It Is Impossible to be Neutral on Venezuela

Rafael Hidalgo Fernández, Orinoco Tribune, June 9, 2024 — 

As is customary since Hugo Chávez Frías triumphed in the 1998 presidential elections, all electoral disputes to reach the Miraflores Palace have been subject to strong international delegitimization campaigns, without exception, always at the initiative of the hegemonic core of the international right wing, which operates from the White House. The presidential election of July 28 is no exception to this rule.

Given the importance of the Bolivarian Revolution in the articulation progressive forces at the international level, the act of expressing support for it or not has both a political and ethical basis: either it plays into the hands of US objectives of domination in Venezuela, or it is radical as it attempts to prevent the restoration of the system of domination that Washington intends to achieve in Venezuela, with the additional perspective of having better conditions in the global dispute with China, Russia and other international actors that, by virtue of the very trends of globalization that Washington sought to capitalize on in Latin America and the Caribbean, they now see in it interlocutors and counterparts of primary importance. A key counterpart is Venezuela.

Consequently, supporting Venezuela and its Bolivarian Revolution means concretely confronting the application of the Monroe Doctrine in its contemporary expressions south of the Rio Grande, and at the same time providing elements in favor of the continuity of a political experience that preserves and honors the uniting and integrative vision of Simón Bolívar.

Practicing this unambiguous solidarity would indicate coherence, an essential ethical attribute for leftist and progressive forces to enforce their positions in this part of the world which is considered vital by the US for its natural resources.

This has been made explicit, more than once, by the outgoing head of the Southern Command, Laura Richardson: one of them in a video recorded for the Atlantic Council, in January 2023, in which she alludes to the importance of the lithium triangle for the US; to Venezuela’s oil, gold and copper reserves; to the rare earths that are fundamental for technology (read for the US), and in which she uttered a phrase typical of the most classic Monroeism: “we have 31% of the world’s fresh water in this region.”

However, there is another historical reason for the left: to be consistent with the emancipatory content of the revolutionary process that led to the electoral victory of Hugo Chávez Frías in 1998.

Chávez, an authentic Bolivarian and a man of exceptional human and political sensitivity, knowledgeable of the deep cultural values ​​and demands of the humble majorities of his people, and possessor of proven revolutionary convictions, first proposed modifying the rules of operation of the Venezuelan political system, which until that moment was at the service of the elites that emerged around oil income, and promoted reversing the equation based on the redistribution of the nation’s wealth, to favor the excluded majorities. That was his initial goal between 1998 and 2001.

The aspiration to achieve a convincing policy of social inclusion and, with it, the greatest amount of happiness possible for his people, as Bolívar demanded in his time, immediately became the principal focus of the process of political changes in Venezuela. At the same time, it was the subjective factor that enabled a rapid politicization of vast excluded sectors of the society that, a decade earlier, had been protagonists of the Caracazo, an authentic social revolt born from those who wanted something more than bread.

For the latter, apparently it was only enough for Chávez to defend that they have the option of having their own name and institutional alternatives to claim their rights as full citizens. Otherwise, the popular support that reversed the coup in April 2002, sponsored by the US and carried out by an opposition determined to usurp power in the hands of a State that prioritizes its humble majorities, would not have been possible.

The political synthesis of what happened in April 2002 has elements of validity for today: on April 11, the neoliberal restoration failed due to lack of mass support and other factors. April 13 confirmed that the ideas of freedom and dignity, once installed in the people, can be transformed into forces with a mobilizing potential that not even revolutionaries themselves are able to assess sometimes.

This potential for emancipatory changes, which remains as valid 25 years later, in the midst of the marches and countermarches typical of any process of revolutionary transformations, constitutes another underlying reason for the international left to give the Bolivarian Revolution all possible support. How will the revolution’s protagonists achieve the changes they need and at what pace? These are components that belong to the field of sovereignty and self-determination of peoples.

Brothers and sisters should not be abandoned in moments of danger, nor should changes be demanded of them in these circumstances that only concern them. Nobody escapes, moreover, the need to make rectifications in their own field. At this point, it is worth underlining the weight of non-interference and the special importance it has in the field of political relations. Benito Juárez, the Mexican sovereignist hero, made it explicit in his famous phrase: “Respect for the rights of others is peace.”

The Venezuelan authorities, headed by Nicolás Maduro, need internal and external peace to carry out the changes that society demands of them, a society that has become exponentially politicized in these 25 years. Everything indicates that they have sufficient political and mass strength to continue leading the nation.

This explains, to a high degree, why the US elites and their Venezuelan allies persist in plotting assassinations and incessant campaigns of lies to delegitimize the Venezuelan authorities as well as to isolate them internationally. This line of action was reinforced once it became clear that Maduro was not as weak as they thought he was after the 2013 elections, and then in the 2018 elections, nor was it possible to subdue him through pressure and psychological blackmail.

In essence, we are facing a political-electoral scenario with marked cards, once again. The Bolivarians, like their external and internal adversaries, know perfectly well that, with the 31st election in the last 25 years, they are fighting for control of power to guide the destinies of Venezuela for the next six years.

Deciphering the ongoing events requires a calm outlook, a search for objective and verifiable data, and the most challenging thing for some international left-wing political sectors conditioned by highly complex internal political-electoral contexts: assuming the political costs of being consistent in supporting the strategic ally.

It is also key to emphasize that, for the United States and its Venezuelan allies, it is vital to regain control of the natural wealth of Venezuela, in order to restore the system of privileges that they held during the 20th century and the earliest years of the 21st century. Along these lines, the pro-democracy discourse that they officially defend is simply the immediate resource to cover up their underlying intentions, among which are:

• Eliminate the examples of rebellion, dignity and courage that the Venezuelan people and their leaders have shown in these difficult years.
• Prevent the country’s authorities from being able to successfully use the country’s vast natural resources to achieve the changes that its unprecedented political experience demands of it.
• Eliminate from the leftist and progressive forces of the continent its strategic rearguard that is the Bolivarian Revolution.
• By defeating the PSUV and the left allied to it, stop the vigorous presence of investments from China, Russia and other countries that understand the potential of the countries of Latin America, the Caribbean, and Venezuela in particular, as forces of active multilateralism that the world needs.
• Achieve the restoration of the historical US dominion over a “backyard” that is no longer on the terms the US wants and needs, and that Venezuela and Cuba, among others, prevent it from being.

In these circumstances, the international revolutionary, left-wing and progressive camp has only one ethical option consistent with the principled discourse it usually uses: supporting the Bolivarian Revolution. From the US and its allies, you can anticipate what they will do. However, the new electoral dispute will be settled in Venezuela, not in Washington or Brussels or in any capital of Latin America or the Caribbean. Only Venezuelans will decide their future.

*

(Granma)