Jacobson tries to walk back what she said, comes up short

Happier times for these two
Happier times for these two

“At the May 8 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Venezuela, the A/S [Roberta Jacobson] made the point that the USG [US government] should not undermine the current dialogue while it still offers a chance of progress.  She noted members of the opposition participating in the dialogue have made that point to us. It is, in part, that concern that informs our belief that the timing is not right for sanctions, although we take nothing off the table.  We wish to clarify that the opposition has not specifically suggested we refrain from sanctions against individuals. Indeed, as the A/S explained in her testimony, some members of the opposition have encouraged it.” (My emphasis)

My take:

  • “The opposition hasn’t suggested we refrain from sanctions” – but yesterday she said members of the MUD had done exactly that. Both ideas are not contradictory. They could, in fact, both be true – “the opposition” may mean one thing, and “members of the MUD” may mean another one.
  • The fact remains that she needs to say “no member of the MUD has suggested we restrain from sanctions. What I said yesterday was not true, and in fact, the opposite is true.” As it stands, her clarification comes up waaaaay short.

Also, Ramón Guillermo Aveledo was on César Miguel Rondón’s radio show. In an uncomfortable interview, this is more or less what he said:

  • He repeats what Jacobson said last night.
  • He does not come out in favor of sanctions against chavistas.
  • He repeats the straw man about the embargo – over and over again.
  • He is agnostic about sanctions on individuals – says that the MUD has no opinion on that. They haven’t even discussed the issue because it is none of their business.
  • He says that he has no way of knowing if particular individuals have come out against individual sanctions.
  • He says that the people complaining about this (I guess it includes me) have always been against the MUD’s efforts.
  • He does not come out in support of sanctions against chavistas.
  • He says he has no idea who could have talked to Jacobson.
  • He comes across very wishy-washy (personally) on whether or not hypothetical people who hypothetically violate human rights should be sanctioned according to the laws of both countries …
  • Changes the subject by saying the US should join the International Court in The Hague.

I think it’s clear that there is a division in the MUD on this issue. Aveledo’s words confirm that there is no consensus – some people probably want sanctions on individuals, others don’t, and these folks have probably lobbied the State Department for that. Ergo, the MUD has no position, as Aveledo says. It’s not that they haven’t discussed it (nobody buys that), it’s that they don’t have a consensus on the topic.

Aveledo is subreptitiously confirming Jacobson’s testimony yesterday. He is basically saying that what Jacobson said in Congress is correct, but that the official position of the MUD is more hands-off.

Whatever. The “official MUD position” is not the issue here. The issue is who inside the MUD has actively lobbied against sanctions, an outrageous act. Somebody has been doing this – he knows it, Jacobson knows it, and we all know it. What we don’t have are names. The Venezuelan public deserves better.

Caracas Chronicles is 100% reader-supported. Support independent Venezuelan journalism by making a donation.


  1. “What we don’t have are names.”
    We also don’t have a whole lot of clarity on the issue. Jacobson actually muddied the waters, rather than clarified.

      • I will take her job….I don’t care about the sanctions and MUD, this woman made a terribe job…only watching Mccain slapping at her…she did not prepared anything ( ok the cachifos that are supposed to write the memos,,,and there ar no te so much into Venezuela…I would be sending them to the Haitian Office”

  2. He completely sank the ship and destroyed his reputation. This is great news somehow: because all of this reveals that his reputation was a big fat lie.

  3. “Somebody has been doing this – he knows it, Jacobson knows it, and we all know it”

    I doubt it ever happened. Furthermore I’m sure Aveledo and everyone in the opposition are all for individual sanctions, they can’t just say it publicly. That would mean painting a big red target in their backs. He can’t be saying publicly yes I want the US to sanction the Minister of Interior Rodriguez Torres. How long would it take for he and his family to end up in jail or victims of “common crime”?

    Of course Jacobson cannot go out and do a complete 180, she has to save face, what she is doing is called damage control.

    • Amieres,
      You have good points here.But oneis thing for Aveledo to be afraid of the government and for that reason not calling for sanctions, but another thing is for him to go out and say he is against them, and also criticize the students who DO actually have more courage than he has and are standing up to the government.

      • To me she conflated recommendations of people in the MUD of not imposing sanctions against the government of Venezuela or the country in general with the notion of individual sanctions and did it to justify their inaction in that sense. She admits as much in her clarification: “the opposition has not specifically suggested we refrain from sanctions against individuals. Indeed, as the A/S explained in her testimony, some members of the opposition have encouraged it.”

        Even if some –in a move that defies logic– would have suggested such a thing, why would the DoS take that person seriously if is not an agreed position of the MUD?

        • No no no, she was specifically asked who inside the MUD had asked the US not to impose sanctions on human rights violators, and she said “Members of the MUD,” adding “Senator, I’m not comfortable giving out names.” Sorry, this just doesn’t fly – someone inside the MUD has been lobbying Washington in favor of Luisa Ortega Diaz and others.

          Alek has an idea who it can be,


          • That someone cannot be just anyone. The DoS wouldn’t just take the word of a couple of gray members of the MUD as the official position of the MUD, knowing full well that they are dealing with a coalition of politicians from different parties and interests. Would the others be kept in the dark by the DoS? The scandal would have exploded much earlier.

          • What if it is not a “couple of gray members of the MUD” but rather a very important member/leader? That would explain a lot, don’t you think?

          • I just do not find it plausible. There would be a great scandal within the MUD if that had been the case. If anyone, gray or important, would have unilaterally lobbied against sanctions on individuals, for wahtever reason, all hell would have broken loose in the MUD. It hasn’t happened. The only ones showing outrage are people outside the MUD who, for some reason, refuse to believe what RAG and Jacobson are saying.

            To me is just the result of conspiracy-theory-thinking.

          • I am about to vomit here, I can imagine Diego Arria talking on one of his “Cafecitos” saying “Se los dije” and he will be right. We are going back to the hard line opposition and his short term sight. I hope I am wrong but this doesn’t help us at all, it actually gives chavismo a lot of advantage in the future.

          • The persons that Alek names in his piece is most definitely not “gray members” of the MUD.

            They are known to the Obama administration as legit representatives of the MUD in the US.

            One of them was definitely at RGA’s side the whole time RGA was on the trip when that picture at the top was taken last year.

            I couldn’t tell you if either of the two that Alek mentions actually said something, and you are going to have a hell of a time proving it unless Jacobson spills the beans.

            Best case scenario this whole flap just proves that the MUD is disorganized and still not able to manage the message well. I can only imagine how Rubio feels about the MUD now!

            Worst case: There are moles with their own agenda and the individual sanctions are becoming the “third rail” of Venezuelan politics

      • Jacobson didn’t lie, she ommitted details like the 2 names of the persons who talked to the US State Department. If you read this article http://www.eluniversal.com/nacional-y-politica/protestas-en-venezuela/140508/unidad-niega-haber-pedido-a-eeuu-que-no-sancionara-al-gobierno, that MUD made to respond to Jacobson.

        Obviously MUD has to many critics from people who don’t want to help it at all to amend the current venezuelan situation. Only radicals (from Opposition and Government) don’t want peace for all.

        Neither radicals wash or lend the trough.

        • Peace without justice is opression. Why would we want peace with political prisoners jailed, high crime rates, scarcity and inflation?

          What would be the point of submitting to Maduro’s incompetent and illegitimate authority?

        • Juan Manuel Tovar.There is a lot of pertinent discussion regarding Roberta’s communications, and I thought about elaborating but I think it best for another moment.There are more pressing aspects of what occurred ( in terms of the opposition I mean).

      • Yeah, keep dreaming….there are ways of not lying and is not telling the truth, like the one she said to Mc Cain….she was not well prepared…that was it…I have seen other comissions, and this woman was awful…like she forgot to drink her coffee

    • Extracto de la entrevista radial de Aveledo. A mi me parece muy clara y coherente su posicion: (minuto 4:30)

      CMR: …por bien de la mud y por bien de la oposicion venezolana seria bueno saber quien o quienes estan interesados en que no hayan sanciones para algunos funcionarios del gobierno
      RGA: Bueno, en el seno de la mesa NADIE ha planteado eso … NINGUN dirigente de ningun partido de la mesa es partidario de tal cosa porque NADIE ha sostenido tal cosa…

      CMR: a titulo personal quien o quienes crees tu que pueden haber hablado con Jacobson?
      RGA: sinceramente no tengo la menor idea … no tengo la menor idea de quien pueda estar interesado en tal cosa y por cierto no un miembro de la mesa de la unidad democr’atica eso, desde luego, tengo la mas absoluta certeza

      CMR: y tu a titulo personal, crees Guillermo que estos funcionarios deber’ian ser sancionados?
      RGA: el que tenga violacion de derechos humanos y el que tenga actos de corrupcion que caigan en supuestos de legislacion de otros paises, en esos paises pueden ser sancionados y DEBEN serlo
      … tener dispositivos legales, si los EEUU los tienen y los aplican pues me parece muy bien. por que? porque si en nuestros paises hay impunidad pues que en esos otros paises pues que no la haya, y la gente no tenga donde llevar el dinero que se roba…

      • “RGA: Bueno, en el seno de la mesa NADIE ha planteado eso … NINGUN dirigente de ningun partido de la mesa es partidario de tal cosa porque NADIE ha sostenido tal cosa…”

        ¿O sea que Jacobson mintió?

        Además, el punto no es lo que se haya dicho o no dicho en el seno de la Mesa. El punto es lo que se le dijo al Departamento de Estado.

        • You think they do not lie in congressional hearings?
          I think they do it all the time. After all those hearings are about politics.

          To me that was a line they had prepared to justify themselves. After all they knew they didn’t have to prove anything or name names. They even mentioned Burma as a precedent. Maybe it was true in the case of Burma, who knows?, but in the case of Venezuela? I doubt it.

          In analyzing situations like these you cannot take what people say at face value. You cannot say: there is no way a functionary would lie when grilled by congress.

          It doesn’t make sense to me that RGA would ask the US government not to sanction a Venezuelan functionary. And if it wasn’t RGA himself then why would the US government even entertain such a suggestion coming from someone else. Would they hide it from RGA the head of the MUD? Would they not consult his opinion in such a matter?

          I think the DoS made the decision themselves not to sanction anyone or maybe just never got around to making the decision to actually sanction someone with all the work and pitfalls that implies.

          • I think it makes perfect sense for RGA to ask for no sanctions. If there had been sanctions, chavistas would have ended dialogue, something they (the MUD) don’t want to happen. The problem is that, in trying to protect dialogue. they become ambassadors for their enemies. They don’t realize what a huge political blunder that is.

            I have no idea if RGA was the one who asked Jacobson or someone else. What I do know is that somebody is lying.

          • If anything, I think they would be grateful if the government decides to end the dialog unilaterally. Your logic doesn’t make sense to me.

          • I think it was RGA and Henry Ramos Allup.
            RGA i admit fooled me,Henry has always been obnoxious and not my cup of tea.

          • Same here… For a while there I respected RGA. Now he’s just another dinosaur crippling the opposition with his chanchullos

        • “RGA: Bueno, en el seno de la mesa NADIE ha planteado eso … NINGUN dirigente de ningun partido de la mesa es partidario de tal cosa porque NADIE ha sostenido tal cosa…”

          Ninguno de los dos sospechosos de haber comunicado eso son dirigentes de partido.

          Son representantes de la MUD

    • “How long would it take for he and his family to end up in jail or victims of “common crime”?”

      I understand that. No politician should have to take those risks.


      If the MUD leadership is not going to take the risks neccesary to fight against the regime, they don’t deserve to lead those that do. Because, from where I am, Leopoldo López is being more of a leader on a jail cell than them. The student and dissident movement is taking those risks every day in protests, so the least that the MUD could do is to show their support.

  4. If you google the text of the statement, you’ll find that it only shows up in obscure news sites, and the MUD’s own website. It simply doesn’t appear in any .gov site, nor any reputable news outlet. Was this some sort of private-just-for-Mr-Aveledo statement? Why is the only source for this text the MUD itself?

    I smell something very, very fishy going on here.

  5. I know Aveledo has to speak for the MUD as one body, one coalition. Still he mentions there’s “other MUD representatives,” can’t they be more vocal about this? Ramos Allup? Enriquez? Julio Borges?

    Don’t they have a say as main figureheads of their own parties? Even the littlest of statements can harm “la unida'”? Isn’t plurality in vision one of the MUD’s best features, like Capriles says?

    I want to believe they’re not involved in sketchy business with the government, but they make it so damn hard. As long as someone doesn’t speak up, they’re just an untrustworthy player in this mess.

    What’s holding Capriles -or someone in the MUD- back from holding a press conference clearly stating that they are not against sanctions against human right violators? Is that also “pisar el peine”? Hell, Marco Rubio is capitalizing on the momentum this has and supporting the students’ cause more than anyone in the MUD is.

    • You know what I would like to see? Someone come out and say that they WANT sanctions against these people.

      It’s not enough for me if they say “I’m not against a hypothetical sanction against a hypothetical human rights violator in a hypothetical country … ” Aterricemos la vaina: sanciones contra Luisa Ortega en EEUU, ¿si o no? ¿Buena idea o mala idea?

      • I think the reason they wouldn’t be that explicit is because that would be the “radical” thing to do. I’m trying to think like Capriles.

        He would think doing that would be “ponersela bombita al gobierno” by giving them the right to call them “cachorros del imperio” and taking away any future opportunity of screen time in a cadena “debating” again.

        They like the establishment. They’re comfy playing by the government’s rules. Or at least that’s what they’re making it seem like.

        • This line of thinking, like Capriles, is the reason this nightmare has lasted 15 years and there is no end in sight. Why should we care who calls us cachorros del imperio? Why should we play by the govenment’s rule again, and again?

      • Opposition politicians can not and should not be calling for foreign governments to sanction specific people, much less so publicly. That would just be an empty political stunt with many negative consequences. It is valid, however, to file cases for Human Rights violations and other crimes on international courts but that is not a task for the MUD and is more for lawyers than politicians.

          • LOBBYING TO AVOID SANCTIONS FOR DIOSDADO MAKES THEM GOVERNMENT AGENTS. Shessh, sorry for the all caps, but how thick can you be?

          • Do not call me thick.

            I do not believe they are lobbying to avoid sanctions for anybody.

          • Regarding “thick”, I hope you realize that if you call someone thick because they do not agree with your opinion you are also calling yourself thick because you in turn also do not agree with their opinion. The same thing happens with other epithets like naive or ignorant. It is not an argument but a misguided attempt to explain away why there is a difference of opinion. Is going from arguing the matter at hand to attacking the person.

            Regarding the matter at hand, I do not know if you can notice this of yourself but it seems to me that no matter how emphatically or clearly RGA denies it, you will just refuse to believe him. If that is the case nothing can change your mind.

          • JCN, your capped statement is logically false. A person can validly believe that avoiding sanctions for diosdado is a shorter path to a change in government.

  6. You know what else is fishy as hell? There is *nothing* on Roberta-Gate or Aveledo in the Globovisión web page.

  7. If we are talking about sanctions, can anyone here help me out to define what kind of “sanctions” they will get? Are talking about frozen bank accounts? Are we talking about future imprisonment? Are we talking about revoking US visas? How severe these sanctions can be?

    • This is all good news for the MUD because the end result of it all precludes the possibility that chavismo could accuse the MUD of conspiring against Venezuela while at the same time allowed the MUD to make its position clear about individual chavistas.

    • What’s been on the table is revoking US visas, freezing US assets (bank accounts, properties, stock, etc) and preventing them from using the US financial system (wiring money through the US).

  8. In the past the price for democracy to be restored in Argentina , Chile etc was for certain crimes against humanity to go unpunished . This was agreed to by people of unpeachable moral credentials .

    If at this moment people linked to MUD think that the enforcement of sanctions against regime representatives who are guilty of certain human rights violations would have an adverse effect on the desired results of ongoing discussions , results which might bring institutional agreements that may later help the restoration of democracy they are acting similarly to those people who negotiated the restoration of democracy in Argentina and chile and deserve no condemnation .

    Of course there is a heavy political price to pay because people who righteously feel such sanctions should be imposed regardless of the consequences as a matter of principle are going to accuse them of betraying the moral canon of western civilizations .

    John Kennedy dealt with this subject in his book Profiles in courage . He defended the pragmatists against the puritans .

    AS I understand it the MUD is an alliance of people who share certain convictions and political ideals but they are otherwise as exposed to dissenting opinions as any gathering of free men . Some may think the sanctions are not only just but convenient , others might have a different view , individually they dont speak for the MUD unless the MUD has taken an official joint position regarding this matter ,

    My own view is that the discussions with the govt represent a gamble , mistakes may be made as naturally happens in any human endevour . If it later turns out ( as is likely but not absolutely certain ) that there are no significant advantages to be gained from continuing such discussions then the MUD may officially or unoficially take a position favouring sanctions to be imposed against those guilty of crimes against humanity .
    EVen if they do so them , the decision to impose the sanctions will not be the result of their position but because of what the sovereign political bodies of an independent nation , the US and others feel about the need or convenience or justness of those sanctions .

    The govts popularity is now in free fall , if it is given a chance to claim that a hated foreign power is picking on Venezuela ( by imposing sanctions on certain of its representative figures ) and that helps it develop a propaganda argument to stop or slow the trend , then consideration should be made of that effect .

    I have nothing that compells me to criticize the MUD for what their doing for the time being , but there may come a time that it becomes clear that such discussions are leading nowhere then i would certainly expect them to stop the negotiations , denounce them and join forces with all those Venezuelans that have never believed that they can lead to any good. Then there will be only one opposition voice uniting all the different currents of opinion that comprise it .


    • “In the past the price for democracy to be restored in Argentina , Chile etc was for certain crimes against humanity to go unpunished . This was agreed to by people of unpeachable moral credentials ”

      I think the situation in Venezuela is far removed from that even being a remote possibility right now. I don’t think the people at the MUD believe it either.

    • That’s the price democracy backers paid to the military juntas, to get them to stand down.

      MUD is paying that same price but only so the thugs remain at the table. They’re clearly overpaying by the chilean-argentinian-spaniard standard

  9. The point here is that the fulano “diálogo” turned out to be an amazingly effective instrument of co-optation for its sponsors.

    Itamaraty and Casa de Nariño and Casa Rosada couldn’t have done better. Suddenly, keeping the dialogue going is THE priority for everyone, even for the state department, even for elements of the supposed opposition.

    While students are rounded up from protest camps and jailed en masse for doing exactly nothing illegal, while human rights advocates are thrown into secret police dungeons for no reason, while the whole gristly machinery of human rights abuse creaks on, are our representatives out there thinking how to raise the costs for the government?!

    No, they’re not.

    They’re out there hilando finito, walking on eggshells to avoid upsetting a dialogue that’s an evident figleaf for the dictatorship.

    Even in trying to walk back Jacobson’s blunder, RGA is *still* looking for recondite phraseologies to avoid being seen as too radical so as to not endanger this idiotic, fake dialogue. It’s friggin’ outrageous. The time and energy he spends trying to patch up this fuck-up is time and energy he doesn’t spend fighting a government that randomly jails Venezuelans for the crime of not thinking like them.

    For Colombia and Brazil, for Argentina and Peru and Uruguay, for lefty-run countries with an objective interest in keeping the dictatorship in place while being seen to “do something” about the conflict, this Dialogue strategy has been a masterstroke. Real genius.

    For Venezuelans, it’s a fucking disaster.

        • Chamo, you have to look at the other side of this whole affair. Not only is imposing sanctions a complicated matter (who to impose it on, how to select them, etc) but you also have to remember about oil money and oil lobby as a key factor undermining any decisions to put a stop to Chavismo. Ms Jacobson could be washing her hands. If indeed the MUD requested no sanctions on Vnezuela, that argument could be interpreted or twisted as if it really meant no sanctions at all.

          Both sides to the coin make sense in this case.

          • I’m more inclined to believe Jacobson because Aveledo’s strawman on the sanctions completely undermines his position and his credibility.

    • “this Dialogue strategy has been a masterstroke. Real genius.”

      I wouldn’t go that far. It is a well known tactic that was used before successfully in 2002-3 after the oil strike. Same general strategy, outlast the opponent (whether is a strike or a rash of protests), offer a way out with a fake dialog preferably with international mediation, and go back to business as usual.

      The Jacobson-gate is only an issue if you believe her Thursday declaration and refuse to believe her clarification or RGA refutations.

      I have no idea if the MUD believes the dialog is important and if they believe something productive can come out of it. But I doubt it, they are not “niños de pecho” they understand the situation better than us. They already extracted what they could from the dialog, but exiting them is not an easy task. Perhaps now they’ll have a good excuse to do so.

  10. It is clear I no longer feel myself well represented by the likes of RGA, Victor Vargas’ attorney (Ramon Jose Medina), while I also never felt represented by AD or UNT.

    U have been missing more headlines from VP and MCM, though. Their silence is growing strident.

  11. If the results of the dialogue are a more balanced CNE and TSJ and perhaps the survival of some now threatened opposition voices then in a future voting process there is a much greater chance of change than if the dialogue never happened .

    In any event the dialogue is a gamble , it may not work but the attempt is well worth making , it has its politically divisive side and the govt will have to gain something for engaging in it otherwise it doens happen, The alternative: a policy of just open confrontation may in the end be succesful but it definitely also has its risks. Gardeners know that sometimes handling animal offal is unpleasant but that it can make plants bloom later in the year.

    The problem with embargo type sanctions is that it can be used by the regime to pull the xenophobic card and embarrass the oposition while riling up the uber nationalists to their side.

    The sanction of individuals guilty of civil rights violations and corrupt activities on the other hand can be a useful hand to play at the right moment , Naim proposes it , the thing is doing it at the right time !! Meantime is a damocles sword hanging on the regimes head .

    There is a paradoxical aspect to these latter sanctions . the regime is on record as totally opposed to the burgoise taste for the many comforts pleasures and luxuries the US style of life has to offer in places like florida and of course cannot ideological countenace its representative figures having hefty bank accounts investments and substantial property in the US . Any regime figure who has a stake in business and other personal investments in the US has to be seen as a traitor to the pure revolutionary spirit of the Cause .!!
    therefore if these sanctions have any effect it will be because their representative figures are hypochrites and traitors . . Maduro cannot admit that these sanctions have any relevance unless he admitts that the regime most prominent people are corrupt in a monetary and ideological sense .

    If the sanctions reveal the existence of regime figures with US property and investments it will be highly embarrassing to the regime more so if the size of these holdings cannot be justified and are signs of their corrupt conduct as govt officials !!

    There is also an aspect which hasnt been mentioned and that is that the US govt probably has information and legal means of doing things that make life very difficult for the regime at this time of crisis without having to raise the flag of sanctions , its already revoked the visa of Diosdado on grounds which are dependent on his status as a violator of human rights , it can investigate the origins of the fortunes of some govt figures or their proxies without declaring sanctions , in the same way it can find grounds for seizing them until the investigation is completed . It can make govt financial transactions more difficult by using its regulatory powers , it can block financing operations or make them more onerous a hundred different ways . People dont have much imagination when it comes to understanding the many ways the US govt can act to make life difficullt for a dictatorship and its bosses.!!

  12. It might be that the Chavistas and their collaborators of the MUD who went to ask to not apply the sanctions and were successful in doing so, may have had only a Pyrrhic victory.The backlash against these backroom manipulations might yet result to their disadvantage.

  13. the MUD simply continued in its line (since 2011) that anything the US does ultimately benefits the regime. Amazingly lame and stupid stance. But? That is the quality of ‘politicians’ we have to deal with.

      • Bullshit. Aveledo went with his “the sanctions were for the country” lie and this is the exact opposite of it.

        Also, the evoy from the MUD on the US is a big buddy of Molina. Hmmmm.

        • “Aveledo went with his “the sanctions were for the country” lie”

          There is no lie. Aveledo didn’t say there were any sanctions for the country. What he said is that the MUD opposes sanctions against the country but not against individuals. He is making a clarification, a distinction. The distinction is important because the subject is sanctions and there are two types of sanctions. Same distinction everyone involved has made: Senator Rubio, Senator Menendez, Aveledo, RJM, even JC Nagel. From Ramon J Medina’s interview: “Reiteró, por otro lado, que las sanciones en contra del país, de Venezuela, por parte de Estados Unidos son inapropiadas no sólo desde la perspectiva política sino por los efectos que causarían en los ciudadanos – quienes, dijo, “ya bastante golpeados estaban por el Gobierno”.”

          Having made that distinction, Aveledo says that no one should be protected against sanctions for human rights violations or corruption. From the official MUD communique:

          “2. Eso nada tiene que ver con las consecuencias personales que los gobernantes o cualquier titular de autoridad, debe enfrentar por sus actos. Por ejemplo, si la legislación internacional, o la de un país en el ámbito de su territorio, prevén sanciones a personas concretas por violaciones a Derechos Humanos o por actos de corrupción, nadie tiene derecho a arroparse en la bandera nacional para exigir una protección que no merece.”

          Which he reiterated when asked by Cesar Miguel Rondon:

          “CMR: y tu a titulo personal, crees Guillermo que estos funcionarios deberían ser sancionados?

          RGA: el que tenga violación de derechos humanos y el que tenga actos de corrupción que caigan en supuestos de legislación de otros paises, en esos paises pueden ser sancionados y DEBEN SERLO…
          …dispositivos legales, si los EEUU los tienen y los aplican pues me parece muy bien. por que? porque si en nuestros paises hay impunidad pues que en esos otros paises pues que no la haya, y la gente no tenga donde llevar el dinero que se roba…”

          There is no difference between what RJM & RGA have said/written.
          I understand if you got the wrong impression from Nagel’s article.

  14. Gosh The foreign affairs committee is only that. Take into account that they are in november in mid electios, and democrats are not doing good…a DOS answering like a third grader….no bueno…and as we are a a colony of cuba. And Cuba is alreadytalking to Ameicans about the seudo democracy they want to go to…we were divided as a pinata to another countries, but the americans, and unless they get something the state department it has no interest in putting any sanctions. And remember madura a chiave is the satus quo, The USA like status quo….


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here