Whatever your opinion of Maduro, or socialism, a U.S. coup in Venezuela is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The U.S. empire has been interfering in Latin American politics for over a century, and the latest machinations against Venezuela by the foreign policy elite only serves to continue this sordid legacy. Outside of the establishments propaganda machine, and lost in the ideological battlefield between capitalism and socialism, the fundamental issue regarding Venezuelan sovereignty is often either being misinterpreted or intentionally misrepresented.  We (especially non- Venezuelan’s in the West) cannot frame the Venezuelan political crisis as President Maduro vs. some hypothetical, potentially more virtuous, leader, or whether the country should adopt globalism vs a closed off, centrally planned socialist economy. These questions can only be answered by the people of Venezuela themselves, either through the ballot box or in grass-roots public protests. The only question that should then concern Americans is whether their government should intervene in domestic Venezuelan politics, and as the following argument will demonstrate, doing so would be morally unjustifiable and disastrous in consequence. If the last one hundred years of U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America can serve as any lesson, we know what to expect, and why it must be prevented.

 

In 1915, President Woodrow Wilson invaded Haiti, essentially turning it into a colony under U.S. imperialism. In 1954, under the administration of Dwight Eisenhower,  the CIA orchestrated a coup d’état in Guatemala, and installed a military-backed oligarchy friendly to U.S. corporate interests. In 1961 John F. Kennedy authorized the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion in Cuba, which subsequently created the Cuban Missile Crisis, bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war. In the early 1970’s, Nixon and then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger used the covert powers of the intelligence agencies to overthrow the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende and installed the right-wing dictator Augusto Pinochet in Chile, which resulted in thousands being murdered, tortured, or imprisoned (as for Kissinger’s role in these war crimes, he has remained reticent). During the brutally violent civil war of El Salvador (1980-1992), the Reagan administration provided financial and military aid to the authoritarian government, who was widely known to be slaughtering it’s own citizens. By the time the conflict had come to an end, approximately 75,000 had been killed. Also during the golden years of “It’s morning again in America”, the CIA was complicit in secretly facilitating cocaine trafficking operations, in order to finance the Contra’s guerilla war against the Sandinista controlled government of Nicaragua (for an astoundingly well researched exposition on the subject, read Gary Webb’s “Dark Alliance“. At the time of publication, the story was extremely controversial, and it eventually cost the author his life). In 1989, George H.W. Bush instigated “Operation Just Cause” and sent 25,000 troops to Panama, allegedly to hunt down and bring to justice the narco-terrorist Manuel Noriega, who coincidentally used to be a CIA asset and was paid generously for his espionage. The Panamanian Human Rights Committee and the Center for Investigation of Human Rights and Legal Aid estimate that 500 to 700 Panamanians died during the U.S. attack, while thousands more lost their homes and were displaced.

By understanding even the broad strokes of the historical relationship between the United States and Latin America, it’s not difficult to see why any pronouncements by the Trump administration of wanting to spread “freedom and democracy” to Venezuela is instantly suspicious. Adding to the already well grounded reasons for incredulity against Washington’s objectives is political events that’s took place during the early 2000’s, when the Marxist President Hugo Chávez was still in power. Taken from “The Wikileaks Files: The World According to U.S. Empire” in section two, the chapter on Venezuela (p.515-516)  ” Nevertheless, Chávez was popular and democratically elected. As the cables show, the US worked to bolster the Venezuelan opposition, which would engage in a series of attempts- some constitutional, some not- to oust Chávez: a military coup d’état (2002, overturned by mass public opposition just two days later); an economically damaging oil strike (2002-03) and a recall referendum (2004). US support for these efforts- especially the coup- would poison relations between the two countries. The US provided funds to groups and individuals involved in the coup,  and after the coup had occurred encouraged other countries to recognize the the coup government.”.  Many Americans might have forgotten, but you be certain the Venezuelans have not.

And so it seems history is repeating itself. Everything unfolding today is strikingly similar to past events, but now it is between the administrations of Donald Trump and Nicolás Maduro.

Arguing against U.S. organized regime change in Venezuela should not be conflated with a denial of Venezuela’s economic nightmare. Decades of socialism has brought the resource rich South American countries economy to complete ruin. Through bureaucratic ineptitude, malfeasance, and corruption, entire sectors of the economy were nationalized and driven into bankruptcy.  When this is combined with the economically suicidal monetary policies of the centralized bank with fiat currency, we are confronted with a tragic contemporary example of what socialism inevitably produces wherever it is tried.  No matter how hard Abby Martin and state funded teleSUR may try to spin the narrative, the current failing Venezuelan economy is directly correlated to the economic policies that were pushed by the socialist regimes of Hugo Chávez and now Nicolás Maduro. The country has faced hyperinflation for years, with it’s central bank trying to print it’s way out of it’s black-hole of national debt, while simultaneously maintaining it’s unsustainable and grossly mismanaged welfare programs. At the end of 2018, the bolívar had reached an annual inflation rate of 80,000% . The precipitous drop in purchasing power from the nations currency has made buying the most basic commodities increasing difficult. A remarkable piece by Reuters in August of 2018 showed pictures of everyday items next to the quantity of paper money needed to buy them. 1 kilogram of rice for 2,500,000 bolivars. A package of diapers for 8,000,000 bolivars. A bar of hand soap for 3,500,000 bolivars.  The list goes on. In an attempt to contain this inflation train wreck, the BCV has started issuing as new currency, the “sovereign bolivar” which is pegged to the fraudulent “Petro“, a state-backed imitation of cryptocurrency.

While the Venezuelan government is mostly responsible for the widespread poverty the people are suffering from, U.S. sanctions have been strategically used to exacerbate the current conditions, in hopes of exerting pressure on the current regime and forcing it’s leadership to change it’s ways. These “starvation sanctions”, as they have been called, serve a malicious, political purpose. The more desperate the underfed, malnourished, despairing population becomes, the more likely they are to mobilize into resistance groups and protest against Maduro. This is an old, cruel tactic from the playbook of Empires- using the people’s lives as pawns in a geopolitical game to depose of undesirable foreign leaders. When food becomes scarce, and the cost of available food is unaffordable due to market manipulation, larceny becomes more common, which can snowball into looting and rioting. Economic sanctions is often defined as a kind of “soft power” instrument for aggressive diplomacy, but the real world ramifications could not be more serious. Consider the comments made by former Secretary of State Madeleine Alright, who when asked in a “60 minutes” interview if she believed the sanctions against Iraq during the Clinton administration was worth the human cost replied “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it“. These sanctions resulted in approximately half a million Iraqi children dying, and had no effect on Saddam Hussein’s regime.

It seems however that the U.S. Deep State is growing impatient with the “soft power” methods employed so far. The crushing sanctions against Venezuela, which only accomplished punishing the beleaguered citizenry and not the state, is now just one strategy of many being actively used to bring about regime change. Real, authentic mass protests by Venezuelans have taken to the streets, a manifestation of their disenfranchisement and growing contempt for their government. Maduro’s regime has responded by becoming more authoritarian, and it’s oppressive measures are dismantling the last remnants of civil liberties from society. From violating freedom of the press, to the attempted dissolution of the National Assembly, and deliberate violence by government forces against civilian protestors, the nations turmoil is reaching a breaking point. Which is exactly what the deep state has been waiting for. The U.S. State Department, and the security/surveillance apparatus, has been closely monitoring the development of Venezuela’s civil unrest for years, and see’s opportunity where others only see tragedy. And then, from seemingly nowhere, a previously unknown, charismatic, young politician takes to the stage, and declares the Maduro regime illegitimate, and himself the new “interim” President.

So who is Juan Guaidó, the man which claims to be the savior of democracy in Venezuela? He was until January 23rd 2019 a relatively obscure politician in the National Assembly, and was virtually unknown to the international community. He was, however, a close and trusted contact to a number of powerful Washington insiders and Western institutions. A recent report by Consortium News pieces together Guaidó’s background, and in the process builds a persuasive theory asserting Guaidó to be a product of the Deep States controlled opposition, trained for the position over years and waiting in the wings should the opportunity arise. While Guaidó might publicly present himself as a man of the people, ready to restore peace and stability to a fractured nation, the real question remains who are his “people”, and where do his loyalties lie? His close association with the non-profit NGO “CANVAS” (Center for Applied Non-Violent Action), is funded through the notorious National Endowment for Democracy, which itself has deep ties to the CIA. In the absence of incontrovertible, substantiated evidence (as of this writing), the mystery of Guaidó and his motives remain unclear. It is feasible, like some have claimed, that he is a Manchurian candidate, selected by the U.S. intelligence community to play a role advantageous to foreign powers interests. It is also feasible, however, that Guaidó  is nothing more than an opportunistic politician, capitalizing on the political instability to advance his own private ambitions. In any case, it remains to be seen if Guaidó is capable of leading an anti-government revolution and dethroning Maduro, because as of now the population is sharply divided for their support for two separate individuals who both claim to be the President.  Maduro still maintains control over the military, while Guaidó has the official support of the U.S., Canada, and many European countries. Juan Guaidó’s suspicious past, along with his sudden and inexplicable political ascendancy,  deserves both skepticism and scrutiny, and any claims he’s made thus far on the presidency lack credibility.

For those who still suffer from delusions of American exceptionalism, and a misguided belief in Washington’s benevolence towards the Venezuelan people, consider the recent appointment of Neo-conservative Elliott Abrams as special U.S. envoy to Venezuela. Elliot Abrams has a long history in elite foreign policy circles, working to ensure USG national security objectives are accomplished at any cost. In 1981, as Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, Abrams would attempt to cover-up atrocities committed by the El Salvadoran government death squads. This was a duplicitous, but necessary act of public image management, because the Reagan administration considered the authoritarian regime in El Salvador a key ally in Central America. In 1991 Abrams pled guilty to withholding critical information about the Iran-Contra scandal, and was subsequently convicted, but graciously pardoned under George H.W. Bush. He would later go on to serve several important positions for George W. Bush’s administration(unlikely a coincidence), where he was accused of having foreknowledge of the 2002 coup d’état against President Hugo Chávez, and implicitly signally the White Houses approval.

If Elliot Abrams involvement in crafting the U.S. governments policy towards Venezuela isn’t enough to make you question any official noble intentions, then National Security Advisor and veteran warmonger John Bolton’s recent interview on Fox News is refreshingly forthright. After several minutes of establishment propaganda, Bolton candidly reveals the true motives behind the U.S.G’s push for regime change “We’re looking at the oil assets, the single most important income to the government of Venezuela- we’re looking at what to do with that..and we want everyone to know, we’re looking at all of this very seriously, we don’t want any American businesses or investors to caught by surprise” followed by “It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we can have American oil companies invest in and produce oil capabilities in Venezuela”. Straight from the walruses mouth, such unabashedly honest realpolitik is seldom found on cable news.

Again, a more nuanced, careful analysis of the Venezuelan crisis is needed. It is myopic to say, as many journalists from left-wing outlets who are sympathetic to socialism might suggest, that the entire crisis has been precipitated by Washington. On the other side of the ideological divide, many want to paint a one-dimensional narrative that all of Venezuela’s problems were created by Marxists who gained control of the government and seized the means of production. A more objective, but less appealing to the ideologues, explanation would take into account the profound effects of both influences. Conservatives, libertarians, and classical liberals throughout the West should reject the U.S. policy of subversion and hostility towards Venezuela, not because they support the political philosophy of socialism, but because the people of Venezuela must have control over their countries destiny. Cutting through the quagmire of misinformation, the U.S. empire’s concerted destabilization efforts in Venezuela is for all of the old reasons- to expand and preserve global military and economic hegemony. Let the psychopathic war planners in the hallowed halls of Washington D.C. know- hands off the República Bolivariana de Venezuela.

 

To contact the author of this article, write to Quinctius1991@protonmail.com