|
Brazil Has About Face: No More Favorite in Bolivia's Election |
|
|
|
|
Written by Newsroom
|
|
Friday, 02 December 2005 |
|
Brazil tried to downplay President Lula da Silva's words of support for the left wing Indian candidate who leads Bolivian public opinion polls in the run up to December 18 presidential election.
Brazil "has no candidate" in Bolivia's presidential election and only is interested in seeing that country's institutions strengthened, an official spokesperson said Thursday in Brasília.
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's international affairs advisor, Marco Aurélio Garcia, said that "Brazil has no intention of meddling in Bolivia's internal affairs."
Garcia's comments to foreign reporters came a day after Lula, during a meeting with Argentine President Nestor Kirchner, was interpreted as having expressed specific support for Bolivian candidate Evo Morales.
"At no moment in history have we enjoyed the opportunity of having a South America completely devoted to its people," said the Brazilian president in Puerto Iguazu addressing an audience that included president Kirchner.
The Brazilian President of very humble origin and former union leader went on to say: "Imagine what (president Hugo) Chavez's election meant for Venezuela. Imagine what it would mean if Evo Morales won Bolivia's election."
The latest opinion polls show Mr. Morales - the leader of the Movement Toward Socialism - enjoying a slight advantage over his main rival and runner up, former President Jorge Quiroga.
Mr. Garcia insisted in underlining that those remarks "do not mean that the Brazilian government supports or prefers Morales over other candidates".
"Brazil supports the strengthening of democracy... and is convinced that the coming election will be vital to help normalize the country's institutional situation" stressed Lula's advisor.
This article appeared originally in Mercopress – www.mercopress.com.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
He is goofing also on the corruption crisis.
How can he says :
- I am not aware and was never involved.
Then
- There was no vote buying.
Either he does not know because he was not involved or he knows because he was involved in the decision of vote or no vote buying strategy.
By saying the two things, he lies at one of the two !
So simple !