Speculation about Maletagate
Boz has been following Maletagate--or as he puts it, “Bags o’ Cash”--in several posts, and I would direct readers there for summary and some comment debate. As I wrote in comments there, I think it is too early to judge reactions to the case, and there is still much to learn about it. However, it got me speculating about the potential political winners and losers.
The Bush Administration: despite the separation between Justice and State, in my opinion it is impossible to see this as an apolitical case. This means the
Hugo Chávez: if the evidence is flimsy, it is more ammunition for criticism of the
If the evidence is more solid, he will suffer internationally because his rhetoric has always been anti-interventionist so he could easily be labeled a hypocrite. As the latest Latinobarómetro survey shows, he isn’t very popular in
Cristina Fernández de Kirchner: I think she has the most to gain of anyone, though I must admit this is even more speculative. Her indignant response—even now including the Argentine Congress--right now has put the
If the evidence is more solid, she expresses disgust, fires some people, and reminds everyone that her husband already reacted aggressively right off the bat. Dealing with Chávez would be trickier, because it would not be plausible to say such an affair took place without him knowing about it. She would have to find a way to be critical while staying friendly, as she—like many other Latin American presidents—views ties to Chávez as valuable in pragmatic terms, regardless of ideology.
31 comments:
despite the separation between Justice and State, in my opinion it is impossible to see this as an apolitical case.
As I wrote in the comments, there are two sides to this case. There is an apolitical investigation and prosecution of the crimes committed. And there is a political side that deals with the bilateral and multilateral implications of the evidence in that case.
I agree with you that the biggest loss in this case is US-Argentine bilateral relations. I also agree that Fernandez-Kirchner will likely come out unscathed.
I disagree that this won't affect Chavez domestically. One issue is the corruption within the "revolution," which even some key Chavistas have been calling out recently. The other issue is that Venezuela's oil money is going abroad, which doesn't appeal to most Venezuelan voters (or voters in many countries). The longer those two issues stay in the media, the more it hurts Chavez's numbers.
However, if he can make it a US vs. Chavez fight, he can deflect some of the criticism. This is where the administration is likely to screw up. Their public comments could end up helping him make his case and take the focus off of what his government has done wrong.
Finally, I agree that it doesn't affect how Chavez is viewed in the rest of Latin America. His influence outside of Venezuela is really a non-issue, in spite of the attention it receives.
In a way, the politicization angle for the Justice Dept. is pointless to argue. In the end, it will be about the strength of the case no matter what the motives of the investigation.
I think all three have something to lose here, as you guys said US-Arg. relations will be the big loser. Although, this is a black eye to Kirchner I am unsure how this will affect her. For Chavez this is just one more scandal.
Greg you seem to suggest the case is not motivated apolitically. I disagree, remember it was Argentina that caught Antonini and things were being traced back to FL. If it wasn't because of Argentina no investigation would have taken place.
As for the investigation there seems to be lots of evidence piling up especially with the other suit case with ~$900,000 caught in Bolivia from another Venezuelan. If I remember this happened right before the latest Antonini investigation. Not to mention the business ties between these people and senior Venezuelan government officials.
Sounds like a bunch of premature conjecture to me, fellas.
In a way, the politicization angle for the Justice Dept. is pointless to argue. In the end, it will be about the strength of the case no matter what the motives of the investigation.
Complete nonsense. If law enforcement singles out one government for an alleged offense that looks pretty trivial compared to the crimes that the South Florida FBI consciously and regularly overlooks, the selective application of the law matters. It might not matter to some guy who sits in an office spinning abstract legalistic arguments, but it matters to people who put the issue into perspective.
How is it, Greg, that, whenever a campaign finance scandal involving Latin America hits the newspapers, it's almost invariably utilized to sully the name of the left? Lula could attest to that. Yeah, I guess we're supposed to believe that leftists --not the fat cats of the establishment that doggedly oppose leftists-- are the only ones who engage in campaign finance improprieties.
Anybody who is naive enough to believe that the law is applied in a neutral, apolitical fashion just doesn't understand how legal systems work in capitalist societies.
Private business owners living in Miami, an American named "Guido", a plane full of Argentine officials which is leaving Vz???
No one allegedly involved is being charged in the US with anything more than failing to register as "foreign agents"??? Guido not being charged at all because there is nothing in the US to charge him with.
I'd like to know if the money was in US dollars.
From what I read, it isn't illegal in Argentina to receive campaign finances from foreign donors. Frankly, there isn't any need to "sneak" money in for that purpose. It could simply be wired to the campaign fund account.
Most to lose: The US. First it isn't any of the US Govt's business and second if the evidence "after the fact" is flimsy, the US comes out looking its attempting to purposely injure Chavez again. Third, Mr. Kirchner already stated "Argentina is not a colony". Strained relations have already begun.
A bit to lose: Chavez. He could lose some face even if he was not involved.
Not much of anything to lose: Fernandez. A few Argentine officials have stepped down and it was her country which seized the suspicious monies.
Here is a link to the indictment, which explains the U.S. link. The money was in dollars.
Greg, Thanks for the indictment doc on these guys. This thing is a bill of charges, but as various parties have pointed out, we'll have to wait for the the case to proceed before anyone can definitely assign responsibility/guilt.
I agree with Boz's assessment in terms of negative impact in U.S.-Argentine relations and on Chavez within Venezuela.
This incident is not the first time DOJ has pissed off State (or at least brought heat down on State) because of touchy international cases like the Antonini affair, and it won't be the last time, either.
From the political angle on Argentine-U.S. relations, as I said in Boz's blog, if someone in State or elsewhere in the Bush admin had wanted to do real damage to H-K, this whole thing would have spilled during her campaign, and it didn't.
Re: H-K herself, methinks the lady doth protest a bit too much. I said it in Boz's blog back in August, and I'll say it again: There's much more to this than has been made public, and I specifically think that much more than $800K went from the GOV to Argentina, and I think it went to support the H-K campaign.
How much this lady actually knew herself remains to be seen, but the term "Maletagate", and all it implies (cover-ups, higher-ups in the know, etc.) I believe very much applies. I shouldn't be surprised if H-K and her allies do everything they can do slow, derail, or simply stop any investigation work in Argentina on this mess. Still, as I said before, if there are any diligent, non-compromised press folks or law enforcement folks down there, eventually more and, I would guess, damaging info (to H-K) will come to light either there, or perhaps again in Miami or even Venezuela.....
the term "Maletagate", and all it implies (cover-ups, higher-ups in the know, etc.) I believe very much applies.
Why don't you just say that you hope the term applies because a scandal of that sort would have high propaganda value for the political forces whom you favor?
If folks like you and Boz would just say what you really mean, one could at least respect you for your honesty.
It's not a hope so much as a statement of what life is like down here. I've lived down here in LA (not in the States; down here, physically, in seven different LA countries) for 30 years. History really does have a way of repeating itself, and corruption, conniving, lying, and double dealing are truly ways of life down here.
So, no, it's not a statement of hope, rather it's a statement of irritation, irritation at the inability of political leaders down here to behave themselves in responsible, honest, mature ways that might set examples to Latinos for ethical behavior in these countries. Instead, all too ofter, down here, we simply get the same hypocritical, unethical behavior, the same scandals, etc., from new names and new governments - all acting on strong electoral mandates and in the name of the people, of course.
If H-K were to come out and say, we're going to get to the bottom of all of this and act on it (and I'll define act: I mean put every person involved in the Venezuelan Connection/Maletagate affair in prison), I would be extremely pleased -stunned, but pleased. But count on it, Justin, that won't happen. H-K will work hard to find ways to make this whole thing go away or fade or turn into a gringo/anti-Argentine plot, and that's my expectation, not a hope....
And that's the true tragedy of LA; the political elite never seem to learn, and never seem to want to learn from history down here. On the contrary, they appear to be only too eager to repeat it....
So, no, it's not a statement of hope, rather it's a statement of irritation, irritation at the inability of political leaders down here to behave themselves in responsible, honest, mature ways that might set examples to Latinos for ethical behavior in these countries.
How curious it is that you invariably reserve your sermons on ethics for the Latin American left.
Let's be clear about something, Tambopaxi. You're in no position to be preaching ethics to Latin Americans. For Heaven's sake, you're on record praising the administration of Alvaro Uribe, one of the most macabre political figures in modern Latin American history.
So, please, spare me your sermons on ethics.
Of course it is a political case but the crime is real. The Chavez corruption is real. The fact that Antonini wasn't detained in Argentina is so so telling. WHoever defends this is defending corruption and terribly wrong.
"Yeah, I guess we're supposed to believe that leftists --not the fat cats of the establishment that doggedly oppose leftists-- are the only ones who engage in campaign finance improprieties." Only Delacour seems to think this.
"Why don't you just say that you hope the term applies because a scandal of that sort would have high propaganda value for the political forces whom you favor?"
You got a point. This is a free ride for anyone who oposes corruption.
This is a free ride for anyone who oposes corruption.
Bullshit, anonymous. We're not talking about some abstract principle of anti-corruption here. The focus here is completely selective, not principled. Never will you hear from Boz or Tambopaxi about allegations of "corruption" by non-leftist governments. For them, "corruption" only becomes an issue if the allegations are against a leftist government.
And just so you know, I'm not defending anybody here. I'm simply pointing out the obvious fact that the selective focus on allegations of corruption by leftist governments is not even slightly principled.
Yea right and:
-The 800 K.
-The fact that Antonini was never detained.
-The fact that he traveled as part of the Venezuelan delegation.
All of that is bullshit too Delacour.
Think before supporting lies. You should have learned from your referendum experience to be more selective with Chavism.
Yea right and:
-The 800 K.
-The fact that Antonini was never detained.
-The fact that he traveled as part of the Venezuelan delegation.
All of that is bullshit too Delacour.
Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem, anonymous. What you say above has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've written in this thread.
Try reading more carefully.
The issue I've discussed is not whether or not the Chavez government is guilty in this case. I don't know the answer to that question (and neither do you).
My only point has been that the selective focus on allegations that a leftist government has engaged in corruption is just that: selective (not principled). Any person who stands against corruption on principle would not selectively focus on only those charges that leftist governments engage in corruption.
Any cursory examination of Boz's site or Tambopaxi's comments over the years will quickly reveal that they selectively focus on allegations against leftist governments (and quite religiously ignore similar allegations against governments allied with the United States). A selective focus on only those allegations of corruption that serve one's propaganda purposes is, by its very nature, not principled.
Well, have a look at your own blog and then talk about being selective.
Of course Delacour, it is all a right wing conspiracy against Chavez.
Well, have a look at your own blog and then talk about being selective.
But the selection is based upon a core principle which I've clarified repeatedly. I am a leftist. I believe in political projects designed to lessen social inequality and to empower poor people. I believe that, in Latin America (the most inequitable region of the world), such political projects are completely in order.
It is this basic political principle that tends to guide my thoughts about what information and commentary merits attention. I'm completely forthright about the principles that guide my actions.
Boz, on the other hand, has no core principles. He'll claim the banner of anti-corruption one day, but only because it serves his propaganda purposes for the moment.
Boz has one ulterior motive in virtually everything he does: to further the agenda of his paymaster, the Washington establishment. If he'd be honest about what his objectives are, I'd respect him. Unfortunately, he's completely dishonest, so I don't respect him in the least.
What's good for Delacour, it's bad for Boz I see.
In any case, this post is not about Boz, nor you.
It is about Antonini and company's effect on regional politics.
But since you don't like the subject you rush to change subjects and attack whoever is around.
Easy Delacour. You are not to blame for maletagate. Don't take it personal.
What's good for Delacour, it's bad for Boz I see.
Actually, no, because Boz doesn't do what I do. Unlike Boz, I'm completely forthright about the principles that guide my actions. Boz, on the other hand, hides his agenda behind whatever fleeting set of principles are convenient to him at the moment. He never applies these fleeting principles consistently because that wouldn't serve the agenda of the Washington establishment.
Justin,
Just got back from couple of days of xmas vacation and saw your reponse.
While Maletagate involves Fernandez-Kirchner who you characterize as leftist (I don't think I've characterized her as leftist in any of my remarks), I see her as just the latest in a series of leaders, left, right, and center who have engaged in (in F-K's case, this has yet to be proved) in unethical conduct in LA over the years I've spent down here.
Lack of ethics, unethical conduct, and corruption in general are deep-seated, cultural issues that have been endemic to this region for centuries. I believe those problems to be the root causes for the social and economic underdevelopment of Latin America.
These are not matters of being leftist or rightist in my experience because both ends of the political spectrum are equally capable of engaging in double-dealings down here, both sides, and unfortunately, we're seeing continuances of this trends to this day in various countries in the region.
Regarding Uribe, yes, I've expressed agreement with him, particularly in his early work as President in stabilizing the security situation along the principal roadways in the country. People were being robbed and kidnapped at very high rates when he came in, and he stopped that, and people appreciate that work and his subsequent work to make them safe from the depredations of the FARC.
Does that make me an unswerving, unbending supporter of Uribe? Not at all. Boz knows that I consider the AUC and the paras to be the very worst plague in Colombia, not the FARC. Uribe supporters with AUC connections have been removed from office and/or imprisioned. If it's proved that Uribe has or has had those same connections, he should leave office, period.
I'd apply that same principle of ethical, moral and legal responsibility as well to F-K, Chavez, Morales, or Correa.
Finally, to your comment on patronizing sermons regarding ethics down here: I don't live or work in the States in an academic institution or a consulting firm, or some Congressman's office. I don't come down here on occasional visits to hobnob with academics or political elites and then return to the States in order to hold forth on the evils of the right or left in Latin America.
Rather, I've spend years down here, living and working and investing my money, all the while wondering why things can't be better and working to make things at least a little better by employing a few people here.
If I could have voted here (Ecuador), I would have voted for Correa because I and a lot of other people here thought he was the best chance for change in the political system here. Now, a lot of us are disappointed (and hence, my expression of irritation in an earlier comment) because this guy and his allies are turning out to be double dealers just like their erstwhile right-wing opponents - and it's a shame, as I say.
Gotta love the lemmings. Just looking at these JUSTI-fications makes me laugh:
I am a leftist. I believe in political projects designed to lessen social inequality and to empower poor people. I believe that, in Latin America (the most inequitable region of the world), such political projects are completely in order.
Jeez if you define "leftist" in that way, you would find few people here who disagreed with those goals.
Makes you sound like a Social-Democrat or a Democratic Socialist - both noble traditions, instead of the hard-left apologist you really are.
You are the one who makes himself out to be a "moderate" and if not challenged portrays nasties like Chavez as "liberals in a hurry".
Talk about insincere. Though fellow-travellers and Popular Frontists like you have been doing this sort of thing for almost a hundred years.
Jeez if you define "leftist" in that way, you would find few people here who disagreed with those goals.
Oh really, Boli-Nica? When was the last time you concretely supported a political project aimed at lessening social inequality in the most inequitable region of the world? When?
Makes you sound like a Social-Democrat or a Democratic Socialist - both noble traditions, instead of the hard-left apologist you really are.
Oh, and one more thing. Notice how Boli-Nica creates a false dichotomy here. He attempts to draw a distinction between "a Democratic Socialist" and "the hard-left"?
How, then, would he describe a revolutionary like Rosa Luxemburg, who was both hard-left and a democratic socialist and had some very interesting criticisms of Leninism?
I would suggest that Boli-Nica brush up on his history in order to avoid the false dichotomies.
From Justin's comments on this thread:
If folks like you and Boz…
Never will you hear from Boz…
Any cursory examination of Boz's site…
Boz, on the other hand…
Boz has one ulterior motive…
Actually, no, because Boz…
Unlike Boz…
Boz, on the other hand…
I'm so glad this is all about me :)
That's a good poem, actually.
That's a good poem, actually.
Well, naturally the poem is about Boz because, in this post, Greg furthers the agenda of a Washington hack by allowing the hack to frame what's at issue here.
The only people who constantly bang the drums of "maletagate" are people with an axe to selectively grind against the Latin American left.
I am sure there is a good "Ode to a Washington hack" poem in there too.
A poem:
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Sugar is sweet
and the Washington establishment is running a propaganda campaign through boz's blog to break the Bolivarian revolution and keep the world poor so it can enhance the Empire.
the end.
and the Washington establishment is running a propaganda campaign through boz's blog to break the Bolivarian revolution and keep the world poor so it can enhance the Empire.
No, Boz, you only wish that you were that central to the Washington establishment's propaganda apparatus because the bucks would be rolling in if that were the case.
To your chagrin, I'm sure, you're just a little pawn for the moment in time.
As I noted in a comment above, for a small pawn, you spend a lot of time focusing on me.
As I noted in a comment above, for a small pawn, you spend a lot of time focusing on me.
Well, if you were forthright on your own blog about being a little pawn of the establishment, I wouldn't have much reason to give you hell. But you're not honest, so I do.
Post a Comment