Interview with historian Judith Ewell: "Challenging the United States is positive"
by ROBERTO GIUSTI, EL UNIVERSAL
According to scholar Judith Ewell, the US media do not say anything good about Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez because they may be biased by the State Department
After some years of absence, Professor Judith Ewell walks down the streets of downtown Caracas with the feeling of being in a city different from the formerly familiar place. A historian focused on Latin America, she worked in Venezuela for some years. Recently she came back from Virginia to introduce the Spanish version of her book "The Indictment of a Dictator."
Q: Based on Venezuela's political evolution, did you anticipate a government such as the administration of President Hugo Chávez?
A: I think not. Obviously, the failure of the Punto Fijo Agreement was the reason for Chávez' taking office. If the democratic system and political parties had kept their strengths, that would have not happened. Neither (political parties) AD nor Copei transferred successfully the power from founding generations to the younger ones.
Q: (Rómulo) Betancourt quit after his second term in office, but (Rafael) Caldera wanted re-election, like (Carlos Andrés) Pérez, and now Chávez indefinitely.
A: This is politicians' standard sin. Sometimes they refuse to step down.
Q: You suggested some similarities between Betancourt and (Marcos) Pérez Jiménez. I think that these same similarities can be found between Chávez and Carlos Andrés Pérez in their attempt at establishing what some Venezuelan analysts label as sub-imperialism. Therefore, there is some continuity both in words and actions. Don't you think, however, that at bottom there is a basic difference between current players and those who, notwithstanding the warts of representative democracy, observed fundamental guidelines, such as turnover?
A: It is possible. However, I view polarization as a serious problem. This did not occur in the past. Chávez does not trust at all in the opposition. Nor the opposition trusts in Chávez. The relationship between Caldera and Betancourt was quite different. Regardless of being foes, they agreed on fundamental issues.
Q: How is Chávez viewed in the United States?
A: Very badly. Newspapers never say anything good about Chávez. It seems that they are permeable to the influence of the State Department and there is no major effort to understand the situation as a whole. If Chávez says that (US President George W. Bush) is the devil, then Bush says likewise about Chávez. Journalist James Reston stated once: "In the United States everything can be made for Latin America without reading a single line." There, people do not know much about Latin America, and our media are worse than most of the Venezuelan media. The international information is terrible and superficial.
Q: Do you think that Chávez represents a threat for the United States?
A: I do not think that he can change things much. Rather, it seems that his influence in Latin America is falling down. I view as positive the existence of a leader who criticizes and challenges Washington once in a while. Better still, if he does it in a rational manner instead of making nonsense.
Q: Is Chávez right when denouncing "the US imperialism"?
A: Since (Liberator Simón ) Bolívar's times, most Latin Americans think that the North, -rather than helping- harms, stages interventions where they are not needed and eludes them when they are. Now, therefore, I am not sure if Chávez has played this role successfully. His way to relate with the United States, in an attempt at building an alliance in the South, has been rough and steep.
Q: Do you mean, therefore, that he will not be successful?
A: That depends a lot on Washington. While at the present time they are not very interested in Latin America and are facing a lot of problems, perhaps Chávez will not gain much influence.
Q: In spite of his relations with Iran?
A: The United States looks on it with disapproval, even though the links between two oil countries, members of (the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) OPEC, are reasonable. It is just that Washington does not view it this way.
Translated by Conchita Delgado
According to scholar Judith Ewell, the US media do not say anything good about Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez because they may be biased by the State Department
After some years of absence, Professor Judith Ewell walks down the streets of downtown Caracas with the feeling of being in a city different from the formerly familiar place. A historian focused on Latin America, she worked in Venezuela for some years. Recently she came back from Virginia to introduce the Spanish version of her book "The Indictment of a Dictator."
Q: Based on Venezuela's political evolution, did you anticipate a government such as the administration of President Hugo Chávez?
A: I think not. Obviously, the failure of the Punto Fijo Agreement was the reason for Chávez' taking office. If the democratic system and political parties had kept their strengths, that would have not happened. Neither (political parties) AD nor Copei transferred successfully the power from founding generations to the younger ones.
Q: (Rómulo) Betancourt quit after his second term in office, but (Rafael) Caldera wanted re-election, like (Carlos Andrés) Pérez, and now Chávez indefinitely.
A: This is politicians' standard sin. Sometimes they refuse to step down.
Q: You suggested some similarities between Betancourt and (Marcos) Pérez Jiménez. I think that these same similarities can be found between Chávez and Carlos Andrés Pérez in their attempt at establishing what some Venezuelan analysts label as sub-imperialism. Therefore, there is some continuity both in words and actions. Don't you think, however, that at bottom there is a basic difference between current players and those who, notwithstanding the warts of representative democracy, observed fundamental guidelines, such as turnover?
A: It is possible. However, I view polarization as a serious problem. This did not occur in the past. Chávez does not trust at all in the opposition. Nor the opposition trusts in Chávez. The relationship between Caldera and Betancourt was quite different. Regardless of being foes, they agreed on fundamental issues.
Q: How is Chávez viewed in the United States?
A: Very badly. Newspapers never say anything good about Chávez. It seems that they are permeable to the influence of the State Department and there is no major effort to understand the situation as a whole. If Chávez says that (US President George W. Bush) is the devil, then Bush says likewise about Chávez. Journalist James Reston stated once: "In the United States everything can be made for Latin America without reading a single line." There, people do not know much about Latin America, and our media are worse than most of the Venezuelan media. The international information is terrible and superficial.
Q: Do you think that Chávez represents a threat for the United States?
A: I do not think that he can change things much. Rather, it seems that his influence in Latin America is falling down. I view as positive the existence of a leader who criticizes and challenges Washington once in a while. Better still, if he does it in a rational manner instead of making nonsense.
Q: Is Chávez right when denouncing "the US imperialism"?
A: Since (Liberator Simón ) Bolívar's times, most Latin Americans think that the North, -rather than helping- harms, stages interventions where they are not needed and eludes them when they are. Now, therefore, I am not sure if Chávez has played this role successfully. His way to relate with the United States, in an attempt at building an alliance in the South, has been rough and steep.
Q: Do you mean, therefore, that he will not be successful?
A: That depends a lot on Washington. While at the present time they are not very interested in Latin America and are facing a lot of problems, perhaps Chávez will not gain much influence.
Q: In spite of his relations with Iran?
A: The United States looks on it with disapproval, even though the links between two oil countries, members of (the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) OPEC, are reasonable. It is just that Washington does not view it this way.
Translated by Conchita Delgado
posted by Alice at
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home