Back to the bar?
Here at the embassy we keep a sharp eye on developments in Latin America. It is a time of great change on this exciting continent as government after government abandons IMF dogma, reasserts its right to run its own affairs for the benefit of its people, and forms political and economic alliances with like-minded nations. To borrow from George Bush’s limited vocabulary, I would liken the process to a surge that is creating a major headache for the United States and possibly Spain judging from the recent high level brawl at the Iberico-American summit.
The media coverage of the exchange is quite revealing. According to my impeccable sources, the spat was largely ignored by the Spanish media for several days, whether on the grounds of newsworthiness or embarrassment it is not entirely clear. Only when the story spilled out all over the world did the Spanish feel obliged to react. With a few exceptions mentioned below, the defense of King Juan Carlos was mostly lukewarm though in some quarters the king was openly criticised.
The BBC, on the other hand, provided its usual decontexualised (ie. anti-Chavez) analysis which it took steps to rectify the following day once the world's attention had departed. I will try to toss some pebbles into the gaping hole but first the highlights:
Hugo Chavez called the former Spanish PM and Bush groupie Jose Maria Aznar a fascist and compared him unfavourably with a snake. Spain's current PM Jose Luis Zapatero objected to Chavez’s language and retorted that Aznar was democratically elected. Chavez interrupted Zapatero at which point an irritated King Juan Carlos of Spain leaned across the table and mustering all of his royal dignity shouted to Chavez “Por que no te callas?”, the Spanish equivalent of “Aw shaddup!!” Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua and Evo Morales of Bolivia sprung to Chavez’s defense as did the vice-president of Cuba and the King left the chamber in a huff.
Now for those pebbles:
1) Chavez's attack on Anzar began as a criticism of outside intervention in Latin American politics. You would never guess from the BBC’s coverage but not only did Aznar support the abortive coup against Chavez in 2002, he continues to denounce the democratically elected Chavez as a "dictator". You can split hairs over whether it would have been more accurate to refer to Aznar's behaviour as fascist rather than labelling him a fascist but as shown by the link below, the PP government's ties with the coup leaders are beyond doubt:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/dec2004/vene-d10.shtml
2) Becuase Chavez's microphone was switched off, his interruption was dismissed as a rant. In fact, Chavez was responding to Zapatero's comment that all democratically elected leaders, including Aznar, deserve respect. Why, observed Chavez, did this fine principle not apply to the democratically elected president of Venezuela? Zapatero agreed with Chavez that it should.
3) As a decolonised continent, Latin Americans both on the left and right are sensitive to lectures from Spain. However "intolerable" El Pais and Spanish neo-colonialists may have found Mr. Chavez, the king shot himself in the foot. His outburst will not endear him to many of his former subjects.
4) Juan Carlos is incapable of making a speech without reading from a text. On television, his eyes are always cast downwards on the script in front of him. Now we understand why. Deprived of the crutch of a prepared statement the vulgar royal tongue seized control.
Chavez spoke for millions the following day when he noted that the king was out of his depth:
But I think it's imprudent for a king to shout at a president to shut up. Mr King, we are not going to shut up.
That much you can count on, Mr. King.
