In George Orwell’s 1984, the dictatorship of Oceania
controlled perceptions by continuous propaganda broadcast through the
“telescreen” and constant updating of news print so that the past
would conform to the lies of the present. The device used to discard
any document contradicting the fakery of the present was called a
“memory hole.”
Orwell was acutely aware of the fact that empire
thrives on imperial amnesia and constant historical revision of the
past by the powerful. He knew that citizens would be much easier to
control if they were forced to live in an eternal present — a place
where it would be impossible to critically assess and compare today’s
world by looking at what happened yesterday and the day before.
In the 21st century, we have constructed our own kind
of Orwellian memory holes. The global nexus of economic and political
powers in neoliberal corporate capitalist states and international
bodies tend to view critical and historical consciousness as an
impediment, if not an outright threat, to their hegemony. The reason
is obvious: an informed, critical consciousness is the foundation
upon which any flourishing democracy is built — where the “political”
is understood as government of, by and for all citizens, not merely
in the interests of the wealthy or powerful few.
No doubt, this was why the Wall Street
Journal, Bloomberg News and The
New York Times, could, without a hint of irony, claim
that U.S. democracy was “undone” because a foreign power put Trump
into office, while simultaneously praising Venezuela’s opposition
leader Juan Guaidó after he
received a directive from Vice President Mike Pence that he should
just forget about elections and declare
himself president.
Gore Vidal once said, “ … we are
permanently the United States of Amnesia. We learn nothing because we
remember nothing.” Yet, even in the U.S., it is still possible to
uncover a “history of the present” where Central and South America
are concerned. If you are prepared to put in the necessary time and
effort, you can discover the truths and realities of a past that many
of those in power would rather you just forget.
Here’s one of the key geopolitical lessons you’ll
learn: The U.S. empire and its regime change proxies — the Organization of American States(OAS)
and the Lima Group — have never had
much interest in or respect for the sovereignty of any Central or
South American country that did not show the proper level of
obedience to the U.S. government and corporate interests. This
imperialist perspective goes back to the 1823 Monroe Doctrine when the
U.S. determined that only it had the moral
authority to say who should be in power in its “own back yard.”
Reacting to the Monroe Doctrine, Simon Bolivar, the great
revolutionary who helped South America gain independence from Spanish
rule, accurately predicted that the U.S. was “destined to plague and
torment the continent in the name of ‘freedom.’” Bolivar’s prediction
has been borne out time and again as the U.S. imposed economic
sanctions and funded right-wing military dictatorships in Honduras,
Panama, Cuba, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Chile, the Dominican Republic, El
Salvador and Venezuela.
Pence’s intervention in the affairs of a foreign state
follows on the heels of a long tradition of U.S. economic and
military interventionism in Central and South America. The dictators
put in place — from Nicaragua’s Anastasio Somoza García,
Honduras’s Roberto Suazo Córdova and Roberto Micheletti,
Panama’s Manuel Noriega and
Chile’s Augusto Pinochet — all had
one and only one objective: to turn what were once social democracies
into subservient satellite states so that the U.S. might then gain
access to resources and oil, privatize state assets, and impose what
journalist and author Naomi Klein has accurately described as
“neoliberal shock therapy.”So long as Abrams
is the U.S.’s “special envoy,” there will not be anything remotely
“democratic” or “humanitarian” in U.S. aid.
But empire is also aided and abetted by the hypocrisy
of allies that cower before imperialist states while pretending that
they subscribe to the norms of international law. Canada, Austria,
Portugal, Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands
and Sweden have all endorsed Guaidó’s claim to a de
jure presidency, while Italy, Mexico, Ireland and
Greece have, so far, refused to go along. The latter group of
countries likely concluded what anyone with even a minimal
understanding of international law would be forced to conclude:
Guido’s actions were an illegal and undemocratic attempt to usurp a
democratically elected president. Despite this, the Lima Group has
not only signed a Declaration which
recognizes Guaidó as the de jure interim
president, it also included in this declaration a measure that
prevents the Maduro regime “from conducting financial and trade
transactions and doing business with their oil, gold, and other
assets.”
In a Washington Post opinion piece, Guaidó
outlined the case for his self-appointment as de
jure president of Venezuela. The only problem is
that the de jure constitutional
foundation Guaidó relies upon expressly designates the vice
president — not the president of the National
Assembly — as the next in line should the president not be able to
carry out his duties. Article 233 of Venezuela’s
constitution also elaborates just when this can occur:
The President of the Republic shall become permanently
unavailable to serve by reason of any of the following events: death;
resignation; removal from office by decision of the Supreme Tribunal
of Justice; permanent physical or mental disability certified by a
medical board designated by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice with the
approval of the National Assembly; abandonment of his position, duly
declared by the National Assembly; and recall by popular vote.
One need not be a constitutional expert or even a
lawyer to see that not one of the six criteria apply with respect to
the legitimacy of Nicolás Maduro’s presidency: Maduro has not left
this world, he has not resigned, abandoned his position or been
removed by the Supreme Tribunal. He has no permanent physical or
mental disability, and finally, has not been recalled by popular
vote.
Moreover, even if one of the above events occurred, it
would still be the case that an election would have to be held within
30 days of an interim president being appointed — something which is
obviously not of great concern to Guaidó, since he has already
declared himself the de jure, if not de
facto president of Venezuela.Those who still hold to
the ideals of the Bolivarian revolution grasp that their present woes
are the consequence of debilitating U.S. economic sanctions.
Guaidó is not the de
jure president — unless what is meant by de
jure is someone who declares that he is a “law unto
himself.” Think about Guaidó in this context for a moment. Someone
who has never been elected by anyone can declare himself as “interim
president” so long as he is recognized by political leaders that
exist outside of his or her
country. This is assumed to be in keeping with the notion of “popular
sovereignty,” with democracy, with constitutional legitimacy?
What of Maduro’s refusal of so-called humanitarian aid
from the U.S.? Former United Nations rapporteur Alfred de Zayas has said
that a country which imposes illegal sanctions and has waged an
economic war on Venezuela for 20 years is certainly not giving aid in good faith.
One need only look at the history of U.S. “aid” to Central and South
America to know that it is rarely, if ever, “humanitarian.”
It was that wonderful “humanitarian” and “fierce advocate for human rights and democracy”
Elliot Abrams who, in 1987, cooked up the U.S. plot to use a
humanitarian program to send military arms to the contra death squads
in Nicaragua. Abrams, Trump’s recent appointee as special
representative for Venezuela, might be the textbook case of a war criminal. A well-known
supporter of torture, death camps and decapitation, Abrams did
everything he could to ease the way for Guatemalan dictator Efraín
Ríos Montt to commit acts of genocideagainst
Indigenous people of the Ixil region; he lied to Congress about the
Iran-Contra scandal; he propped up a dictator in El Salvador and
cheered on the military coup against the democratically elected
government of Venezuela in 2002.
So long as Abrams — one of the most radical and
depraved architects of U.S. foreign policy in Central America — is
the U.S.’s “special envoy,” you can be fairly sure that there will
not be anything remotely “democratic” or “humanitarian” in U.S. aid
to Venezuela.
OK then, what about the charge that the 2018 election
in Venezuela was “fraudulent and undemocratic”? Article 350 of Venezuela’s
constitution calls for citizens to “disown any regime, legislation or
authority that violates democratic values.” For this to happen, both
the national and international community must unite behind a
transitional government that will guarantee humanitarian aid, ensure
that the rule of law is restored and begin to hold democratic
elections. However, there just isn’t any unity of
opinion outside or inside Venezuela, so the very idea that this
article is being relied upon as grounds for recognizing Guaidó as
the de jure president is
completely unfounded.The U.S. did everything possible to undermine
the 2018 election, precisely so they could later claim that it was
“fraudulent and undemocratic.”
Why? Venezuela is a federal presidential republic, and
like most democracies, it is grounded on the separation of powers,
with government divided into three branches: legislative, executive
and judicial. The legislative branch, or National Assembly, declared
Maduro illegitimate on the day of his second inauguration. However,
the judiciary, the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (the highest court of
law in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, empowered to invalidate
any laws, regulations or other acts of the other governmental
branches conflicting with the constitution) has countered that this
latter declaration was itself unconstitutional.
This is the sort of internal constitutional conflict
that any country has the right to work out for
themselves, without any sort of external pressure or
interference. Are there Venezuelans who oppose the Maduro government?
Of course, there are — and there is no shortage of newspapers in
Venezuela fiercely critical of the Maduro regime. That is not likely
something most “dictators” would permit. The
problem is that the international media focused almost exclusive attention on opposition
protests. Those who still hold to the ideals of the
Bolivarian revolution grasp that their present woes are not only a
result of Maduro’s policies, but much more the consequence of
debilitating U.S. economic sanctions which are precisely intended to
accelerate the collapse of Maduro’s government. What Venezuelans need
now is not more imperialist economic interventions or declarations
that Venezuela is a national security threat, but rather
some level of recognition that the 67 percent of those who supported
Maduro might be capable of determining what is best for their
country.
The National Electoral Council declared Maduro the
winner of the elections and president of Venezuela until 2025.
Secondly, a majority of authorized parties that ran were
not supporters of Maduro; 11 of them were opposed to
his government. Those parties prevented from running were not
excluded because they opposed Maduro, but because they violated
election and constitutional law. Thirdly, many of the right-wing
parties that did not run were told not to do so by
the U.S., which argued that their participation would give legitimacy
(i.e. democratic standing) to an election that the U.S.
declared in advance was not going
to be democratic or fair. Fourthly, not only did the U.S. encourage
opposition parties to boycott the 2018 election, they also demanded
that the domestic opposition parties in Venezuela tell the United
Nations not to send election observers — against the
wishes of the Maduro government. In short, the U.S. did everything
possible to undermine the 2018 Venezuelan election, precisely so they
could later claim that it was “fraudulent and undemocratic.” That has
essentially been the norm since the very early days of Hugo Chavez.
Chavez did the unthinkable from the point of view of
any goodthinkful neoliberal:
he nationalized Venezuelan oil for the benefit of the Venezuelan
people; he defied the U.S. and impertinently stood as a socialist
counter-example for other Latin American populations to emulate. That
kind of political and economic independence simply could not be
tolerated by the corporatized U.S. empire.What would have happened in
2000 had Al Gore declared himself the de
jure president of the United States?
Such upstart socialist initiatives were enough for
Venezuela to be considered an “extraordinary national security
threat” and Chavez to be designated a “dictator” — despite being
elected with 56 percent of the vote in
1999 and later elected with 59 percent support in 2004.
Would the same conclusion be drawn with respect to two recent U.S.
presidents (George W. Bush and Donald Trump) where the winner of the
election actually lost the “popular vote”— a more direct and
democratically representative assessment of voter support?
There may well have been irregularities in the last
Venezuelan election. Then again, there have been well-documented
irregularities, voter suppression and
even fraud in a good number of
U.S. elections. What do you imagine would have happened in 2000 had
Al Gore declared himself the de jure president of the
United States and Austria, Canada, Portugal, Britain, Denmark,
France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands and Sweden recognized him as
such? Any such suggestion would be laughable.
None of this is meant to excuse the Maduro government
— nor, for that matter, the Chavez government. Both are guilty of
mismanaging the economy and relying almost exclusively on oil
revenues rather than diversifying Venezuela’s economy. Their narrow
economic approach certainly gave rise to a state of hyperinflation, a
dysfunctional currency problem and the inevitable political
corruption that follows from all this. However, it is also crucial to
understand that oil companies, the World Bank, the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and the United States held Venezuela’s economy
hostage before Chavez even came to power. As economist Michael Hudson reminds us,
what Chavez was unable to do was “clean up the embezzlement and
built-in rake-off of income from the oil sector. And he was unable to
stem the capital flight of the oligarchy, taking its wealth and
moving it abroad — while running away themselves.”
By further imposing economic sanctions
that prevented Venezuela from gaining access to its U.S. bank
deposits and the assets of its state-owned Citgo, the U.S. made it
virtually impossible for Venezuela to pay its foreign debt. This
forced the Chavez government into default, and at the same time,
became the perfect excuse to foreclose on Venezuela’s oil resources
and seize its foreign assets.
The ultimate goal of U.S. foreign policy has always
been to impose economic shock therapy on weaker nations so that other
social democracies in Central and South America don’t get the idea
that they can use their own natural resources for the benefit of
their citizens. Indeed, Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, has made no
secret of the fact that U.S. intervention in Venezuela is not about
democracy, but about oil and the exploitation of Venezuela’s natural
resources. This became all too evident after Guaidó began to make
moves to privatize the country’s state-owned oil company by seeking money
from the economic arm of global neoliberalism: the IMF.
It is indeed time for Maduro to open a new dialogue
with both those who have been left out and other progressive voices;
it is time for him to put forward a new economic program that meets
the crisis of inflation, and speaks to the pain and dislocation of
ordinary Venezuelans. This would require the kind of thoughtful
diplomacy that has always been in short supply in U.S. foreign
relations. The current strategy of the U.S., the OAS and the Lima Group
is to ensure that Maduro is unable to resolve Venezuela’s problems.
With help from a subservient mainstream media and compliant Western
states, they will try their best to make the Bolivarian revolution
disappear down the memory hole. We must not
let that happen.
|
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire