MADURO’S DECISION TO EXPEL THE EUROPEAN UNION’S AMBASSADOR TO VENEZUELA WAS JUSTIFIED AND CORRECT FROM A POLITICAL VIEWPOINT

Maduro’s expelling of the EU’s ambassador in Caracas was a response to the EU’s decision to sanction 19 Venezuelans for “undermining democracy” and alleged human rights abuse. The list included the governor of Zulia, the commander of the armed forces, the president and two other members of Venezuela’s electoral council, and two leaders of the Venezuelan opposition. Their real crime was their involvement in the December National Assembly elections which the radical opposition boycotted.

In spite of the recently announced sanctions imposed by the EU, the organization called on the Maduro government to reconsider its decision, stating “The EU profoundly regrets this decision, which will only lead to further international isolation of Venezuela.” The EU’s response was a clear display of arrogance. Any “developed” Western nation under similar circumstances would not have thought twice about reacting in tit-for-tat fashion.

Actually, Maduro had no real alternative but to retaliate by expelling the EU ambassador. Not doing so would have been a show of weakness. How would it look to those Chavistas who have been slapped with this unjust measure? How would Bernabé Gutiérrez and José Brito, the National Assembly deputies belonging to the opposition who were targeted by the EU’s measure, reacted? Maduro’s inaction would have jeopardized the relations between the Chavistas and those sectors of the opposition like Gutiérrez and Brito who are boldly facing up to the radical U.S.-supported opposition led by Juan Guaido and Leopoldo Lopez.

But there is another reason why Maduro's move was politically astute. Negotiations brokered by the EU and possibly Washington will likely occur sooner or later (hopefully sooner, in order to lift the deadly international sanctions). From the outset, Maduro has to publicly and explicitly make clear that regime change and rescheduling elections are not up for discussion. At this point, Venezuela’s position in the international community is stronger than in the four years of the Trump administration. There is a groundswell in favor of change, manifested in the Black Lives Matter movement, the Bernie Sanders’ campaign, the electoral triumph and expansion of the “Squad” congresspeople, Trump’s humiliating defeat in November and the failure of sanctions to achieve their objectives in country after country. Venezuela’s position is further bolstered by the complete discredit of Juan Guaidó due to well-documented acts of corruption and his regime change fiascos, and the EU’s own withdrawal of diplomatic recognition of Guaidó. Caracas’ failure to state clearly what is off the table and what is on the table of negotiations will result in a well-known scenario: the failure to reach any agreements after three months of negotiations, with the U.S.-appointed negotiators acting in bad faith, followed by Biden’s announcement backed by the EU of a stiffening of policy toward Venezuela. If Maduro makes clear from the outset that rescheduling elections is not negotiable, Washington negotiators will be limited as to how they can frame the issues.

In short, there are certain measures taken against Venezuela that are clearly unacceptable and should not be tolerated. Sanctions are one of them as is insistence on regime change in one form or another. Maduro was wise to make clear where he is drawing the line and just how far he is willing to go in order to improve relations with the imperial powers. 

 

U.S. international sanctions are a throwback to 16th-century piracy

José Ignacio Hernández, Juan Guaidó’s former special prosecutor, has announced that supposed victims of the FARC and the ELN will be demanding an indemnification derived from assets of the Venezuelan oil company PDVSA that were frozen in the United States. The opening case is that of the Colombian citizen Antonio Caballero who has had his demand against PDVSA accepted in a court of New York. Caballero is demanding that the court turn over $9,444,116 worth of PDVSA assets. He is basing his case on an anti-terrorist law promulgated under Trump that allows victims of terrorism to request compensation in the form of property impounded by the United States government. Caballero is claiming that the Venezuelan government is complicit in the alleged acts of terrorism carried out by the Colombian guerrilla movement.

 

All this speaks poorly of Juan Guaidó who has been unable to defend the very property – in this case Venezuela’s oil company CITGO – that was illegally turned over to him by the U.S. government. That Hernández, who teaches at Harvard University and has taught in the pro-business institute IESA located in Caracas, was first working for Guaidó and is now working against the interests of the Venezuelan nation, demonstrates the mixed loyalty, or rather the lack of any loyalty, of those working to destabilize Venezuela.

 

It is amazing that with so much rhetoric coming from the economic elite – dating back to the writings of the 18^th century ideologues of the rising bourgeoisie – on the sacred nature of private property, that none of its representatives are raising concern. Indeed, the seizure last August of gasoline from four Iranian oil tankers destined for Venezuela by the U.S. navy which is now being sold is another example of disrespect for property rights and of veritable piracy. What is really sad is not the violation of the principles of private property, but the immense suffering of all Venezuelans in the face of this complete disregard for national sovereignty.   

 

The New York Times slavishly tows the State Department line on Venezuela

A protest called by Juan Guaido on Youth Day, on Friday the 12th, got not much more than a handful of people. This, even though it was held in Caracas’ affluent and conservative east side. As the Venezuelan media pointed out, Guaidó’s loss of support has much to do with his turning a blind eye to widespread accusations of corruption involving the $100 million dollars he got last year from the U.S. government. Denunciations of the lack of any accountability whatsoever have been formulated even by those in the opposition camp. The NY Times’ “Weekend Briefing” written by Remy Tumin and Jeremiah Bogart had this to say:

 

“And two years ago in Venezuela, Juan Guaidó became a national hero by posing the most serious threat to date to the deeply unpopular president, Nicolás Maduro. Today, the adoring crowds are gone, but Mr. Guaidó is not giving up. “This has been a great sacrifice, but I’d repeat it a thousand times,” he insisted in an interview.”

 

Glorifying someone who has proven time and time again to be inept and is being denounced even by those who up to yesterday were his most vocal followers is not exactly an example of critical journalism. But when it comes to the NY Times’ reporting on Venezuela, this is par for the course.

THE DIVIDE ON THE U.S. LEFT AND WHAT’S BEHIND IT

The broadside against liberal politicians Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders by comedian and political commentator Jimmy Dore has opened a vitriolic debate among leftists. Dore called on Ocasio-Cortez to force Nancy Pelosi’s hand by insisting that she open a debate on Medicare for All in the House as a precondition for supporting her reelection as House Speaker. When this didn’t happen, Dore lashed out at her by calling her a “sellout” and a “liar” and “standing between” her constituents and health care. He also lambasted Bernie Sanders, though sparing him the harsh language used against OAC. 

I, like Bernie Sanders’s former press secretary Briahna Joy Gray, am in agreement with Dore’s “Force the Vote” proposal. But I totally reject his language as it basically labels AOC and Bernie Sanders part of the problem, rather than the solution. Their decision to work within the Democratic Party to an extent defines their positions and limits their messages. But there is nothing incompatible between viewing struggles within the Democratic Party as important and necessary and supporting the building of a third (progressive) party. 

But there is an elephant in the room which is being largely sidetracked in all the discussion on the left about Dore versus AOC. The elephant is nothing other than U.S. foreign intervention. While Dore, in my opinion, is wrong to not recognize the progressive credentials of AOC and Sanders, he is correct in pointing out that the moderate leftists (who he denies are on the left at all) have largely ignored foreign policy issues. And their refraining from raising these issues is much more than just a trivial omission. It is a major shortcoming and should be forcefully questioned. After all, U.S. sanctions against Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, Syria and elsewhere have had a devastating impact on the entire population of those countries. And U.S. “democracy promotion” programs bolster the position of those who oppose necessary change in their respective countries of the South and condemn them to continuous underdevelopment. And the enormous U.S. military budget, including the 800 U.S. military bases outside of the U.S., prod China and Russia into increasing their budgets in what has been an unannounced arms race with a ripple effect reaching all countries, large and small. 

It is not unfair to question the role of those progressives in the public light who avoid raising these issues. One example is the Young Turks podcast, which I listen to nearly every day. They provide excellent and entertaining coverage of domestic issues with cogent analysis, but they completely avoid issues of U.S. foreign policy. One may ask whether their audience consisting of tens of thousands of people would otherwise be listening to programs which do deal with such essential issues as U.S. intervention in the internal affairs of other countries. 

In short, Dore (in my opinion) has gone overboard in his language, his all-encompassing condemnation of progressives who aren’t radical enough for him, and his displays of sectarianism. But he is right in taking a close look at those on the left who avoid the issue of U.S. interventionism lest they be considered unkosher. Similarly, it is necessary to rebuke those who carefully and conveniently balance their criticism of U.S. foreign policy with criticism of governments such as those of Venezuela and Cuba, thus taking the edge off the anti-interventionist message. This aspect of Dore’s critique of the moderates is spot on.