*Cue theme music* One is the conservative president with a heavy hand against rebels and alleged ties to right-wing paramilitaries.
The other is a far-left leader leading a socialist revolution in a country awash in petrodollars.
Yet they are now best friends despite their differences.
Alvaro Uribe and Hugo Chavez star in “El Odd Couple” (right after an all-new episode of “Cane” on CBS).
*End theme music*
Two articles came out today from Reuters and the International Herald Tribune (IHT) that highlighted the unique relationship between the presidents of
Yet this should come as no surprise if one analyzes several factors:
- “It’s the economy, stupid” – Aside from being neighbors
- The gringo factor – there is a regionwide disappointment with
- Rebel yell – Hugo Chavez’ mediation with Colombian guerillas could yield massive gains for both leaders. Uribe would tout a peace deal as vindication of his policies on
Both Uribe and Chavez understand the huge benefits gained by having such a close political and economic relationship. It makes perfect sense for them to carry such a warm rapport regardless of what one thinks of them individually.
Sources- Reuters, International Herald Tribune, The Latin Americanist, Wikipedia, tmcnet.com, The Economist, imdb.com
Image- New York Times
5 comments:
"The gringo factor – there is a regionwide disappointment with Washington’s lack of attention towards the Americas."
Yep. Sure, because we want more attention, so we can turn into Iraq.
You see, we're children, and desperately need our gringo parental figure to direct us towards development.
Neocolonialist attitudes are fine coming from citizens of neocolonialist countries, but not from our own citizens.
And one more thing: repeating that Hugo Chavez is "far-left" doesn't make him so.
Anon-
You bring up several good points which I'll try to clarify.
"The gringo factor" was meant to describe how the U.S. (chiefly the Bush admin's foriegn policy) has practically ignored Latin America in lieu of other regions (e.g. Middle East, Asia-Pacific). This does not justify the historical parental relationship between the U.S. and the Americas, nor should it revert to that.
In terms of Uribe and Chavez, they have had to rely more on one another politically over the past few years over the U.S. Yes they differ ideologically (which is what the articles tried to emphasize) but they mutually benefit from having close ties.
Re. Chavez as "far-left": It has been my opinion that there are three types of ideologies prevalent in the americas today:
1- Center-right with continued ties to the Washington consensus. (e.g. Uribe, Calderon, Arias).
2- Center-left emphasizing social issues while not shunning free trade and privatization (e.g. Bachelet, Lula, Kirchner)
3- A socialist left opting for increased government expansion and decreased reliance on the U.S. (e.g. Correa, Chavez, Evo).
The latin american left is not a monolithic ideology in that some leaders carry a more moderate stance than others. Hence, the labelling of Hugo as "far-left" in the post.
Well, it would probably help explain your position if you clarified what you mean by "ignore". What amount of attention from the U.S. government do you think would make Latin Americans happy? You say there is a '"regionwide" disappointment because of a "lack of attention". I would conclude from your remarks that you believe more attention would likely eliminate the source of that disappointment and replace it with satisfaction. Do you really think the Latin American populace in general in general feel so "disappointed" that the U.S. is not paying attention to their countries? From where I stand, it seems that you just repeating the talking points of the US administration and the opinions of the people in charge of Reuters, the Economist and AP.
Now, if you what you really mean is that the Latin American governing elites are disappointed that the U.S. is not paying more attention to the region perhaps you have a point. But this a "regionwide disappointment" does not make.
As for your comment on Uribe and Chavez, the articles you link to do nothing more than emphasize the obvious. These are two neighbor countries with $ 4 billion a year in trade that benefit from having close ties and that happen to have two ideologically opposed governments. Duh! Really,
if you have been following the news about Colombo-Venezuelan relations this past couple of years you'll find plenty of accommodating statements and policies by Chavez and Uribe that show their desire to keep their relationship beneficial.
My suspicion while reading those articles is that, now that all of Uribe's dirty laundry is beginning to be aired out, it has suddenly become convenient to emphasize his links to Chavez.
Re. your calling Chavez a far-left leader I still insist that the terminology is inaccurate, unless the political center has moved so close to the right lately to render these attempts at political classification all but useless. The far-left in modern history has chiefly been represented by communism, specially of the Stalinist type. Fidel Castro, for instance, is a far-left leader. Hugo Chavez clearly doesn't fit that mold.
As I said before, I see no need to resort to using those inflammatory qualifiers. After all you're not calling ultraconservative Uribe a far-right leader, are you?
"ignore" - historically there has been a lopsided dependency theory-like relationship between the U.S. and the americas. I am certainly not advocating that it should be this way but rather a more symbiotic relationship needs to develop and flourish.
Would more attention to the americas lead to "satisfaction" for the general populace? Maybe, maybe not. That's hard to predict.
Yes, I would think that more attention to the region would lead to better relations with "governing elites." To their credit they aren't on hands ans feet waiting for the U.S. government to come around and have sought other nations as alternatives. (China, EU)
"The articles you link to do nothing more than emphasize the obvious...Duh!" - You hit the nail on the head which was why I discussed the topic in the 1st place. It's obvious that the benefits of having close ties between Colombia and Venezuela far outweigh the negatives. Thus, for the articles' authors to act as if the close CHavez-Uribe relationship is some sort of shock appears laughable.
Chavez as "far left" - I'm still going to stick by my terminology though you bring up a solid counterargument. To clarify, however the terminology was meant to be more explanatory rather than "inflammatory".
To be perfectly frank with you I don't like Uribe and nearly placed him as far-right. However he still hasn't reached the point of being a sanguinary dictator a la Pinochet and Videla. (At least, not yet).
Thanks a lot for your thought-provoking comments. I appreciate them very much.
Forgive my insistence, but perhaps I should have formulated my question as "who exactly do you think is 'disappointed with Washington's lack of attention towards the Americas?'". I can't for the life of me imagine disappointment anywhere else but in part of the Latin American business community and, particularly,in the U.S. State Department. They would probably express some concern about 'losing' Latin America" (openly using that particular choice of words). I find it hard to believe that Latin Americans are in general unhappy that a country which has a history of supporting right-wing dictatorships through the region and whose government hasn't even mumbled an apology is choosing to ignore them. Independently of your political proclivities, in your original comment you seem to be confident that's a fact, something I find wildly inaccurate, or at least, you seem to be attributing the concerns of a fairly small (although powerful) part of the population to the region in general, which is also wildly innacurate and a common practice in the news sources you cite.
As per your point about far-left and far-right you couldn't have said it better, pointing out that "Uribe (...)still hasn't reached the point of being a sanguinary dictator a la Pinochet and Videla. (At least, not yet)", reason why you are reluctant to place him on the far-right end of the political spectrum. But so hasn't Chavez, has he? Yet you still call him far-left.
"Explanatory" (your own words) terminology like the one you're using ("Anti-American" is another one of your choice qualifiers) does much to obscure and over-simplify the issue. I would be willing to guess that comments being made daily by some members of the American military and the State Department about Venezuela being a "threat to democracy in the region" wouldn't be considered as "Anti-Venezuelan" statements by you, would they? Those labels explain little and seem as overly simplistic, biased and childish as words like "counter-revolutionary" in the lips of a Cuban government official.
Post a Comment