While Argentina’s President Nestor Kirchner defended today allowing Chavez to hold his anti-Bush rally at local Ferro sports arena, it is clear that people in that country resented the rally and what it stood for. That country’s press is full of highly critical opinion pieces criticizing the rally, the Venezuelan military presence in that country, the money spent on it as well as the fact that Kirchner allowed it, but was not part of it.
Others criticize the fact that Chavez went to Argentina coinciding with Bush’s visit to Uruguay and Brazil , which did not sit well with Argentina’s neighbors. Lula was less than diplomatic today, taking an indirect shot at Chavez’ economic policies and his less than democratic attitude, when he said in reference to our President’s criticism of Brazil’s ethanol project: “Brazil has a relevant contribution for the transittion of the world
energy matrix and it presents itself to the world as a truly
democratic partner…it is also a sovereign and competitive one”
Below, I translated one of the articles I was sent by the readers of the blog, which clearly measures the mood of many Argentineans:
Who explains the inexplicable? by Malu Kikuchi in Notiar (March 12th. 2007)
“I ask the saints in the heavens
that they help my thinking
that they refresh my memory
and clarify my understanding”
Like Martin Fierro, I need help. The majority of Argentineans need help. It could be possible to assume that the rest of planet Earth also needs help to explain… the inexplicable.
How do you explain that the President of Venezuela, with permission and consent of the President of Argentina, comes to this country to host a colorful, populist demagogic and absolutely aggravating show, … dedicated to the President of the U.S.A., visiting that day in the Federal Republic of the Brazil and the Eastern Republic of Uruguay! How can you explain this?
According to the dictionary, “to explain” means: to present the cause or reason for something; to arrive to include/understand the reason for something, to realize something. “Inexplicable” means: that it is not possible to explain it. What happened in the Ferro sports field, district of Cabaliito, City of Buenos Aires, Republic? of Argentina, Friday March 9th. 2007, is absolutely INEXPLICABLE.
There are many questions. There are no coherent answers to those questions. Is there a reason why the Argentinean President wants to insult and offend the President of the U.S.A.? Logic says that no, history, policy and the most elementary diplomacy, say that no, that there are no reasons. But, if that reason existed, President Kirchner would have to assume the risk of doing it himself and not through another person with whom he does not even share the Argentinean nationality. Inexplicable.
If President Chávez does not have enough with his Bolivarian Venezuela to insult the President of the United States, why does he choose Argentina? Why not from Mexico, or Peru, or Colombia or Chile? It must be because these are serious countries, those that do not use their seriousness as an electoral slogan (which are seriously serious), would not allow it. Argentina allows it. Inexplicable.
The Argentina of President Kirchner allows it because Venezuela is the only buyer of Argentine bonds, (which gives the Venezuelan Government good gains) Let us clarify that our so clucked divorce from the IMF has cost us a very expensive marriage with Chávez, who charges us interest which is sensibly much higher than the highest of the Monetary Fund. Inexplicable.
Does the Argentina of President Kirchner allow anything to President Chávez because it shares his ideology of the XXIst. century socialism? It is not easy to accept this, when Kirchner claims it is an urgent necessity to have a native and strong business sector, respects oil concessions, airport concessions, road concessions and all those in which his friends are represented.
Chávez is openly anti-Semitic, Kirchner is not. Chávez insults the U.S.A. while it sells 60% of his oil to them, buys 30% of his imports from them and always, in any place, he lodges in the local Sheraton hotel. This is not the case the Argentine President. We do not have, unfortunately, as much commerce with the U.S.A. and apparently, Kirchner does not have a chain of favorite hotels. Then, why? Inexplicable.
For whatever reason, Argentina allowed Chávez to gather all of the local left, social movements, piqueteros, mothers of Plaza de Mayo, some deputies, Argentine flags with Evita and the Che (???), taken “spontaneously” in 436 buses, that filled the stage of Ferro sports arena. It was seen on CNN. The planet saw it. Inexplicable.
The hosting of the act was in charge of “the mother” of the Argentina President, Hebe de Bonafini, who effusively thanked her “son” for allowing this act of freedom. Soon afterwards, Chávez insulted Bush. He treated him as a political corpse, – all American presidents who are in the second half of their second and last mandate are, and made a peculiar mixture of Bolivar, Washington, imperialism, poverty, dignity, Kirchner, the crises, all grouped in a lengthy, very long tropical speech, filled with jokes for the gallery. Everyone saw it or at least, all learned about it. What shame! What shame for Argentina! Inexplicable.
While Chávez, from his Argentine watchtower, offended the President of the most powerful nation on earth, on the way, he also insulted the presidents of the countries that were in the itinerary of Bush’s visit. We were, gratuitously and in a single act, mean to the U.S.A., Brazil and Uruguay. Inexplicable.
They say that the act cost $600.000. Who paid for it? Venezuela or Argentina? The 300 Venezuelan military (did they have permission from our Congress?) that arrived in Buenos Aires with Chávez, were supervised by PDVSA, or the University of the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo, or the Government of the City? Nobody clarifies anything. Nobody asks for explanations. Inexplicable.
Chancellor Jorge Taiana hurries to declare that “the government did not have anything to do with Chávez’ act in Ferro”. He did not have anything to do with it, but he allowed it. He allowed that the University of the Mothers of Plaza de mayo invite the Venezuelan President to host an act against the president of another country that was visiting a fourth one. If the government “did not have anything to do with it” it should not have allowed Chávez’ visit to coincide with the one from Bush to Brazil and Uruguay. A peculiar way of not having anything to do with it. Inexplicable.
What did Argentina gain with this stupidity in the fourth degree in charge of a third party, as if we did not have the courage to do it ourselves? Perhaps he gained voters, people say that we are the most anti-Yankee country of the planet, that 92% of the Argentineans hate the U.S.A. Which is the reason why it is so hard to explain that most of the Argentineans who emigrate, do it towards North America (even at the risk of living illegally) and not towards Cuba or Venezuela. Inexplicable.
What did Argentina lose with Chávez’ diatribe against Bush and of the countries that received him? On the material side, probably, we did not lose anything. Everything will be as it was, a little more deteriorated, but without visible sanctions. Only that as the Prince of Saint Exupéry used to say, “the essential, is invisible to the eyes”. And although it is not seen, the prestige that Argentina once had, has disappeared. We stopped being credible. We stopped being reliable. We lost all notion of nobility. We are irrelevant. We are vanishing while immersed in shame. Inexplicable
We began with Martin Fierro, and in order to dream that we are still Argentinean, that some of us still have left some dignity left of the Argentina that was and no longer is, we remember that:
“if shame is lost, it is never found again”
PS.: Call to solidarity; if somebody finds Argentina’s shame, which was misplaced at Ferro last Friday, we plead that it be returned back on 28/10/07 in the ballot boxes. It will be compensated with a REPUBLIC!