Venezuela and the Issue of National Government

In the past week, the confrontation between forces loyal to National Assembly President Juan Guaidó, the opposition leader, and Nicolás Maduro, whose presidency has been challenged, continued. The confrontation between the two has led to a state of suspension and waiting after a rapid peak. Statements by "Elliott Abrams," the U.S. Special Representative for Venezuela, in the Senate Intelligence Committee last Thursday were interpreted as indicating that officials are not hopeful about resolving the Venezuelan issue, at least in the short term. Abrams emphasized the lack of U.S. military intervention in Venezuela but considered the recognition of Guaidó by 50 countries as evidence of his legitimacy and Maduro's inevitable defeat. He confirmed that the Maduro government has caused the displacement of over three million Venezuelans, of whom about 72,000 have fled to the United States. He noted that Maduro's actions, such as burning donated food trucks to prevent them from reaching starving people, symbolize his indifference and incompetence (though a recent report suggests the trucks may have caught fire accidentally due to negligence). Food and distribution of food have, of course, become political issues in the special situation of Venezuela. Maduro's wrong policies have driven inflation to about one million percent. However, instead of seeking solutions to this issue, it seems he is politically exploiting this national disaster, and his supported networks have become responsible for food distribution in the country, primarily benefiting those who support Maduro and participate in staged protests and elections. On the other hand, according to a New York Times report, the dispatch of food supplies from the U.S. has been criticized as a political tool, with some Colombian officials, from where the food is sent, expressing their opposition. A prevailing argument is that the purpose of sending food trucks is not only to support Guaidó and break the military's monopoly on distribution but also, anticipating resistance from Maduro's supporters, this move aims to create chaos and conflict, ultimately leading to military confrontation. Currently, another method of distribution through Colombia's long maritime border is being considered. Many observers, especially Europeans, protest any kind of U.S. intervention, particularly during the Trump era. They believe that the attack on Iraq without any logical justification and the destruction of an independent government led to the disruption of the existing order and balance of power in the Middle East, serving as an example of American recklessness. While this view is based on recent realities, it does not consider that the U.S. military saved Muslim Bosnia from destruction by the Serbs. Advocates of interventionist policies and military actions, like Dick Cheney, George W. Bush's vice president, even argue that the Iraq war had valuable side effects, such as destroying the absolute dictatorship of the Ba'ath Party and preventing the establishment of a new monarchy/republic by bloodthirsty individuals like Saddam Hussein's sons, Uday and Qusay, ultimately leading to the establishment of a parliamentary republic. Europeans, however, largely agree on the illegitimacy of Maduro's government in Venezuela. The European Union stated in a resolution regarding the previous elections that "significant obstacles were created for the opposition and its leaders to participate in the elections. The National Electoral Council was unbalanced (referring to the absence of opposition parties and groups) and the electoral position was one-sided (created in favor of Maduro). Numerous reports of illegal activities on election day, such as vote-buying, were published, which altogether "prevented a fair election based on equality." Conversely, several independent journalists claimed that no intervention occurred in the elections and that "the electoral system in Venezuela is fundamentally uncorruptible." However, these journalists may have only seen a handpicked group of voters; otherwise, why would the opposition leader Leopoldo López (whom Guaidó is associated with) be under house arrest until today? It is a well-established fact that Hugo Chávez, by removing restrictions on presidential election terms, illegally filled the Supreme Court with his supporters and ultimately created pressure groups with financial and material assistance and various other actions for the poor, laid the groundwork for Maduro's dictatorship. Venezuela's democracy, the oldest of its kind in Latin America, was thus tarnished and then destroyed in the name of "socialism." Maduro's actions, such as banning any political protests, continue this anti-democratic coup. According to other critics, the entire dispute is about oil. Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world and is now practically outside the sphere of U.S. influence, entering into relations with Cuba, Russia, and Iran. The U.S. government does not tolerate this defiance. This can be confirmed by John Bolton's passing remark, Donald Trump's national security advisor, in a television interview where he said, "In this administration (Trump), we are not afraid to mention the 'Monroe Doctrine.'" He continued that the difference between Maduro's dictatorship and other dictatorships is that "Venezuela is located in our hemisphere, and the goal of establishing democracy in these countries dates back to the Reagan era." (Of course, he should have said it dates back to 1823, the year the Monroe Doctrine was established, famously known as "America for Americans.") This statement effectively legitimizes U.S. intervention in the internal affairs of countries in the Americas that Bolton sees as dictatorships. Russia and its satellites, of course, consider this an imperialistic claim and have protested it. However, on the other hand, it should be noted that Venezuela's instability has a direct effect on neighboring countries. The influx of at least three million refugees negatively impacts the region and, in the long term, a chaotic, hungry, and undemocratic country is a fertile ground for the growth of terrorist groups. Given the danger this poses to neighbors, one can imagine that a powerful Security Council, invoking Chapter VII of the UN Charter, could approve and execute military action against it, and if one of the five veto-holding powers were to veto, the Security Council could invoke the principle of "humanitarian intervention" to carry out military intervention in Venezuela. However, due to its flawed structure, the Council has acted independently in very few cases since its inception and has often implemented the opinions of great powers rather than the contrary. Labeling any action supported by the United States as interventionist and imperialistic is the common narrative of many leftist forces who consider any action by national governments, especially those in the Global South, legitimate, while conversely, any move by Western countries is deemed imperialistic (though in this context, the creeping imperialism of China is overlooked, and Russia's dominance, especially in the virtual realm, is entirely disregarded). Even when "Pol Pot" descended upon the poor Cambodian nation like a plague, destroying more than a third of the population as "Westernized," some leftist forces supported him. Ultimately, when famine and slaughter drove waves of people to flee to Vietnam, that government intervened militarily in Cambodia and overthrew the bloody rule of the "Khmer Rouge," saving the remaining people. This case, of course, was not criticized by the left because a Third World country attacked another of its kind. Many leftist forces divide the world into two realms of good and evil with quasi-religious reasoning. Currently, political forces in Venezuela are in a state of suspension. Juan Guaidó enjoys international support, and so far, 50 countries have recognized him as the president of his country. However, the suspicion that "Juan Guaidó is a puppet of the U.S." may have caused a decline in his supporters due to Venezuelans' nationalist sentiments. After returning from an ill-timed foreign trip, he expected a million-person welcome, but only a few greeted him. In subsequent demonstrations and counter-demonstrations, Maduro repeatedly called Guaidó a U.S. mercenary, thanked the military for preventing the "U.S.-engineered coup," and threatened to arrest Guaidó, while thousands were also demonstrating in support of Guaidó. At the same time, Maduro, who cannot fully trust the military, has hired new forces that operate in a "shoot to kill" manner. We observed examples of their operations in preventing the entry of donated food into the country. It seems we are witnessing an evolved form of tyranny that governs developing countries. In this model, opposition forces to the established government, according to the Leninist model, seize "the apex of power"—the sovereignty—through revolution, coup, or even elections. They immediately infiltrate the military or establish a second army of their supporters. By taking control of the country's resources through various means, especially through "nationalization," they drive away foreign investors, and on the other hand, by allocating subsidies to lower social classes and intimidating and driving out the productive and specialized sectors of society, they declare a "socialist" government, destroying all democratic and civil achievements of society. Then, under the pretext of fighting against imperialism, which supposedly moves to plunder their resources, they themselves and their cronies loot society and infiltrate the poor with quick welfare programs. However, the resulting economic chaos and the flight of capital and specialists from the country impoverish the entire society, making their patronage project easier. The "revolutionary government" hires multiple armed layers of urban poor and exploits them to suppress the people, thus denying its responsibility. Such a government can always rely on several countries, especially Putin's Russia, for external support. The majority of the people, to avoid worse, become resigned to the bad. The urban minority engaged in street and electoral struggles, among others, also faces persecution and intimidation and is accused of espionage and sowing discord, facing the innovative tactics of authoritarian governments, and since hope is lost from within, they sometimes wish for foreign intervention. This situation is immediately exploited by the authoritarian government, undermining the legitimacy of the social-political movement for justice. The continuation and vicious cycle of authoritarian rule is ensured. The views expressed in this note do not necessarily reflect the views of Radio Farda.