Venezuela's Chavez tells Mexico's Fox: 'Don't mess with me'

US on sidelines as Latin American voters prepare to redraw continent

Elections likely to bring new alliances and governments that defy old ideological labels

Dan Glaister in Los Angeles
Monday November 14, 2005
The Guardian


There was a telling moment during the Mar del Plata summit of the Americas in Argentina earlier this month. As the 34 leaders walked to the seaside spot chosen for their group photograph, they chatted and joked among themselves. But while they strolled in groups, one leader walked alone: the US president.

George Bush's isolation was more than symbolic. It was borne out by the failure of the summit to rubberstamp the US-backed creation of a south American trade zone. Both President Bush's isolation and the failure of the latest US-inspired trade plan for the continent highlight a question preoccupying US policy-makers and Latin American leaders: is the region drifting away from the influence of its northern neighbour?

Between now and the end of 2006, 11 presidential elections will be held in Latin America. The political changes and challenges that ensue could see a continent redrawn.
"In a real way Latin America is up for grabs," said Larry Birns, director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, a Washington-based thinktank. "At the very time when the US has one of the most conservative administrations, it's dealing with a Latin America that is moving to the left, not to the far-out left, but sufficiently to the left that Latin America is beginning to think about non-traditional relationships and affiliations."

Washington's unease is heightened by the presence of leaders who, at least nominally, come from the left. In Brazil, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva was elected from the Workers' party; Chile elected Ricardo Lagos, the first socialist president since Salvador Allende; Argentinians voted in Nestor Kirchner, who came from the leftwing faction of the Peronist party; and Uruguay chose Tabaré Vázquez, the candidate of a coalition of leftwing and progressive groups.
(snip/...)

Caracas, Wednesday November 16 , 2005

Foreign Minister regrets "downpour" of attacks on Venezuela

Foreign Minister Alí Rodríguez justified the comments by President Hugo Chávez during his Sunday TV and radio show by arguing that were in reply to a couple of remarks previously made by Mexican ruler Vicente Fox.

"There is a real downpour of attacks on Venezuela on the media and in the political circles of ruling PAN party, even urging to break off every relation with Venezuela." In his view, Venezuelan sectors should replicate the action.

"It was Mexico who took the lead and resolved to stay relations until receiving an explanation by Venezuela, and set also Tuesday at 12:00 p.m. as deadline. This is obviously an ultimatum, and we dismissed it for being disrespect."

The senior official thanked Mercosur for being ready to help solve the disagreement between Mexico and Venezuela.
(snip/)

The Imperial President and the Bolivarian Democrat
Section of article by Roger Burbach Visiting Scholar University of California
Henry Greer [] | POSTED: 11.12.05 @08:16

~snip~

.......Demagoguery is apparently a label imposed on any leader who attempts to mobilize and improve the lot of the popular classes at the expense of the wealthy. In a country of 25 million, illiteracy has been virtually eliminated as 1.4 million learned to read and write during the early years of Chavez' tenure. Three million adult Venezuelans previously outside the education system due to poverty enrolled in schooling programs.

When Chavez took office 80 percent of the population was largely excluded from the benefits of an oil rich economy. Few had access to even minimal health care. Today, thanks in large part to an "oil for doctors" program that has brought 20,000 Cuban doctors to Venezuela, seventy percent of the population enjoys access to free health care. Malnutrition and hunger have been eliminated as three-fifths of the population now receives subsidized food via cooperatives, special food programs and government distribution centers.

As to Bush's allegation that Chavez is pitting "neighbor against neighbor," the President of Venezuela proudly points to his efforts to foment cooperation in the hemisphere while opposing "the frightening neo-liberal globalization" embodied in Bush's call for a Free Trade Area of the Americas. Chavez in August launched PetroCaribe, a program providing Venezuelan oil to the countries of the Caribbean at a 40 percent discount with long term loans at 1 percent interest. In opposition to Bush's neo-liberal agenda, Chavez is calling for the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas that would include political as well as economic integration for South and Latin America.

The ultimate hypocrisy in Bush's proclamation that he stands for improved international relations while Chavez opposes "freedom in individual lives" came at Bush's last stop in Panama. There in an effort to rebuff international criticism of the secret U.S. prison system abroad used to detain and torture alleged terrorism suspects, Bush stated he would continue to "aggressively pursue" terror suspects and insisted that "any activity we conduct" is "lawful." Small wonder Chavez labels the Bush regime a "terrorist administration" that is a "threat to humanity."
(snip/)

Fox's performance leaves many puzzled

BY KELLY ARTHUR GARRETT/The Herald Mexico
El Universal
November 13, 2005

The typical achievement of a summit involving heads of state is either a) nothing, or b) decided well in advance. The highlight of the actual gathering is the made-for-television acting out between jaw sessions. The featured participants take advantage of the spotlight to promote themselves, while protesters use the cameras to convince the world that their cause somehow requires oddball behavior or manic violence.

If summits are political theater, last week's meeting of Latin American leaders in an Argentine resort city was no less than Grand Kabuki, a song-and-dance spectacle emphasizing technique. Much of Mexico, however, was unimpressed with its own president's technique. In fact, the near-consensus opinion of those outside his own party was that Vicente Fox's behavior at the summit was shameful, embarrassing, and detrimental to the nation.

And that's the sugarcoated version. Just about every voice to the left of the president (i.e. the majority of voices) came right out and accused him of kowtowing to the United States, of "doing Bush's dirty work" in Argentina. The "E" word entreguista is a serious charge in these parts, but so overused in recent years that it's lost much of its zing. This time around, though, the concern is genuine, and those who accuse the president of submitting to Washington's will at the expense of Mexico's interests seem to mean what they say.

PUSHING THE FTAA

The criticism grew out of Fox's vocal and persistent attempts to push forward the longstalled Free Trade Area of the Americas, known in Mexico as ALCA for its initials in Spanish. It's no secret that Fox is a firm believer in the proposed accord, which would link more than 30 North and South American nations from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego in open commerce. But since there was zero chance for any unanimous agreement even on resuming talks in the future (the topic wasn't even on the summit agenda), Fox's fevered pitching and lobbying for ALCA came off as unseemly grandstanding, and often as scolding.
(snip/...)