The other day a Globovision journalist obtained the pay check of a communist representative to the Venezuelan National Assembly. Apparently the guy did not know how much he was making and looked quite confused when Beatriz Adrian showed him his receipt (in general Communist Party elected officials turn over their pay check to the party who in exchange give them a salary according to their proletarian status; well, at least that is the theory).
This happened a couple of days after Chavez announced his alleged austerity plan, where the N.A. president Cilia Flores pretended that representatives really did make that much money when Chavez asked for pay check reduction. The publication of a rather substantial income far from the asseveration of Cilia gave us her very irate reaction. She actually threatened the Globovison journalist when in a real democracy the pay check of public officials is usually public knowledge.
Well, today we can read that the Communist Party Member whose paycheck was revealed, Oscar Figueras, is defending the secrecy of income because, well, you know, criminals get this information and they try to hold you for ransom. Unbelievable! What next? The communist party defending bonus to failed business managers at tax payer expense? Oh, wait! in bolivarian Venezuela that is an everyday occurrence for the managers of failed state enterprises!!!!
Meanwhile they have tracked down who gave the paycheck of Figueras and they are goign to punish him. The glorious bolivarian farce does not tolerate whistle blowers.
-The end-
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Chavez making a fool of himself at Doha; invites genocide Bashir to Venezuela
[UPDATED]
I could not have hoped for a faster confirmation on my two recent post on foreign affairs. In the first one I mentioned that Venezuela, or rather Chavez, had not been invited to the Viña del Mar conference for progressive leaders to offer proposals to the coming G20. In the second post I criticized Lula for defending Chavez against all common sense. Well, Chavez today showed that he was really pissed off at not been invited at Viña del Mar and along the way embarrassed further Lula who will have even more of a hard time dodging questions about Chavez.
The first thing that hit the newsroom in Venezuela was the declarations of Chavez against Chile's Bachelet in Doha. The event in Doha, Qatar, is a "summit" between the Arab League and South American countries to promote trade. It is not to promote democracy of course as even Iran (not a member of the league) is more democratic than most of the Arab league members. The league, not democratic, some of its members militantly Muslims, challenged the rest of the world in its own summit held yesterday by inviting al-Bashir, the genocidal president of Sudan, currently with an international arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court. Interestingly if you look at the map of the ICC you will notice that only three Arab League countries belong to that International Court (the US, by the way, does not, but Venezuela does).
So why did poor Bachelet deserved the wrath of Chavez? According to the Tal Cual release (nothing in English yet, sorry!)
With the ignorance of Chavez entourage that was not able to explain to him that this Viña del Mar meeting had nothing to do with South America? Or with Chavez bad faith at not been invited and uttering such spiteful remarks, implying that unity is only possible with him at the helm? Truly, he is pissed of not having been invited. The pariah status he is gaining is starting to affect him. As I wrote then, it is clear that when serious work is required folks like Chavez are not invited.
So, not been able to steal the show at Viña Del Mar he went ahead to steal the one at Doha. After all in Doha little work was expected anyway as it is more of a P.R. show summit than anything else, where the only objective of the Arab countries is to trump their nose at the West by hanging out with some Latin Leaders. Any serious work of the Arab League was done the day before.
So Chavez arrived proposing a new "petro currency" to replace the dollar. What is that fixation with creating world currencies when Chavez is unable to manage his own currency? What would he do with his spending ways if Venezuela depends from another currency for its accounts and populist programs?
Then to remain the darling of Muslim fundamentalist countries he stole the show by defending al-Bashir and dismissing the ICC even though Venezuela is subjected to its decisions. He wondered aloud why the ICC was not arresting Bush before arresting al-Bashir. The only thing that this reveals is his conception of justice, Venezuelan style, where Chavez announces on TV what politicians he wants to see behind bars, and quickly HIS judicial gang proceeds to forge any necessary evidence. A smart journalists would ask Chavez whether he submitted to the ICC a well documented case to arrest Bush or Olmert. Probably the thought never crossed Chavez mind....... Or the journalist could simply ask whether Chavez read the al-Bashir file.
And then he invited al-Bashir over to Venezuela. I am sure that the Darfur experience will be of great use to Chavez when he decides to kill off the opposition that refuses to submit to his military regime. Not to mention that al-Bashir can offer tips to Chavez on how to escape international prosecution when his turn will finally come. Asinus asinum fricat.
Watch next:
Update: Cristina Kirchner, certainly not a very admirable leader, today did something good for her very tarnished image: she was the only leader at Doha who did not take part in the "family picture" and who stood up and left when Bashir turn to speak came.
Update 2: do not miss this great editorial of the Washington Post
-The end-
I could not have hoped for a faster confirmation on my two recent post on foreign affairs. In the first one I mentioned that Venezuela, or rather Chavez, had not been invited to the Viña del Mar conference for progressive leaders to offer proposals to the coming G20. In the second post I criticized Lula for defending Chavez against all common sense. Well, Chavez today showed that he was really pissed off at not been invited at Viña del Mar and along the way embarrassed further Lula who will have even more of a hard time dodging questions about Chavez.
The first thing that hit the newsroom in Venezuela was the declarations of Chavez against Chile's Bachelet in Doha. The event in Doha, Qatar, is a "summit" between the Arab League and South American countries to promote trade. It is not to promote democracy of course as even Iran (not a member of the league) is more democratic than most of the Arab league members. The league, not democratic, some of its members militantly Muslims, challenged the rest of the world in its own summit held yesterday by inviting al-Bashir, the genocidal president of Sudan, currently with an international arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court. Interestingly if you look at the map of the ICC you will notice that only three Arab League countries belong to that International Court (the US, by the way, does not, but Venezuela does).
So why did poor Bachelet deserved the wrath of Chavez? According to the Tal Cual release (nothing in English yet, sorry!)
"There are some progressives around here that I do not understand (...) They do not do anything good for the unity of South America when president Bachelet calls for a meeting with the Vice President of the USA and the British Prime Minister (...) Two representatives of the Empires! I think that this jeopardizes South America Unity!"Oh dear! Where should we start?
With the ignorance of Chavez entourage that was not able to explain to him that this Viña del Mar meeting had nothing to do with South America? Or with Chavez bad faith at not been invited and uttering such spiteful remarks, implying that unity is only possible with him at the helm? Truly, he is pissed of not having been invited. The pariah status he is gaining is starting to affect him. As I wrote then, it is clear that when serious work is required folks like Chavez are not invited.
So, not been able to steal the show at Viña Del Mar he went ahead to steal the one at Doha. After all in Doha little work was expected anyway as it is more of a P.R. show summit than anything else, where the only objective of the Arab countries is to trump their nose at the West by hanging out with some Latin Leaders. Any serious work of the Arab League was done the day before.
So Chavez arrived proposing a new "petro currency" to replace the dollar. What is that fixation with creating world currencies when Chavez is unable to manage his own currency? What would he do with his spending ways if Venezuela depends from another currency for its accounts and populist programs?
Then to remain the darling of Muslim fundamentalist countries he stole the show by defending al-Bashir and dismissing the ICC even though Venezuela is subjected to its decisions. He wondered aloud why the ICC was not arresting Bush before arresting al-Bashir. The only thing that this reveals is his conception of justice, Venezuelan style, where Chavez announces on TV what politicians he wants to see behind bars, and quickly HIS judicial gang proceeds to forge any necessary evidence. A smart journalists would ask Chavez whether he submitted to the ICC a well documented case to arrest Bush or Olmert. Probably the thought never crossed Chavez mind....... Or the journalist could simply ask whether Chavez read the al-Bashir file.
And then he invited al-Bashir over to Venezuela. I am sure that the Darfur experience will be of great use to Chavez when he decides to kill off the opposition that refuses to submit to his military regime. Not to mention that al-Bashir can offer tips to Chavez on how to escape international prosecution when his turn will finally come. Asinus asinum fricat.
Watch next:
- The next interview of Lula by a big gun as Zakaria....
- Venezuela lame excuses to leave the ICC....
- Bachelet refusing to meet Chavez ever again
- The International Socialist group visiting Venezuela and Chavez possibly not receiving them
- al-Bashir probably will not come as he knows better than going to an ICC country (though admittedly Chavez could use this as an excuse to pull Venezuela out)
- But if al-Bashir does not come expect a "triumphant" tour through Arabic countries by Chavez anytime soon.
- And more, much more comedy sketches to this show "loud mouths in search of an audience"
Update: Cristina Kirchner, certainly not a very admirable leader, today did something good for her very tarnished image: she was the only leader at Doha who did not take part in the "family picture" and who stood up and left when Bashir turn to speak came.
Update 2: do not miss this great editorial of the Washington Post
-The end-
Monday, March 30, 2009
Lula knows he screwed on Venezuela and Chavez
I was watching today an interview of Brazil's president Lula da Silva on CNN, conducted by Fareed Zakaria (1). The interview was very interesting. Lula has answers to everything and rather thoughtful answers (for example his thoughts about expanding the UN security 
membership and its role). He might be an union worker in origin but that has not stopped him from learning a lot along the way. However all his self assurance was sorely tested when Mr. Zakaria asked him on Chavez. The approximate transcript first, click on pics to enlarge (2).
Zakaria: You are regarded as a great symbol of democracy in the Americas [more flattering comments follow] And yet some people say that you have been quiet as Hugo Chavez has hollowed out and destroyed democracy in Venezuela. You have greeted him as a friend, you have not really criticized the complete reversal of democracy in Venezuela. Why not speak out about it if Brazil wants to take a greater role in the world? Would that not be a part of it, to stand for certain values?
Lula: [during the question it was fascinating to watch Lula's face: from dead serious he put up a laughing grimace without noise, something clearly designed to hide his real thoughts and trying
to ridicule the question which coming from that kind of interviewer is simply not possible to do and demeans Lula more than anything he could do to demean Zakaria] Maybe we cannot agree with Venezuela democracy. But no one can say that there is no democracy in Venezuela. [some strange and irrelevant mumblings follow about him having less years than Chavez in office and that Chavez went through so many elections while he himself went through only two]
Zakaria: Wouldn't you like to have had the advantages he has when running with the opposition muzzled, his gangs out in the streets. This is not real democracy.
Lula: We have to respect the local cultures of each country. The political traditions of each country. The political cultures of each country. Brazil has made a lot of investments in Venezuela and I believe that the US needs to
get closer to Venezuela. Why so? Because I think that it would be beneficial to the US and to Venezuela.
Zakaria: How we would do that? [reminders of Chavez insults to the US follow]
Lula: [he goes on with a lot of bullshit totally irrelevant to the previous questions. Then there is a talk about generosity] With an economy the size of Brazil we have to make gestures of generosity to our neighbors because otherwise they will have the right to think that Brazil is an imperialist power, that the US is an imperialist power, because there is development in our countries and there is underdevelopment in their countries. I believe the results that we have managed to achieve are good ones, I would say for Brazil, for Latin America and for the rest of the world.
-------------
How can we possibly put a good spin on this section of the interview? Even Zakaria looked surprised, and more than once. After all, the idiocies of Chavez are simply public knowledge and glossing over them would have actually been better for Lula than to try to skip the questions outright as he did.
So this is my story to try to make sense of this rather pathetic moment. Let's start with the salient points.
First, of course, Lula might have learned a lot in his career but not as much as he should have on Venezuela. His demeaning comment on Political Culture (repeated, incredibly, three times) simply tell us that all that he knows about Venezuela comes from Chavez. He might have received accurate reports form his foreign office but clearly, he has been very selective about what he chose to use. And pray, do tell us, when was it Venezuelan political culture to insult the opposition from a position where this one cannot reply to you? This is so offensive that I rather stop now on this part.
Second, there is that mercenary aspect to him: he cites the Brazilian investments as an excuse; which is not and excuse, otherwise we could excuse the US and many other countries of a few crimes because, well, you know, they invested. And this is made even worse when unprompted he excuses himself about Brazilian imperialistic tendencies. Truly Chavez brought the worse in Lula and made him blabber.
And third there are clear escape attempts at not replying at all to Zakaria questions. At
some point Lula must have realized that he did not convince Zakaria, and perhaps not even himself. This last picture on the right is a witness about some strange brief pauses taken by Lula then, with shifty, impatient looks, images that we do not get from Lula at any other point in the interview.
I am not going to detail why Lula is so wrong because not only the abuses of Chavez are public knowledge, but this blog is a whole narrative of those abuses and to top it off, the CIDH has just published last Friday a lengthy report where Chavez electoral abuses are detailed, a report by the way that Zakaria did not need to make his statement (3). I rather speculate on what is going on with Lula.
First, Lula comes from the hard left that got educated to reality with time. That is why he had to run three times before he was finally elected. As such he might never have managed to reconcile fully his lefty militant heart to what he knows is the reality that has brought him success and keeps him high in polls. He knows he has betrayed some of his youth tenets but he is not going back because he is smart enough to understand that this way is the one that does bring some success.
As such Lula has always looked at Chavez as the kind of leader he might have wanted to be if he had a smaller country to rule and more means. Federal Brazil does not have the easy riches of Venezuela. Brazil is such a world in itself that a Chavez like clown is simply not possible anymore there (Qadros might have been the last specimen of the sort and Brazilians might have learned their lesson for good then). It is simple quite possible that Lula lives vicariously through Chavez the leftist experience he will never live himself, blinded enough by Chavez charisma and showmanship to overlook the fascist and military tendencies of Chavez that someone like Lula should know better have having suffered for the lengthy Brazilian military regime (other leftists that suffered repression are not fooled by Chavez, for example Chile's Bachelet or Uruguay Vasquez).
But as I have already written in this blog Brazil is an Imperialist country by tradition and perhaps even by vocation (Bandeirantes anyone?). Lula might try to pretend it is not but he fools no one. However we cannot blame him much on him applying imperialism on Venezuela: after all Chavez is serving to him the country on a silver platter and why would not Brazil industrialists benefit from the Venezuelan piñata? If there is one that should be judged harshly by history, and hopefully by judges, on this matter it is Chavez, not Lula who after all behaves as the president of a great country, serving his country interests before he serves his own ones (well, in general at least).
Still, after this interview it should be extremely clear to anyone that Lula has helped Chavez as much as he could, that he has been an active accomplice in the destruction of Venezuelan democracy. In fact we could go as far as to say that Lula has only disdain for the Venezuelan people and that he thinks that Chavez is actually a redeemer that got a bum rap and thus deserved his help. As such when history books will be written Lula will be pointed as having some Venezuelan blood on his hand because at no point we can show a Lula berating Chavez for his abuses, even in private (read again that part where he thinks he has been achieving great things in Latin America!). In fact we can even think of occasions where some of his comments were perceived as indirect criticism of Chavez only to see Lula a few days later backpedal fast and embrace Chavez again. And let's not forget that Lula visited Chavez at least twice in important electoral times endorsing him.
The funny thing for me here is that Venezuela and Brazil are probably the two countries closer ethnically in Latin America, with a similar racial make up and mix, a similar way to conceive of life. And yet Venezuela is fast becoming a failed state while Brazil is threatening to become a world power. In a way a take over of Venezuela by Brazil would not be such a bad thing, you know.... I wonder how much of that subconscious thinking might have operated in Brazilian ruling class as they contributed to the demise of Venezuela (they will put the blame on Lula but too many went along this complacency toward Venezuela). Meanwhile woe is us in Venezuela because while Chavez squandered our possibly last historical opportunity Colombia and Brazil grew in strength. In a post Chavez Venezuela Bogota and Brasilia will fight over taking Venezuela under their area of influence.
Remember, ten years from now, you read it here first.
------------------------------------
1) I get the CNN from London bureau, not the direct one from Atlanta, ask my Cable company why.... Fareed Zakaria GPS. Thanks to my new Direct TV decoder that allows me to record on command and examine such an interview in detail. I shall use it on Chavez in the future!
2) I do not have the transcript, what I quote is what I lifted from replaying the interview. Since Lula spoke in Portuguese, CNN gave us a simultaneous translation, with the risks that this implies on finer points.
3) Not on line yet, sorry. I guess it will come up Monday. CIDH = IACHR, by the way.
-The end-
membership and its role). He might be an union worker in origin but that has not stopped him from learning a lot along the way. However all his self assurance was sorely tested when Mr. Zakaria asked him on Chavez. The approximate transcript first, click on pics to enlarge (2).Zakaria: You are regarded as a great symbol of democracy in the Americas [more flattering comments follow] And yet some people say that you have been quiet as Hugo Chavez has hollowed out and destroyed democracy in Venezuela. You have greeted him as a friend, you have not really criticized the complete reversal of democracy in Venezuela. Why not speak out about it if Brazil wants to take a greater role in the world? Would that not be a part of it, to stand for certain values?
Lula: [during the question it was fascinating to watch Lula's face: from dead serious he put up a laughing grimace without noise, something clearly designed to hide his real thoughts and trying
to ridicule the question which coming from that kind of interviewer is simply not possible to do and demeans Lula more than anything he could do to demean Zakaria] Maybe we cannot agree with Venezuela democracy. But no one can say that there is no democracy in Venezuela. [some strange and irrelevant mumblings follow about him having less years than Chavez in office and that Chavez went through so many elections while he himself went through only two]Zakaria: Wouldn't you like to have had the advantages he has when running with the opposition muzzled, his gangs out in the streets. This is not real democracy.
Lula: We have to respect the local cultures of each country. The political traditions of each country. The political cultures of each country. Brazil has made a lot of investments in Venezuela and I believe that the US needs to
get closer to Venezuela. Why so? Because I think that it would be beneficial to the US and to Venezuela.Zakaria: How we would do that? [reminders of Chavez insults to the US follow]
Lula: [he goes on with a lot of bullshit totally irrelevant to the previous questions. Then there is a talk about generosity] With an economy the size of Brazil we have to make gestures of generosity to our neighbors because otherwise they will have the right to think that Brazil is an imperialist power, that the US is an imperialist power, because there is development in our countries and there is underdevelopment in their countries. I believe the results that we have managed to achieve are good ones, I would say for Brazil, for Latin America and for the rest of the world.
-------------
How can we possibly put a good spin on this section of the interview? Even Zakaria looked surprised, and more than once. After all, the idiocies of Chavez are simply public knowledge and glossing over them would have actually been better for Lula than to try to skip the questions outright as he did.
So this is my story to try to make sense of this rather pathetic moment. Let's start with the salient points.
First, of course, Lula might have learned a lot in his career but not as much as he should have on Venezuela. His demeaning comment on Political Culture (repeated, incredibly, three times) simply tell us that all that he knows about Venezuela comes from Chavez. He might have received accurate reports form his foreign office but clearly, he has been very selective about what he chose to use. And pray, do tell us, when was it Venezuelan political culture to insult the opposition from a position where this one cannot reply to you? This is so offensive that I rather stop now on this part.
Second, there is that mercenary aspect to him: he cites the Brazilian investments as an excuse; which is not and excuse, otherwise we could excuse the US and many other countries of a few crimes because, well, you know, they invested. And this is made even worse when unprompted he excuses himself about Brazilian imperialistic tendencies. Truly Chavez brought the worse in Lula and made him blabber.
And third there are clear escape attempts at not replying at all to Zakaria questions. At
some point Lula must have realized that he did not convince Zakaria, and perhaps not even himself. This last picture on the right is a witness about some strange brief pauses taken by Lula then, with shifty, impatient looks, images that we do not get from Lula at any other point in the interview.I am not going to detail why Lula is so wrong because not only the abuses of Chavez are public knowledge, but this blog is a whole narrative of those abuses and to top it off, the CIDH has just published last Friday a lengthy report where Chavez electoral abuses are detailed, a report by the way that Zakaria did not need to make his statement (3). I rather speculate on what is going on with Lula.
First, Lula comes from the hard left that got educated to reality with time. That is why he had to run three times before he was finally elected. As such he might never have managed to reconcile fully his lefty militant heart to what he knows is the reality that has brought him success and keeps him high in polls. He knows he has betrayed some of his youth tenets but he is not going back because he is smart enough to understand that this way is the one that does bring some success.
As such Lula has always looked at Chavez as the kind of leader he might have wanted to be if he had a smaller country to rule and more means. Federal Brazil does not have the easy riches of Venezuela. Brazil is such a world in itself that a Chavez like clown is simply not possible anymore there (Qadros might have been the last specimen of the sort and Brazilians might have learned their lesson for good then). It is simple quite possible that Lula lives vicariously through Chavez the leftist experience he will never live himself, blinded enough by Chavez charisma and showmanship to overlook the fascist and military tendencies of Chavez that someone like Lula should know better have having suffered for the lengthy Brazilian military regime (other leftists that suffered repression are not fooled by Chavez, for example Chile's Bachelet or Uruguay Vasquez).
But as I have already written in this blog Brazil is an Imperialist country by tradition and perhaps even by vocation (Bandeirantes anyone?). Lula might try to pretend it is not but he fools no one. However we cannot blame him much on him applying imperialism on Venezuela: after all Chavez is serving to him the country on a silver platter and why would not Brazil industrialists benefit from the Venezuelan piñata? If there is one that should be judged harshly by history, and hopefully by judges, on this matter it is Chavez, not Lula who after all behaves as the president of a great country, serving his country interests before he serves his own ones (well, in general at least).
Still, after this interview it should be extremely clear to anyone that Lula has helped Chavez as much as he could, that he has been an active accomplice in the destruction of Venezuelan democracy. In fact we could go as far as to say that Lula has only disdain for the Venezuelan people and that he thinks that Chavez is actually a redeemer that got a bum rap and thus deserved his help. As such when history books will be written Lula will be pointed as having some Venezuelan blood on his hand because at no point we can show a Lula berating Chavez for his abuses, even in private (read again that part where he thinks he has been achieving great things in Latin America!). In fact we can even think of occasions where some of his comments were perceived as indirect criticism of Chavez only to see Lula a few days later backpedal fast and embrace Chavez again. And let's not forget that Lula visited Chavez at least twice in important electoral times endorsing him.
The funny thing for me here is that Venezuela and Brazil are probably the two countries closer ethnically in Latin America, with a similar racial make up and mix, a similar way to conceive of life. And yet Venezuela is fast becoming a failed state while Brazil is threatening to become a world power. In a way a take over of Venezuela by Brazil would not be such a bad thing, you know.... I wonder how much of that subconscious thinking might have operated in Brazilian ruling class as they contributed to the demise of Venezuela (they will put the blame on Lula but too many went along this complacency toward Venezuela). Meanwhile woe is us in Venezuela because while Chavez squandered our possibly last historical opportunity Colombia and Brazil grew in strength. In a post Chavez Venezuela Bogota and Brasilia will fight over taking Venezuela under their area of influence.
Remember, ten years from now, you read it here first.
------------------------------------
1) I get the CNN from London bureau, not the direct one from Atlanta, ask my Cable company why.... Fareed Zakaria GPS. Thanks to my new Direct TV decoder that allows me to record on command and examine such an interview in detail. I shall use it on Chavez in the future!
2) I do not have the transcript, what I quote is what I lifted from replaying the interview. Since Lula spoke in Portuguese, CNN gave us a simultaneous translation, with the risks that this implies on finer points.
3) Not on line yet, sorry. I guess it will come up Monday. CIDH = IACHR, by the way.
-The end-
Saturday, March 28, 2009
The feeble Venezuelan markets
As a sign of how weak, feeble and fragile Venezuelan markets have become under Chavez and CADIVI do not miss these two posts by Miguel. You will learn how the shenanigans of a single guy basically killed for a few days half the currency exchange system of Venezuela swap market. We knew we were vulnerable but maybe it is worse than what we thought. Read this first and then this. Keep in mind that Miguel scooped the Venezuelan press and was picked up by big papers for their news. This has to be the biggest blogging coup in Venezuela so far.
-The end-
-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-
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-
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Me likes Hillary
When I lived in the US linked to Academia, I cannot tell you how many times I got upset by people saying things that they should have known much better than saying. What was one of my biggest pet peeves was a line like "these nasty Colombians, why do they send us so much drug?". I must have defended Colombia dozens of times, on occasion as the perpetrator of the inanity passed a joint around. And in Academic party time, which made the whole thing inexcusable on account of ignorance. Well, one would think of, no?
Thus when I read these words from Secretary Hillary Clinton on her arrival in Mexico I could not but be elated:
Some of you might remember I was a Hillary supporter at first (well, I hinted at it, this is not a US themed blog). Well, that was a reason why. I liked her school marm attitude on some things and her ability to say such truisms, to address some white elephants in US society. OK, she also speaks too much on other things and she might not be too scrupulous on her personal dealings, but she is a politician for crissake!
She certainly is not saying such things without Obama's consent, I am sure. But it is quite gratifying for me to see that this new administration is at least getting a few things right (at least of those things that do matter to me and the future of Latin America).
Is it not ironic that we had to wait for a team accused of commie tendencies to finally acknowledge that drug trade is as extreme a capitalist venture as they come? That drug trade is fueled like nothing else by the laws of supply and demand? The US can do all the reeducation and detox programs, all the drug enforcement agencies it want, bombing all the poppy fields in the world, as long as it does not start punishing more effectively the consumer of drugs these measures will not work. Period.
Meanwhile in Venezuela just this week we learn that 325 kilos of cocaine have been caught in Margarita island. Imagine that, the supply of that poor island for years probably! And even though Venezuela is at best a reluctant collaborator in fighting drug trafficking it has the chutzpah to vaunt its prowess.... There was a time when the only contraband was booze, and then it was made legal. Now apparently Chavez limitations on booze traffic in Margarita have been replaced by drug traffic. Progress! Well, for someone's wallet anyway.
-The end-
Thus when I read these words from Secretary Hillary Clinton on her arrival in Mexico I could not but be elated:
“Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade”
“Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians.”
Some of you might remember I was a Hillary supporter at first (well, I hinted at it, this is not a US themed blog). Well, that was a reason why. I liked her school marm attitude on some things and her ability to say such truisms, to address some white elephants in US society. OK, she also speaks too much on other things and she might not be too scrupulous on her personal dealings, but she is a politician for crissake!
She certainly is not saying such things without Obama's consent, I am sure. But it is quite gratifying for me to see that this new administration is at least getting a few things right (at least of those things that do matter to me and the future of Latin America).
Is it not ironic that we had to wait for a team accused of commie tendencies to finally acknowledge that drug trade is as extreme a capitalist venture as they come? That drug trade is fueled like nothing else by the laws of supply and demand? The US can do all the reeducation and detox programs, all the drug enforcement agencies it want, bombing all the poppy fields in the world, as long as it does not start punishing more effectively the consumer of drugs these measures will not work. Period.
Meanwhile in Venezuela just this week we learn that 325 kilos of cocaine have been caught in Margarita island. Imagine that, the supply of that poor island for years probably! And even though Venezuela is at best a reluctant collaborator in fighting drug trafficking it has the chutzpah to vaunt its prowess.... There was a time when the only contraband was booze, and then it was made legal. Now apparently Chavez limitations on booze traffic in Margarita have been replaced by drug traffic. Progress! Well, for someone's wallet anyway.
-The end-
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Has anyone heard of the Carter Center lately?
I thought of the Carter Center as I read this AP story about the CIA exposing its findings on electronic electoral fraud. I am not interested in revisiting again that story, nor in wondering why if the CIA knew such information they are/were not doing more about it (other countries are mentioned by the way). No, I am wondering what the Carter Center is up these days, whether it recovered some of its former prestige (in Venezuela it has stopped coming up in conversations completely except for the occasional curse) and whether on occasion they feel at least a little bit bad about having helped considerably the establishment of a particularly scruple free military regime.
But I do not think I should worry much about the Carter Center having afterthoughts or regrets. They would be the last one on that matter since even Cesar Gaviria has acknowledged publicly that democracy is problematicin Venezuela, nowhere else than at the latest IAP assembly. Interestingly in that assembly Venevision, property of Jimmy Carter good friend Cisneros, was duly questioned from having benefited from the misfortunes of its commercial competition and having caved fully to the Chavez line. The amazing thing at that assembly is that Venevision had the nerve to defend its untenable position, which of course made its case even worse and lost them any little bit of respect they might have left in that group. But the sad truth is that Venevision is the network watched only by chavistas who cannot stomach anymore VTV or ViVe, and those poor souls that cannot afford cable, or do not dispose of it in their area. Amusingly that branch of the Cisneros family is now a social pariah in Venezuela, who today prefers wisely to seek (buy?) friends in the US or elsewhere. Though I suppose Carter might still come here to fish for pavon in Apure courtesy of Cisneros who he helped talk to Chavez directly. Now that I think of it I do not recall Carter having tried to have Chavez talk to anyone else opposing him in Venezuela. He has no more friends worth his efforts I suppose.
Oh! and let's not forget about those who the Carter Center encouraged to seek an agreement with the government to hold the now officially fraudulent referendum of 2004. One is dead, one is in exile, one has lost a large chunk of its properties in Venezuela, and the other ones are faring hardly better. There again I do not recall the Carter Center having protested abuses committed against them.
But it would be unfair to only blame the Carter Center (though it has a commanding share in the business of destroying Venezuela's democracy). A few days ago in Salvador the ruling ARENA lost to the Farabundo guerrilla front.
Besides the fact that this opens the distinct possibility of a renewal of bloody conflict if Funes is unable to control his reconverted guerrilla (or in waiting?) I have not a single tear for ARENA. The outgoing president, Saca, pledged that its country would watch closely that Vivas and Forero would get a fair trial in Venezuela when they refused to grant them political asylum. It has been now three years of one of the worst travesty of justice that we were given to witness in Venezuela, with Salvador remaining awfully discrete as to their human rights commitment. When you think of it, very ARENA, is it not? No wonder people voted them out at long last. The only thing ahead for these two political prisoners might be a final arranged verdict around April 11 where Chavez rewriting Venezuelan history will make sure that they bear the guilt of all the crimes that he provoked himself that day in 2002.
I do not think that the Carter Center is going to lose any sleep over that. They might actually hope to be included in the great epic that Chavez is imagining for our official story. But guess what? That ingrate also seems to have forgotten Jennifer McCoy and her combo, preferring to hang out with Sean Penn and Oliver Stone.
I think the time is right to write the history of these enablers that allowed the madness of Chavez to take over Venezuela and destroy it, you know, before the blood that seems to be promised to us starts running. Thus we will know before hand who to put the blame on when we will need to leave Venezuela for our lives, if that fateful day ever comes.
-The end-
But I do not think I should worry much about the Carter Center having afterthoughts or regrets. They would be the last one on that matter since even Cesar Gaviria has acknowledged publicly that democracy is problematicin Venezuela, nowhere else than at the latest IAP assembly. Interestingly in that assembly Venevision, property of Jimmy Carter good friend Cisneros, was duly questioned from having benefited from the misfortunes of its commercial competition and having caved fully to the Chavez line. The amazing thing at that assembly is that Venevision had the nerve to defend its untenable position, which of course made its case even worse and lost them any little bit of respect they might have left in that group. But the sad truth is that Venevision is the network watched only by chavistas who cannot stomach anymore VTV or ViVe, and those poor souls that cannot afford cable, or do not dispose of it in their area. Amusingly that branch of the Cisneros family is now a social pariah in Venezuela, who today prefers wisely to seek (buy?) friends in the US or elsewhere. Though I suppose Carter might still come here to fish for pavon in Apure courtesy of Cisneros who he helped talk to Chavez directly. Now that I think of it I do not recall Carter having tried to have Chavez talk to anyone else opposing him in Venezuela. He has no more friends worth his efforts I suppose.
Oh! and let's not forget about those who the Carter Center encouraged to seek an agreement with the government to hold the now officially fraudulent referendum of 2004. One is dead, one is in exile, one has lost a large chunk of its properties in Venezuela, and the other ones are faring hardly better. There again I do not recall the Carter Center having protested abuses committed against them.
But it would be unfair to only blame the Carter Center (though it has a commanding share in the business of destroying Venezuela's democracy). A few days ago in Salvador the ruling ARENA lost to the Farabundo guerrilla front.
Besides the fact that this opens the distinct possibility of a renewal of bloody conflict if Funes is unable to control his reconverted guerrilla (or in waiting?) I have not a single tear for ARENA. The outgoing president, Saca, pledged that its country would watch closely that Vivas and Forero would get a fair trial in Venezuela when they refused to grant them political asylum. It has been now three years of one of the worst travesty of justice that we were given to witness in Venezuela, with Salvador remaining awfully discrete as to their human rights commitment. When you think of it, very ARENA, is it not? No wonder people voted them out at long last. The only thing ahead for these two political prisoners might be a final arranged verdict around April 11 where Chavez rewriting Venezuelan history will make sure that they bear the guilt of all the crimes that he provoked himself that day in 2002.
I do not think that the Carter Center is going to lose any sleep over that. They might actually hope to be included in the great epic that Chavez is imagining for our official story. But guess what? That ingrate also seems to have forgotten Jennifer McCoy and her combo, preferring to hang out with Sean Penn and Oliver Stone.
I think the time is right to write the history of these enablers that allowed the madness of Chavez to take over Venezuela and destroy it, you know, before the blood that seems to be promised to us starts running. Thus we will know before hand who to put the blame on when we will need to leave Venezuela for our lives, if that fateful day ever comes.
-The end-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)