Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Venezuela / Argintina Union?  
User currently offlinePbottenb From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 431 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 961 times:

This is from a speech that Hugo Chavez gave in Argentina last week:
http://www.watchingamerica.com/diariodecuyo000005.shtml

"Chavez laid claim to the slogan of Eva Perón : "The country will be free or the flag will burn amongst its ruins. To live free or die is our slogan," he added. "We don't have a choice in Latin America today: live free or die."He affirmed that his warming ties with President Kirchner, "are much more than integration, it's a process of union" for both countries.

"Union was the word used by our founding fathers Simón Bolivar and José de San Martín ," while integration, he said was a term, "the messengers of the North brought from Washington to accentuate imperialist control and to subjugate 19th and 20th century governments.""

I have a couple of questions for our Venezuelan and Argentine friends in regards to this:

Was the translation correct? Did Chavez claim that Argentina and Venezuela are forming a "Union"?

I had not been aware of the Argentine fondness of Chavez and I was surprised to see news of his leading protests against President Bush there. What gives? Is this the beginning of the United Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Argintina, and Bolivia?

This seems a little disturbing to me...


PB

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLuisde8cd From Pitcairn Islands, joined Aug 2004, 2575 posts, RR: 31
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 936 times:

Pure rhetoric. The closest Argentina and Venezuela will ever be is by both being members of MERCOSUR Customs Union. That's it.

Saludos desde Caracas,
Luis


User currently offlinePbottenb From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 431 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 924 times:

Quoting Luisde8cd (Reply 1):
Pure rhetoric. The closest Argentina and Venezuela will ever be is by both being members of MERCOSUR Customs Union. That's it.

OK - but arent you surprised that Chavez was allowed to lead a mass protest and rally in Argentina. It seems pretty unusual to me for a sovereign government to allow the head of state of another country to lead a mass protest with their borders. Are the governments of these two countries that close?


User currently offlineEZEIZA From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 4968 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 914 times:

Quoting Pbottenb (Reply 2):
but arent you surprised that Chavez was allowed to lead a mass protest and rally in Argentina. It seems pretty unusual to me for a sovereign government to allow the head of state of another country to lead a mass protest with their borders. Are the governments of these two countries that close?

i was surprised too. I have no idea why Chavez used Argentina for his anti-imperialist speech last friday, and I can't believe he was allowed to do it, although officially the Argentine govt' had nothing to do with it.
Regarding the "union" between Argentina and Venezuela, it's nothing more than a few economic agreements. Both countries "use" eachother, the same way that Chavez uses the US when he needs to sell oil. Speaking of the US, I wonder what will Chavez say once Bush is out of power. Who will he blame next for everything wrong in the world? I'm a pretty hardcore anti-Bush, but this guy is ridiculous.
IMO we should all stop listening to Chavez. The press should not give him the relevance he gets and he should not be allowed to give dictatorial-like speeches in other countries. Any world leader who uses Castro or Che Guevara as an example of what to do should not be given any credibility. Not because of left vs. right, but because Castro is a dictator and Che was a revolutionary, someone who used violence to pursue his ideals, something that is unacceptable for his supporters when its someone else using violence.

just my thought here ..  Smile
regards



Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
User currently offlinePbottenb From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 431 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 906 times:

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 3):
i was surprised too. I have no idea why Chavez used Argentina for his anti-imperialist speech last friday, and I can't believe he was allowed to do it, although officially the Argentine govt' had nothing to do with it.

EZEIZA - Thanks for the reply. Your thoughts are pretty interesting to me. Im really interested in focusing this conversation on Chavez and his role in Latin America, and I am hoping to avoid the discussion of the role of the US in all of this (if posible).

Can you tell me if there is any concern in the press in Argintina for Chavez being allowed to hold his own political rally there? Was the rally very large?

Thx,

PB


User currently offlineMarcus From Mexico, joined Apr 2001, 1808 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 902 times:

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 3):
I wonder what will Chavez say once Bush is out of power. Who will he blame next for everything wrong in the world?

Ah don't worry, he will just blame who ever lives in the White House at the time.......if not, he is still very fond of picking fights with Mexican Presidents.



Kids!....we are going to the happiest place on earth...TIJUANA! signed: Krusty the Clown
User currently offlineEZEIZA From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 4968 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 900 times:

Quoting Pbottenb (Reply 4):
the discussion of the role of the US in all of this (if posible).

I'll try but it is not easy to avoid talking about the US when Chavez is the subject matter  Wink

Quoting Pbottenb (Reply 4):
Can you tell me if there is any concern in the press in Argintina for Chavez being allowed to hold his own political rally there? Was the rally very large?

The rally was pretty big, but in this country you can't always be sure if people rallied togehter for political speeches are there because they are interested in the rally or if they were taken to the rally in the first place. I haven't had the chance to check all the newspapers but from what I saw, the press simply talked about the event, about the content of the speech etc. Clarin did specify that the rally had the "logistic support of K's government", but there was really no criticism regarding the fact that this took place in Argentina.

http://www.clarin.com/diario/2007/03/10/elpais/p-00315.htm

check out the following article, that came out in infobae, a more right wing news provider than clarin. there are quotes of critics towards the rally because there are rumours that Chavez brought with him 500 members of the Venezuelan Army (something that is illegal in this country without previous approval by the government).

http://www.infobae.com/notas/nota.php?Idx=305593&IdxSeccion=0

(note: these articles are in Spanish only, but they both more or less say the same things as the article you published, with the differences that I already pointed out).

hope this helps

regards  Smile



Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
User currently offlineMaidensGator From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 945 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 892 times:

Quoting Pbottenb (Reply 2):
OK - but arent you surprised that Chavez was allowed to lead a mass protest and rally in Argentina. It seems pretty unusual to me for a sovereign government to allow the head of state of another country to lead a mass protest with their borders. Are the governments of these two countries that close?

In case you missed it, Chavez led a protest in the US not that long ago.... While not massive, he was here railing against Bush... I'd like to see how much freedom there is in Venezuela if Bush would try to return the favor....



The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
User currently offlineEZEIZA From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 4968 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 873 times:

Just a few minutes ago on one of the local news channels they kind of criticised the fact that a foreign head of state used another country to openly criticise another head of state. It was not a real open critic but it was a way of saying that K's government should not have allowed this.

Quoting MaidensGator (Reply 7):
I'd like to see how much freedom there is in Venezuela if Bush would try to return the favor....

Chavez talks about freedom and he's the first one to talk against anyone and everyone who does not share his ideas, as Marcus pointed out



Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4318 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 846 times:

Quoting Pbottenb (Reply 2):
Quoting Luisde8cd (Reply 1):
Pure rhetoric. The closest Argentina and Venezuela will ever be is by both being members of MERCOSUR Customs Union. That's it.

OK - but arent you surprised that Chavez was allowed to lead a mass protest and rally in Argentina

Why not? Last I checked, it was a 'free' country.

Bush could have come too and made a speech, I'm sure there would have been tons of silly protestors, but he's been in Argentina before, he was able to say whatever he wanted too, and I'm sure the government would have payed for the entire security for the thing. So can Chavez I guess.

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 3):
Regarding the "union" between Argentina and Venezuela, it's nothing more than a few economic agreements. Both countries "use" eachother,

 checkmark   checkmark 

International relations have much in common with what most believe is the world's oldest profession. It's the way of things...



My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4318 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 818 times:

An editorial that might help a lot to explain the question posed in this thread...

- - - - - - - - -
(by Mariano Grondona, La Nacion)

It was an intense weekend in the Americas. Lula (Brazil) and Bush (United States) reestablished, in Sao Paulo, around the formidable endeavor for bioenergy, a preferencial friendship, an axis that had already joined the English-speaking giant and the Portuguese-speaking giant at other times in history. Chavez, meanwhile, confirmed in Buenos Aires his pretentions to lead the anti-Northamerican movement.

Chavez always seeks shock value. And he generally succeeds. This time, by inviting the Bolivian president, Evo Morales, to the rally in Ferro Stadium, even as he could not succeed in bringing Morales in from Japan on time, the Venezuelan caudillo gave the signal he wanted to give: that in Argentina he feels so at ease that he can afford the luxury to invite other foreign leaders as if he, and not Kirchner, was the one calling the shots.

The United States-Brazil axis as well as the Venezuelan leadership banner in the region, which manifested themselves more strongly than ever this past weekend, can be praised or criticized, but one must recognize that, for now, they exist. Right or not, the United States, and Brazil, and Venezuela now have a "Latin-american" policy.

Each with their style and their objectives, this weekend the presidents of the Americas accelerated a timetable common to all of them: the time to finally define what will come next. As Bush travelled the region, presidents like Lula (Brazil), Tabare Vazquez (Uruguay), Uribe (Colombia), and Felipe Calderon (Mexico), decided to look in the direction of the last remaining superpower, which will continue to be there two years from now, when Bush leaves office.

Bush, who had no Latin American policy objectives to speak of in six years in office, now is trying to shape one so that his successor may perhaps carry it through. Lula, who for a time took a step back from the United States, now finds in that country it's great partner in bioenergy. And after big uncertainties with multiple elections across the region, now presidents like Mexico's Calderon, Alan Garcia in Peru, and Uruguay's Vazquez have opted for the US sphere. Others, such as Morales in Bolivia and Ecuador's new president Correa have gone in the opposing direction.

It now can be said that there is finally a great alignment in the hemisphere. Every country tends to their own goals within it. But one exception confirms this rule. Where does Argentina lie today? With the United States and against Venezuela? With Venezuela and against the United States? For now, Argentina has decided to fall under the category of 'dribbler'. Which as you will read below, is really no choice at all, for more than one reason.

It was the beginning of the 1960s, with Frondizi in Buenos Aires and Kennedy in Washington. Frondizi was to mediate between Kennedy and Castro. On that occassion I had the chance to chat with historian Arthur Schlesinger, at the time an adviser to the US president. I tried to explain to him that his government should not be surprised at Argentina's mediation because it was a last effort, friendly effort, to diffuse the situation (the Cuban Missile Crisis).

Schelsinger returned a pithy but punchy response: "Contrary to what you might suppose, Argentina does not surprise us. She has always been surprising. Unpredictable. It is also now with the current Cuban Crisis. With Brazil and Mexico with have big differences, but we also know that, when the kitchen is burning, Brazil and Mexico are there. We can count on them. Argentina has confirmed to the people of my country time and time, and time again, that when the kitchen is burning, she isn't", he said. And added "The good news about that is that neither is she with the "other" side, whoever that is."

Then, in an extremely awkard mental exercise, we scrolled through all the times in which, apparently, Argentina "was not there" (from the perspective of the United States):

- She "was not there" in 1862 when The Argentine Republic was perhaps the only nation in the hemisphere that could economically help the then warring "Union" in it's fight against a confederation of rebel US states in their Civil War.

- She "was not there" in 1889, when after decades of warfare and civil wars across the hemisphere, 24 nations led by the United States were ready to sign what would have been an incredibly historic agreement, the Pan-American Union. It would have created virtual free economic trade and a forum of cooperation. Only one country vetoed it's creation: The Argentine Republic.

- She "was not there" in the great World Wars by declaring itself neutral, and by sheltering during the first presidency of Peron Nazis that were fleeing Europe.

- She "was not there" during the cold war when Peron famously declared "neither Yankees or Marxists, Peronists".

- She "was not there" when economy minister Martinez de Hoz, in times of the Videla Junta, refused to boicot exports of wheat to Russia, as the US government was asking.

- She "was not there", and this one needs no explanation, by waging war against non other than the United Kingdom, and by extension NATO, to resolve the sovereignty question of the Falkland Islands.

Argentina... Never there?

The only time Argentina was perhaps with the United States unconditionally was during the Gulf War of 1991 against Saddam Hussein. It was then when Foreign chancellor Di Tella pronounced the now famous phrase "With the United States we share 'carnal' relations".

Was it going overboard? At the time the use of such phrase by Di Tella was taken as a gesture, to change the from the root up Washington's image of Buenos Aires, that image that Schlesinger had described.

And it was going overboard, because neither Mexico nor Brazil ever had "carnal" relations with the United States. Imagining Argentina as a totally pro-US country would contradict an old tradition: that conservatives, peronists, and leftists in this nation never had any "love" for the United States. Brazil always vied to compete with the United States on the basis of their geographic and population size, but Brazil also sent thousands of troops to fight in Italy during the toughest days of WWII, "when the kitchen was burning". Mexico never forgot that the United States took away over one million square kilometers in a blatantly expansionist conflict in the XIX century, but also helped the United States in the Phillipines during WWII, and joined NAFTA 15 years ago.

What has distinguised all nations in Latin America at most times is that they, while not loving the United States, look at things with realism and converge in areas that serve their own purposes. And yes, even the United States, at times, has bent over back to reach points in common with many countries in the region, Mexico for example, if it serves the interests of Washington.

Argentina, meanwhile, continues it's tradition of "Non Quid Quo", neither caring too much for reaching agreements with the people of the United States, nor with the people of Latin America. Just last year, Argentina said it could "not support" (as opposed to "oppose") , the South American Union, for the time being. All this without coldly measuring the concept a national historic figure like Alberdi was called "the intelligence of our interests".

Today, president Kirchner seems to follow this "dribble" game with Venezuela, and the United States, and Brazil and the rest of the region. In some of Chavez's tantrums, Kirchner joins. But when the US-taunting by Chavez becomes too unconfortable, like in terms of Chavez's relations with Iran and in his dealings with the Jewish community, Kirchner, discretely, retreats. The ultimate question therefore is, Kirchner's "dribble" game, does it correspond with "the intelligence of our interests"?

Some may say yes, because from Chavez Argentina is getting some juicy, even at times overly beneficial one way (to Argentina), economic arrangements, which the United States does not offer. Macchiavelli once pondered if neutrality is convenient to nations, specially those that are not "superpowers": He said no, because those who are neutral, to avoid the punishment of the losers, completely miss out on reaping the benefits of the victorious. Argentina could have been "the big three" in the US-Brazil bioenergy agreement. But due to Kirchners tempations to anti-US rhetoric, was not.

Argentina was never pro-US, nor was she ever much involved in Latin America because it considered herself European. But it was an Argentina that for six decades lost economic clout and retreated in positions, to Brazil and the rest of the world, a trend that perhaps only now has finally been broken. Nontheless, can she afford to continue to "dribble" between two sides of the road, only to gather dirt once more because she refuses to stay in one side, or the other?



My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently offlineME AVN FAN From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13920 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 810 times:

Quoting Luisde8cd (Reply 1):
Pure rhetoric. The closest Argentina and Venezuela will ever be is by both being members of MERCOSUR Customs Union. That's it.

Sure, but there is a question. The word "union" in one way or the other exists in most European languages, the exact meanings however can slightly differ. Is it possible that one of the meanings of the word in Spanish is closer to the English word "bond" ?


User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4318 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 791 times:

It can mean "bond". Chavez is a romantic however, in his usage of words, so that in fact he romantizices in his speeches that in fact Venezuela and Argentina, and other countries will someday be in some form of more formal "union". But about half of what Chavez says in a speech is complete utopianism, so one has to measure it from that perspective.

Like the editorial above said, the chances of Argentina (at least, I can't speak for Venezuela), joining in a union with some country in this hemisphere are zero to negative Kelvin, at least in the next 30 years.



My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
French Trade Union Wants To Block A320 Construct.. posted Mon Mar 5 2007 13:15:57 by Beaucaire
Copa America Venezuela 2007 Groups Thread posted Thu Feb 15 2007 07:05:46 by Derico
Is Venezuela Dangerous For Tourists? posted Tue Feb 13 2007 21:18:31 by Paul
A Thought I've Been Having RE: Iran And Venezuela posted Fri Feb 2 2007 20:44:13 by Copaair737
UCV Venezuela Help! posted Thu Feb 1 2007 23:06:56 by Mia
Standing Ovations At State Of The Union Speech. posted Wed Jan 24 2007 07:08:01 by Thom@s
Official State Of The Union Speech Thread 2007 posted Wed Jan 24 2007 02:40:39 by AerospaceFan
More Tension Between The USA And Venezuela posted Sun Jan 21 2007 20:16:15 by Captaink
It's Coming! North American Union Ala EU Style. posted Fri Jan 5 2007 22:23:27 by FXramper
Islamic Courts Union A Paper Tiger? posted Fri Dec 29 2006 02:50:11 by Dougloid