The deteriorating and tempestuous relationship between Venezuela and the United States has taken another diplomatic twist, this time with the announcement that
Ambassador Ignacio Arcaya, a veteran career diplomat, is leaving Washington less than a year after assuming his post.

During staff meetings at the embassy and the Venezuelan mission to the Organization of American States, Foreign Minister Luis Alfonso Davila on Monday
announced that Arcaya had resigned "for personal reasons" and had asked to retire. Arcaya agreed and the men shook hands, according to charge d'affaires Luis
Herrera Marcano, who will run things until a new ambassador is assigned. This appears to be the official version, reflecting Arcaya's desire to avoid "any public
conflict," according to sources close to him.

But Venezuela watchers said the drama began last week in New York, where President Hugo Chavez was attending meetings of the Group of 77 association of
developing countries.

Against a backdrop of mounting U.S. and OAS criticism of attacks by Chavez and his supporters against the Venezuelan media -- specifically the newspaper El
Nacional -- Arcaya reportedly told the foreign minister of Washington's displeasure and his own discomfort with the president's policies. Davila conveyed Arcaya's
concerns to Chavez, and 30 minutes after he arrived at his New York hotel, Arcaya was asked to join the president and the foreign minister in Chavez's room. After
that meeting, Arcaya told associates he was resigning.

One version of Arcaya's resignation making the rounds in think tanks and among Latin American journalists and academics such as Ana Julia Jatar at Harvard is that
Chavez may have dismissed Arcaya, or simply told him to leave if he disagreed with the president's policies. Another is that Chavez, frustrated with his unpopularity
in Washington and Arcaya's inability to obtain a meeting with President Bush, chose to fire the ambassador. "I don't know what transpired at the New York meeting.
He just said afterward that he was leaving," Herrera Marcano said.

Asked about the speculation, the charge d'affaires said simply: "I cannot go into that." Arcaya confirmed he was leaving Monday but did not want to discuss his
departure.

When Chavez was asked about Arcaya's imminent exit during one of his weekly television appearances, the president answered: "Why should I care?" according to
Jatar, who watched the program, "Allo Presidente."

The Bush administration's tolerance of Chavez's high-voltage denunciations of the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan as a "new form of terrorism" has hit new lows,
according to such area specialists as Luis Giusti, a senior adviser on oil and gas issues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies here. The administration
has expressed its solidarity with Venezuelan newspapers following recent infringements of free speech rights. Washington is also uneasy with a new package of laws
mandating greater state control over oil companies and private enterprises, and has taken issue with the government's anti-democratic campaign.

"In such a context, it is very difficult for an ambassador to carry out his functions and perform," Giusti said. "It is also not easy to keep Chavez happy. This has
nothing to do with the ambassador's competence or experience. The Caracas government is a permanent puzzle. It is like walking a tightrope -- you can fall on either
side." He said Arcaya, a believer in the ways of democracy for Venezuela, also saw the importance of good ties with its neighbors. "If Arcaya was asked to leave, it
would be no surprise -- it is part of the Chavez style," Giusti said.

"Deteriorating ties with the U.S. are being blamed on Arcaya. It demonstrates the irrationality of Chavez, when the problem is in Caracas, not in Washington," said
Peter Hakim, director of the Inter-American Dialogue, a policy analysis group. Besides the criticism from Washington, Chavez has had to face mounting disaffection
at home that peaked on Dec. 10 with a one-day general strike.