Colombia's President Alvaro Uribe gives a speech at the presidential palace in Bogota November 22, 2007. Uribe has withdrawn permission from Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez to try to broker a deal to free hostages held by Marxist guerrillas. REUTERS/Presidencia/Handout (COLOMBIA) By Justin Delacour
Latin America News Review
November 28, 2007
Everybody and their mother in the English-language press are now lamenting Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's "insults" to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. Curiously, however, few mainstream U.S. papers lamented Uribe's recent insults to critical Colombian journalists, much less some journalists' forced departure from the country as a result of the Colombian president's insults.
Chavez is quite right when he says that the "the empire is the one that has an expansionist project, and you [Uribe] are a servile instrument of the US empire in Latin America."
In fact, I'll go one step further and repeat that Alvaro Uribe is a murderous lying thug with long ties to some of the most brutal death squads in modern Latin American history. How quickly we forget that, under Uribe's watch, Colombia's intelligence service is reported to have "compiled lists of union members, along with details about their security, and handed them over to a coalition of paramilitary groups known as the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia." (Let's just say that the apparent intent wasn't for the paramilitaries to send the union members flowers, which would have been forthcoming only to the widows).
From my perspective, there is no insult too great for Colombia's paramilitary president. If any Latin American president ought to be considered a regional pariah, it is Uribe.
11 comments:
Rampaging against other heads of State, Kings and Institutions is certainly not the best way to do politics...
Mind you, Uribe may well be all you say here and even worse (In fact Im convinced of that)... But defending Chavez in his disrespectful attitudes is no better than siding with Uribe.
Both of them are real nut jobs that deserve a beating, and should NOT be the heads of State of these two amazing countries... They are jeopardizing Colombia and Venezuela's development, corroding institutional establishment (if there has ever been any in the first place, but mind you the constitutional reform made by Uribe for his re-election campaign and more recently Chavez's own referendum calling for indefinite power)
From my perspective, there's no insult too great for Venezuela's revolutionary president. (The sword can swing both ways, Justin)
This comment only aims at pointing out that both Chavez and Uribe are not that different after all... They both have very big mouths, and are in fact populists of the worst kind, trying to prolong their terms in office, centralizing power in their own hands... Failing to acknowledge Chavez's own faults hinders your credibility in this blog, to be honest... I said it before and I'll say it again: Partisan support is very misleading, it is subjective and you as a scholar should be aware that Chavez has his own faults.
Mind you, Uribe may well be all you say here and even worse (In fact Im convinced of that)... But defending Chavez in his disrespectful attitudes is no better than siding with Uribe.
Disrespectful attitudes towards whom, anonymous? You need to specify because Chavez's disrespect for Uribe is perfectly reasonable. Uribe is not respectable. Rather, Uribe is a murderous lying thug.
There are certainly times that I don't agree with Chavez's choice of words, but this is not one of them.
This comment only aims at pointing out that both Chavez and Uribe are not that different after all...
Uh, no, they are very very very different. Chavez isn't chummy with the kinds of people who cut campesinos up with chainsaws. Uribe is (and always has been).
I said it before and I'll say it again: Partisan support is very misleading, it is subjective and you as a scholar should be aware that Chavez has his own faults.
Don't be silly, anonymous. Every scholar makes subjective assessments. Any scholar who tells you otherwise is feeding you a mile-long line of crap.
And of course Chavez has his own faults.
But Uribe is in another league altogether. Uribe is the closest thing to fascism that South America has seen since Pinochet.
Disrespectful attitudes towards whom, anonymous?
Latest one, Uribe. But that's the one that concerns me the least. As you say, Uribe deserves his punishment and both presidents will continue to bash each other no matter what. But not too long ago El Rey Don Juan Carlos with regards to Aznar was seen "fighting" with Chavez, not to mention countless advances made against "Mr Danger" constantly... These count as disrespectful attitudes in my books.
The reasons behind such accusations are justified and I support them. But there is a clear distinction between just being an ass and shouting your discomfort out loud in summits and "Alo Presidente", and expressing your point of view and discrepancy over issues in a more respectful manner. If Chavez understood this, his bolivarian project would not be under so much scrutiny and controversy right now (In fact, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, there would be no point to it)
Uh, no, they are very very very different. Chavez isn't chummy with the kinds of people who cut campesinos up with chainsaws.
The point about Uribe being a "paraco" has already been established and agreed upon... Llueve sobre mojado...
But both of them have similar goals (I.e. perpetuation in power) and that makes their political projects akin, even though the means by which they seek to establish those goals are very different. These means raise different controversies (and to different degrees as well) on either side. And I agree, Uribe's obscure ties with "paracos" has to be understood to it's full extent and made justice over and is by far more controversial than any of Chavez's reforms or institutional revolutions. But in the name of democracy, if that is what we want for the future of these two countries, neither Chavez nor Uribe do a good job. (I used to think Chavez could potentially help things change, but not on the verge of imminent constitutional reform deepening his powers indefinitely)
Every scholar makes subjective assessments
Of course they do. That's how you present and defend a thesis. The key lies in backing that assessment with evidence to make it credible.
But then again, your blog gives a unique perspective on Latin American Politics that is not present in mainstream media and that's the reason I'm here. I encourage you to keep up that good work, because it's very important and interesting. I will continue reading, though not always agreeing. Thank you.
I respect your views, anonymous, however much we may disagree at times. But I do want to clarify something that I don't think you're sufficiently cognizant of.
But not too long ago El Rey Don Juan Carlos with regards to Aznar was seen "fighting" with Chavez, not to mention countless advances made against "Mr Danger" constantly... These count as disrespectful attitudes in my books.
Let's clarify something here. Chavez has reserved some very harsh words for Aznar and Bush because Aznar and Bush supported a failed coup d'etat against his government.
Now, please, tell me what you find to be more disrespectful. You aiding a failed coup against my democratically-elected government? Or me calling you a "fascist" in response?
Be honest, now.
And one more thing. Don't let the mainstream U.S. press do your thinking for you.
Let me tell you how it usually works. First, some prominent political or religious figure insults Chavez, and the press pays no attention.
Then Chavez, who is certainly not one to swallow an insult, responds in kind. But when Chavez responds, the press is suddenly ALL OVER the story. Suddenly the story is all about Chavez's "insults." Never mind what Chavez is responding to.
This is how the press works TO A TEE. That's how it went when Chavez responded --harshly, no doubt-- to Alan Garcia's insults some time ago. That's also how it went when Chavez responded --harshly, no doubt-- to Vicente Fox's insults. And that's how it went when Chavez responded --harshly, no doubt-- to some rather nasty insults from a Honduran Bishop.
And already you seem to be forgetting that the Spanish King told Chavez to "shut up." Lula didn't forget, though. He made it pretty clear that he thought the King was the one who violated diplomatic protocol. (The more important question, though, is: Who elected the King to chime in at a summit of democratic countries in the first place?)
In the end, what we're focusing upon here is rather superficial. What we ought to discussing is not the insults but the politics and class conflicts behind the insults, which are a hell of a lot more interesting.
The bottom line is this: You can either let the international press run you around by the nose with all its selective emphases and omissions, or you can decide to think for yourself.
"The bottom line is this: You can either let the international press run you around by the nose with all its selective emphases and omissions, or you can decide to think for yourself."
Precisely the reason why I'm here. Im well aware of this problem in media reporting and my argument stems from criteria drawn not from mainstream media sources, but from a decision made to think for myself.
"Now, please, tell me what you find to be more disrespectful. You aiding a failed coup against my democratically-elected government? Or me calling you a "fascist" in response?"
Well, to be honest I don't think any regime is "pure" and "Holy" in it's intentions. Everyone has their own agenda... Bush & Co. agenda happens to be simple and easy to recognize (imperialism and hegemonic global control, simply put). But Im just going to go ahead and play devil's advocate here: Don't forget Chavez's own failed Coup de Etat against another "democratically" elected government in 1992, even though that government was heavily US - lenient. Who was disrespecting who then? Oh, yeah! It's Chavez acting in a very non-democratic manner... Regardless of this, let's not forget about the fact that agendas play a heavy role in politics and to me it now becomes clearer every day that Chavez's agenda is not so "pure", as some would like to believe. I just take everything with a grain of salt these days, including Chavez's rhetoric.
I understand Chavez represents an "in your face" response to US Imperialism, but that does not mean I can't disagree with him on certain aspects, or the ways in which he expresses his discomforts, and more importantly, my right to be open and outspoken about it. Especially now that his rhetoric is shifting towards perpetuation in power. I am highly alarmed by this referendum. Even Rafael Correa has expressed his own reserves with regards to the topic... (You should be informed of this by now)
"Then Chavez, who is certainly not one to swallow an insult, responds in kind. But when Chavez responds, the press is suddenly ALL OVER the story. Suddenly the story is all about Chavez's "insults." Never mind what Chavez is responding to."
Well... That being the case, in my opinion Chavez should "smarten up" and stop playing along... How's that for a change? It always takes two to dance, right? That is precisely what the media wants to hear, a screaming Chavez, and guess what... That is exactly what he's delivering, a screaming Chavez... So whose fault is it? The media for playing "unfair", or Chavez for playing by their rules? He has the choice to either continue or stop, even if that means "sucking it up"... I've done it, not particularly easy to do, but in the end it works.
"(The more important question, though, is: Who elected the King to chime in at a summit of democratic countries in the first place?)"
Well... Who elected Queen Elizabeth to be Head of State in Great Britain (and more awkwardly, in Canada) in the first place? That seems even more far fetched to me... She still represents a "sovereign" nation (Canada) on behalf of the British Crown (Legally speaking)... Commonwealth technicalities, I know, but still... Kind of odd, don't you think? Juan Carlos constitutionally holds no authority whatsoever over any Latin American country (Unlike Queen Elizabeth). Only Spain is subject to the King's authority (as it should be), which in turn is a constitutional monarchy (and it works)... The funny thing is, Democracy seems to work in Canada and Spain (to western standards, I must add), but not in Latin America... How interesting, isn't it? Why would that be? hmmmm.... Maybe it's because of highly centralized power structures in Latin American countries that give far too much importance to the presidential figure in the first place. The question goes further and I could go on for hours, about how institutions (or lack thereof, I should say) play the most important role in Latin American politics... That's why we have centralized figures (name it Chavez or Uribe) that can mobilize enough support to even change the constitution in a matter of months, based merely on charismatic leadership! Now, ain't that somethin' to be concerned about, rather than supporting a revolution based on charismatic leadership and no institutional ripeness... And to be honest, I am concerned over this fact a fair bit. Chavez and Uribe are not the cause of Colombia's and Venezuela's democratic deficit... It seems to me they are rather the consequence of it. And that, my dear Justin, is the reason I don't see much difference between the two of them.
Kronberiano:
When I have time this weekend, I'll respond to the rest of your points (which, I'm sorry to say, are deeply imbued with bourgeois ideology, which thus renders them largely vacuous).
How quickly you also forget many other things that don't quite fit the rather one-sided and incomplete picture of Uribe (not that I like the guy, but that makes no difference) and Colombia's recent history as a whole that you are presenting, but then again it must be extremely nice to live in a black and white world where one can selectively erase the facts that don't fit your description of the events. I offer you my regards, in a certain sense, but not much else.
How quickly you also forget many other things that don't quite fit the rather one-sided and incomplete picture of Uribe (not that I like the guy, but that makes no difference) and Colombia's recent history as a whole that you are presenting
Actually, I know the history pretty well, and Uribe's is a very very ugly one. Yes, Uribe's father was killed by the FARC, and that's part of the problem. The man is driven by hatred, just as the FARC leadership is driven by hatred dating back to La Violencia.
If you want to debate Colombian history, try making a point about it. You haven't made one yet.
But if you think the FARC's atrocities and intransigence somehow exonerate a murderous thug like Uribe, there isn't much to debate because the argument doesn't make any sense. The FARC's atrocities and intransigence are a separate issue from who Uribe is and what truly horrible things he's done throughout his political life.
Just for the record: Last anonymous comment was not mine.
I'm still waiting for your response, Justin... What happened?
Just for the record: Last anonymous comment was not mine.
I'm still waiting for your response, Justin... What happened?
Sorry, that was the weekend of the referendum.
Well, to be honest I don't think any regime is "pure" and "Holy" in it's intentions. Everyone has their own agenda... Bush & Co. agenda happens to be simple and easy to recognize (imperialism and hegemonic global control, simply put). But Im just going to go ahead and play devil's advocate here: Don't forget Chavez's own failed Coup de Etat against another "democratically" elected government in 1992, even though that government was heavily US - lenient. Who was disrespecting who then?
I agree that no regime is pure and holy, but I asked you a specific question and you've so far evaded it.
But first, I'll answer your question. Fine, Chavez disrespected Venezuela's political institutions in attempting to overthrow the government of Carlos Andres Perez (which had, by the way, slaughtered a lot of people in the Caracazo of 1989). Chavez then served two years in prison for his military insurrection, after which he was legally pardoned by Caldera in 1994.
The Chavez-led military insurrection of 1992 has no bearing on the legitimacy of the Chavez government today. The Chavez government is legitimate on account of it having been elected three times.
So I'm going to repeat the question.
Tell me what you find to be more disrespectful. Bush and Aznar aiding a failed coup against Venezuela's democratically-elected government? Or Chavez calling them "fascists" in response?
Well... That being the case, in my opinion Chavez should "smarten up" and stop playing along... How's that for a change? It always takes two to dance, right? That is precisely what the media wants to hear, a screaming Chavez, and guess what... That is exactly what he's delivering, a screaming Chavez... So whose fault is it?
On a practical level, I only partially agree with you. Yes, Chavez should choose his battles more wisely, not because I think he says much that's wrong (I usually agree with him) but rather because media do have the power to take his statements out of context and thereby demonize him.
But notice what you're doing here. You're voicing apologetics for what the major media do (and have always done), which is to bash leftist governments in the region while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the much more egregrious offenses committed by right-wing governments (such as Uribe's). This is a long-term pattern. Read Chomsky and Herman's Manufacturing Consent. You see, you're operating on the fallacy here that Chavez is villainized in the media because he's a loudmouth. That's, like, 10% of the story. The other 90% is that media are doing what they've always done, which is to bash leftist governments who don't serve the interests of the establishment that owns and controls them. If they couldn't find controversial statements from Chavez to bash him about, they'd find something else because the bottom line is that the Bolivarian Project threatens the economic interests of hemispheric elites.
Well... Who elected Queen Elizabeth to be Head of State in Great Britain (and more awkwardly, in Canada) in the first place?
Nobody, and I wouldn't consider it appropriate for her to tell any other democratically-elected head of state to "shut up" either.
The funny thing is, Democracy seems to work in Canada and Spain (to western standards, I must add), but not in Latin America... How interesting, isn't it? Why would that be? hmmmm.... Maybe it's because of highly centralized power structures in Latin American countries that give far too much importance to the presidential figure in the first place. The question goes further and I could go on for hours, about how institutions (or lack thereof, I should say) play the most important role in Latin American politics...
I think you have the causal arrows backwards. Latin America's institutions don't work particularly well because Latin America is both less wealthy and less egalitarian than Europe; Latin America's rich don't pay enough taxes to make their institutions work, and the poor typically don't wield enough economic power (as Europe's trade unions have historically) to make the rich pay more taxes so as to make the region's institutions more efficient and democratic. So what you end up with is weak and largely undemocratic institutions. What you might call "personalism" or "populism" is only the symptom of Latin America's poorly-functioning democracies and institutions, not the cause of it. The cause lies in the region's gross social stratification.
It's certainly convenient for the rich and the powerful of the region to pass the problem off on "personalism" and "populism," but that's just their latest ploy to avoid accepting a more egalitarian socio-economic order.
That's why we have centralized figures (name it Chavez or Uribe) that can mobilize enough support to even change the constitution in a matter of months, based merely on charismatic leadership!
Well, it looks like it didn't quite work out that way, doesn't it?
Now, ain't that somethin' to be concerned about, rather than supporting a revolution based on charismatic leadership and no institutional ripeness...
But, again, I think you have the causal arrows backwards. The institutions have largely reflected the distribution of class power and have thus been pretty rotten and undemocratic to begin with. That's what has given Chavez such great popular appeal. That's where populism and personalism comes from. A popular desire to overhaul some rotten institutions (but not necessarily all institutions, as Chavez's defeat in the referendum has shown).
So I'm afraid a purely institutionalist approach doesn't work very well in trying to figure out where the root of Latin America's problems lie.
Post a Comment