Thursday, January 31, 2019

One week anniversary of the kinda-sorta coup in Venezuela

The strange coup attempt in Venezuela nominally headed by Juan Guaidó on Wednesday marked one week after Guaidó's self-proclamation as head of government. Of course, the process had been underway for a long time, with US policy having been adverserial in its least hostile moments to both the government of Hugo Chávez and that of his successor Nicolás Maduro, i.e, from 1999 to the present. The Cheney-Bush Administration backed a more traditional kind of coup in 2002 that fizzled out within a couple of days. But regime change efforts seem to have always been considered a viable option.

Jamie Galbraith wrote about how US pressure on the Chávez government continued after the failed coup attempt of April 2002 (Lötterdämmerung The American Prospect 12/16/2002):
[President George W.]Bush may be losing on another front. It appears that Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez is holding out in a tense struggle over the fate and future of democracy in that country. Chavez is bitterly opposed by Venezuela's upper crust, just as he is strongly supported by the poor. But as I write, the oil lockout has been at least partly broken; tankers have filled and sailed for the United States. The military has remained loyal, shops are open, subways are running and (mostly) peaceful crowds have gathered around the pro-coup commercial television stations. Perhaps most importantly, a sniper (like the provocateur most likely responsible for three killings at an anti-government rally last week) has not yet found President Chavez's range.

Clearly the United States is involved. A Uruguayan politician blew the whistle on a request for help from the administration in support of a coup. In a desperate move, Bush issued a public statement on Dec. 13 calling for early elections. But why? Unlike Bush himself, Chavez was elected. There is no reason for him to step down other than the intransigent opposition of the Venezuelan upper classes. The "rebellion of the spoiled brats," they are calling it. Canada quickly distanced itself from Bush's statement.

The American press has been even more than usually disgraceful on this matter, aligning itself uncritically with official disinformation. (my emphasis)
Pushing for regime change in Latin America has practically become an American tradition. Which Obama's conservative Latin American policy - which took a dim view of any Latin American government far enough to the left to use Keynesian economic policies - continued. The Obama-Biden Administration formally declared Venezuela a national security threat to the US. (Jeff Mason and Roberta Rampton, U.S. declares Venezuela a national security threat, sanctions top officials Reuters 03/09/2019)

This was a ridiculous level of threat inflation. It was true then and still true now that the consequences of US regime change efforts in Venezuela are likely to be far more damaging that any threat Veneuela has ever actually presented to US national security.

I wrote in mid-2017 about regime change indications in Venezuela under the Trump-Pence Presidency, "Zero hour" in the Venezuelan crisis? 07/22/2017:
Now the New Cold Warriors are publicly linking Venezuela to Russia. And the Cuban anti-Communists groups sometimes collectively referred to as "Miami" are pushing the idea of a US oil boycott aimed against Venezuela. They long since adopted Venezuela as a target for regime change efforts. Familiar names pop up among the Republicans prominent in the latest push to overthrow the Maduro government: Congressman Carlos Curbelo, Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Sen. Bob Menendez, Sen. Marco Rubio. And also one of our bestest Democratic friends, the payday loan industry's BFF, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. New York Democratic Congressman Gregory Meeks is also joining the (anti-Maduro) party.
And here we are, with the US having recognized a Veneuelan government that doesn't actually exist, i.e., has no control over the military or any other executive power. We could think of it as a government-in-exile, except that Juan Guaidó is still in Venezuela.

It's entirely possible that in the coming weeks, this coup attempt may turn out to be yet another neocon cluster****. It may be that the coup planners in Washington expected it to go more-or-less this way and that recognizing a figurehead as the head of government was just a prelude to sharply escalating sanctions and military intervention accompanied by covert activities by the US. In other words, the public can't tell right now if this is theater or a coup attempt gone wrong. The fact that John Bolton as National Security Adviser and Elliot Abrams as the "special envoy" to the coup operation are both involved is a virtual guarantee that the results will be bad.

This contemporary report on the failed 2002 coup gives some useful background on Special Envoy Abrams (Ed Vulliamy, Venezuela coup linked to Bush team Guardian 04/21/2002):
But the crucial figure around the coup was Abrams, who operates in the White House as senior director of the National Security Council for 'democracy, human rights and international operations'. He was a leading theoretician of the school known as 'Hemispherism', which put a priority on combating Marxism in the Americas.

It led to the coup in Chile in 1973, and the sponsorship of regimes and death squads that followed it in Argentina, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and elsewhere. During the Contras' rampage in Nicaragua, he worked directly to [Oliver] North.

Congressional investigations found Abrams had harvested illegal funding for the [Contras'] rebellion. Convicted for withholding information from the inquiry, he was pardoned by George Bush senior.
One bit of progress in the last couple of years in the US is that it's now common to at least think about how the pardon power can be used as a tool to obstruct justice.

I hope some part of the quality press in the US and elsewhere pay close attention to how resources publicly called "humanitarian aid" are actually used. I don't think anyone doubts that actual humanitarian aid is needed in Venezuela. But current and future US sanctions also imposes additional hardship on ordinary people in Veneuela. Because, let's face it, squeezing the civilian population is the actual goal of most such punitive sanctions, particularly when the countries imposing the sanctions are actively and publicly engaged in a regime change operation.

Nick Wadhams reports for Bloomberg News, U.S. Considering Humanitarian Corridor for Venezuela Aid, Envoy Says 01/30/2019:
“We’re making a big and growing humanitarian effort,” Elliott Abrams, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo’s special representative for Venezuela, told reporters in Washington on Wednesday. “The humanitarian corridor is something we are looking at, but of course it requires the cooperation of the regime. I don’t know how practical that is -- it hasn’t been possible to date.”

Abrams said the aid would be in addition to the $20 million Pompeo promised last week after the U.S. recognized National Assembly leader Juan Guaido as Venezuela’s interim president. He said there were two needs: immediate humanitarian relief and money to rebuild the country.
When Elliot Abrams starts talking about "humanitarian" aid, the safest assumption is that some dirty business is afoot. Actually, when Elliot Abrams starts talking about anything, the safest assumption is that some dirty business is afoot.

No government is likely to allow a hostile foreign power to put troops onto its territory under the guise of humanitarian assistance. Especially when the hostile power is pubicly threatening military intervention, which the Trump-Pence Administration is now doing.

One important diplomatic indicator to watch is the Grupo de Lima (Lima Group) was established in 2017 as an anti-Venezuelan bloc pressing for the removal of Nicolás Maduro as President of Venezuela including ón: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, México, Panamá, Paraguay y Peru. At this point, they are declining to sign up for military intervention, at least in public.

Other important factors to watch: the refugee issue and how it impacts Colombia and Brazil, in particular; the positions of Mexico and Uruguay, both of which still recognize Venezuela's real existing government under Maduro and are pressing for a negotiated settlement; what far-right Venezuelan and Cuban groups in the US are saying and doing (Jake Johnston, The “Cubanization” of U.S. Policy Towards Venezuela 03/26/2014); the positions of the pro-Maduro governments of Russia and China; and, moves to seize Venezuelan assets, particular Citgo, which is the US subsidiary of Venezuela's state-on oil company, PDVSA (Petróleos de Venezuela S.A.).

On the latter point, things like this are worth keeping in mind (Tim Johnson, U.S. yanks bank assets from Venezuela, lays ground for battle over Citgo McClatchy News 01/29/2019):
[F]ormer PDVSA executive, Horacio Medina, said less focus should be placed on the legalities of the Citgo seizure on behalf of the interim government.

“This is a problem that cannot be resolved 100 percent by legalistic means because it is a political problem,” Medina said.

Keeping creditors at bay and Citgo’s financial head above water is equally as important, Medina said. Among the major creditors are two Canadian mining companies, Cristallex and Rusoro Mining, both of which have sought to auction off parts of Citgo, and ConocoPhillips, which has seized some PDVSA assets in the Caribbean as part of efforts to be repaid by Venezuela.

Medina said he believed that Guaido should use some Venezuelan assets at his disposal now to make payments to the creditors. “I think this would be a tremendously important confidence-building gesture,” he said.

Payments to Rosneft [a government-controlled Russia oil company] on its secured collateral will be due in March, putting more pressure on Citgo’s finances. (my emphasis)
Maroc Cartolano asked a good question in the 01/29/2019 piece, Where Are Democratic 2020 Hopefuls on the Trump-Backed Coup Attempt in Venezuela? In These Times. Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard have both criticized the Trump-Pence regime change operation. So have Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren. Daniel Marans provides a more recent update in Where Democratic Presidential Contenders Stand On The Venezuelan Crisis Huffpost 01/30/2019. Kirsten Gillibrand supports recognizing Juan Guaidó, i.e., supports the Trump-Pence policy.

But this is the Democratic Party we're talking about. So if leading Democrats are being reserved in endorsing this regime change operation, that's a good sign. Not as good as publicly oposing a regime change. But definitely better than reflexively endorsing a policy that is sure to produce bad results, even terrible ones.

Here are a couple of notable Democratic tweets on the regime change operation:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi kept it vague and safe:
Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

1 comment:

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)