Although I'm probably not giving sufficient credit to Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio for his role in this very dubious operation.
Aljazeera reported yesterday on the situation on the ground in Venezuela, Rival rallies held in Venezuela as political crisis continues 02/12/2019:
Following are some general observations about the current stage of the Venezuelan crisis.
Venezuela has the largest known petroleum reserves of any country in the world.
Oil has driven the United States' policy toward Venezuela in the past and will continue to do so for a long time. This is not just a matter of cupidity by oil company executives, though there is always an abundent supply of that. It's also about the geostrategic clout that oil gives Venezuela when oil prices are strong.
Venezuela is a petrostate, i.e., its economy is very much dominated by the oil industry. Being a petrostate is both a blessing and a curse.
Rocio Cara Labrador provides a helpful primer on what a petrostate is, with special reference to Venezuela's situation, Venezuela: The Rise and Fall of a Petrostate Council of Foreign Relations 01/24/2019.
The focus of her analysis from a couple of weeks ago is the situation in the current downterm. But its a great summary of the "petrostate" phenomenon.
American reporting on Venezuela and on Latin America more geneerally is poor.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, American news services drastically reduced their foreign coverage. US government priorities generally drive the attention of the press on foreign stories. And relations with Latin America generally became relatively less of a priority for the US since 1989.
Here's a partial example. The American Prospect has a current story by Manuel Madris, Trump Is Tough on Venezuela -- but Won’t Let Fleeing Venezuelans Into the U.S. 02/12/2019 on the Trump-Pence Administration's unwillingness to admit signficant numbers of refugees from Venezuela, even though the Pence-Bolton-Abrams troika are running a bold regime change operation there which will almost certainly wind up increasing the already significant number of refugees from there.
Whenever we think about the effects of a proposed or actual war, regime change operation, or civil war, an always relevant question is, how many refugees is it likely to generate, what countries will wind up receiving them (voluntarily or otherwise), and who will cover the cost of the refugee operations?
This piece actually does look at the refugee issue and provides important factual information about it. But the framing of the article is not the best, because it's unclear about Venezuela's status as a petrostate. For instance, the problem of criminal violence that Madris has been a real one in Venezuela even before the oil price downturn. (See my post, Venezuelan actress Mónica Spear's murder becomes a national political shock 01/11/2014) And it's a problem related to Venezuela's petrostate status that Labrador's piece describes.
It's really strange that local coup leader Juan Guaidó is out giving speeches and holding rallies, while not having any actual control over the executive agencies of the government, calling for the overthrow of the real existing government headed by President Nicolás Maduro, and openly saying he might want foreign military intervention, and in three weeks Maduro's government has made no apparent move to arrest him.
I don't know what to make of this. It could be that the government is worried about giving the US an excuse to intervene militarily. Or hoping that the coup leaders will make such fools of themselves that they will lose all credibility. Or worried that a crackdown might provoke some significant portions of the military to flip to the Pence-Bolton-Abrams-Rubio-Guaidó faction. Or actually hoping for a settlement that doesn't set off large scale civil violence. Or is waiting for a "firing on Fort Sumter" moment to proceed against the coup participants under circumstanes where the coup leaders are more clearly seen as provoking the clash.
At some point, letting this go on, with an alternative "president" running around the capital city threatening to call in foreign troops to overthrow the government, will be seen by foreign actors and even Maduro's own supporters as weakness. Something's got to give. An internally negotiated settlement for United Nations supervised new elections looks like the most promising peaceful solution. How likely that is at this point, I don't know. It seems like a long shot.
This is a seriously risky situation for the United States.
To quote the Council of Foreign Affairs' Rocio Cara Labrador again (Maduro’s Allies: Who Backs the Venezuelan Regime? 02/05/2019):
Venezuela remains a strategic political foothold for Russia as it seeks to offset U.S. influence in Latin America and elsewhere. ...She is looking there at major power allies of the Maduro government. But a military intervention by the US or its local allies in Venezuela would also have signficant, decades-long repercussions on US relations to Latin America. Blowback happens. And here we're talking about blowback involving the country with the largest known oil reserves in the world.
Russia is Venezuela’s largest supplier of weapons, having sold the country more than $10 billion in hardware since the mid-2000s, including assault rifles, jet fighters, tanks, and missile systems. The two nations also conduct joint military exercises, and Russian jets and warships make regular stopovers. ....
China has been Venezuela’s other major financial crutch. It views the socialist regime in Venezuela as a geopolitical ally and an important trading partner. ...
US policy toward Latin America has been friendly to right-leaning governments under both the Bush and Obama Administration, and is becoming more aggressively so under the Trump-Pence Administration.
That's how it is. And in practice, that means support for the ruinous IMF/Washington Consensus/neoliberal economic dogma. A prosperous Latin America with mutually respectful relationship among themselves and with the US would be a desirable thing for the Unites States. And it would also mean a better, more hopeful life for millions of Latin Americans. IMF economic policy doctrine won't get us there. Nor will a Teddy Roosevelt version of the Monroe Doctrine.
The current play with humanitarian aid by the coup managers is stunningly cynical.
The Red Cross and Red Crescent are being cautious about getting sucked into cooperating with the coup leaders' attempt to use humanitarian aid for regime change: Red Cross will not deliver humanitarian aid to Venezuela EFE 02/05/2019
"The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement reaffirm that in order to ensure the fulfillment of its exclusively humanitarian mission and, according to the fundamental principles of impartiality, neutrality and independence, it cannot take part in the initiatives to hand over assistance for Venezuela from Colombia," the two organizations said in a joint statement signed by the head of the IFRC Country Cluster for Andean Countries, Michele Detomaso, head of the ICRC delegation in Colombia, Christoph Harnisch, and president of the Colombian Red Cross, Judith Carvajal.The Red Cross/Red Crescent provides additional information on its website (Venezuela: focusing on humanitarian needs in a highly polarized environment 02/02/2019), "The International Committee of the Red Cross has been working in Venezuela for many years, focusing on meeting the humanitarian needs in the country. We are present on the ground, close to the Venezuelan people and working independently and in support of the Venezuelan Red Cross."
According to this report from Jerry Iannelli (The UN and Red Cross Keep Criticizing the Trump/Rubio Group's Moves on Venezuela Broward-Palm Beach New Times 02/12/2019), the UN as well as the Red Cross "recently warned the United States that its attempts to foment a coup or possible civil war in Venezuela will almost certainly make the situation worse rather than better."
No comments:
Post a Comment