By Siyabonga Hadebe (Twitter @siyazi)
This week saw Venezuelans going to polls for first time after the death of its charismatic leader, Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías (also known simply as Hugo Chávez). Venezuelans had an opportunity of upholding the legacy of Chavez or ditching it.
While Chavez was still alive his expansive social programs and ‘cooperation for oil’ diplomacy did not receive total support from Venezuelan people. For example one man got into trouble a few years ago for wearing a t-shirt with derogatory words aimed at the Bolivarian revolution: ‘Hugo me cago en tu revolucion‘ (I s**t on your revolution) [follow this link for a portrait – http://aperturaven.blogspot.mx/2010/11/la-franela-del-mensaje-contra.html%5D
Opposing or differing opinions are fine and legitimate as long as they occur within the parameters of the law. Problems with opposition politics in Venezuela, and many developing nations, start when an ‘invisible hand’, in the form of external forces, interfere in local politics with a view of imposing a ‘friendly’ leader.
For a long time, Venezuelan opposition did not want to participate in elections during the early years of the Chavez presidency. It was not until 2006 that they decided to contest in elections. Chavez kept on defeating them, to the frustration of their sponsor, the United States government.
Eva Golinger claims, “Since Hugo Chavez won his first presidential elections in 1998, the US government has been trying to remove him from power. With multimillion-dollar investments, every year Washington’s agencies advise and aid anti-Chavez groups with their campaigns and strategies against the government.”
Golinger also explains, “Despite multiple attempts, including a coup d’etat in 2002 that briefly ousted President Chavez, their efforts have been in vain. The Venezuelan President’s popularity continues to rise and opposition leaders have failed to convince constituents of their plans. The latest polls show Chavez’s support above 57%, while the opposition fails to even reach 20%.” He was a favorite until death early this year.
The political direction of South America in general, or the so-called “pink tide”, ushered a new era of socialist ideals in many countries, and also marked an increased antagonism towards the United States. This stands in sharp contrast to its debilitating and destructive strategies from the 1960s to the late 1980s. During the Cold War, the United States treated Latin America as its backyard, and supported cruel dictators and military governments that suppressed dissenting voices. The US military overran small Central American countries and caused irreparable damage and destruction. The intention of this ugly policy was to prevent “another Cuba” in the Americas.
The new generation of Latin American leaders are not afraid of showing Uncle Sam the middle finger.
Leaders Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, and Chavez emerged in the 2000s to become a strong political voice, whose hostilities towards the Latin American upper class and the US are well documented. Their collective power and their strong ties with Cuba continue to unsettle the United States.
The voice of the US in the Organization of American States (OAS) continues to wane as a result of the ‘unruly’ Latin American countries. Isaac Bigio explains, “Venezuela has been able to organize in the last ten years a coalition of countries which are critical of the United States.It is a driving force in the Western hemisphere in opposition to the United States and if Maduro can win the election he will consolidate the Venezuela axis with Cuba and Nicaragua, Bolivia and also the fact that Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and other countries in the region are a little bit independent from the United States.”
Unfortunately for Washington they can no longer support militias in Latin America as they did after the Cuban Revolution in 1959. The strategy now is not necessarily different from sponsoring violent movements, as it “feeds the internal conflict [in these countries] through the consolidation of an opposition movement.”
The US wants unhindered access to Latin American strategic resources such as oil as it did in the past. Venezuela, in particular, has the largest oil reserves on the planet and remains one of the top suppliers of oil to the United States.
The gift of nature makes Venezuela a very soft, brittle target.
Many sources claim that Venezuela remains very high on the US agenda for regime change. For example, in 2012 Washington spent US$20 Million for the Venezuelan Opposition to topple that country’s democratically elected leadership, which also enjoys support by the majority of that country’s population. This money went to anti-Chavez groups mainly in Caracas, and the Russian television station RT purports that the US government once boasted that non-governmental organizations in different parts of the world, were an extension of its foreign policy. US embassies, like the one in Caracas, pull the strings and are at the centre of these corrupt and despicable tendencies.
The United States play a dangerous game of using democracy promotion as disguise for regime change.
Following this week’s elections one can surmise that Washington is displeased with Nicolas Maduro’s victory. Already, the coalition of opposition parties that challenged Maduro and lost elections for a second time in less than eight months has rejected the election results. Herique Capriles also stood against Chavez last October and lost by a huge margin. But this time the difference between candidates was marginal – just 1.6 percentage points, or about 275,000 votes.
The opposition has reasons to complain. It is unimaginable that Capriles and his comrades could spend on yet another election in less than a year and not win. This leads to an important question: Is it the same funders who sponsored the two elections? If yes, what do they stand to benefit? In addition to funding from Washington, the capitalist class in that country never lost hope in displacing Chavismo,and rolling-out major privatization of state-owned entities, especially the oil sector. Generally speaking, the rise of left-leaning governments in countries such as Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Argentina, meant that the largely white, dominant opulent class in Latin American lost privileges.
Together with Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Argentina benefit handsomely from affordable and cheap oil grants from Caracas. Thus, anti-Bolivarians also wanted the Venezuelan government to stop supplying oil to its neighbors. Against the existing weak global economic environment and susceptible macro-economic fundamentals found in these countries it means that Maduro’s loss would have put them in a serious jeopardy. In turn and important, this would have plunged the whole region into chaos. Internally, it would also imply dire consequences for the poor neighborhoods or barrios in the capital, that were principal beneficiaries of the social programs.
Irresponsible US foreign policy creates a social burden for countries that have gone involuntary political change. The outcomes of regime change in Libya, Iraq and possibly Syria have been dire for local populations. For example, Iraqis live in abject poverty and the productive sectors are complete disarray. Meanwhile, the ‘compradors’ and their foreign sponsors remove Iraqi oil without any hindrances to quench the thirst of consumers abroad. The looters don’t share the proceeds from oil with citizens, and thus plunging the entire population even deeper into appalling suffering.
The claims of external destabilization through opposition in Venezuela are not as far-fetched as many would think. Capriles was involved in the coup d’état that tried to overthrow Chavez a decade ago.
If Maduro had lost the election this week it would lead Venezuela to a change in the direction of the United States, and a change that would have affected the entire region and even the situation of the United States in the entire world.
Venezuelans have spoken, may they be left in peace and govern their country as they please.
Venezuelans must be applauded for saving the entire Latin American (and the Caribbean) region from becoming the United States of Anarchy, at least for now.
Jaywalking Political Discussions 