Monday, November 14, 2005

The Prosecutor General at the edge of a nervous breakdown by Teodoro Petkoff Teodoro Petkoff, founder of the Socialist Party (MAS) and Editor of Tal Cual, never signs the Editorials he writes, but given the personal attack by the Prosecutor General Isaias Rodriguez, yesterday's Editorial did carry his signature: The Prosecutor General at the edge of a nervous breakdown by Teodoro Petkoff in Tal Cual The best demonstration that Isaias Rodriguez, the Prosecutor General, has lost it and should resign is given to us by the childish insult he sent me last week. Leaving aside the tortuous manner of the offense-in which even a cardboard psychiatrist like Geovanny Vasquez de Armas would find no major difficulties in finding dark passages in the personality of Isaias Rodriguez with interesting evidence about his sexual orientation, but that of course, is of no interest to anyone nor pertains to the exercise of his position-, what really matters is that Isaias Rodríguez does not have the stature to continue to hold the high investiture of Prosecutor and Attorney General of the Republic. Serious psychiatrists have told me that Isaias is at the edge of a nervous breakdown. On TV he appears overwhelmed by stress and, for his health as well as for that of the country, he should hand over the position. The Prosecutor General’s office has handled the Danilo Anderson case in a somewhat pitiful way. It has been a year of contradictory postures and movements forward and backwards that have culminated with the presentation as witness of a psychopath, whose identity the Prosecutor’s office – the nth evidence of its incompetence- did not even take the precaution of verifying. . Isaias Rodriguez is a public servant that can not consider himself to be above criticism. Least of all when his handling of the case has been tinted with errors and clumsiness that we do have a reason to complain about. His frequent discourteous reactions, sliding into the terrain of the most primitive personal attacks, speak of an inadmissible intellectual indigence in a public servant that is in charge of a position as demanding which is as that of Prosecutor and Attorney General of the Republic. An emotionally disequilibrated person lacks the discretion to run the public ministry The only dignified path he has in the face of this is his resignation Teodoro Petkoff 9:06:11 PM    comment []

Chavez' intolerance provokes rupture with Mexico (picture taken from Tal Cual) So, yesterday President Chavez proceeded to insult Mexican President Vicente Fox, escalating the friction between the two countries to unparalleled levels and inducing both countries to recall their respective Ambassadors and de facto breaking relations between the two countries. Curiously Venezuela breaks relations with the Latin American country that has maintained relations with Cuba for the longest time since Fidel Castro assumed power forty seven years ago. Yesterday’s words by Chavez were once again personal insults against Fox, repeating those that Chavez had made a few days ago. Then, in a nationwide speech Chavez called Fox “a puppy of the US”, who was left “bleeding through his wounds” at the Mar del Plata summit and “was giving himself up to the US”. The new insults repeated the charge that Fox was bleeding through his wounds and Chavez threatened Fox directly using a local song saying essentially: “if you start trouble with me, I will prickle you” Chavez personalized the attacks both times, making it impossible for the Mexican Government not to react. The first time around Mexico, via its Foreign Minister, called for an explanation of Chavez’ first statements, which Venezuela’s Foreign Minister justified saying that Chavez was responding to Fox attacks. Sadly, it was Chavez that personalized things, Fox was careful all the time not to mention names and what he said was that countries had a choice and those that opposed the free trade agreement of the Americas, did not have to join it, but did not need to stop those who did from joining it. He concluded that the free trade pact was simply inevitable. In fact, it was Chavez that was defeated in the Mar del Plata Summit, as he arrived in Argentina for the People’s Summit saying that he was there to bury the free trade agreement of the Americas (ALCA in Spanish). By the end of the Summit, a topic that was not part of the agenda became one, it actually forced a headcount as Venezuela and four of the Mercosur countries objected the mention of ALCA, while Fox pushed for it to be explicitly included. When no agreement on the wording became possible and Venezuela even said that its Constitution was being violated, then a divisive paragraph, forced by Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay was included in the final declaration. But in the end the headcount was clear: 28 countries were for ALCA, four want concessions before they join and one, Venezuela, was alone in its total objection to the treaty. Its intolernace had forced the unexpecetd conclusion of the summit. By the weekend, we were hearing different reports from the Mexicans and the Venezuelans as to the talks between the two countries. The message from Mexico was that things had cooled down, but the situation was still mixed; from Caracas the message was that differences were ironed out and things were just peachy. But those that expected this to escalate knew that Chavez’s Sunday program would be crucial, he would either ignore the issue altogether, send some sort of peace sign or, our favorite: simply escalate. Escalation seemed in order to those that saw the first attack as being purposeful and carefully planned and simply a result of Chavez' intolerance. Indeed, fellow blogger Daniel of Venezuela News and Views had noted the speed and efficiency with which the Ministry of Information had posted the attack on Fox, almost live simultaneoulsy with Chavez nationwide speech, picture included! Thus, this seemed to have been carefully orchestrated. Obviously, the question is why? Was it simply resentment because of the defeat in Mar del Plata? Or was the attack aimed at helping Ciudad de Mexico’s Mayor Lopez Obrador? Or was it some different motive? We suspect the explanation lies in an effort by Chavez and his buddy Castro in dividing Latin America on the issue. While most Governments in the region want free trade, they can not, and do not want to align themselves directly with the US. Chavez’ attacks appear to be a much focused effort at identifying Fox with the US and trying to create the impression that if you are with ALCA you are with Bush. We do not think that Lula of Brazil supports this effort, but Argentina’s President may also sympathize with it. The Lopez Obrador theory does not appear to hold water at this time. Lopez Obrador came out immediately in Fox’s defense last week so it would not have made much sense to continue the attack on Fox at this time. Moreover, polls reveal that Mexicans do not have such a positive image of our President, so that siding with Chavez may not be the best strategy for Lopez Obrador at this time. The incident has revealed somewhat to the outside world how Chavez likes to manipulate facts and people to fit his goals and how intolerant he can be. Today the Foreign Minister in recalling the Venezuelan Ambassador blamed Fox for everything, reaching the ridiculous level of saying that it was Fox that made the free trade agreement part of the Mar Del Plata Summit. In fact, it was Chavez that did, saying he was there to bury the free trade pact upon his arrival in Argentina. The world has also seen how Chavez can personalize what should be high levels discussions, using language unbecoming of a statesman and even language that is not fit for kids to hear or polite for people to use. How Chavez and his Government are absolutely intolerant of dissent, how things have to follow his own autocratic way. How no discussions are allowed. How those that were at one time with him have been left aside, when they objected to any action by the Government. This is the form of Government of an intolerant administration, led by an autocrat that passed a bill to “make sure” the media was upheld to the highest standards, but which is nothing but a tool of censorship. But he can not control foreign Governments or the international media in the same fashion. Unless they need aid and Mexico happens to have oil and not need help as much as other countries. As Chavez attempts to export now his so called and failed “revolution”, people have begun to notice these facts. In Venezuela we have been trying to tell our story for almost five years. Maybe those abroad will notice it more now that he is applying the same tactics of disqualifying and attacking those that simply disagree with him. It is simply called intolerance. And Chavez, a former miltary, is an expert at that. 6:49:07 PM    comment []

Venezuela and Mexico withdraw ambassadors --Venezuelan Foreign Minister rejects Mexico's ultimatum as an aggression against Venezuela --Venezuela blames Fox for this impasse --It was Fox that began the aggression. --Venezuela removes its Ambassador from México 2:05:03 PM    comment []

Mexico threatens to break relations with Venezuela unless apology is forthcoming After yesterday's statement by President Chavez in his Sunday's program Alo Presidente, the Mexican Foreign Minister essentially threatened to withdraw its Ambassador tomorrow unless an apology is forthcoming in the next 24 hours. Yesterday Chavez used a phrase from Florentino and the Devil, a Venezuelan musical piece, in which a man argues with the Devil all night. In this piece, one part says something like "if you start trouble with me, I can prick you". For the last few days we have heard from the Venezuelan Foreign Minister and Venezuela's Ambassador to Mexico that the conflict between the two countries had been ironed out, but the tone from Mexico was still one of concern. Withdrawing its Ambassador is a de facto breaking of relations between the two countries. 8:49:15 AM    comment []