MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, October 5th 2022 - 04:59 UTC

 

 

Guaidó's ambassador has her diplomatic credentials withdrawn by Argentine government

Wednesday, January 8th 2020 - 09:40 UTC
Full article 25 comments

In a blow to Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido, Argentina's government said on Tuesday it did not recognize him as his nation's interim president and had revoked the credentials of his representative in Buenos Aires. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Chicureo

    President Alberto Fernandez continues the incestial dark relationship with the Maduro regime. I await for him showing support to his Iranian brothers to complete the circle of deceit...

    Jan 08th, 2020 - 02:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    No surprise ....he's just formalizing his political alignment with Latin America's corrupt leftist leaders and ex-leaders....might as well have shot himself in the foot.

    Jan 09th, 2020 - 03:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Enrique Massot

    It is so revealing that those who thump their chest talking about Maduro find at the same time Bolivian self-proclaimed president Jeanine Añez entirely fine.

    President Alberto Fernandez does what any self-respecting president of a self-respecting country will do, that is, to set its foreign policy agenda in line with his political principles.

    Latin American countries governed by remote control by the U.S. will of course watch in fear Donald Trump's latest tantrum and join the Lima Group and his chorus of coup-seeking peons.

    Jan 09th, 2020 - 08:48 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Chicureo

    Jack Bauer

    Ever notice just how hypocritical leftists get when facing the truth about true democracy and the will of oppressed people on our continent?

    Speaking of Justice:
    https://m.imgur.com/SB

    Jan 10th, 2020 - 03:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    “President Alberto Fernandez does what any self-respecting president of a self-respecting country will do, that is, to set its foreign policy agenda in line with his political principles.”

    What? Good presidents set their foreign policy in line with their country's best interests, bad ones in line with their personal ones. Why do you think socialist Venezuela is allied with right-wing nationalist Russia and vice-versa, and practically no government on the right or the left is willing to criticise China?

    Jan 10th, 2020 - 10:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo

    It's all about showing support to Maduro and his corrupt injust government.

    Jan 10th, 2020 - 03:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    There's two schools of thought in the Americas: either try and escape from US hegemony, band together with like-minded neighbours and ally with US rivals China and Russia, or embrace it and try to develop within what America wants. Alberto seems to prefer the former.

    Different countries have tried both options at different times, which has worked out better?

    Jan 10th, 2020 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Enrique Massot

    DT

    “Good presidents set their foreign policy in line with their country's best interests, bad ones in line with their personal ones.”

    DT: I said Alberto Fernandez' foreign policy agenda aligns with “his political principles.”

    In your answer, you talk about ”personal interests.”

    Those are two different things. Different governments may try different ways to benefit their country guided by their political principles -- or lack of thereof.

    About your more recent post:

    Latin American countries should be free to choose their path to stability and sustainable growth, without other countries' interference.

    Alberto, who has now been in office for one month, has clearly signaled a will to dialogue with U.S. president Donald Trump, while showing, as in the granting of asylum to Evo Morales, that Argentina will have its own foreign policy. I applaud that.

    The emergence of a multi-polar world gives Latin American countries new alternatives to challenge U.S. dependency, which has kept backward elites in power as long as they suit their geopolitical goals.

    Jan 11th, 2020 - 05:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    “Latin American countries should be free to choose their path to stability and sustainable growth, without other countries' interference.”

    Not 100% free, because each country's actions impact others, but in general that goes for everyone. However, that's not the world we live in - Russia and China's neighbours know it equally well. I also mentioned the best interests of the country; do you think it's okay to ally with China, that widely violates its citizens' human rights and threatens its neighbours, in order to help your own country develop? Or is it that allying with a dictatorship over democracies fits their political principles?

    As for the multipolar world, one could argue it's the other way around. US interference in Latin America was greatest during the cold war, and when it ended those countries were able to return to democracy and a few years later came the 'pink tide'. Now when the US feels less secure in their dominance, so is their interference in Latin America increasing again. I'm not convinced by this theory, but it's worth considering.

    Jan 11th, 2020 - 09:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    Chicureo
    It stands out like a sore thumb...

    EM
    Can understand your support the Fernandez couple, but to defend Maduro, you gotta be losing it ! And as far as Morales goes, you believe his attempt to become perpetual dictator is OK....I thought you were a democrat...looks like only when things go your way.

    DT
    Reekie doesn't understand that in today's globalized world, it is virtually impossible for any country to isolate itself, voluntarily....unless, in the unlikely hypothesis it is totally independent economically and needs no other country....and even what happens on the other side of the globe affects you, one way or the other...obliging you to take a stance.

    Jan 11th, 2020 - 02:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Dunno if EM believes a country can isolate itself, but I can't think of any government that takes a stance solely based on political principles. Eg, the US hates Iran but is allies with Saudi Arabia who are at least as bad. Bolivia under Morales criticised the US, but praised China's human rights record and supported their resolutions at the UN after getting investment from Chinese companies.

    And although Morales arguably broke the law to try and stay in power, having the army force him out after he already agreed to new elections is not good for democracy in Bolivia. The actions of the interim government show how bad the alternative is, I wouldn't trust them to deal justly with Morales or his allies either.

    Jan 11th, 2020 - 11:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    DT
    Pragmatism in international politics is a mode of survival.....you might not always like it, but it's easy enough to understand.

    Morales was slowly doing away with democracy in Bolivia.....to let him carry on down the path to Venezuela, or to get rid of him were the options....afaic, it had to be the second.
    Anyway, give the present, interim government, a chance to prove they are trying to do what's right, i.e. new, free elections, soon...if they don't, feel free to criticize.

    Jan 12th, 2020 - 10:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    “Morales was slowly doing away with democracy in Bolivia”

    I was afraid of that. But even if you take the best view of his motives, standing for a fourth term was a bad idea. It's not good to let power get too entrenched, especially in a country with weak institutions, and defying the result of the referendum lost Morales a lot of support both at home and abroad.

    The interim government have already done plenty to criticise: from dealing with protests (3 killed under Morales, 30 after Añez took over, plus they immediately passed a law giving immunity to the police, which is just asking for abuse), treatment of the opposition (refusing protection for them and their families, pursuing them aggressively when there has been no time to gather evidence) to their drastic 180 on foreign policy (quitting international organisations, joining the Lima group instead, switching from recognising Maduro to Guaido).

    You may prefer their foreign policy to Morales's, but the Bolivians never voted for it and as an interim government their job is purely to hold elections and keep the country running in the meantime. For all these reasons I don't trust them to hold free and fair elections; will just have to hope the OAS and other observers do their jobs and make sure everything is above board.

    Jan 13th, 2020 - 12:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    DT
    “...standing for a fourth term was a bad idea. ”.....not only a bad idea, unconstitutional (before he changed the constitution to suit himself).....I don't what it is that makes you Europeans see this kind of behaviour as only a bad idea....how about if Boris Jonhson , with the support of the Conservatives, declared himself eternal prime minister and imprisioned the opposition ? that's what Maduro (in VZ) did, and what Morales what aiming for...you wouldn't stand for it in the UK, but think it's “permissible” in latin America ?
    Any interim government suffers harsh criticism....who, of the new opposition would lose the chance to sabotage anything it is trying to do to change the previous (bad) situation ? Just for ex, even Temer, days after Dilma was kicked out, became the scape goat for the PT and the far left. Your idea of abuse is very sensitive, but here in South America, it's usually just the response to abusive protesters...no use picking on one thing to define the whole attempt of getting back on track....anyway, what int'l org - that was good for Bolivia - did they quit ? and recognizing Guaido i/o Maduro, was the right thing to do. The Bolivians never voted for Morales' 3rd term, far less his 4th....Morales changed the Constitution without public consent, and the population had to swallow it. But as I said, let's wait 'n see if Añez holds free elections as promised. You don't trust them, even before giving a fair chance....

    Jan 13th, 2020 - 01:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Countries have term limits *because* letting one person stay in power too long is a bad idea. Changing the constitution just makes it worse. Boris has already done some pretty dodgy things, like proroguing parliament in order to prevent debate on Brexit (this was reversed by the supreme court, and parliament returned the next day). But Morales never imprisoned the opposition afaik, whereas the current government seems to be aiming to do just that.

    You don't need to be sensitive to think people being killed is an abuse of power. If Morales could avoid killing so many people, why can't the interim government?

    Añez left ALBA and UNASUR, and joined the Lima group instead. Morales won his third term with 61% of the vote, and there was no suggestion of cheating that time. This time things were closer, but Morales was still well ahead of his opposition (Carlos Mesa) before the results were interrupted, so it's far from clear that Mesa would have won. And Añez isn't even from the same party as Mesa, she was 2nd vice-president of the senate and only became President because everyone ahead of her resigned. Basically a minority party has fallen into power and is taking the chance to do as they please, knowing they are unlikely to win the new elections. I find this suspicious because the next government can reverse their changes, so what do they hope to gain?

    Jan 13th, 2020 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    DT
    “Countries have term limits...”.. exactly.
    What BJ did, may be 'dodgy' but afaik, within British Law....but there are ways, within the law, and which are respected, to overturn such decisions...without bloodshed....and if they think the law is counter-productive, then Parliament should change it....democratically.

    If not mistaken, in VZ it was/is the govt's paramilitary forces that killed most, and in Bolivia it was much the same thing....before and shortly after Morales ran.
    The “Bolivarianos” can't stand losing power (almost absolute) so it's pretty easy to understand why they, and others they instigate, would resort to murder in the attempt to regain power....
    Añez left ALBA & UNASUR ??? so what ? ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the peoples of our America”, is just another version of the Foro de São Paulo...and UNASUR, with some of it's members (VZ, BOL under Morales etc), in practise just another useless political forum for the “Bolivarianos” to further their agendas....Brazil left in 2019, so why should BOL under Añez remain ? The Lima Group makes much more sense....countries fed up with organizations with dictatorial tendencies.
    “Morales won his third term with 61% of the vote, and there was no suggestion of cheating that time”....your joking, right ? perhaps no cheating, but he changed the Constitution to 'permit' a 3rd term...then a 4th...and who knows, if not kicked out, perhaps a 5th ? the people got fed up, and the cheating in the 4th was the last straw...
    No use looking for excuses to justify Morales's actions....if he'd left after his 2nd term, unlikely any of this would have happened.....but what matters now is that he's gone, and let's hope Añez keeps her promise...a chance to start clean and revoke abusive laws which enable democracies to turn into dictatorships. Then again, it all depends on the political tendencies of those the people vote for....

    Jan 14th, 2020 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    What BJ did was not within the law, that's why the judges cancelled it. Now he wants to weaken the courts in order to increase his own power, something that's worryingly easy in the UK with no formal constitution.

    In Bolivia it was mostly the police and army killing protesters according to the news, eg:

    “On Friday, security forces opened fire on supporters of Mr Morales in Sacaba, killing at least eight people. A doctor in the city told the Associated Press that most of those killed and injured had bullet wounds.”

    Is it harder to imagine that those in power now might also be reluctant to give it up?

    Brazil left Unasur after electing a president who promised to change the direction of foreign policy, which is fair enough. Bolivia has not had a fair election yet and no majority has agreed to these changes. I thought you objected to a minority imposing their will on everyone else? Or does that only apply when you disagree with them?

    And no I wasn't joking, Morales had a big lead in the last election and no need to cheat. Him defying the referendum to run again was one of the main reasons for his loss of support this time. Clearly Bolivians are not keen on an eternal president either. I also hope the new elections will be free and fair, but I think that will be difficult in the current environment.

    Jan 14th, 2020 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    DT
    Had understood that BJ was allowed (although uncommon) to act as he did....But ok, believe you.

    Getting back to Morales, you seem to ignore the original cause...had he not changed the Constitution (supported by his goons) to permit a 3rd term - already not well looked upon by the int'l community - if he had not gone for a 4th term - definitely dictatorial - NONE of the shit would've happened....he acted like Maduro, disrespected the Constitution and the law, 'n when it didn't allow him to do what he wanted, his puppet Congress changed the rules.

    “Is it harder to imagine that those in power now might also be reluctant to give it up?”
    That's what we'll see.....it's not hard to imagine it, but to presume they won't, at this point, is stretching it....if they don't hold free/clean elections within the given time frame, then they might be as bad as Morales.

    “I thought you objected to a minority imposing their will on everyone else? Or does that only apply when you disagree with them?”
    On “principle”, yes.....but it's rather more complicated than that in Bolivia...again, it came down to two options, allow Morales to become virtual dictator, or cut his wings....you cannot forget the context in which things happened. And I also doubt that the media in the UK is not biased....a good mate of mine, who spends 6 months there, 6 months here, just got back, 'n asked me to update him on recent government politics, new laws which in gen'l were passed to reduce bureaucracy 'n boost the economy...he was (not particularly) shocked to learn what happned here, and how reported in the UK.....i.e., pound away on B's cockups, and omit his positive actions.....and BTW, take my word for it, as I have no intention of going into detail on any of it - I know what I read and listen to, and see in practice.
    Re Morales - again - the fact he won the 3rd term with 61% of the vote - which might be valid (or not, but undisputed) - is not the issue - that he should never have run, is.

    Jan 15th, 2020 - 05:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Enrique Massot

    Look at the exchange below to understand the nature of much that is wrong in Latin America.

    Demon Tree:

    ”The (Bolivian) interim government have already done plenty to criticise...3 killed under Morales, 30 after (self-proclaimed president Janine) Añez took over...a law giving immunity to the police, which is just asking for abuse...“

    Jack Bauer:

    ”Your idea of abuse is very sensitive, but here in South America, it's usually just the response to abusive protesters.“

    I understand many who comment in this forum will find the above statement perfectly normal. However, it's anything but.

    The existence of sectors of Latin American society who agree with this line of thought is what has allowed so many dictatorships to become entrenched, as it happens in Bolivia and other countries today.

    Look how JB's chastises 'undemocratic' Evo Morales while openly sympathizing with Añez' open racism, fanatic religiousness and violent rage.

    JB: ”let's wait 'n see if Añez holds free elections as promised. You don't trust them, even before giving a fair chance....”

    No need for more.

    Jan 15th, 2020 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    “it's rather more complicated than that in Bolivia...again, it came down to two options, allow Morales to become virtual dictator, or cut his wings”

    Morales had already resigned and fled the country when Añez was thrust into the presidency. Quitting Unasur and joining the Lima group does not help with that, and shooting protesters with real bullets and antagonising the opposition just makes it harder to hold new and legitimate elections. That's why I judge this government harshly, because these things are unnecessary and even harmful to restoring democracy. With the lack of trust how will we (and more importantly the Bolivians) even know if the elections they organise are fair or not?

    My point about Morales winning the last election with a substantial margin is that a majority really did vote for his policies, support for Venezuela and all. If another party wants to change them they should put it to the voters and get their approval first.

    As for the press, how do you know the media in Brazil isn't just as biased? And Bolivian sites could be even less objective since the owners likely support one side or other.

    Jan 15th, 2020 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    EM
    Reekie, you live so protected in Nowhere, Canada, you've no idea what abusive protesters can do...no use discussing it with a pussy.
    Find it hilarious, to say the least - listen to yourself : “Look how JB's chastises 'undemocratic' Morales while openly sympathizing with Añez' open racism, fanatic religiousness and violent rage”.....Wow, “chastises” poor Morales...listening to you, one would almost think there is no reason to. And please show me where I “openly sympathize” with Añez (open racism, fanatic religiousness, violent rage ?)...R U nuts Reekie ? I only said that given the options, she is what came forward, and that I hope she keeps her promise of new, clean elections....how is that 'sympathizing' ? look it up in a dictionary.

    You believe you have a crystal ball - criticized Macri from day 1 - simply because CFK lost ; you praise Fernandez after 5 weeks in office, presuming he'll do no wrong ; you “chastise” (like it ?) Añez before she's had a chance to prove she'll keep her word, or that she is a Morales in skirts, just because your darling Morales was kicked out...if you weren't so pathetic you'd be funny...like our DumbAss.

    DT
    Afaik, Bolivia's constitution rules that if the Prez 'n VP resign, the next in the line of succession is the Prez of the Senate...he resigned too; next, the Prez of the Lower House...don't know what happened to him/her, but in the confusion as to who should take over and call new elections in 90 days, Añez (2nd VP, Senate) was who decided to take the bull by the horns.
    She quit Usasur, an irrelevant organization...so what ? The Lima Group is made of anti-left governments, as if that were necessarily bad....why so ? because they aren't socialist ?
    Wait until after the elections (if they occur)...no need to suffer in anticipation of what might not happen.
    Whether the majority voted for EM's policies isn't the point...he shouldn't have run. The MSM here, IS biased too...just saying, yr MSM created their own version of the facts.

    Jan 16th, 2020 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Yeah, Añez took over because about 5 people above her resigned all at once. Not a normal situation at all.

    Whether joining the Lima group is a good idea or not isn't the point; everyone has their own opinion on that. The fact is it's undemocratic to do it before anyone had chance to vote on it. The interim government should have stuck to restoring order and arranging new elections, their actual job.

    As for what Enrique quoted, it's not about who is more violent but that if you give any group of people immunity some will abuse it for their own ends. There are bad people everywhere, that's why we need the law in the first place.

    The BBC got their facts from various news agencies: AP, Reuters, AFP, and they weren't particularly sympathetic to Morales either. They would be more likely to support the new government if anything.

    Jan 16th, 2020 - 09:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    DT
    Well, I only commented on the Lima group because you mentioned it, as if it were a bad move.

    “The fact is it's undemocratic to do it before anyone had chance to vote on it.”.....who's “anyone” ? the Bolivian parliament, the majority of which had been kept in clover by Morales ? great chance of leaving the leftist organization.....
    The new interim government just followed the new orientation.
    Morales was kicked oput on 10 Nov.....the 90 day period is still running....let's see.

    “It's not about who is more violent but that if you give any group of people immunity some will abuse it for their own ends” (Reekie)...from that point of view, as a principle, cannot disagree, but the stage has to already have been set for that...it's usually the result of a bad situation that goes building up...until it explodes.....it doesn't just happen out of nothing.

    Given that most news agencies are not totally truthful, usually confusing their 'opinion' with their version of the truth, it comes down to checking dubious or contradictory statements from the press, with more than one source.
    The bottom line is Morales was trying to become dictator....using and twisting democracy to get there....so he had to go.

    Jan 16th, 2020 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    “who's “anyone” ?”

    Voters in Bolivia. If the government/President elected in the next elections (assuming they are fair) wants to realign Bolivia's foreign policy and alliances, I would not have a problem with it. I might have an opinion and even think they were mistaken but Bolivians have a better idea about the best direction for their country and a right to choose for themselves. Something they can only do when the election takes place.

    “from that point of view, as a principle, cannot disagree”

    Glad to hear it. The previous, supposedly dictatorial, government managed without giving immunity to the police and military, so it's hard to believe the new government needed to do so only 2 DAYS after taking office. They didn't wait for the situation to build up or even try to deal with the protests normally first. It's pretty revealing of their priorities.

    “The bottom line is Morales was trying to become dictator....using and twisting democracy to get there....so he had to go.”

    He's gone. He's not allowed to run in the new elections, he's not in control of arranging them. All the things the interim government did that I have objected to were just them pushing their own agenda, and not needed to remove Morales. Some of them are probably counterproductive to restoring peace and democracy. A good interim government would have worked with the opposition, made sure politicians of all parties were protected from the mob, allowed protests to take place and used the least amount of force possible to remove blockades etc, and focused on arranging new elections and addressing the issues the OAS found.

    Jan 17th, 2020 - 10:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    DT
    “who's “anyone ?”

    “Voters in Bolivia”.

    Ah, so you believe Morales consulted the Bolivian “voters” to see if they agreed to his 3rd term ? he didn't...he bought Congress with promises and bribes to get what 'he' wanted - to change the Constitution ; voters weren't consulted, and were faced with the options Morales gave them. Indeed, very democratic.
    Like Henry Ford, on the Model T, “you can have any colour you want, as long as it is black”.

    ”If the government/President elected in the next elections (assuming they are fair) wants to realign Bolivia's foreign policy and alliances, I would not have a problem with it.”

    By the look of it, you think Morales should still be in power (despite manipulation of the Constitution to manage it), and would be OK with him staying in power another 20 years. Besides the imoral 3rd term, the fact he tried to swindle a 4th, is, afaic, enough to ban him from public office for life. If not, you get absurd situations, as here, where politicians condemned for stealing public funds, spend nights in prison, and still deal with public funds during the day.
    Morales abused his power when he orchestrated the changes in the Constitution to remain in office, he never consulted the “voters”...so why should he be allowed to run, after that ? Look, I'm not saying Añez is going to do the right thing, am not excluding the possibility of her and her cronies acting just like Morales, am only saying, wait a bit longer.
    Once again, you are judging Latin American issues, such as the interim government of Bolivia and those of 'banana' republics, by standards applicable in 1st world countries during political crises....things are different in Latin America. Get used to it.
    The Bolivian crisis had been brewing since Morales claimed a 3rd term...enough people became fed up, wanted change, but Morales, believing himself the “eternal savior”, refused to listen ; he wilfully ignored laws & common sense.....shit eventually happens...

    Jan 17th, 2020 - 06:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!