Hugo Chavez Lashes Out and Insults Mexico and Felipe Calderon

On the same day the Calderón administration took steps to ease rocky relations with Venezuela and Cuba, Venezuela´s Hugo Chávez on Thursday hurled personal insults at his Mexican counterpart

On the same day the Calderón administration took steps to ease rocky relations with Venezuela and Cuba, Venezuela´s Hugo Chávez on Thursday hurled personal insults at his Mexican counterpart. Chávez´s ire was raised as he attacked Calderón for comments the latter made in Davos, Switzerland, last week criticizing countries that "nationalize industries" and "interfere in the market economy."

"He left a bad taste in my mouth, running around the world and talking badly about other countries while trying to present his country as a model," Chávez said.

Calderón used his appearance in Davos to promote Mexico as "a country that is ideal for foreign investment."

As Chávez responded to questions from reporters in Caracas, his anger became more apparent.

"I think that this little gentleman is a big ignoramus," he said, referring to Calderón as a "caballerito."

"Instead of taking shots at Venezuela´s economy, he ought to realize that poverty in Mexico is increasing," Chávez added.

The Venezuelan president then asked rhetorically, "Why do you think the United State wants to build a wall? Because they are determined to keep out the avalanche of desperate poor who want to get in."

Mexico and Venezuela froze their diplomatic relations in December 2005 after Chávez called then-President Vicente Fox "a lapdog of the empire" after Fox championed the U.S.-backed Free Trade Area of the Americas at the Americas Summit in Mar del Plata, Argentina.

The two nations removed their respective ambassadors and Mexico insists relations will not be restored until Chávez apologizes. Caracas has made clear that no apology is forthcoming.

During the presidential campaign last year, Calderón compared his main rival, Andrés Manuel López Obrador to Chávez, calling him "a danger to Mexico."

Before Chávez´s outburst on Thursday, the Foreign Relations Secretariat had removed its travel warning it issued for Mexicans traveling to Venezuela. The warning referred to "political instability" in Venezuela.

Also earlier on Thursday, Foreign Relations Secretary Patricia Espinosa had asserted Mexico´s desire to normalize relations with both Venezuela and Cuba.

Before Chávez unleashed his verbal volley, senators here criticized Calderón for his anti-Venezuela comments while in Davos (although the president did not refer to Venezuela by name, it seemed clear to whom he was referring).

The senators urged the government to put an immediate end to the exchange of criticisms and work through diplomatic channels to restore the bilateral relations.

Una Payasada -- a Spanish term which can be translated roughly as "a place where one clowns around" or even "a place where clowns hang out." I think it is particularly appropriate here to describe the effect Hugo Chavez has had upon the tone of international policy debate in Latin America by his boorish behavior over the past week as evidenced in both his persistence in attacking Mexico's newly-inaugurated President Felipe Calderon and for the crude manner in which Chavez has gone about it. I wish I could tell you that this is my own original observation, but it is not, because "clown" is precisely the label Latin Americans themselves are pinning to Hugo Chavez's coat.

Following a series of very surprising exchanges in which, to say the least, the Venezuelan President did nothing to distinguish himself; the niceties of diplomatic courtesy have gone out the window and more earthy evaluations of El Primer Bolivariano are being spoken openly and without regard for effect by persons of influence. Santiago Creel, who leads Calderon's PAN Party delegation in the Mexican Senate, stated Friday that "Chavez has converted himself into a Continental Clown" and that the inappropriate level of debate was of such a nature that Creel "discarded [the idea] that one can come back from the extreme from which relations between the two countries are broken." So apparently there will be no Venezuelan-Mexican rapprochement for the simple reason that Hugo Chavez has shown through his characteristic flair for personally insulting foreign heads of state that he does not want to have one. While I suspect that many of us here in the United States will not be in the least surprised to see this kind of behavior from Chavez, as we recall his speech to the UN last September, it is possible that a number of us will simply dismiss his conduct as, well; mere "clowning around" to paraphrase Creel. And though there obviously is more than a little of the inane in Chavez, I would like to suggest that there are undercurrents of profound long-term changes now taking place in Latin America, as well as Chavez's continuing desire to support the Mexican Left against its opposition, which lie behind the attacks.

The current Calderon - Chavez spat centers upon the Mexican President's recent trip to Europe, a seven day affair which began in Berlin on January 24, took him to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, then on to Great Britain and finally Spain; meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spain's Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero en route. At Davos, Calderon sat down for an open forum discussion with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and OAS Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza on recent trends in Latin America accompanying globalization and everything went pretty much according to script as Insulza and Lula both sought to reassure everyone that Latin America was still stable and a good place to invest. Calderon did not spoil the occasion for everyone and made a positive and respectable contribution. But the real debate in Davos began outside the public forum discussions where Calderon put a much different face on what is happening in Latin America; portraying it as a region split into "two economic camps, one embracing a failed past of state control, the other seeking growth with foreign investment." With recent events in both Venezuela and Bolivia under discussion, he made his case for the "embrace of a failed past" thus:

. . . "Many countries in Latin America have chosen a move toward the past, and among their most harmful decisions are seeking nationalizations, expropriations, state control of the economy and authoritarianism," Calderon said in an interview in Davos. "Mexicans have decided to look to the future and to strengthen democracy, markets and investment."

Latin American nations must choose a path of democracy and free markets or risk falling behind competitors in the rest of the world, Calderon said. Mexico, by asserting the rule of law and luring investment, will become one of the world's largest economies in coming decades, he said.

"Several countries in Latin America are acting against foreign investors, but we are thinking all the day, every day, how can we attract more investment to Mexico," . . .

The message in Davos was clear; Mexico is safe for international investors, Venezuela and Bolivia are not. In the international context this charge carries real weight, because Mexico is first in Latin America in attracting foreign investment while Venezuela and Bolivia are both experiencing international "disinvestment," or an outflight of foreign capital (see "Investment Lure" in Bloomberg article at previous link). In the context of Mexican domestic politics Calderon's aggressive promotion of the move away from nationalizations may have been intended to warn the opposition PRI Party, which stands somewhere between Calderon's right-centrist PAN Party and the leftist PRD, that they must make a clear choice over Mexico's future. The very day Calderon's above statement was released, the PRI, which has been meeting in a series of national gatherings to choose new leadership recently, sent a message of congratulations to Bolivian President Evo Morales, stating their approval of his drive to nationalize Bolivia's oil and gas production and expressing solidarity with him on "the policy of claiming energy resources, petroleum and gas." In part, this was clearly a statement on the part of the PRI that they view their historical legacy as tied to Mexican President Lazaro Cardenas's nationalization of Mexican petroleum resources in 1938 which, given that the PRI seem to lack any coherent body of ideas around which they coalesce, is about all they have to give an account of themselves to the Mexican people. Since Calderon will need the support of PRI legislators in the Mexican Congress to pass any legislation reforming Mexico's national oil monopoly, his Davos statement frames the issue within Mexico; only through privatization and continuing down the road of attracting international investment can the country move forward. And it is precisely for reason of the twin benefits Calderon can reap from his aggressive public assertion of the wisdom of a free market model of development, meaning the attraction of foreign capital to Mexico and the framing of the domestic debate on privatization, that Calderon has become the preeminent spokesman for free market economics in Latin America today. Calderon is waging the ideological war because it's a win-win situation for him, bringing benefits both at home and abroad.

Calderon's bold assertion of Mexico as a safe market for investors won him significant and immediate praise from Tony Blair. In a public meeting with Calderon Blair was asked "about the threat to international ties posed by the Latin America's [sic] bloc of leftist governments" and Blair's response was reported as praising Calderon, while directly contrasting his policies with those of the Latin American leftist regimes and applauding Calderon for "pursuing policies of attracting investment, improving public services and attempting to combine economic prosperity and social justice." And Blair further added that, in his judgement, "that is the best way for countries to develop in a world that is increasingly open." Later, Spanish Prime Minister Jorge Luis Rodriguez Zapatero paid even higher tribute to Calderon and Mexico saying "Latin America must integrate, the more the better for its people, the more open economies the better . . . Mexico has leadership in Latin America, for the construction of this regional integration." Thus did Felipe Calderon secure an endorsement from European leaders, and it should be mentioned that Rodriguez Zapatero's carried extra weight within the hispanic world, of the Mexican model of free market development, held up to all investors as the ideal course for Latin America. And both Blair and Zapatero went even further in attaching a leadership role for Mexico, which cannot have gone down well among the South American Left, who are not easily distinguished from each other across much of the rest of the world.

Chavez's first attack upon Calderon came on his Sunday evening television program Aló Presidente in which he took issue with Calderon for openly holding up Venezuela as a counter-example to Mexico, and demanded that the Mexican President show some "respect." And he recalled how Calderon had "abused" him during last year's Mexican presidential campaign, when Calderon had labeled him the "Dictator of the Caribbean," and portrayed leftist opponent Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador as a "danger for Mexico" because of his attachments to Chavez. He did not mention that was a tactic which enabled Calderon to gain 10 points on Lopez Obrador in the polls, a fact that seems to be particularly irritating to the Venezuelan President. The initial response in Mexico was mixed. Statements from congressional deputies seemed to fall along party lines with everyone apparently hoping for an improvement in relations with Venezuela. But Calderon's PAN supporters soon went on the offensive and raised the prominence of Chavez's remarks, taking a mixed approach of trying to argue that no one "should attach importance" to Chavez's remarks as anything which might prevent normalizing relations with Venezuela while simultaneously taking their own shots at Chavez. While some suggested that paying attention to Chavez "is simply to lose time" others swung a little harder, one saying that "to emphasize Mexico's advantages is to emphasize the disadvantages of other countries as Venezuela is, and the type of government which it has, which is totalitarian." Calderon's PAN Party was not shy about waging this propaganda battle.

It was following Calderon's public appearances with Tony Blair and Jorge Luis Rodriguez Zapatero that Chavez made a second series of public statements that went much further than his first comments in attacking Calderon, perhaps even so far as to include Mexico itself in the eyes of some: "I believe this little gentleman [i.e. Calderon] is a big ignorant ... how do you say ignorant (in English) ... donkey (burro)..." Chavez also said "let's hope Mexico goes out a marvel, how we love Mexico!" which seemed to many to be a tone mocking the entire country, which he derided for its close ties to the U.S. Calderon simply responded "we will have a dialogue with facts" and left it at that.

So why are the details of this controversy important to us? The answer is that, when taken in combination with other recent events, they show that Hugo Chavez is rapidly losing diplomatic ground in Latin America. Even while the back and forth with Calderon was underway, information surfaced in newspapers in Brazil and Chile to the effect that Brazilian President Lula and Argentine President Kirchner, up to now considered friendly and loosely-aligned with Chavez, had sent strong warnings to Chavez regarding the effect his public statements and proposed actions within Venezuela were having on investors. (I'm going to post an entire translation of a Chilean newspaper article on this right after this post.) The article reported the Venezuelan-Brazilian-Argentine relationship was "cracking" and noted severe differences of opinion both Lula and Kirchner had with Chavez, who they thought was just ruining "the neighborhood." Chavez was not only losing the debate in international opinion on his own "project" for Venezuela as a model for development, as well as losing in his attempt to galvanize opinion in Mexico in opposition to Calderon, he was also finding himself marginalized within South America by nations who once had a friendly disposition towards him. That's lose - lose - lose for Chavez.

In the upcoming weeks we are going to get a chance to see how quickly Chavez may find himself being shunted aside in Latin America. Both Chilean President Michelle Bachelet and Brazilian President Lula will be visiting Mexico, and Bachelet's trip is within the next two weeks. It will be interesting to see if joint statements issued will single out Chavez and Venezuela for taking an improper course. Right now, Felipe Calderon has the light of favorable international investor opinion shining upon him and Bachelet and Lula could do well to stand in that glow to improve their own lot in financial circles. A strong statement coming out of either or both of these meetings could be significant.

But no matter what emerges, Felipe Calderon can already mark a notable accomplishment for himself less than three months into his presidential term; he has become the most prominent spokesman for free market economic development in Latin America and he appears up to the task.

And Hugo Chavez? Well, I like the Spanish version of this too much to let it go. Chávez está haciendo la payasada.

The following is a translation of a January 29 article on web site of the Chilean newspaper El Mercurio, containing details of a growing split between Chavez's Venezuela and Brazil and Argentina, the latter two of whom are both leaders in the Mercosur South American economic integration organization and who have had hitherto friendly relations with Chavez.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Brasilian daily newspaper O Estado de Sao Paulo:

Lula and Kirchner send warning to Chavez

The heads of state have warned the Venezuelan leader not to take measures which debilitate democracy in his country.

___________________________________________________________________________________

The strategic alliance which is maintained by Argentina, Brazil, and Venezuela, the three biggest countries of South America, is cracking following the latest political decisions taken by the Venezuelan head of state, Hugo Chavez.

The first two nations [mentioned] have shown constant support for Venezuela, even being promoters of its entrance to the Common Market of the South (Mercosur) in the year 2006. But, according to the Sunday edition of the Brazilian daily newspaper O Estado de Sao Paulo, in as much as the President of Brazil, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, as his Argentine pair, Nestor Kirchner, have made pointed warnings to Chavez in the name of the Mercosur Summit, which they carried out some two weeks back in Rio de Janeiro.

The recriminations, in a "cautious" tone, had occurred last January 18, in a reserved meeting which the eight South American heads of state held during the summit.

There, the journal attests, Lula had taken over the discussion to ask Chavez to avoid adopting measures which could themselves debilitate the democratic institutions in his country. Then spoke Kirchner, who also was in the meeting, but not going in support of the Venezuelan.

According to the version handed in by the Brazilian daily newspaper, Kirchner was even more direct than Lula, and he even questioned his decisions to nationalize the electric energy sector and CANTV, the major telephone company of Venezuela, which had been announced only a few days before.

The measures, according to the Argentine head of state, so frightened foreign investors in the region, that his country was forced to suspend the issue of bonds for its sovereign debt by US $500 million.

Nevertheless, the article said that the situation did not end there. The following morning, Lula and Kirchner met together alone in the Brazilian President's suite, in a bilateral meeting.

Even though the Brazilian Foreign Minister, Celso Amorin, indicated that in the appointment book for the meeting the axis had been to discuss the affairs of the "internal politics of both countries," the daily maintained that the conversation between the heads of state had as its principal subject the necessity of containing Chavez's impetus.

Big Trouble

The preoccupation [with Chavez] not only centered upon his attitudes and controversial statements, but especially on his attacks upon democratic institutions and the market economy, because that damaged the image of all the neighborhood.

For himself, Lula left the meeting convinced of the necessity of building a "restraining dike" [around Chavez] and of marking differences between Brazil and Venezuela.

Monday of last week [i.e. January 22nd], during the official launch of his Program of the Acceleration of Growth, the head of state indicated that in his country "we have not grown sacrificing democracy," and he affirmed to all that "a growth expressive of [Brazil] interests me little if that implies, in even the smallest way, a reduction of democratic liberties."

In weighing the content, those near Lula said that this message should not be directed to Chavez. "The President is not accustomed to running errands," O Estado de Sao Paulo was assured by Marco Aurelio Garcia, their international relations advisor.

But, the daily newspaper was informed accordingly, in his inner circle Lula complained frequently of the loquacious [Venezuelan] chief exective. For him, Chavez crossed the limit between the amusing and the disrespectful.

At the end of last year, in the meeting of the countries of the South American Community of Nations in Cochabamba, Bolivia, the President of Venezuela proclaimed, in his classic style, the "death of Mercosur," a bloc into which he had finished incorporating himself. Attitudes like that had profoundly annoyed the Brazilian chief exective.

Meanwhile, Kirchner, who Chavez aided economically through the buying of more than two billion dollars of Argentine debt bonds, has for sometime maintained distance from the Venezuelan leader for several reasons.

Nevertheless, owing to the presumed cooling in their relations, Chavez maintained yesterday on the program Aló, Presidente that his Argentine counterpart can journey to his country next month. "Kirchner is going to come soon, possibly in February. We have confirmed the political will of the integration of both countries," the [Venezuelan] chief executive affirmed to everyone.

Chavez is untainted by Cuba

Hugo Chavez assured everyone yesterday [i.e. January 28th], in his broadcast program Aló, Presidente, that the socialism which he is driving forward in his country is not following the course of the political system that Fidel Castro led in Cuba. "Those who try to say that I am following Fidel's lines have no idea of historical processes. O yes they know, but they use the lie to scare a lot of people," he affirmed, at the time when he remarked on the differences between both projects: "Cuba is Cuba, Venezuela is Venezuela. We do not deny private property, only that it must be conditioned to the collective well-being each day."

On the same program, Chavez asked that his counterpart from Mexico, Felipe Calderon, respect Venezuela, after this latest, in the World Economic Forum of Davos, [when] he classified the economy of Venezuela as "of the past," for its opposition to free trade treaties. "Let the President of Mexico come and say that Mexico is - I hope it is -- the hope of the future (...) I have great doubts that by the road [down which] they are taking Mexico, that is the future of Mexico, subordinated to imperialism, to world capitalism and telling lies to the world (...) If you want to be respected, respect," he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further proof if ever we needed it that Chavez is losing ground in international politics.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.