. Why you may ask? Because he spent all of his time doing pro Chavez propaganda or countering anti Chavez articles, something that the US one in Caracas could not dream to do, no matter the ridiculous accusations of Eva Golinger that everyone opposing Chavez is financed by the US (my check, Eva, I am still waiting, please, do ask your embassy to forward it to me). In other words, the US ambassador wanted to do his job but could not whereas the Venezuela ambassador could do his job but would not. Hence my original statement that withdrawing ambassadors are a savings each country can use as the rest of the personnel remain sin place, working as usual. Meanwhile oil will keep going to the US and dollars to Venezuela.
Which brings us to the Golinger tart new idiocy. Apparently we learned of the official visa revocation through a tweet of la Golinger. I kid you not, I even heard it in Alo Ciudadano. So I went and sure enough I found her tweet which I gladly reproduce below [sic]:
US revokes "visa" for Venezuelan ambassador who has been oin DC for 7 years, provoking a rupture in relations
Now, the poor thing has no idea what she is writing about, something confirmed by the string of tweets she did before and after that one: more than a dozen in English and Spanish, repetitive, putting all the blame in the US. Just on this tweet we can already perceive that she finds it normal that an ambassador spends 7 years in a position. When an ambassador spends more than three years in a position that means s/he has stopped representing the country and is now representing something else. Usually the precedents are not flattering such as the Cuban ambassador that stayed with Chavez a decade or the Soviet one in Washington, Anatoly Dobrynin, on the job for 26 years! I can assure you one thing: Alvarez is no Dobrynin!
And of course, I will pass on the poor thing considering this as a break in relationship. Eva, who are we going to sell the oil that pays for your paycheck? Sweetie, get a grip!
Thursday, December 30, 2010
No more ambassadors for the US and Venezuela
Posted by Daniel at 4:55 AM
Labels: anti US, chavez supporters, chavisterias
1) Comments are moderated after the sixth day of publication. It may take up to a day or two for your note to appear then.
2) Your post will appear if you follow the basic polite rules of discourse. I will be ruthless in erasing, as well as those who replied to any off rule comment.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I think it is appropriate that Obama's government withdrew the visa from the Venezuelan ambassador.ReplyDelete
Up til now they have taken all of the Chavez's insults laying down, trying to ignore them, or else making some mild comments.
In some ways by being politically more towards the left Obama is better positioned than the previous government to confront Chavez without the media getting getting his case.As the left dominates the media,it might reconsider its coddling of Chavez if Obama takes more of a stand against him.
I am pleasantly surprised that the Obama administration had the cojones to do this. At the same time, the Obama administration nominated someone for ambassador who told the truth about Venezuela in congressional hearings. Also a good thing.ReplyDelete
Could you for-Good-ness-sake stop praising Obama? It is so much not you!
;-p Just kidding.
I reckon the gringos have been doing fine so far when it comes to Venezuela, but for some useful idiots, as we had here in Europe.
There is little the US can do but promote the use of electric cars or fuels based on rubbish so that oil prices go down.
Venezuela's mess has to be solved by Venezuelans. What the US can best do, in my opinion, is to provide intelligence about corruption, drugs, etc, in Venezuela. To my dispair, though, that kind of intelligence is not very well developed (contrary to locating guerrilla camps).
Europeans could provide some interesting know-how about political education, but that won't be the case now with the new laws.
It's up to us, guys.
Still, Chigüire Bipolar did one of the best analysis, as usual:
Blogger Greg Weeks, who doesn´t strike me as a Chavez apologist, thinks the Administration is making a mistake. I don´t agree with his take, but it´s worth reading.ReplyDelete