| Washington tuvo problemas para condenar el golpe de Estado contra Chávez
"Lucrar con la transición", aconsejó Wall Street
Los medios elogiaban el cambio político que beneficiaba a los intereses American
Jim Cason y David Brooks, Corresponsales
Washington y Nueva York, 13 de abril. El gobierno American, algunos de los medios nacionales y varios analistas celebraron el derrocamiento de Hugo Chávez en Venezuela como un "rescate" de la democracia y Wall Street aconsejaba a inversionistas "lucrar con la transición", pero todos enfrentaban un hecho curioso: cómo evitar comentar que los medios utilizados --un golpe de Estado, o como se dice diplomáticamente, una "interrupción del proceso democrático"--, para llegar al fin que todos deseaban, la caída del presidente constitucional de Venezuela, fueron ajenos a los principios democráticos que dicen defender.
Más allá de si resulta que todos aquellos que en Estados Unidos se congratularon por el cambio de régimen en Venezuela podrían arrepentirse por su precipitación --dados los sucesivos y rápidos acontecimientos en ese país--, el hecho es que la crisis provocó un gran problema para los que dicen ser campeones de la democracia: cómo no condenar un golpe mientras se elogia un cambio que conviene a los intereses económicos y políticos de Estados Unidos.
El editorial principal del New York Times afirmó hoy: "con la renuncia ayer del presidente Hugo Chávez, la democracia venezolana ya no está amenazada por un pretendido dictador". Y agrega: "Washington tiene un fuerte interés en la recuperación de Venezuela. Caracas satisface ahora 15 por ciento de las importaciones petroleras American, y con políticas más sanas podría dar más. Una Venezuela estable y democrática podría ayudar a anclar una región en problemas, donde Colombia enfrenta una guerra de guerrillas ampliada, Perú está viendo el renacimiento del terrorismo y Argentina lucha con una crisis económica devastadora".
Un asunto "puramente venezolano"
El Times afirma que "sabiamente" Washington nunca atacó directamente a Chávez, evitando así convertirlo en un "mártir nacionalista". Asegura que "su remoción fue un asunto puramente venezolano". El diario opina que debería convocarse a nuevas elecciones lo más pronto posible y elogia la activa participación de las clases medias en el movimiento civil, lo cual "podría" ayudar a revitalizar la democracia del país y "mantener un involucramiento militar... a un mínimo".
En Washington hoy no hubo declaraciones oficiales formales sobre los acontecimientos en Venezuela, aunque ayer tanto la Casa Blanca como el Departamento de Estado culparon a Chávez por la crisis política y evitaron criticar la participación de los militares en el derrocamiento del gobierno constitucional.
Algunos funcionarios del gobierno American comentaron a La Jornada que el hecho de que Washington haya firmado la Carta Democrática Interamericana lo coloca en una situación complicada al expresar su posición sobre Venezuela en esta coyuntura. Así, no hubo un reconocimiento formal legitimando al gobierno de facto anunciado ayer, pero sí un reconocimiento de que tenía autoridad.
"Estamos haciendo un esfuerzo muy decidido para no llamarlo golpe", comentó al Washington Post un ex oficial militar American que analiza la política exterior hacia América Latina.
"Fue una acción abrumadoramente popular, pero fue un golpe militar", declaró J. Samuel Fitch, experto en las fuerzas armadas latinoamericanas de la Universidad de Colorado citado por el Post. "Estados Unidos no desea decir que consiguió algo que anhelaba --sacar a Chávez-- mediante un mecanismo que no aprueba", dijo.
Wall Street esperó sólo unas horas para declarar su satisfacción por el cambio de gobierno, y menos de ocho horas después que se informó de la supuesta "renuncia" de Chávez, la correduría más grande de Estados Unidos, Merrill Lynch, en un comunicado que tituló Lucrar con la transición dijo a sus clientes que el panorama para las inversiones en Venezuela había mejorado.
Las políticas de Chávez, señaló, y en particular esa preocupación por el "respeto a la propiedad privada" bajo su gobierno, ya se despejaban. Estas afirmaciones, comentaron a este diario algunos analistas, provocaron incredulidad y hasta risa por revelar tan explícitamente los intereses financieros internacionales y su aparente desinterés en el tema de si el cambio de régimen fue o no consecuencia de un proceso democrático.
Un poco de historia
Washington no ocultó su desprecio por Chávez desde hace mucho tiempo, señalando siempre sus pronunciamientos "antiAmerican". En octubre pasado Washington demostró su ira abiertamente al llamar a consultas a su embajadora Donna Hrinak de regreso a Washington, en respuesta a críticas de Chávez a la guerra de Estados Unidos contra Afganistán. En aquella ocasión el mandatario venezolano declaró que se estaba "luchando contra el terror con el terror" y mostró fotos de niños muertos en ese país.
En ese tiempo un funcionario American comentó a los medios American que cuando la embajadora regresó a Caracas sostuvo una reunión muy difícil con Chávez, en la cual le dijo que "se callara la boca sobre estos asuntos importantes".
En febrero de este año, el Departamento de Estado y la CIA expresaron su "preocupación" por las actividades de Chávez y su gobierno. Para entonces ya se le acusaba de tener vínculos sospechosos con países enemigos de Estados Unidos, entre ellos, claro, Cuba. Ese mismo mes, el secretario de Estado, Colin Powell, declaró ante el Congreso que Chávez visitaba países "extraños", en referencia a sus viajes a Libia, Irán e Irak; todos están en la famosa lista de estados que fomentan terrorismo.
Frecuentemente funcionarios y analistas en esta capital mencionaban los vínculos de Chávez con "Castro y Saddam". Además, empezaron a generarse acusaciones de que el gobierno de Chávez estaba apoyando a grupos antigubernamentales en otros países, según "informes de inteligencia" citados por el Washington Post. En este sentido se le acusaba de tener vínculos con las FARC de Colombia.
Ese mismo mes, el gobierno American empezó a expresar su preocupación por la intensificación de la crisis política en Venezuela, especialmente por sus posibles consecuencias para el abasto de crudo, al ser el país sudamericano el tercer suministrador de petróleo extranjero, sin descontar los posibles efectos en la región.
En una nota publicada en febrero por el Washington Post, un funcionario del Departamento de Estado pronosticó que Venezuela está "en una posición precaria y peligrosa", y que "si Chávez no arregla las cosas pronto, no terminará su periodo". Al mismo tiempo, otro funcionario afirmó que Estados Unidos buscaba evitar inmiscuirse en el asunto: "no vamos a ofrecer la solución".
En esa coyuntura, el vocero del Departamento de Estado, Richard Boucher, reiteró la política oficial de Washington: "nuestra posición sigue siendo la misma... y esa es que las instituciones democráticas en Venezuela y otros lugares necesitan ser respetadas y que cualquier cambio que ocurra necesita ser democrático y constitucional".
Ahora, dos meses después, mantener esa línea resulta muy complicado ante lo ocurrido en Venezuela. Por eso el gobierno de George W. Bush está enviando un mensaje poco claro y decidió responsabilizar directamente a Chávez de la crisis, por sus acciones al reprimir las manifestaciones en su contra y censurar a los medios masivos de comunicación, entre otras cosas.
Washington continúa evitando comentar cuáles fueron los medios para resolver la misma, y si es válido suspender el proceso democrático en un país a nombre de la democracia.
En ese sentido, casi todos los medios de comunicación difundieron la noticia de que Chávez había "renunciado" (hubo algunas excepciones; se establecía que los militares decían que había renunciado), y casi ningún medio nacional consideró si en realidad se trataba de algo más parecido a un golpe de Estado. Para suerte de los políticos, aquí no hubo gran presión para que explicaran su caracterización de lo ocurrido, ya que todo el día el enfoque y la atención nacional fueron casi exclusivamente para la crisis de Medio Oriente.
Pero con los acontecimiento de hoy, cuando se reportó que el "nuevo" gobierno ordenó a la policía reprimir manifestaciones pro Chávez y contra el golpe con gas lacrimógeno, balas de plástico, y cuando las cadenas de televisión venezolanas no trasmitieron los mensajes de los militares y políticos que denunciaron una violación del orden constitucional --es decir, aplicaron censura--, algunos de los mismos argumentos que funcionarios y analistas en Washington utilizaron contra Chávez como justificación de su derrocamiento fueron utilizados por el "gobierno de transición" que lo sustituyó.
Al mismo tiempo no cabe duda de que a pesar de los problemas de cómo maquillar el mensaje oficial y el de los grandes centros de opinión, la posición American es obvia y abiertamente a favor de expulsar a Chávez del poder.
Festejo en Miami
Otro sector en Estados Unidos que podría quedar decepcionado por haber celebrado demasiado rápido es la comunidad venezolana en Miami, la que festejó la noticia del derrocamiento de Chávez y la instalación del nuevo gobierno. El Miami Herald reportó que cientos salieron a la calle para expresar su felicidad y decir que ya estaban pensando en regresar a su país después de abandonarlo cuando Chávez llegó al poder.
Aunque la cifra oficial de venezolanos en Florida es de 41 mil, expertos dicen que alcanza a cerca de 100 mil, entre ellos un amplio número de personas de clase media que salió después de la elección de Chávez.
|
 |
Babelfish translation, in English:
Washington had problems to condemn the coup d'etat against Chávez
" To profit with the transition ", Wall Street advised
The media praised the political change that benefitted to the American interests
Jim Cason and David Brooks, Correspondents
Washington and New York, 13 of April. The American government, some of the national media and several analysts celebrated the overthrow of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela as a " rescue " of the democracy and Wall Street advised to investors " to profit with the transition ", but all faced a peculiar fact: how to avoid to comment that the means used -- a coup d'etat, or as it is said diplomatically, an " interruption of the democratic process " - - to arrive at the aim that all wished, the fall of the constitutional president of Venezuela, was alien to the democratic principles that say to defend.
Beyond if it results that all those that in the United States were congratulating themselves the change of regime in Venezuela they could regret by its precipitation -- given the successive and fast events in that country -- the fact is that the crisis caused a great problem for which they claim to be champions of democracy: how not to condemn a blow while a change is praised that agrees to the economic and political interests of the United States.
The main editorial of the New York Times affirmed today: " the resignation yesterday of president Hugo Chávez, the Venezuelan democracy no longer is threatened by a so-called dictator ". And it adds: " Washington has a strong interest in the recovery of Venezuela. Caracas now satisfies 15 percents with the American oil imports, and with saner policies it could give more. A stable and democratic Venezuela could help to anchor a region beset with problems, where Colombia faces an extended war of guerrillas, Peru is seeing the Renaissance of the terrorism and Argentina fights with a devastating economic crisis ".
" A purely Venezuelan " subject
The Times affirms that " wisely " Washington never attacked directly Chávez, thus avoiding to turn him into a " nationalistic martyr ". It assures that " his removal was a purely Venezuelan subject " . The newspaper thinks that it would have to be summoned to new elections as soon as possible and praises the active participation of the middle-class in the civil movement, which " could " help to revitalize the democracy of the country and " to maintain a military involvement... to a minimum ".
In Washington today there were no formal official declarations on the events in Venezuela, although yesterday as much the White House as the Department of State blamed to Chávez by the political crisis and avoided to criticize the participation of the military in the overthrow of the constitutional government.
Some civil employees of the American government commented to La Jornada that the fact that Washington has signed the Inter-American Democratic Letter places in a complicated situation when expressing its position on Venezuela in this conjuncture. Thus, there was no formal recognition legitimizing to the government de facto announced yesterday, but a recognition of which had authority.
" We are making a effort very determined not to call it a coup ", commented to Washington Post an ex- American military official who analyzes the foreign policy towards Latin America.
" It was an overwhelmingly popular action, but it was a military coup ", declared J. Samuel Fitch, expert in the Latin American Armed Forces of the University of Colorado cited by the Post. " the United States does not wish to say that it obtained something that it yearned for -- to remove to Chávez -- by means of a mechanism that it does not approve ", he said.
Wall Street waited for only hours to declare its satisfaction by the change of government, and less than eight hours after it inquired into the supposed " resignation " of Chávez, the greatest brokerage of the United States, Merrill Lynch, in an official notice that titled Profit with the transition said to its clients that the panorama for the investments in Venezuela had improved.
The policies of Chávez, it indicated, and in particular that preoccupation with the " respect for private property " under their government, already was sprightly. These affirmations, commented to this newspaper some analysts, caused incredulity and almost laughter to so explicitly reveal the international financial interests and their apparent disinterestedness in the subject if the change of regime were or were not consequence of a democratic process.
A little history
Washington did not hide its scorn by Chávez for a long time, indicating always his pronouncements " antiAmerican ". Last October Washington openly demonstrated its wrath when calling to consultations to its ambassador Donna Hrinak of return to Washington, in answer to critics of Chávez to the war of the United States against Afghanistan. In that occasion the Venezuelan Chief of State declared that he was " fighting against the terror with the terror " and showed photos of children died in that country.
In that time an American civil employee commented to the American media that when the ambassador returned to Caracas maintained a very difficult meeting with Chávez, in which said to her that " the mouth was shut up on these important subjects ".
In February of this year, the Department of State and the company expressed their " preoccupation " by the activities of Chávez and their government. By then already it was accused to him to have suspicious bonds with enemy countries of the United States, among them, clearly Cuba. That same month, the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, declared before the Congress that Chávez visited " foreign " countries, in reference to his trips to Libya, Iran and Iraq; all are in the famous list of states that foment terrorism.
Frequently civil employees and analysts in this capital mentioned the bonds of Chávez with " Castro and Saddam ". In addition, accusations began to be generated of which the government of Chávez was supporting anti-government groups in other countries, according to " information of intelligence " mentioned by Washington Post. In this sense it was accused to him to have connections with the FARC of Colombia.
That same month, the American government began to express its preoccupation by the intensification of the political crisis in Venezuela, especially by its possible consequences for the supply of crude, to being the South American country the third foreign petroleum provider, without discounting the possible effects in the region.
In a note published in February by the Washington Post, a civil employee of the Department of State foretold that Venezuela is " in a precarious and dangerous position ", and that " if Chávez does not fix the things soon, he will not finish his period ". At the same time, another civil employee affirmed that the United States looked to avoid meddling in the subject: " we are not going to offer the solution ".
In that conjuncture, the spokesman of the Department of State, Richard Boucher, reiterated the official policy of Washington: " Our position continues being the same one... and that is that the democratic institutions in Venezuela and other places need to be respected and that any change that happens needs to be democratic and constitutional ".
Now, two months later, to maintain that line is very complicated before that which happened in Venezuela. For that reason the government of George W. Bush is sending a message little clear and decided to make Chávez directly responsible for the crisis, by his actions when repressing the demonstrations against him and censuring to mass media of communication, among other things.
Washington continues avoiding to comment what were the media to solve the same, and if it is valid to suspend the democratic process in a country in the name of democracy.
In that sense, almost all the mass media spread the news that Chávez " had resigned " (There were some exceptions; one established that the military had said that he had resigned), and almost no national medium considered if in fact it was something more than what appeared to be a coup d'etat. For luck of the politicians, there was no great pressure here so that they explained his characterization of the happened thing, since all the day the approach and the national attention were almost exclusively for the crisis of the Middle East.
But with the today event, when it was reported that " the new " government ordered the police to repress manifestations pro Chávez and against the blow with tear gas, plastic bullets, and when the Venezuelan television networks did not trasmitieron the messages of the military and politicians who denounced a violation of the constitutional order -- that is to say, they such applied to censorship --, some of arguments that civil employees and analysts in Washington used against Chávez like justification of their overthrow were used by the " government of transition " that replaced it.
At the same time does not fit doubt that in spite of the problems of how to make up to the official message and the one of the great centers of opinion, the American position is obvious and openly in favor of expelling to Chávez of the power.
Festejo in Miami
Another sector in the United States that could be disappointed to have celebrated too much fast is the Venezuelan community in Miami, the one that festejó the news of the overthrow of Chávez and the installation of the new government. The Miami Herald reported that hundreds went out to express their happiness and to say that they were already thinking about returning to his country after leaving it when Chávez arrived at the power.
Although the official number of Venezuelans in Florida is of 41 thousands, experts say that it reaches to near 100 thousands, among them an ample number of people of middle-class that left after the selection of Chávez.
|
| Wall St. cheers Venezuelan coup, but doubts simmer
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The overthrow of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez sent a wave of elation up and down Wall Street on Friday on hopes a new government can galvanize the nation's lethargic, oil-dependent economy.
Tough questions also loomed, hinging on how new leaders will mold needed fiscal policies and reforms.
Chavez's three-year-old government came to an abrupt halt in Friday's early hours after the military, reeling from the deaths of 15 people by suspected pro-Chavez snipers, withdrew its support for the former paratrooper and forced him to resign.
For Wall Street, the coup closes a calamitous chapter of erratic policies that had created a rocky investment climate, demonstrated most recently by a protest at state oil giant PDVSA that stifled oil shipments by the world's No. 4 crude exporter.
"The problem with Chavez, in addition to his populism and his extremist rhetoric, was that he had very little respect for institutions." said Matt Ryan, an emerging markets portfolio manager at MFS Investment Management.
"And certain policy and legislative changes implemented under his government created huge and unsustainable spending liabilities," said Ryan.
But Chavez's departure does not mean all of Venezuela's ills will disappear, economists said.
Wall Street's laundry list for the interim government -- headed by top business leader Pedro Carmona -- and the government-to-come include putting PDVSA back on track, reining in the budget deficit, bolstering non-oil revenues and jump-starting growth, to name just a few.
"The market is going to give them a lot of slack because everybody likes the (Venezuela) story," said one Wall Street economist. Yet "they (the issues) have to be dealt with relatively soon."
OIL ECONOMY IS SACRED
Chavez's last stand came in his face-off with the PDVSA workers, who began curtailing crude operations last week as part of a protest against changes to the oil giant's board. The workers said Chavez's appointments were based on loyalty, not merit.
In the wake of Chavez's exit the oil workers vowed to resume full operations by Monday, a move that helped light up Venezuelan markets. With Venezuela's economic livelihood on the way to being restored -- crude provides nearly one-half of government income -- bonds soared nearly 7 percent.
"The lessons of this week are clearly that oil is king in Venezuela," said Ernest Brown, Santander Investment's head of fixed income research, in a report. "Investors can expect that all decision-making by the nascent government will focus on restoring the flow of petrodollars and seeing to it that there are no further episodes of meddling" in the oil sector.
Still, eyes will be on Carmona's administration on two related oil themes. Investors are hoping to see a reversal of Chavez's tampering with management at the oil giant, as well as a reversal of a hydrocarbons law that doubled oil royalties and required PDVSA to take a majority stake in new ventures with private firms.
At the same time, Wall Street will be watching the fiscal side. Venezuela's budget deficit is now around 5 percent of gross domestic product, a figure that must be eased, said economists.
This means Venezuela will have to put a lid on spending, increase its paltry tax collection rates and find new sources of revenue outside the oil markets, said economists.
"Venezuela continues to be the hostage or the beneficiary of oil prices," said David Roberts, senior international economist at Bank of America Securities.
"They can only balance their budget, with the expenditures they have, with oil prices at the higher end of the range," said Roberts, referring to the $22 to $28-a-barrel target price band by oil cartel OPEC.
In addition, the government will need to confront monetary issues, such as a sharp depletion of central bank reserves to less than $10 billion and the central bank's interventionary tendencies.
And beyond this full plate of fiscal tasks, there is the question of growth. Chavez's government expected the economy to expand between 1 percent and 2 percent for 2002, above private sector forecasts.
Carmona and his successor will have to find a way to reignite the growth of gross domestic product, or some on Wall Street cautioned that he could face precisely the same unrest that railroaded Chavez out of office.
"The social tensions that produced Chavez may come back to the surface," now that Venezuela's traditional powers are back in power, wrote Walter Molano, head of research at BCP Securities, in a report.
Copyright 2002, Reuters News Service
|
|
[Spanish translation not yet available]
|
|
15 de abril de 2002, 02:39 PM
Retorno de Chávez ¿derrota de la Casa Blanca?
WASHINGTON (AP) - El retorno de Hugo Chávez a la presidencia de Venezuela ha vuelto a plantear interrogantes sobre si Estados Unidos podría haber estado detrás de los hechos.
Las interrogantes han cobrado fuerza debido a que las agencias estadounidenses, particularmente la CIA, tienen ahora poderes para actuar en el exterior, luego de los atentados terroristas del 11 de septiembre.
Ello significa, según se dijo durante el debate legislativo para la restitución de ese papel, que sus agentes bien podrían tramar derrocamientos de gobiernos no afines a Washington e incluso la muerte de dirigentes considerados parias ideológicos.
Muchos se opusieron a la restitución de esos poderes, que fueron suspendidos a comienzos de los 60, durante la guerra fría. Pero, el Congreso al final concedió su aprobación sobre la base del interés nacional.
Phil Reeker, vocero del Departamento de Estado, y Ari Fleischer, de la Casa Blanca, tomaron el lunes el toro por las astas, mientras analistas leían entrelíneas en sus afirmaciones que el gobierno sabía con anticipación de lo que iba a ocurrir en Venezuela.
Fleischer declaró que no lamentaba haber dicho el viernes que Chávez había renunciado ese día a sus funciones.
"Todos nuestros informes decían que renunció", dijo Fleischer confrontado el lunes al retorno de Chávez y la afirmación de éste de que nunca renunció.
Reeker reaccionó con frialdad cuando un reportero le pidió que diera detalles de "los contactos" entre Estados Unidos y los complotadores del golpe contra Chávez.
"Nunca hemos hablado de golpe ni de complotadores de un golpe", contestó Reeker. "Y no sé a quien se estaría usted refiriendo cuando habla de contactos".
Reiteró que Estados Unidos ha seguido los acontecimientos y continúa haciéndolo "de común acuerdo con nuestros socios hemisféricos, en un intento de establecer cuáles son los hechos".
Alex Volberding y Larry Birns, del grupo de investigadores del Consejo para Asuntos Hemisféricos (COHA), un grupo no gubernamental de Washington, son de los que creen que Estados Unidos supo con anticipación de los sucesos en Venezuela.
Dijeron que la presunción de una participación de la CIA fue fortalecida además de los comentarios de Fleischer por los de la asesora de seguridad nacional Condoleezza Rice al afirmar que Chávez fue "el autor de su propio destino".
Ambos hicieron notar que Rice y Fleischer no condenaron la terminación del período de un presidente democráticamente electo y que no se interesaron tampoco por el paradero de Chávez después de su detención por los militares.
Los analistas de COHA dijeron que el retorno de Chávez podría incluso ser "bueno". Pedro Carmona, el dirigente empresarial que lo sucedió durante dos días, hubiera exacerbado los problemas socioeconómicos del país con una "implacable oposición de los pobres y actos de represión militar".
Chávez representa para Estados Unidos un político que incomoda por sus acercamientos a dirigentes de Cuba, Irak y Libia, países considerados promotores del terrorismo.
Las acusaciones sobre la participación de la CIA en la política latinoamericana no son nuevas. Entre las más recientes figuran la desestabilización del gobierno del presidente chileno Salvador Allente en la década de los 70 y la del primer ministro granadino Maurice Bishop en la de los 80.
|
|
April 15, 2002
Return of Chávez defeat of the White House?
WASHINGTON (AP) - the return of Hugo Chávez to the presidency of Venezuela has returned to raise interrogative on if the United States it could have been behind the facts.
the questions has received force because the American agencies, particularly the company, have powers now to act in the outside, after the terrorist attacks of the 11 of September.
It means, according to was said during the legislative debate for the restitution of that paper, that their agents affluent could even plot overthrows of noncompatible governments to Washington and the death of considered leaders ideological pariahs.
Many was against to the restitution of those powers, that were suspended at the beginning of the 60, during the cold war. But, the Congress in the end granted its approval on the base of the national interest.
Phil Reeker, spokesman of the Department of State, and Ari Fleischer, from the White House, took Monday the bull by the spears, while analysts read entrelÃneas in their affirmations that the government knew ahead of time of which he was going to happen in Venezuela.
Fleischer declared that it was not sorry to have said Friday that Chávez had resigned that day to its functions.
" All our information said that it resigned ", said to confronted Fleischer Monday to the return of Chávez and the affirmation of this one of which never it resigned.
Reeker reacted with coldness when a reporter requested to him that he gave to details of " the contacts " between the United States and the accomplaces of the blow against Chávez.
" Never we have spoken of coup nor of accomplaces of a coup", answered Reeker. " and I do not know to who you would be referring when you speak of contacts ".
He reiterated that the United States has followed the events and continues doing it " of common agreement with our hemispheric partners, in an attempt to establish which are the facts ".
Alex Volberding and Larry Birns, of the group of investigators of the Council for Hemispheric Accords (COHA), a nongovernmental group of Washington, they are of which think that the United States knew ahead of time of the events in Venezuela.
They said that the presumption of a participation of the company was fortified in addition to the commentaries of Fleischer by those of the adviser of national security Condoleezza Rice when affirming that Chávez was " the author of his own destiny ".
Both made notice that Rice and Fleischer did not condemn the completion of the period of a democratically elect president and that they were not interested either in the whereabouts of Chávez after its halting by the military.
The COHA analysts said that the return of Chávez could even be " good ". Pedro Carmona, the enterprise leader who happened it during two days, had exacerbated the socioeconomic problems of the country with an " implacable opposition of the poor men and acts of military repression ".
Chávez represents for the United States a politician who incomoda by his approaches to leaders of Cuba, Iraq and Libya, considered countries promotional of the terrorism.
The accusations on the participation of the company in the Latin American policy is not new. Between most recent they appear the destabilization of the government of the Chilean president Rescuing Allente in the the 70 decade of and the one of Grenada prime minister Maurice Bishop in the one of the 80.
With apologies to Yahoo.
|
© 1994-2011 • Ecotopia