Venezuela’s crisis
Rashed Rahman
The world is watching with bated breath the drama playing
out in Venezuela. Can Nicolas Maduro’s government/presidency survive the
onslaught of the US-led campaign for regime change? What are the factors that
have led the once promising Chavista revolution to this impasse? What, if any,
have been the strategic and tactical mistakes along the way that have left the
Maduro regime so under siege?
It should be stated at the very outset that US arrogance
vis-à-vis regimes that do not toe its line worldwide is only surpassed by its
self-anointed role of master of Latin America (insultingly referred to as the
US’s ‘backyard’). There is a long and sorry history of US intervention in Latin
America. In the past, dictators planted with US support throughout Latin
America were eventually only overthrown when the people’s resistance forced
Washington to abandon its satraps as unsustainable any longer. Where left wing
or (in recent years) left of centre governments did manage to come to power
through the ballot box (the exception is Cuba, where a revolution succeeded in
capturing power), a string of external pressures orchestrated by Washington
combined with internal unrest and disaffection with the support of local elites
served to destabilise and eventually defeat such dispensations. What followed
after ‘democratic’ elections were more often than not right wing governments
wedded to the interests of the landowning and capitalist elite, tied in myriads
of strings of vested interest with ‘Big Brother’ to the north.
Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, especially the latter
decade, Latin American military dictatorships brought to power through coups
with the support of Washington were the norm. The 1958 triumph of Fidel
Castro’s revolution in Cuba inspired a whole palette of guerrilla movements
throughout Latin America, including in some cases urban guerrilla struggle.
None of these movements succeeded. The longest running one in Colombia has of
late succumbed to fatigue and abandoned the armed struggle road in exchange for
amnesty and being allowed to enter the political mainstream.
In Venezuela’s case, the 1990s saw Hugo Chavez being elected
President. Despite the disquiet and seething resentment of the elite, he used
Venezuela’s oil revenues (the country has the largest confirmed oil reserves in
the world) to redistribute wealth, carry out social welfare measures and raise
millions out of stark poverty. This was enough to earn him the ire of the US,
which imposed sanctions on Venezuela. Chavez retaliated by nationalising US oil
interests in Venezuela, thereby setting the stage for repeated coup attempts
and assassination plots against his life. All these efforts were beaten back
with the wholesale and unstinting support of the masses who owned the Chavista
revolution as their own. Maduro too has been the victim of repeated
assassination attempts, mercifully unsuccessful.
When Chavez died of cancer, Maduro was elected President in
his place. His ascent to power coincided with the precipitate fall in
international oil prices (slashed to one-third), increased sanctions by
Washington, and the incremental unleashing of US-trained young agitators, of
whom the opposition’s presidential pretender Juan Guaido is a prime example.
These young agitators are part of a plan floated by Washington to bring about
regime change in Eastern Europe (the so-called ‘colour’ revolutions), the Arab
world (the misnamed and short lived Arab Spring), and any other country in the
world that resists the US’s imperial hegemony.
In Venezuela’s case, the oil is what is making Washington,
sundry European capitals in tow, and some right wing governments in Latin
America drool. But it must be admitted that both Chavez and Maduro missed the
bus of putting Venezuela on the road to sustainable economic growth by failing
to use the window provided by oil revenues (when they were high) to diversify
the economy away from dependence on the export of just one commodity. The
result is that the crash in oil prices and the sanctions earlier imposed by
Washington and now ratcheted up by US President Donald Trump have produced
hyperinflation, the collapse of normal day to day economic functions and the
desperate fleeing of people unable to manage in the country’s straitened
circumstances into neighbouring countries. All this has been pounced upon by
Washington and its local satraps to challenge the Maduro regime as illegitimate
and Juan Guaido to declare himself president. Ironically, the never failing
upholders of democracy and human rights amongst the European countries have
joined in a chorus Washington’s campaign to get rid of Maduro.
What is the likely outcome of all these manouevres? So far
the Venezuelan military is standing by the Maduro regime despite the defection
of an Air Force General who called on his colleagues to join him. Guaido tried
to dent this support by offering amnesty to soldiers not involved in human
rights abuses. So far at least, this gambit has failed to crack the solid front
of the military behind Maduro. Were this front to develop cracks, it is
uncertain how long Maduro and his supporters could hold out against the
opposition agitators in the streets, possible inter-military fighting, and
threatened invasion by the US from neigbouring countries.
If the military remains united, disciplined and consistent
in its support for Maduro, this may give pause to US plans for a military
intervention or, horrifyingly, may persuade Washington to go for a bigger
military intervention (‘shock and awe’). In either case, were Maduro to be overthrown
by the US and its local tools, there is no ruling out the descent of Venezuela
into a civil war with devastating consequences for its people and the region.
The imperialist hegemon the US, with Europe and the Latin
American right in tow, is carrying on its traditional long standing policy of
intervention, military and hybrid, in Venezuela as the last bastion of the
elected Left in the continent. It will be interesting to watch how the people
of Venezuela challenge this blatant interference and intervention in their
sovereign internal affairs. Watch this space.
rashed-rahman.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment