Carta abierta a Michele Bachelet, ex presidenta y candidata a la presidencia de Chile

Estimada (ex)-presidenta Bachelet

Me permito escribirle por que me parece que usted manejo mal el asunto de la visita intempestiva de Henrique Capriles a Chile. Entiendo muy bien que para usted él llega como pelo en la sopa, sin haber preparado debidamente su viaje. No se extrañe, desde el pasado mes de abril el ha cometido varios errores de “timing” como dicen los norteamericanos. Pero eso no la exime a usted de no comportarse como una estadista. Usted será la candidata presidencial a la reelección, pero también usted es una ex presidente y se espera que en ciertos asuntos se comporte como una estadista y no como una mera política buscando votos.

Dreams of constitutional repression

That ever self serving pseudo panacea of our sub continent, calling for a constitutional assembly to solve problems that politicians have no resolve to deal with directly, is being invoked all around. After all, the brilliant example of Chavez who called for a constitutional assembly to solve Venezuelan problems is there for all: not only he did not solve any of his country problems, but he made them worse, and he certainly did solve the financial future of his relatives and friends, ending himself as a president for life.

These weeks we heard from different points a call for some form of constitutional assembly, and in all cases it comes from a group of people that are unable of unwilling to have their way and thus want to use the mechanism.  Let's not be afraid of words here, what they all want really is a soft, legal repression, that will silence down those that are not allowing them to get their way.

A strong democracy off the rubble, while another ex-democrcay shorts out...

Morales and Lugo shaking, for real!

Today Chile inaugurated its new president.  The day is not significant because, say, Lugo of Paraguay not used to earthquakes looked a little shaken while Morales of Bolivia used to quakes found it interesting.  The real significance is that in spite of a never ending quake that is shaking the foundation of Chilean prosperity democracy goes on, as planned, with all political actors holding hands to deal with the emergency.

I was maybe too optimistic when I first wrote about the Chile earthquake of February. It turned out that the amplitude and repetitive nature of the disaster also shook the response of the government, a response which seemed very good at first.  But when the GPS detects that the city of Concepcion might have moved several yards into the Pacific, well, there is some excuse to be offered for some not so adequate response.

Piñera to back Insulza for OAS chair. And what else did you expect?

Sebastian Piñera, president elect of Chile, has decided to back the reelection of discredited OAS Secretary Jose Miguel Insulza because "It is a State Policy", meaning that the only reason he backs him is that Insulza is from Chile and as a state, no matter how lousy Insulza is, a Chilean president cannot not back him up.

Some of my dear friends are shocked, but why are they that surprised even if the ethics of such support truly suck?

Chile ends an era

The result of Chile's second round vote today was not a surprise: Sebastian Piñera won, narrowly but clearly (a little over 3% margin).  The surprise is that he was leading very early in the campaign, winning convincingly the first round to the point that his margin of victory today was rather short.  The biggest surprise though is how a prosperous Chile, ruled by a successful coalition for 20 years, decided to send home, thank you very much for your trouble, those people that allowed them to join the OECD. We can suppose that at the end of the campaign enough Chileans felt ingrateful and guilty enough and thus returned to the losing "Concertacion" to make sure the defeat would not be humiliating.

There are reasons to explain how a government whose president has currently an amazing 70 to 80% favorable ratings could not transfer them to its candidate.

What Chavez never did

I have long ago stopped economic posts because, well, Miguel and Quico take care of this much better than what I could do. But that I took upon other tasks such as electoral analysis does not stop me from on occasion point out to the essential.

The New York Times carries today an article on how Michelle Bachelet was able to turn around a presidency that started very shakily into a 70% favorable popularity opinion a few months before she leaves office. Why? How?

Very simple: when copper prices were high during the commodities boom that lasted until the mid of last year, she set aside a large portion of the income for rainy days.

What is notable is that her administration managed to place in sovereign funds 20 billion USD. If to this you add that Chile is an export driven economy fueled by agriculture added value products (wine comes to mind and summer fruits in the US during its winter) you can understand that when the crisis came Chile indeed suffered, but not as much as other countries. Today Chile is hoping to get back next year into the 5% growth range, which is enough to finish to pull it off third world status very soon, and certainly earlier than any South American country. Some people might argue that Chile is already out of this category but it is not as its technological sector is not quit there yet, as well as its per capita GNP. Also Chile is still vulnerable to political adventurers such as the growth in polls of Enriquez-Ominami whose changing positions and media based program makes me nickname him Origami as a more appropriate name for an all show, no substance politician.

In short, Bachelet did all that Chavez did not want to do and as such she is high in polls just as Chavez is finally starting his long overdue slide into polling inferno.

Think about for a second: just out of copper Chile managed to save 20 billion, a commodity that does not compare whatsoever with oil. Had Chavez been a little bit more careful, imagine how much he could have actually placed in sovereign bonds without much trouble. 40? 60? 100? billions and with less effort than what surely had to do so create this piggy bank. Even more telling is that Chile today is a net creditor just as Venezuela is issuing yet another set of questionable bond issues, increasing dangerously its debt burden.

But what is even less forgivable when we look at Chavez balance is that he has damaged so much the Venezuelan productive apparatus, in particular agriculture, that now 95% of our exports are oil, and we import at least half of our food. It bears to recall that in Venezuela agriculture should be easier than in Chile since with adequate irrigation it could provide for year round production of some items. Nobody, in an oil producing country , is expecting that we export more food than what we import, but we could at least demand that we do not eat our oil, literally. You know where the oil money spent on food ends, do you?

The final irony here is that as we, an energy rich country, are facing major power blackouts for the next few years, Chile, an energy poor country, announces that its electricity output went up by 2% over the last 12 months.

-The end-

Lula tells Venezuelans how worhtless they are; Viña del Mar confirms it.

During the campaign for the eternal reelection of February 15 2009, at some event Lula declared that he was not keen on reelection but that if Venezuelan wanted it it was their right. Or something to that effect that people are free to chose what they want and that eternal reelection was not that bad. Heck k, even some people took that as a message that maybe Lula was considering getting access to a third term himself through some constitutional change.

Well, today there is a small ruckus in Venezuela press rooms as Lula this time in a more serious forum is stating point blank that more than two terms in office is simply bad for democracy, and we assume this would be true in Lula's mind in Brasilia, Washington, Harare or Caracas. Well, he said again that maybe Caracas was different but Brazil would be changing president even if Lula's ratings are above those of Chavez, that democracy was best served by true alternation. Do not be fooled by what he really meant even if he did not express it: Venezuelans are a stupid and silly people reelecting the same clown over and over while he keeps wrecking his country and giving juicy contracts to Brazilian companies. Lula could not possibly care less for Venezuelans.

You do not believe me? Read the roster of the "summit" being held in Chile, at Viña del Mar. A select group of progressive leaders is gathering to discuss ways to get out of the crisis that is besotting the world. Who is invited: Chile as the chair, the UK, Spain, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Norway with, hold tight, the US of A. They are going to attend the closing and summary of a think tank gathering for the previous days where intellectuals, politicians, economists, etc, associated with social democracy and democratic left gathered to offer proposals to the G20 summit coming soon.

As you can see it is a serious summit, with serious people, even if some of you might not agree with their ideas. And the meeting is the more serious that mickey mouse regimes not interested in dialogue, in global solutions or in real democracy offering real solutions for the people and not for their leaders, were not invited. So there was no Ecuador, or Bolivia or Nicaragua and best of all, no Chavez. In fact the Brazilian envoy said that other leftist regime ideas were to be respected which is a very diplomatic way to say "we need to work to solve the crisis and we have no time to put up with showmen coming over for temper tantrums; learn to behave and next time we might respect you enough to invite you over".

We, Venezuelans are a weak and miserable people and we are treated just as we deserve. We are the laughing stock of the world and our stupid leader still thinks that smiles when he places a purchase order are actual smiles of political support.

-The end-

Chavez versus the Chilean Senate

The latest spat between Chile and Chavez is much more telling than what some would think. But first, let me remind folks that it is not Venezuela's foreign policy, it is Chavez and thus the spat is between Chavez and Chile.

The Chilean Senate, without the socialist votes, decided to ask President Bachelet to protest the closing of RCTV as a violation of freedom of expression. Chavez rudely replied by saying that the Senate majority vote represented a bunch of old time fascists. It is not a waste of time to remember that the Chilean Senate majority of that vote is also an electoral majority duly and freely voted, certainly voted much more freely and democratically than the current 100% monochromatic monster in Venezuela that surrendered what little power to legislate it had to Chavez. President Bachelet, a socialist, decided to protest (Spanish and English links). I think her protestation was not strong enough, but it was at least clear and should shame her socialist brethren that should have known better than to applaud the closing of a free media for the reasons that are advanced. There are reasons why a media should close, but those do not exist in the RCTV case.

What people do not realize in this spat is that the target of Chavez is not Bachelet or even the Senate of Chile. He knows he cannot count on her although her leftist heart tends to try to be forgiving of his excess. We can remember her hesitation at supporting Venezuela for a seat at the UN security council, and hesitation so clumsy that it forced her into an embarrassing abstention vote.

Chavez knows one thing, Bachelet will be out in 3 years and she is already a weakened president when you consider that she is subject to a deteriorating social climate. Chavez is in fact already working for the post Bachelet era. By insultingly so loudly the Chilean Senate he has declared all of democratic Chile his enemy and is forcing the socialists to chose his way or risk break up among themselves. What Chavez is aiming is to a troubled end of Bachelet presidency that will cause the raising of a leftist pro-Chavez leader that might have a chance to take the next elections.

I do not see it happening, Chile is a more stable and prosperous country than Venezuela when he came to power, but Chavez does not know that nor does he care. If the successor of Bachelet is not to his liking then he will wait for another four years. He does not care; he will still be president of Venezuela. Along the way he will crucify Bachelet if he needs to do, just as he is crucifying the real left, including the historical Venezuelan Communist Party, that was with him but who happened to have very minimal differences with him.

Chileans should be very wary of this latest spat and read the writing on the wall. Trouble is heading their way. Uribe for all his merits is not a very palatable guy as the civil war he wages would have eaten alive less worthy contenders. Alan Garcia in Peru is damaged goods anyway. Kirchner is a truant and Lula has his own problems. All of these countries have flaws but Chile does not. Chile is the success story of Latin America and Chavez in his new offensive has decided to turn against Chile. He cannot afford to have Chile shown as the counter example of his misery generating system, hidden behind an avalanche of petrodollars.

The Chilean Senate has given Chavez the perfect opportunity to start his anti Chile campaign. The Senate might not have intended this but it does not know how right that rather fortuitous moment was. Bachelet and the rest of Chile should meet him head on because of they do not they will be all swallowed in the vortex that Chavez will create if allowed to do so. It is a golden opportunity for Chile, who is still a very safe county, to take the democratic lead in Latin America. There is no need to attack Chavez, just to be firm and not let him get away with international vulgarity. Do not worry, chavistas will keep buying Chilean wine, they grew a liking for it now that they can afford the most expensive bottles.

-The end-