What’s a matta you, hey, gotta no respect?
Hugo Chávez has put Venezuelan-Colombian relations “in the freezer,” but it’s not yet clear what that will mean in practical terms. Normally I associate “freeze” with much more serious disputes—U.S.-North Korea, for example--that may even include sanctions. From Chávez’s statements, it seems—like with Spain and the “Shaddap you face” case —to consist of vague warnings aimed in part at Colombian companies. This also seems different from other “freezes” because these issues are based on personal slights, though of course such slights can also be viewed as disrespect for Venezuela, since he is head of state.
I am undecided about how serious this will be in the longer term. Right now the best thing would be for both presidents to stop issuing public statements calling each other liars, promoters of terrorism, etc. Actually, this is one of those rare instances where Uribe’s statements were much more inflammatory than Chávez’s.
6 comments:
Actually, this is one of those rare instances where Uribe’s statements were much more inflammatory than Chávez’s.
It's not rare at all for Uribe to make extremely inflammatory statements. That is, unless you don't consider it "inflammatory" for him to accuse a director of Human Rights Watch of collaborating with Colombian guerrillas. Or how 'bout when he's called his political opponents "terrorists in suits"? Or what about when, less than two months ago, he accused a Colombian journalist of ghost-writing a critical exposé about his family's history, effectively forcing the Nuevo Herald correspondent into exile? Or how 'bout when, a month later, he called the Semana columnist Daniel Coronell "a coward, a liar, a swine, and a professional slanderer"? The list goes on and on.
The only reason that Americans would be under the false impression that Uribe is not as inflammatory as Chavez is that, while Uribe's outrageous statements go mostly unreported in the U.S. press, Chavez's controversial statements are put under a microscope (and often taken out of context).
In any given interchange, Chavez is usually the most inflammatory. My point is that this is one of the rare interchanges where that is not the case.
In any given interchange, Chavez is usually the most inflammatory.
By what objective measure? "Inflammatory" to whom? Surely, if you mean that Chavez's words are more likely to inflame economic elites, I'm not going to argue with you. But I think you're employing a very class-biased definition of "inflammatory."
If the measure is whose words actually pose graver threats to journalists, human rights activists, trade unionists and the like, Uribe most definitely takes the cake.
Funny, I was about to write that this was about heads of state, but with Juan Carlos obviously that isn't the case--he just shows up anyway. Regardless, when it comes to political leaders of different countries sniping at each other, Chávez will generally win the inflammatory award.
Chavez loves to be inflammatory. He was bragging about his non diplomatic style yesterday in Venezuelan TV. Justin is more Chavist than Chavez
when it comes to political leaders of different countries sniping at each other, Chávez will generally win the inflammatory award.
Fine, Chavez gets in more tiffs with other heads of state. It should be obvious that that's a rather narrow measure of whose speech is more "inflammatory."
Post a Comment