MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Why CFK turned her back on the Obama-mania spell and returned to Chavez
Argentine president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner (CFK) behind doors in Government House criticized her peer from Venezuela Hugo Chavez saying “he speaks before stopping to think” and praised US president Barack Obama insisting she was interested in having “closer relations with United States”, according to the latest revelations from Wikileaks. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesso, Wikileaks and history record that Christina has opted for Chavez over the USA.
Mar 14th, 2011 - 02:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am constantly amazed that shooting oneself in the foot happens many times over - one would have thought that 'blood and pain' would cause the lady to think twice and three times before ANY course of action.
Supporting Chavez, the archetypal 'shooter-from-the-hip' is strangely counter-productive - even if he controls South America via Unasur.
#1 , the last paragraph wouldn't be true ...
Mar 14th, 2011 - 04:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not today, but watch this space . . . .
Mar 14th, 2011 - 06:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@geoff
Mar 15th, 2011 - 01:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Can you try to introduce some nuance in your thoughts on the LatAm left, or do you rather prefer comments heavy in ideology and light in substance - comments like “Rousseff is a terrorist”, “the PT is linkd to the FARCs”, and “Chávez, the leader of Venezuela controls Unasur”?
Maybe with an election looming CFK wants to explore some useful variations of democracy, Chavez will be more useful for her on that score than Obama...
Mar 15th, 2011 - 09:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hi, Forgetit (#4).
Mar 15th, 2011 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0these 'light' blogs are not good for nuance, but you will find such shading in my various contributions.
For instance,
Dilma WAS an international 'terrorist' (= someone else's freedom fighter) during her earlier life. My wife and I know this as we were around at the time, her in SP and me in Europe, where we observed this international terrorism at first hand.
The PT-FARC links have been well documented, as you know, here in Brasil (and not just in Veja). They are down-played at present to help SA trading/political development - this is a nuance.
Chavez would love to use Unasur as his vehicle for promoting HIS vision of an integrated continent to the world. Luckily, Dilma is more circumspect than Lula, and is distancing herself and Brasil from overt support for the 'democratic' dictator and his desires. ('Democratic' is a nuance).
You will find much support in my comments regarding Presidenta Dilma in my Mercopress postings. This is a different nuance from my earlier statements in (eg) The Economist, where I focused on her revolutionary past.
That D. was once a leftist anti-govt guerrilla is of little importance. All those who enganged in political violence have been pardoned in 1979 by the military govt itself. That is, their activities as former guerrilleros are no longer of legal interest. As such - and considering that, more often than not, their political beliefs today don't match those of 40 years ago - I don't see why anyone would feel the need to bring about their past activities when discussing their political careers today. I can see only one reason for that: the intention to engane in character denigration.
Mar 15th, 2011 - 03:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The same goes for the “link” between the PT and the FARCs. The alleged liaison, which is never clearly explained by those who mention it to attack the PT, has nothing to do with collaboration from the PT with FARCs activities in Colombia or anywhere else. That should always be cleared out for that's the first thing that comes to one's mind when one hears that an individual or a group collaborates with an outlawed, terrorist organization. The PT and the FARCs had once in the past belonged to the same umbrella group of leftist LatAm parties and groups, the Foro de S. Paulo. That's all their “collaboration” amounts to. Other leftist groups belong to them: eg, the moderate Chilean Socialist Party. And no one would say of it that it collaborates with the FARCs.
And whether C. “would love to use Unasur” to promote his agenda is of no importance because that doesn't mean he can actually do that, and certainly doesn't mean that he actually “constrols South America via Unasur”. Venezuela isn't even close to being the most important economy in the region; I can't how Chávez could manage to dominate a continent that is far greater than the country he actually governs.
And that today you're more sympathetic to Dilma doesn't really surprise me, given her apparent turnaround to the right and to monetarism.
Thanks, Forgetit,
Mar 15th, 2011 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0great additional nuance.
We are at about the 90% level of agreement, which, for me, is very good indeed!
Though I still worry about the abuse of Unasur from the inside; the fledgling checks and balances that give such a huge continental 'super-government' stability are not even on the horizon, let alone in place.
Geoff.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!