"Humanitarian asssistance" - Venezuelan border

Rivers of ink have flowed on the issue of the social-political situation in Venezuela. The mainstream media of the West, funded by the Pentagon and its allies, have dedicated themselves to systematically disseminating news about a humanitarian crisis that, according to their biased opinion, has the Latin American country on the verge of collapse. Nevertheless, far from these apocalyptic interpretations, the United States, as the main leader of the opposition to the government of Nicolás Maduro, has specific interests that it hopes to bring to fruition through distinct means. In effect, the White House has demonstrated that their modus operandi against administrations of the left wing in the continent has left profound consequences in the objective of undermining the confidence of the populations and torpedoing Latin American democracies. One clear example of this, in Brazil, was the pantomime around the destitution of President Dilma Rousseff in Brazil and later support for the ultra-right ex-military officer Jair Bolsonaro. Once again, the Pentagon demonstrates that democracy has little value in the face of their economic and geopolitical interests in the region. This is precisely the logic that the Trump administration wants to apply in Venezuela.

It is no secret that Venezuela today constitutes the principal geopolitical objective of the United States. The reasons are obvious: enormous reserves of gas and gold, but above all the oil reserves that are part of the calculations of Washington to contemplate a military intervention with the aim of exploiting this strategic resource. Until November of 2017, Venezuela had more than 300 million barrels in proven reserves located in the Petroleum Strip of the Orinoco “Hugo Chávez”

(https://www.telesurtv.net/news/que-buscan-acciones-eeuu-contra-gobierno-venezolano-20190124-0005.html). This figure, according to estimations, is equivalent to 500 years of oil production, which makes the South American country the principal reserve of crude oil in the world. The second country with the most hydrocarbon resources is Saudi Arabia, whose reserves amount to 70 years. This disparity indicates the importance in strategic terms that Caracas has for the White House, since the Saudi regime is their principal partner in the Middle East, so the US government hopes to obtain the petroleum of the Orinoco by any means.

The tactic of Washington to fulfil its objectives is of multiple modes: political and diplomatic provocation, financing illegal armed groups against the administration of President Maduro (especially the case of militias on the borders), media fabrications to put international public opinion against them, among others. It is clear that President Trump is not a defender of human rights and even less of a democratic system, he is simply a businessman whose interests are involved in a possible round business deal, since the United States would not have to purchase Venezuelan petroleum, it would be sufficient to mount an invasion such as that in Iraq to seize the reserves

(https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-america-latina-47126324). The tycoon president is stubbornly pursuing his goals and the so-called “diplomatic encirclement” is only the first phase of what could become a military intervention that could eventually unleash a civil war in the neighbouring country.

It is here that the great paradox is present, since the political tradition of the United States claims to be the oldest democracy in the contemporary world, but in reality there is no respect for this. On the contrary, it is a characteristic of their foreign policy to be willing to violate the principle of non-intervention in internal affairs and this has been a recurring historical tendency. Since the birth of the State itself and the independence of the thirteen colonies, the White House has played an interventionist role that varies with the interests involved, that is to say, sometimes they act as an international judge, applying media pressure through hired journalists, or at other times they act directly with military attacks. It is worth recalling that in the so-called period of “isolationism” summarized in the Monroe Doctrine (1823) and its aphorism “America for the Americans”, where the United States supposedly did not intervene other than in domestic development, there were cases of influence such as for the separation of Panama (and the subsequent construction of the inter-oceanic canal) or the dispatch of troops to Africa and Asia.

This panorama allows us to corroborate that the institutional structure of Washington does not move without a specific purpose. In other words, we should not lose sight of the fact that their unrestricted support for the self-proclaimed interim president, Juan Guaidó, is part of a greater strategy. In effect, who was this opposition leader before the present crisis? The response is clear and concise: completely unknown. Nevertheless, this irrelevant figure in the Venezuelan political scene had a rowdy ascent and the motive has been the unconditional support of the White House. Therefore, Guaidó is a special envoy of the US centres of intelligence seeking to destabilize the region under the pretext of “protecting democracy” in the neighbouring country (https://www.hispantv.com/noticias/venezuela/409363/guaido-eeuu-paises-reconocen-presidente-venezuela). It would ingenuous to think that the president of the Assembly is a charismatic leader, an authentic offsider of the political system who has come “to save Venezuela from the crisis”. If he has the support of the United States and even more of a president such as Donald Trump, at the least he should give rise to an absolute lack of confidence. Now, the question is, to what extent will Guaidó let himself be controlled by his chiefs in Washington; would he be willing to upscale the situation to a military intervention?

Another question that must be posed is: what would happen if there were a military intervention in Venezuela with a foothold in Colombia? Without a doubt, the situation would be disastrous for both nations and, as is their custom, the United States would in no way compromise their own territory. In fact, the only conflict that has been developed on US soil was the civil war that involved the Union and the Confederation (1861-1865), all the other wars in which Washington has participated have taken place thousands of kilometres from their coasts. In this sense, one should not underestimate the episode of the polemical annotation of Trump’s security advisor, John Bolton, who wrote 5,000 troops to Colombia, which was a clear indication of what could happen if there were no outcome to the tensions (https://www.vanguardia.com/colombia/llegarian-cinco-mil-tropas-a-colombia-FA398777). And although the Pentagon sees this circumstance as normal, since it is common for them to resolve everything through force and authoritarianism, as history has demonstrated, the consequences for the Latin American subcontinent would be catastrophic. On one hand, the rate of human rights violations would increase and the danger of a total civil war would always be present. Hence, a military intervention promoted by the United States would be counter-productive and anti-democratic.

Meanwhile, one of the main consequences would be an increase in the migration of Venezuelans to Colombia and other countries of the continent. According to Colombian calculations of migration, there are at present some 900 thousand Venezuelans in the country, a number that with an eventual conflict would increase exponentially and thus deepen the humanitarian crisis that has been hitting Venezuela’s neighbour

(http://migracioncolombia.gov.co/index.php/es/prensa/comunicados/comunicados-2018/julio-2018/7929-mas-de-870-mil-venezolanos-estan-radicados-en-colombia).

Nevertheless, distinct from the US narrative, the social-political situation is not due to the administration of President Maduro but to the constant economic attacks received, among them, blockades and price wars. Thus, military intervention, far from resolving the tensions would further deteriorate the situation of millions of people and sow a climate of anxiety in the face of the restructuring of the country, all due to the ambitions of the White House.

Beyond what has been said here, is a war between sister countries really useful? In this respect, the government of President Duque should be fully aware of the unfortunate consequences that a military intervention would bring. In spite of the fact that Colombia’s position has been to deny the use of force, this has not been sufficiently categorical to silence the rumours of a plot to overthrow President Maduro by force of arms. This is why we are facing a delicate balance, a sort of pressure cooker that at any moment could result in civilian victims (https://www.aporrea.org/internacionales/a275647.html). The goal of the United States is to create the necessary atmosphere for the use of force to be seen as “irreversible” and thus be able to enter Venezuelan territory and coopt the main oil sources. However, with their programmed guile, the US government aims at creating the impression that, following the scheming provocations of the Pentagon, it was President Maduro who initiated the confrontation. The typical media show applied on a regional scale.

Nevertheless, no one has sufficient predictive power to know what will happen with the political situation in the sister republic. And despite the fact that the majority of countries that are opposed to the government of Maduro have asked to prolong the dialogue, one must take into consideration that the final word of this block is that of the United States. In other words, if the Pentagon decides to attack the Venezuela’s sovereignty there would be no one to prevent it. However, the economic and above all the diplomatic costs of an intervention would be extremely high, so that Washington might discard this option. But as was mentioned above, nothing is spelled out and all options are contemplated. That is why the White House is seeking by various means to generate a climate of untenable tension in order to impose their “salvation assistance”. We should keep in mind that that government is a specialist in exporting democracy and freedom, with blood and fire. For all the reasons indicated, a resolution of the situation in Venezuela by military means would be catastrophic for the continent and would revive the decades of barbary of the dictatorships of the Southern Cone.  For this reason, one and a thousand times: No to US intervention in Venezuela!

22/04/2019

(Translated for ALAI by Jordan Bishop)