"¿Por qué no te callas?"
Tengo una duda, unamuniana (es broma), en relación con el incidente diplomático en que nos ha metido nuestro Jefe del Estado. Esta duda no se debe a si don Juan Carlos I tuvo la reacción que tuvo debido al estrés por el inminente anuncio de la separación matrimonial de su primogénita –esto queda descartado porque sería tanto como dudar de la “profesionalidad” de nuestro Rey-, mi duda surge, más bien, ante las declaraciones del señor Rajoy a las pocas horas de producirse el rifi-rafe. Rajoy: "El incidente de la Cumbre es fruto de las amistades peligrosas de Zapatero".
¿Quiere decir Rajoy con esto que el incidente de la Cumbre no se hubiera producido de ser él quien gobernara en España? ¿Debido quizá a que se hubiera hecho lo imposible durante su mandato para que Chávez no fuera el Presidente de Venezuela? ¿No vendría esto a confirmar y a dar la razón al propio Chávez en sus protestas relativas al intento de golpe de estado contra su gobierno?
¿O, por el contrario, acaso Rajoy está diciendo que, de ser él Presidente de España, nuestra nación tendría mejores relaciones con Venezuela y Chávez sería nuestro amigo fiel que nunca habría osado interrumpir su intervención en la Cumbre?
¿Puede alguien aportar un poco de luz?
¿Quiere decir Rajoy con esto que el incidente de la Cumbre no se hubiera producido de ser él quien gobernara en España? ¿Debido quizá a que se hubiera hecho lo imposible durante su mandato para que Chávez no fuera el Presidente de Venezuela? ¿No vendría esto a confirmar y a dar la razón al propio Chávez en sus protestas relativas al intento de golpe de estado contra su gobierno?
¿O, por el contrario, acaso Rajoy está diciendo que, de ser él Presidente de España, nuestra nación tendría mejores relaciones con Venezuela y Chávez sería nuestro amigo fiel que nunca habría osado interrumpir su intervención en la Cumbre?
¿Puede alguien aportar un poco de luz?
Hace un par de semanas mi profesor de inglés nos pidió que preparáramos un discurso de 1 minuto aproximadamente y sobre un tema controvertido. Teniendo en cuenta el último tema que se publica en este blog, voy a aprovechar lo que preparé para dar mi opinión sobre este asunto. No entro en las palabras de Rajoy, porque estas fueron posteriores.
ResponderEliminar"During the last 20 days we have been hearing and talking about the words that the King of Spain Juan Carlos I told to the President of Venezuela Hugo Chavez: “why don’t you shut up?”. And of course of the declarations from this as a consequence of these words. Many of us, probably most of us have thought that the King was right and that Hugo Chavez deserved the comment.
But in Februay, 1981, we had in Spain a “coup d'état" leaded by some military chiefs.
And what have we thought if a few hours after it, when all our Parliament was enclosed and the tanks were in the streets, if Margaret Thatcher, First Minister of the U.K. at that time, have phoned Lieutenant Colonel Tejero and had told him that she and her country recognized his new government. Should we have invited any of the Royal British Family to Infanta Elena’s wedding in 1995? Would not have we thought that we should review our relations with that country? Or at least that this country is not really a good “colleague” for us?
This is what happened in Venezuela in April 2002. Hugo Chavez, who was democratically elected in 1998, was closed and obliged to resign and Pedro Carmona was designated as the new president, giving himself power above the Constitution. Our president then, Jose Mª Aznar, was the second in the world to hang up the phone and recognize the government of Pedro Carmona. The first one was George F. Bush, President of the USA . Even then the representative for I.U. in Spain said: “The fact that Aznar hang up the phone to Carmona, demonstrates his support to the "coup d'état". And I think that what Hugo Chavez has done, is just take the first opportunity he has had to tell a true. When the Government in Spain changed and Zapatero won the elections our relations with Venezuela started to improve and get better.
The "coup détat" was promoted by those social classes in Venezuela that prior to President Hugo Chavez had all the economic control of the country. Of course Hugo Chavez is not a proper president for them as he is taking a lot of their power and control. And of course he is not a friend of USA or at least of Bush.
During his government he has promoted several laws regarding to hydrocarbures, the land and fishing and several projects for infrastructures for the country.
Some of the figures that show the effects of his politics are:
In 1999 the unemployment in Venezuela was 16%, in 2004 15% and keeps reducing being
now 9-10%.
Regarding poorness, and considering this as the capacity of families to get a basic basket of food, in the last 10 years this is the progression:
1994: 73%
1998: 85%
2003: 60%
2005: 48%
He is not a leader supported by USA or the upper classes in Venezuela but he has the support of the lowest classes. He has promoted social programs called “missions” that are for education , medical assistance or feeding, as an example.
Besides he has reduced the taxes, has forbidden the privatization of the pensions, has duplicated the health budget. He has also created the “Escuelas Bolivarianas” which take care of breakfast, lunch and the afternoon snack of the children who attend them. He has also promoted that people living in illegal areas in the cities could stay for another 10 years.
Because of all this mentioned above I should say that he is nice to me, although I agree that his way of speaking and acting is sometimes, I would say histrionic. And if he would ask me for an advice I will tell him to be more diplomatic and take care of his foreign policies, as he has a lot of richness in his country with petrol but Venezuela does not have the technology necessary for this which should be imported from USA or Europe."