Venezuela 26
Without masks… and with neocolonial garnish
Without masks… and with neocolonial garnish
The U.S. Government, which claims to be a Democrat, is disrespected when three senators from President Joe Biden’s own party set up a virtual conference with an interlocutor lacking in merit and authority, such as the Venezuelan Juan Guaidó.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
The Government of the United States, which claims to be democratc, is disrespected when three senators of President Joe Biden’s own party set up a virtual conference with an interlocutor lacking in merit and authority, such as the Venezuelan Juan Guaidó. There, in addition to giving him guidance on the peace process and the upcoming elections, they put the neocolonial garnish of insults against the Government and the democratically-elected president, Nicolás Maduro Moros. Do they really believe they have the right to such action?
That such slips occurred in the Republican government of Donald Trump, although immoral, was contemplated as one more of those actions displayed by the president, where irrationality and fundamentalism were determinant.
It is incredible that, at this point in time, a Democratic administration in a country where law and order supposedly prevails, three members of Congress ignore everything and attack Venezuelan legislation and authorities and dare to establish a dialogue with a nobody like Guaidó.
The Yankees who protect him know very well that this gentleman has no capacity or morals whatsoever to speak and act on behalf of a country and a people against whom he has even asked for foreign military intervention since he has never been elected by Venezuelans to be their president.
Everything he does is illegal and illegitimate -including the money he takes or is allowed to take, in foreign banks where it remains as patrimony of the Bolivarian nation-.
Now it turns out that three legislators of the U.S. Congress, the number two of the Democratic majority in the Senate, Dick Durbin; the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Bob Menendez, and the head of the subcommittee for Latin America, Tim Kaine, met virtually with Guaidó, under the suthat they were providing guidance and listening to views of the “interim president” of Venezuela.
This was an interventionist action far from the system of international relations, of respect for the laws and in defiance of the vast majority of the Venezuelan people. They democratically elected Maduro as President and together with him participate in the construction of a more just and equitable society, where solidarity and love predominate. This is quite the opposite of the hatred and confrontation used as a banner by the U.S. administrations and their internal lackeys.
According to EFE news agency, the U.S. senators and Juan Guaidó spoke about the “political impasse” facing Venezuela.
And that statement of “dead-end” could say it all, since both those in Washington who fabricated an “interim president”, as well as the character selected to carry that label, could be feeding ideas from the years of Donald Trump -and still present today-, of seeking a “solution” to unblock the dead-end with armed intervention, through the volatile border with Colombia. Interference is done “with a mask off” and with neo-colonial dressing, even though we are in the 21st century.
Diaz-Canel speech to Ibero-American Summit
In Cuba, science and innovation have been key factors in the development process and social justice objectives.
An inclusive Ibero-America, which takes into account the interests and development needs of all members of this Conference, can favor the advancement of our nations, stressed the President of Cuba, Miguel Díaz-Canel.
Author:
Juventud Rebelde
|digital@juventudrebelde.cu
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
The legitimacy of a government emanates from the expressed and sovereign will of its people. Autor: Estudios Revolución Publicado: 21/04/2021 | 10:35 pm
Speech by Miguel Mario Díaz-Canel Bermúdez, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba and President of the Republic, at the XXVII Ibero-American Summit of Heads of State and Government, on April 21, 2021, “Year 63 of the Revolution”.
His Excellency Xavier Espot Zamora, Head of Government of the Principality of Andorra;
His Majesty Felipe VI;
Your Excellencies Heads of State and Government of Ibero-America and other heads of delegations; Your Excellency Rebeca Grynspan, Ibero-American Secretary-General:
Please receive cordial greetings on behalf of the Cuban people and Government.
The efforts of the Principality of Andorra to organize this Summit and to give continuity to the work of the Ibero-American Conference, in the period that is coming to an end, under the exceptional conditions imposed by COVID-19, must be acknowledged and thanked.
Our congratulations and support to the sister Dominican Republic, next Pro Tempore Secretariat.
Excellencies:
Cuba has experiences to show and attaches special relevance to the theme of this appointment: “Innovation for Sustainable Development-Objective 2030. Ibero-America facing the challenge of the Coronavirus”.
In barely a year, a devastating pandemic has worsened the living conditions of millions of human beings on the planet and caused the worst economic downturn in nine decades¹. In contrast, five years after its adoption, hardly any progress has been made in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda.
There is talk of the multiple crises generated by COVID-19, but some problems are dozens of years older.
Developing countries are burdened with the unbearable weight of a foreign debt that has already been paid a thousand times over, and some of them are also suffering the impact of unilateral coercive measures that violate international law and hinder their legitimate right to development.
Until a just, democratic and equitable international economic order can be established to address the root causes of inequalities and move towards the Sustainable Development Goals, these will remain a chimera for most of the world’s peoples.
Let us be honest. The current development paradigms cause poverty and exclusion of the majority due to their irrational patterns of production and consumption that, under the designs of the market, disdain the most valuable thing: human life and dignity.
An inclusive Ibero-America, which takes into account the interests and development needs of all the members of this Conference, can favor the progress of our nations.
Sustainable development demands political will, solidarity, cooperation, financial and technology transfers from developed countries and equitable access to these resources that takes into account accumulated inequalities.
The pandemic has laid bare an indisputable truth: health and social protection systems, education, science, technology and available material resources must be put at the service of all and not at the mercy of the narrow interests of a few. Regardless of ideologies, the State has a responsibility to assume in the use of resources associated with the life and well-being of citizens.
As I explained at the Ibero-American Summit in Veracruz in 2014, in Cuba, science and innovation have been key factors in the development process and social justice objectives. This premise, which is a fundamental part of the legacy of the historic leader of the Cuban Revolution, Commander in Chief Fidel Castro Ruz, has allowed us to face the current pandemic under the blockade.
A robust system of science and technological innovation with an advanced and efficient biotechnological and pharmaceutical industry, allied to the universal, free and quality health system, with highly specialized human resources, have made possible the Cuban response to the pandemic that seems to surprise some.
A little more than a year after the first cases of COVID-19 were detected in the country, we have five vaccine candidates, two of them, Soberana 02 and Abdala, in Phase III clinical trials and we hope to immunize the entire Cuban population before the end of 2021, with our own vaccines.
Our National Economic and Social Development Plan until 2030, aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals, gives a leading role to innovation and scientific research.
The links between government structures and the knowledge and goods and services production sectors have been strengthened to promote innovation for economic and social development, with emphasis on local development.
Cuba has 229 Science, Technology and Innovation entities, of which 141 are Research Centers, 26 Scientific and Technological Services Centers, 61 Development and Innovation Units and a Science and Technology Park², and at the same time it is developing a Government Management System based on Science and Innovation.
The Government of the United States, in the midst of the pandemic, brutally tightened the economic, commercial and financial blockade, and financed and supported dangerous acts of violence and disrespect for the law to promote social and political instability in our country. The Cuban people have responded by redoubling their proverbial resistance to the blow of creativity.
The campaigns of the U.S. Government to discredit and boycott the medical cooperation that Cuba offers have not tarnished our vocation of solidarity and cooperation: 57 medical brigades of the Henry Reeve Contingent have contributed to confront the pandemic in 40 countries and territories. Many of the members of this Conference have appreciated the high altruism of Cuban health professionals.
Excellencies:
The legitimacy of a government emanates from the expressed and sovereign will of its people, not from the recognition of foreign powers. The Government presided over by the constitutional President Nicolás Maduro Moros must be respected.
It is unfair to blame the Venezuelan Government for the economic and social situation facing Venezuela, when the application of cruel unilateral coercive measures, planned and implemented by the United States accompanied by several of its allies, with the aim of causing suffering among the population, continues. These coercive measures promote emigration, a phenomenon about which some express great concern and could contribute to resolving its cause.
It would be useful and sincere to recognize that the U.S. design of intervention in Venezuela failed miserably and placed other countries that supported it in an untenable political and legal situation.
Those who claim to respect the will of the Venezuelan people and promote a political solution among Venezuelans should recognize that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is a sovereign state, cease meddling and act with respect for the United Nations Charter and the Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace.
Excellencies:
On behalf of the Cuban people, I am grateful for the traditional support of the Ibero-American community for the just demand to put an end to the blockade against Cuba, as well as the signs of rejection to the arbitrary and unilateral qualification of our country as a sponsor of terrorism, by the Government of the United States.
Cuba maintains unchanged its policy of solidarity and international cooperation for the benefit of our peoples, and will never renounce the construction of a sovereign, independent, socialist, democratic, prosperous and sustainable nation, always ready to share, as a human heritage, the results of our experiences based on Science and Innovation.
Thank you very much to all of you.
Taken from the Report: “The Inequality Virus”, published by OXFAM on January 25, 2021 and available at: https://www.oxfam.org/es/informes/el-virus-de-la-desigualdad
Data provided by Citma’s International Relations Department.
Spoils for Terror from Venezuela
Spoils for Terror from Venezuela
Confiscation of Venezuelan money: another dirty move, which will use the seized financial resources to attack the citizens themselves.
By Marina Menéndez Quintero
August 10, 2020
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
The biggest and most brazen robbery that the Venezuelan public treasury has ever suffered is taking place right now. And it has been the right-wing, disobedient and therefore non-functioning sector of the National Assembly that has lent itself out to play the role of the fig leaf and that part of the national money illegally confiscated by the United States is being handled by two foreign private companies.
Certainly, it has not been established -at least not publicly- if during the governments of the demolished Fourth Republic, there was ever such a large amount of embezzlement. Some people might be asking that…
But what makes the current move unprecedented is not only that it deprives citizens of the enjoyment of resources that belong to them. What is most reprehensible is that the action is at the service of interference and aggression by a foreign power.
Specifically, it is about $80 million that the Venezuelan State had deposited in Citibank, in the name of the Central Bank of Venezuela. Now it will be managed by the private American firms BRV Disbursement Co. LLC and BRV Administrator Co. LLC, which will get one million dollars for the work, according to the contract endorsed by that right-wing of the Venezuelan Parliament that continues to support the puppet Juan Guaidó.
However, it’s not the only money stolen. That item is part of the more than $340 million from Caracas that has been transferred just like that to an account at the New York Federal Reserve, on orders from the White House.
But what many are already calling the “policy of dispossession” of Venezuela’s public patrimony, applied by Washington against Caracas in the financial sphere as part of its strategy of harassment and multidimensional aggression, is even broader.
According to a detailed article published by the alternative website The Grayzone, Donald Trump’s policy against Venezuela has led to the confiscation from that country of up to 24 billion dollars in public assets located in the North, or in European Union countries allied with Washington.
The first major scandal was the virtual kidnapping of CITGO, a PDVSA subsidiary based in the US and considered the most important Venezuelan asset abroad.
As in the rest of the actions of this Ttype, the smokescreen has been the figure of Guaidó, and the excuse that resources are put in the hands of his non-existent “transition government”. The false argument that is gaining strength seeks to present Bolivarian Venezuela as a refuge from narco-terrorism, and its leaders as common criminals who must be punished and even imprisoned?
Under the same assumption, Venezuela has also just been stripped of the gold bars from the reserve that it had, supposedly in safekeeping, in the vaults of the Bank of England, the value of which could be as high as USD 3 billion that Maduro asked for in order to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic.
Then Boris Johnson’s British executive recognized Guaidó as interim president… and there the gold has remained.
Meanwhile, other trials are continuing in Europe to take away Venezuela’s assets, which could total some $8 billion, according to unofficial sources.
The most dangerous thing is that the decision taken a dozen days ago by the British Prime Minister could set a legal’ precedent for other Venezuelan funds blocked abroad, especially in European countries that have joined the Trump campaign.
The aberrant British decision on Venezuela’s gold Photo. Sputnik
Liberation fund?
The total balance, until today, of the economic and financial war of the United States against Venezuela, also contemplates other punitive measures and therefore, is even greater.
Since the beginning of the sanctions in 2017 after Barack Obama decreed two years ago that the country was a “threat” to its national security, the economic losses suffered by the Bolivarian nation are estimated at 130 billion dollars.
And there are already rumors that show the tricks Washington can play with so much ill-gotten money.
It has been revealed that a tiny portion of the $80 million seized from Citibank -although still juicy since it amounts to $600 million in assets- would have been diverted by Trump to build part of the promised wall on the border with Mexico.
Everything indicates that Guaidó, the supposed interim president that few within Venezuela applaud, has not said much about “the participation” of the White House in the enjoyment of the embezzlement? although he will surely have access to the stolen goods.
Nevertheless, his so-called “ambassador” to the U.S., Carlos Veccio, has admitted that he worked with the Justice Department to establish an agreement defining the percentage that will go to Washington, The Grayzone says.
Ignoring even that the current Parliament without functions elected another opponent as its head – Luis Parra, voted by the majority present in the session last January – that right-wing sector of the National Assembly “approved” a week ago that those $80 million be part of what they have fallaciously named the National Liberation Fund: money that, if used for the purposes that Guaidó defends, will be gasoline to subvert and execute new acts of terror.
Otherwise, they will be a good starting point for the continued corruption of that opposition wing linked to the antagonistic parties of yesteryear.
In this regard, analysts have stressed that this money is not controlled by any entity and, moreover, its management by means of those two U.S. companies privatizes embezzlement and outsources it, supposedly taking Trump’s hands off the plate, although not others.
This modus operandi adds to the economic choking measures of the United States and sets the tone for what the Mission Truth website considers a “para-state”.
It is clear that Guaidó’s scarce popular support for the interior of Venezuela, and his lack of international prestige, even though he claims to have been recognized by 50 countries, cuts the wings off the Machiavellian project in the political order? Even though it continues to cut short the lives of Venezuelans with the vulgar theft that is executed through this, never before seen, financial plunder.
The aberrant British decision on Venezuela’s gold Photo. Lechuguinos
VENEZUELA: Most Recent Keys
- English
- Español
VENEZUELA: Most Recent Keys
By Domingo Amuchastegui.
Received by email, April 7, 2020
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
The Venezuelan crisis is back on the daily foreign policy menu of the Trump administration. It seems incredible that Washington gives time and resources to the Venezuelan scenario when it is overwhelmed by the other crisis, the world-wide crisis of the coronavirus, where in the United States tens of thousands are infected and hundreds die every week, with 6.6 million unemployed and a recession that is on its way to overcome by far the Great Depression of 1929.
Let’s look at the facts. At the beginning of the year, Secretary of State Pompeo and President Trump’s personal lawyer Giuliani threatened the governments of Havana and Caracas with intimidating pressure, having as their main objective the resignation of the Maduro government. Maduro acknowledged that such pressure had been exerted and strongly rejected. Cuban President Díaz-Canel made it clear to a group of foreign correspondents who accompanied him on his inspection visit to Sancti-Spíritus province that he rejected this last-minute maneuver on the part of the U.S. government.
Shortly afterwards, a CARICOM conference was held in Kingston, Jamaica, with the attendance of very few members -less than half of its membership- of this group, to which American foreign policy usually attached very little importance, always sending junior officials. But the latter was attended by no less than Pompeo himself, seeking to gain support from those attending for his plans to maneuver against Venezuela and Cuba. He did not find any echo or official support from the governments present there.
Persisting in such designs, in the recently concluded month of March, two initiatives appear in US foreign policy towards the Venezuelan crisis that seem to contradict each other. They have unusual levels of inconsistencies in both and both supported by a surprising deployment of US naval air forces in the vicinity of Venezuela’s territorial waters, The latter is fuelled by the wishes and prognoses of many in Washington and Miami that this could be the prelude to the application of some variant that derives from the precedent of the invasion of Panama.
The two initiatives to which I refer are:
a. The well-known sanctioning of Maduro and other important leaders of the Venezuelan Government by the American authorities, who have put prices in the millions on their heads, in the best style of Hollywood westerns. In a truly threatening tone, its similarity to the case of Panama (Noriega) in 1989 seemed to suggest a much more confrontational and aggressive course of action after more than a year of failures trying to bring about, through various tactics, the overthrow of Maduro’s government.
b. And suddenly, barely two weeks later, the Secretary of State, Pompeo, announces another formula, this one diametrically opposed to the first one because of its apparent political-diplomatic flavor. In this formula, Maduro and Guaidó are asked to resign from their posts and deposit their positions and functions in the hands of a council of state composed of five members elected by the National Assembly, which would govern for one year and prepare a general election accepted by all.
Remarkably interesting is the fact that the proposal does not exclude Maduro or Guaidó from appearing as future presidential candidates. This proposal by Pompeo makes no mention of Maduro’s being prosecuted for drug trafficking, as if it did not exist, nor does it establish any link between the former and the latter. In exchange, the US would proceed to “soften” or reduce the enormous burden of economic and legal sanctions imposed by Washington on the Caracas government. Both political figures -Maduro and Guaidó- have rejected such a settlement offer.
Then the unbelievable happens: at the beginning of April, the deployment of US air naval forces very close to Venezuela’s territorial waters is announced under the alleged argument of intercepting and counteracting the alleged drug trafficking originating from Caracas to the US. This deployment of military forces by the United States seems to operate in a direction contrary to that of a political-diplomatic arrangement such as the one formulated at the end of March.
It is perfectly legitimate to ask: is this a return to the Panama precedent or a calculated exercise of greater pressure leading Maduro and Guaidó to accept the transition proposal (Democratic Transition Framework, as it has been called) or, failing that, to influence by this means, once again, the Venezuelan military in favor of a Bonapartist/coupist way out that would evict Maduro and his government team and put an end to the Chavista movement?
Let’s look at the different angles in order to get closer to a more complete diagnosis:
a. The accusation of drug trafficking -made with special emphasis after Maduro’s re-election- means we must look into a couple of indispensable references.
b. First, a very rigorous study by National Geographic Magazine in the mid-1990s excluded Venezuela as a producer/exporter of cocaine and other drugs. Instead, it documented how the Orinoco River served as a “river road” for a percentage of Colombian drugs to Guyana and from there to Africa/Europe.
c. Second, the renowned drug trafficking specialist and UN Deputy Secretary-General in charge of this issue for a number of years, Pino Arlacchi, stated in an interview for an Italian publication at the end of March: “There is no illegal drug trafficking between Venezuela and the United States, except in the sick fantasy of Trump and his collaborators.
And to substantiate this claim, it draws on two sources: the Report of the United Nations agency in charge of monitoring this issue (UNDOC) and the annual report of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) of December 2019. According to the latter, 90% of the cocaine introduced into the United States comes from Colombia, 6% from Peru and the remaining 4% from unknown sources. If Venezuela were the source,” Arlacchi said, “it would not have gone unnoticed” in these reports.
I am not suggesting in any way that Venezuela is a country of immaculate saints, where levels of corruption are witnessed in not a few high-profile cases, but from here to international drug trafficking as presented by Trump and his team goes a very long way.
As for the scenario of military aggression by the United States against Venezuela in the current context, it seems unlikely. Broad sectors of the American academic world did not consider it possible in January 2019, and even less so now given the geopolitical and demographic scales and the volume of costs in the case of an attack on Venezuela compared to the episode in Panama mentioned above.
The latter was for Bush Sr., parodying the famous phrase of John Hay, Secretary of State of Theodore Roosevelt, in a famous letter to him, “A splendid little war. In the case of Venezuela, the regional and international costs and complications would be much more complex. The main US allies in the European Union (EU), as well as Canada, are opposed to such a resource and several of them are engaged in very different negotiation projects than Washington.
On the other hand, Trump’s allies in the region -Colombia and Brazil- that could play some level of support, are going through serious internal tensions that rule out their participation in any military operation in the current circumstances. And it should be added: Much less now with the apocalyptic coronavirus that absorbs all the time and resources of almost the entire world.
The plan now proposed by the Trump administration does not fit in any measure to the requirements and objectives of both Maduro and Guaidó. As happened not long ago with the Trump plan for Israel/Palestine, its rejection is outright. Washington ignores, once again, that the path of a negotiation to stabilize the Venezuelan crisis should not and cannot be conceived as a humiliating surrender. It must encourage a multilateral approach, in the company of other international actors more trustworthy to Maduro such as Norway and Spain, that provide more balanced proposals and balances acceptable to all parties to the conflict and not a simple call for surrender.
Here is an example of all those involved in this crisis, the path of Contadora-Esquípulas, which in the second half of the 1980s provided the basis for a satisfactory settlement after prolonged and patient negotiations with international auspices between all parties to the violent and bloody conflict in Central America.
The negotiating efforts initiated in the Dominican Republic and those promoted by the CARICOM countries Norway, by influential figures from Spain and other regional actors such as Mexico and Canada led – until now – to repeated failures given the intransigent position, and to torpedo, all those political-diplomatic efforts aimed at bringing about a settlement satisfactory to all parties.
Returning to the Contadora-Esquipulas path is the precedent that best suits the political-diplomatic handling of the Venezuelan crisis.
The last thing left for Trump is to hope that his proposal – now backed by the deployment of military forces – will find some support in the Venezuelan military and thereby precipitate a coup solution, with or without an assassination. It is not idle to recall that so far, the loyalty of the Armed Forces to the Maduro government has prevailed, and that all the coup d’état maneuvers emanating from Washington and supported by Guaidó and his followers have ended in resounding failure.
VENEZUELA: CLAVES MáS RECIENTES
Por Domingo Amuchástegui
La crisis venezolana vuelve a estar en el menú diario de la política exterior de la administración Trump. Parece increíble que Washington conceda tiempo y recursos al escenario venezolano cuando se encuentra abrumado por la otra crisis, la mundial del coronavirus, donde en EEUU se infectan decenas de miles y mueren cientos todas las semanas, con 6.6 millones desempleados y una recesión que se encamina a superar con creces la Gran Depresión de 1929.
Examinemos los hechos. A comienzos de año, el Secretario de Estado, Pompeo, y el abogado personal del Presidente Trump, Giulani, sondearon a los gobiernos de La Habana y Caracas con intimidatorias presiones teniendo como principal objetivo la renuncia del Gobierno de Maduro. Este reconoció que tales presiones se habían ejercido y rechazadas enérgicamente. El presidente cubano, Díaz-Canel dejaba claramente definido ante un grupo de corresponsales extranjeros que lo acompañaban en su visita de inspección en la provincia de Sancti-Spíritus, el rechazo más terminante a esta maniobra de última hora por parte del Gobierno norteamericano.
Poco después, se celebraba una conferencia del CARICOM en Kingston, Jamaica, con la asistencia de muy escasos miembros -menos de la mitad de sus integrantes- de esta agrupación, a la que habitualmente la política exterior norteamericana concedía muy escasa importancia, enviando siempre funcionarios subalternos. Pero a ésta última, asistía no menos que el mismísimo Pompeo, buscando ganar apoyo de los asistentes a sus planes maniobras contra Venezuela y Cuba. No tuvo eco alguno ni respaldo oficial de los gobiernos allí presentes.
Persistiendo en semejantes designios, en el recién concluído mes de marzo, aparecen en la política exterior de EEUU hacia la crisis venezolana dos iniciativas que parecen contradecirse la una con la otra, con inusitados niveles de inconsistencias las dos y respaldadas ambas con un sorpresivo despliegue de fuerzas aeronavales norteamericanas en las proximidades de las aguas territoriales de Venezuela, alimentando esto último los deseos y pronósticos de no pocos en Washington y Miami en el sentido de que esto pudiera ser el preludio de la aplicación de alguna variante que se derive del precedente de la invasión de Panamá.
Las dos iniciativas a las que me refiero son:
- El conocido encauzamiento de Maduro y otros importantes dirigentes del Gobierno venezolano por parte de las autoridades norteamericanas, las que han puesto precios millonarios a sus cabezas, al major estilo de los western hollywoodenses. De tono realmente amenazador, su similitud con el caso de Panamá (Noriega), en 1989, parecía sugerir un curso de acción mucho más confrontacional y agresivo luego de más de un año de fracasos tratando de propiciar mediante diversas tácticas, inútilmente, el derrocamiento del Gobierno de Maduro.
- Y de repente, apenas dos semanas más tarde, anuncia por el Secretario de Estado, Pompeo, otra fórmula, ésta diametralmente opuesta a la primera por su aparente sabor politico-diplomático. En ésta se pide a Maduro y a Guaidó que renuncien a sus cargos y que depositen sus cargos y funciones en manos de un consejo de Estado compuesto por cinco miembros electos por la Asamblea Nacional y que gobernaría por un año y que prepararía unas elecciones generales aceptada por todos. Notablemente interesante es el hecho de que la propuesta no excluye a Maduro ni a Guaidó de figurar como futuros candidatos presidenciales. Esta propuesta de Pompeo no hace mención alguna al encauzamiento de Maduro por narcotráfico, como si no existiera, ni establece vínculo alguno entre la primera y ésta. A cambio, EEUU procedería a “suavizar” o reducir la enorme carga de sanciones económicas y legales impuesta por Washington al Gobierno de Caracas. Ambas figuras políticas -Maduro y Guaidó- han rechazado semejante oferta de arreglo.
Entonces ocurre lo incríble!: al comienzo de abril se anuncia el despliegue de fuerzas aereonavales norteamericanas muy cerca de las aguas territoriales de Venezuela bajo el supuesto argumento de interceptar y contrarrestar el supuesto narcotráfico que se origina desde Caracas hacia EEUU. Este despliegue de fuerzas militares por parte de EEUU parece operar en una dirección contraria a la de un arreglo politico-diplomático como el formulado a fines de marzo. Es perfectamente legítimo lo que muchos se preguntan: ¿Se trata de un regreso al precedente de Panamá o un ejercicio de mayor presión calculada que lleve a Maduro y Guaidó a aceptar la propuesta de transición (Marco de Transición Democrática, como se le ha llamado) o, en su defecto influir por esta vía, una vez más, sobre los militares venezolanos en pro de una salida de corte bonapartista/golpista que desaloje a Maduro y su equipo del Gobierno y ponga fin al movimiento chavista?
Veamos los diferentes ángulos a fin de acercarnos a un diagnóstico más completo:
- La acusación de narcotráfico -fabricada con especial énfasis después de la reelección de Maduro- aconseja indagar en un par de referencias indispensables.
- Primero, un estudio bien riguroso del National Geographic Magazine de mediados de los 90, excluía a Venezuela como productor/exportador de cocaína y otras drogas. En su lugar, documentaba cómo el río Orinoco servía de “carretera fluvial” a un porciento de la droga colombiana para hacerla llegar a Guyana y de ahí a Africa/Europa.
- Segundo, el reconocido especialista en narcotráfico y Vice Secretario General de la ONU encargado de este tema por un número de años, Pino Arlacchi, planteaba en una entrevista para una publicación italiana a fines de marzo: “No hay tráfico illegal de drogas entre Venezuela y los Estados Unidos, excepto en la fantasia enfermiza de Trump y sus colaboradores.” Y para sustanciar esta afirmación echa mano a dos fuentes: el Informe de la agencia de Naciones Unidas encargada de monitorear este tema (UNDOC) y en el informe anual de la Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) de diciembre del 2019. De acuerdo a éste último, el 90% de la cocaína que se introduce en EEUU viene de Colombia, el 6% de Perú y el 4% restante de fuentes desconocidas. SI Venezuela fuera la fuente -asegura Arlacchi- ello “no habría pasado inadvertido” en los mencionados informes.
No estoy sugiriendo en modo alguno que Venezuela sea un país de santos varones inmaculados, donde los niveles de corrupción lo atestiguan en no pocos sonados casos pocos casos, pero de aquí al narcotráfico internacional tal cual lo presentan Trump y su equipo va un larguísimo trecho.
En cuanto al escenario de una agresión militar de parte de EEUU a Venezuela en el actual contexto no parece probable. Amplios sectores del mundo académico norteamericano no lo consideraron possible en enero del 2019 y mucho menos ahora dadas las escalas geopolítica, demográfica y volumen de costos en el caso de un ataque a Venezuela en comparación con el episodio de Panamá antes mencionado. Este último fue para Bush padre, parodiando la famosa frase de John Hay, Secretario de Estado de Teodoro Roosevelt, en una famosa carta a éste, “A splendid little war.” En el caso de Venezuela los costos y complicaciones regionals e internacionales serían de una complejidad muchísimo mayor. Los principales aliados de EEUU en la Unión Europea (UE) además de Canadá, son contrarios a semejante recurso y varios de ellos se empeñan en proyectos de negociación muy diferentes a los de Washington. Por otro lado, los aliados de Trump en la región -Colombia y Brasil- que pudieran desempeñar algún nivel de apoyo, atraviesan por serias tensiones internas que descartan su concurso en cualquier operación military en las actuals crcunstancias. Y cabe agregar: Mucho menos ahora con el apocalíptico coronavirus que absorbe todo el tiempo y recursos de casi la totalidad del mundo.
El plan que ahora propone la administración Trump no se ajusta en ninguna medida a los requerimientos y objetivos tanto de Maduro como de Guaidó. Como ocurrió no hace mucho con el plan de Trump para Israel/Palestina, el rechazo es rotundo. Washington ignora, una vez más, que el camino de una negociación para estabilizar la crisis venezolana no debe ni puede concebirse como una rendición humillante; debe y tiene que propiciar el enfoque multilateral, en compañía de otros actores internacionales más confiables para Maduro como Noruega y España, que aporten propuestas y equilibrios más balanceados aceptables para todas las partes en conflicto y no una simple conminación a la rendición.
Ahí está para ejemplo de todos los invulucrados en esta crisis, el camino de Contadora-Esquípulas, que en la segunda mitad de los años 80 aportó las bases para un arreglo satisfactorio tras prolongadas y pacientes negociaciones con auspicio internacional entre todas las partes en el violento y sangriento conflicto en Centro América. Los esfuerzos negociadores iniciados en Repúblca Dominicana y los promovidos por Noruega, países del CARICOM, por influyentes figuras de España y otros actores regionals como México y Canadá desembocaron -hasta ahora- en fracasos repetidos dada la postura intransigente, y de torpedear, todos esos esfuerzos politico-diplomáticos encaminaos a propiciar un arreglo satisfactorio para todas las partes. Retomar el camino de Contadora-Esquipulas es el precedente que más se ajusta al manejo politico diplomático de la crisis venezolana.
Lo último que le queda a Trump es esperar que su propuesta -respaldada ahora por el despliegue de fuerzas militares- encuentre algún respaldo en las FFAA de Venezuela y por este medio precipitar una solución golpista, con o sin magnicidio. No es ocioso recordar que hasta ahora la lealtad de las FFAA al Gobierno de Maduro ha prevalecido y que todas las maniobras de incitación a una salida golpista emanadas desde Washington y respaldadas por Guaidó y sus seguidores, han terminado en estrepitosos fracasos.
Ottawa and the Venezuelan Opposition
Ottawa and the Worst of the Venezuelan Opposition
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
Canada has not only financed and supported opposition parties in Venezuela, but has also openly allied itself with some of that country’s most undemocratic and extremist elements. The Canadian liberal government has openly supported the Voluntad Popular (VP) party’s offer to seize power by force since January 2019, although Ottawa has actually given its support for years to this electorally marginal party in the US nation.
The VP party that sponsors Juan Guaidó has an unfortunate history for Venezuelans. Shortly after Henrique Capriles, the presidential candidate of the opposition coalition Mesa Redonda de Unidad Democrática recognized his defeat in January 2014, its leader, Leopoldo López, launched the “La Salida” movement in an attempt to overthrow Nicolás Maduro, VP activists formed shock troops for the 2014 guarimbas protests that left 43 Venezuelans dead, 800 wounded and a large amount of property damage. Dozens more died in a new wave of VP-backed protests in 2017.
While VP has been effective in fuelling the violence, it has not, however, managed to win many votes. It occupied 8% of the seats in the 2015 elections, in which the opposition won control of the National Assembly. With 14 of the 167 deputies in the Assembly, VP won the majority of the four seats in the Democratic Unity Roundtable coalition. In the December 2012 regional elections, its vice president was only the sixth most successful party and performed somewhat better in the next year’s municipal elections.
Founded in late 2009 by Leopoldo Lopez, VP has always been known for its close contacts with the United States, especially its relations with U.S. diplomats, according to the Wall Street Journal.
López studied at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
Internally, Lopez skillfully manages his distant relatives as great-great-grandson of Latin American independence leader Simón Bolívar, and his status as great-grandson of a president and grandson of a member of a presidential cabinet.
Between 2000 and 2008 he was mayor of Chacao, a Venezuelan municipality of some 65,000 inhabitants.
During the 2002 military coup, López orchestrated public protests against legitimate president and revolutionary leader Hugo Chávez and played a leading role in the “citizen’s arrest” of the Venezuelan interior minister. In 2014 Leopoldo López was sentenced and sentenced to 13 years in prison by the attorney general’s office and the Supreme Court of Justice for inciting, planning and leading violence during the guarimbas protests of that year.
Canadian officials are known to have had close contact with López’s emissaries after his conviction. In November 2014, his wife Lilian Adriana Tintori Parra, a well-known Venezuelan sportswoman and political activist, visited Ottawa to meet with Foreign Minister John Baird, his colleague in the conservative cabinet of Jason Kenney, Prime Minister of Alberta Province since 2019, and leader of the Conservative Party of that province since 2017. After meeting Lopez’s wife, Baird demanded the release of Lopez and other political prisoners of VP.
Three months later, Carlos Vecchio, National Policy Coordinator of the fantom government of Guaidó, visited Ottawa along with Diana López, Leopoldo López’s sister, and Orlando Viera-Blanco to speak before the Subcommittee on Human Rights of the United Nations Permanent Commission on Foreign Affairs and International Development. There, in a press conference, they attacked the Venezuelan government and in a forum at McGill University they spoke about the supposed “crisis due to the decline of democracy and the repression of human rights in Venezuela”.
The spectral government of Juan Guaidó named Carlos Vecchio and Orlando Viera-Blanco as its ambassadors to the United States and Canada, respectively. In October 2017, Vecchio and Congresswoman Bibiana Lucas attended an Anti-Maduro group meeting in Toronto.
Canada has undoubtedly strengthened the VP’s hard-line position within the opposition. A February Wall Street Journal article titled “What the hell is going on,” asks, “How did a small group seize control of the opposition?
As Montreal writer and political activist Yves Engler writes, Venezuelans did not need Canada to come and give impetus to a marginal party that can only help lead their country into an increasingly serious and complex conflict.
June 5, 2019.
This article may be reproduced by quoting the newspaper POR ESTO as the source.
Maduro Gives Trump a Lesson
Maduro Gives Trump a Lesson in Ethics and Morality
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
In clear violation of the Vienna Convention, the United States police entered by force, after 37 days of resistance, the premises that housed the Venezuelan Embassy and arrested the four activists protecting the diplomatic headquarters from the terrorist vandalism of the so-called “Venezuelan opposition.
“The Venezuelan government will respond to the invasion of its embassy in Washington within the framework of international law,” declared Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza. “Once again, Donald Trump’s administration has shown how much the truth hurts and has reacted with arrogance, in violation of international law.
The Bolivarian Minister of Foreign Affairs reported on Thursday, May 16, that his country is evaluating its response to the illegal invasion of its Embassy in the United States, although he advanced that this will be within the framework of international law and protected by the principles of reciprocity.
From his Twitter account, Arreaza had repudiated the illegal seizure of the diplomatic headquarters by the U.S. police on Thursday. He emphasized then that with this action Washington was not fulfilling its obligations under the Vienna Convention, to which the United States and Caracas are signatories.
The foreign minister said that by forcibly evicting the four activists who were inside the embassy with the authorization of the Venezuelan government, the U.S. security forces additionally violated their human rights. “The morale of these activists proved to be more powerful than the force of repression carried out by the dozens of armed police officers deployed by Washington,” Arreaza said.
Carlos Ron, Bolivarian vice-minister for North America, recalled in an improvised press conference that the only legitimate government of Venezuela did not authorize the entry of U.S. police forces into the building of what was its embassy in Washington, so the police irruption constitutes, according to the Vienna Convention, a flagrant violation of international law.
The Washington Metropolitan Police illegally entered the facilities of the Venezuelan embassy in that U.S. capital city, violating the immunity from jurisdiction of the diplomatic headquarters and the documents and archives that rest there.
This action by the United States sets a dangerous precedent, because it sends a message to the world about possible aggressions of this nature that threaten other diplomatic offices in the future.
Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the Code Pink movement for peace, on Thursday had denounced the entry into the facilities of the Venezuelan Embassy of the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington (MPD) to forcibly evict the activists stationed there. The activist and public health specialist warned that the police illegally broke into the diplomatic headquarters in an act that she described as a violation of international law.
“By breaking into the Venezuelan Embassy to illegally arrest the Embassy Protection Collective, the police violated the Vienna Convention and international law,” Medea Benjamin said through his Twitter account.
CodePink had assumed the defense of the Venezuelan diplomatic headquarters in the United States in support of democracy in the South American country violated by Donald Trump’s administration.
Last Friday, President Nicolás Maduro publicly acknowledged the group of activists defending the Venezuelan embassy in Washington, “who have faced the aggressions of a “sick right” and imperialist interference.
“I send a solidarity greeting, full of deep gratitude and admiration to the Protection Collective of our Embassy in Washington, who have bravely faced the aggressions of a sick rightist and a criminal empire,” the Bolivarian President declared in a message posted on his Twitter account.
Outside the Venezuelan embassy in Washington D.C., activists were present to support the collective in defense of the building, who were guarding it to demand that food be allowed in. The activists denounced that supporters of the opposition to the Venezuelan government maintained the siege of the building, preventing the entry of food and medicines, cutting off the electricity and water supply, all in collusion with the government of Donald Trump.
About 15 activists remained inside the compound since mid-April to prevent Carlos Vecchio, the “representative” of the self-proclaimed opposition deputy interim president, Juan Guaidó, from taking over the embassy.
May 17, 2019.
This article may be reproduced by quoting the newspaper POR ESTO as the source.
Activists Evicted from Venezuelan Embassy
Activists Evicted from Venezuelan Embassy in Washington
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
The diplomatic headquarters was occupied by social movements to prevent the entry of staff appointed by Congressman Juan Guaidó, who proclaimed himself as “president in charge.”
U.S. federal agents on Monday ordered the eviction of the Venezuelan embassy in Washington, which had been closed to the public and taken by U.S. activists to prevent the entry of personnel appointed by the opposition deputy Juan Guaidó, whom the White House recognizes as “president in charge” of the Caribbean country.
Since his self-proclamation, Guaidó has tried to bring into the diplomatic headquarters, a man whom Guaidó arbitrarily designated as ‘representative’ to that country, Carlos Vecchio, and Guaido’s ‘ambassador’ to the Organization of American States (OAS), Gustavo Tarre Briceño.
In a document that bears no letterhead or signature, alleged U.S. authorities urged activists to “vacate the embassy” because it should only be “used for diplomatic purposes,” while warning that otherwise, the occupants would be violating federal and local law. However, the text recognizes Vecchio and Tarre as ‘legitimate representatives’ of Caracas, even though their appointments are illegal under the Venezuelan Constitution.
The operation comes after pressure from supporters of the opposition congressman, who led the attempted coup d’état in Caracas on April 30, and after several days of protests and incidents outside the building with demonstrators in favor of President Nicolas Maduro, who tried to defend the embassy. During those events, the police arrested three people.
The social movements leading the vigil at the embassy, grouped into Collectives for Peace, made up of Popular Resistance and Code Pink, were invited by the government of Nicolás Maduro, after the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry denounced that Guaidó personnel had taken two buildings: the Venezuelan consulate in New York on April 13; and the Venezuelan office of the Military Attaché in Georgetown on March 19.
The leader of the Code Pink movement, Medea Benjamin, lamented through her Twitter account the eviction from the building. She said the movements were trying “to prevent the Venezuelan embassy from being handed over to an unelected coup leader. However, she warned that “the struggle continues.”
On April 24, it was the third month since the Venezuelan president ordered all his diplomatic personnel accredited in the U.S. to return to Caracas, following the rupture of relations between the two countries.
However, the Vienna Convention establishes the obligation of States to safeguard the facilities and assets of countries that are used for diplomatic purposes even if relations are broken off.
Manuel E. Yepe
May 15, 2019
The original source for this article is Rebelión
Copyright © Manuel E. Yepe, Rebelión, 2019
Silvio and Mujica Support Maduro
EL DESCONCIERTO (Chile)
Silvio Rodríguez and Pepe Mujica call for support to Nicolás Maduro
Some world personalities such as Pope Francis or Nobel Peace Prize winner Adolfo Perez Esquivel also supported the Venezuelan president’s call for dialogue.
By El Desconcierto
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews
The month of April was, without a doubt, one of the most complex for Venezuela in recent years. The violence generated in opposition protests, added to the campaign against the government of Nicolás Maduro undertaken by the secretary general of the Organization of American States (OAS), and the intentions of interference on the part of the United States, have put the South American nation at a crucial point.
Many voices, adherents to U.S. thought, have risen asking for the end of the administration of the current Venezuelan president, Nicolás Maduro, militant of the PSUV, the o[
party founded by Hugo Chávez and who in 2013 was elected with 50.61% of the votes.
But other well-known personalities around the world have also expressed their support for the call for peace and dialogue proposed by Maduro’s government as an end to the escalation of violence in recent days. This is the case of Cuban singer-songwriter Silvio Rodríguez, who in his personal blog “Segunda Cita” commented to a Venezuelan user that: “There were some years, after the revolutionary triumph, when going out into the streets of Havana was also an adventure, because the counterrevolution was putting bombs, even in cinemas (…). But what you are experiencing is much more stressful and violent, because these are quite large sectors of the population dedicated to urban belligerence. The artist added: “While I continue asking myself questions, all that remains for me is to ask you to take care of yourselves, not to give yourselves away, not to be reckless, but if you feel it, don’t stop fighting for what’s worthwhile, the América Nuestra that Bolívar and Martí, Fidel and Chávez envisioned, and that we need so much.
Likewise, the former president of Uruguay, José “Pepe” Mujica, gave Maduro important accolades during an interview for the Uruguayan media “Caras y Caretas”, commenting that: “What scares me most about Venezuela is the opposition, or a very important part of it. I believe that there is a climate of radicalization that has become irrational and that in the long run ends up favoring the right,” and he added: “What Almagro is doing from the OAS is a danger, not only for Venezuela, but for the whole continent. Anything that is outside interventionism goes against it.
Nobel Peace Prize laureate Adolfo Pérez Esquivel also urged support for the Venezuelan president. From his Facebook page, the human rights defender wrote that “Venezuela is the target of aggression by the North American empire that does not give in to its onslaught with the objective of overthrowing the democratically elected government. The Argentine blames the United States and “the big companies” for the country’s economic shortage: “There are crises imposed by the United States, which does not want to lose its influence and continental control.” Esquivel accused the international media of generating false or distorted news about what really happens. Likewise, Pérez Esquivel accused the opposition of not wanting to guarantee social peace due to its refusal to dialogue and to “the instances proposed by Unasur and facilitated by Pope Francisco”.
The Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church also had words for the conflict that is shaking Venezuela. In a press conference, the Pope commented that the dialogue in Venezuela “did not work because the proposals were not accepted and I know that now they are insisting (…) I believe that it has to be with very clear conditions. Part of the opposition does not want this. It’s curious, the opposition itself is divided.”
Trump’s Options
The Options Trump Puts on the Table
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
Is President Trump about to invade Venezuela? His advisors continue to say — in increasingly forceful terms that — “all options are on the table”, and that military intervention to restore Venezuela’s constitution” may be necessary.”
For his part, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a news program last Sunday commented that President Trump could launch a military attack against Venezuela without Congressional approval because “he has all the authority conferred upon him by Article II of the Constitution and certainly any action that we take in Venezuela will be legal”. The man who just boasted of his lies, tricks and thefts, is providing new evidence that back up his confession.
The truth is that the US president does not have the constitutional authority to start a war with Venezuela or any other country that hasn’t attacked or credibly threatened the United States, without the approval of Congress. It’s as simple as that,” says Ron Paul, a former Republican congressman for the State of Texas and presidential candidate in 1988 for the now defunct Libertarian Party.
It is ironic that Pompeo and the rest of the neoconservatives of the Trump Administration, who don’t care about the Constitution of their own country, are willing to attack Venezuela “in order to restore its constitution.”
It is striking and hypocritical that while Washington was paralyzed for two years by the disproved claims that the Russians had meddled with the elections to elect Trump, Washington doesn’t even hesitate to support the actual revocation of elections in another country!
But without the authority of Congress, any U.S. military action against Venezuela would be illegal and probably an impeachable crime. Of course, Democrats who talk about impeaching Trump would never dream of getting rid of him for illegally starting a war because U.S. Democrats and Republicans alike love the illegal U.S. wars, says Ron Paul.
Unfortunately, Washington is so addicted to war that President Trump would probably have little difficulty in obtaining congressional authorization to invade Venezuela if he bothered to ask.
Likewise, as with the disastrous U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the corporate media are nothing more than uninterrupted war propaganda.
According to Ron Paul, some Presidential hopefuls described as progressives , like Rachel Maddow, a radio personality, TV presenter, and progressive American commentator, are attacking the Trump administration, not because of its reckless tendency for the use of weapons in Venezuela, but because it is not aggressive enough.
The real lesson is that even a “constitutional” war against Venezuela would be an unjust action. It would be a war of aggression that Americans should be upset about and ashamed of.
But the mainstream media are spreading the same old lies in favor of war, while independent media are being attacked by many social media campaigns that have partnered with U.S. government agencies to decide what news is fake or illegal and which one is true.
The most recent motive for indignation shown by the dominant media has been over one of the most sensible things that President Trump has done lately: last week he spent one hour on the phone with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss, among other things, the dangerous situation in Venezuela.
While President Trump’s neo-con advisors are deliberately trying to put him in a position where war is the only option, we can only hope that President Putin may have been able to explain to him that Venezuela’s problems must be solved by the Venezuelans themselves.
Certainly, the United States, perhaps together with the Russians, could help facilitate discussions between the Venezuelan government and the opposition as an alternative to the neo-conservative path towards war, which would surely end like all other wars in a total disaster.
U.S. mainstream media are furious because Trump dared to talk to Putin when Russia and the United States were increasingly at logger-heads over the situation in Venezuela.
Democrats and neo-cons are pressing for a direct confrontation in which Russia may become involved. Republicans agree with both on this.
Would they really prefer a thermo-nuclear war over Venezuela? asks veteran doctor and ultra-libertarian American politician Ronald Ernest “Ron” Paul.
May 8, 2019.
This article may be reproduced by citing the newspaper POR ESTO as the source.
Ridiculous Yankee Coup Machine
The Ridiculous Yankee Coup Machine
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
It was more than a failed coup attempt against the legitimate government of Venezuela. What happened in that South American country the previous weekend has been a ridiculous spectacle for the American fascist right-wing and, specifically, for some of the most grotesque figures of U.S. imperialism and several of its most discredited parasites.
It has been pitiful to observe the government of the country that has played the role of a single great global power since the end of the Cold War. It could have been a world leader on a path of reciprocal respect and harmony within differences, but it has fallen to the bottom of the scale of universal political values.
It is true that Washington has never shown much respect for truth and honesty at the most critical moments in the history of international relations. Still, it is surprising that political entities so demonstrably lacking in prestige were called upon to lead that nation’s diplomacy to such a backwater in the scale of universal political values.
It is hard to imagine that Donald Trump, who considers himself a “permanent winner” by virtue of his fortune and his business acumen, can win any task with corrupt political advisers of the ilk of Elliott Abrams, Mike Pompeo, Elliott Abrams, Marco Rubio, Rick Scott, Peter Navarro, Juan Guaidó. Let’s not forget the permanent fugitive from justice, Leopoldo López, who make up, among others, the squad that was assigned to him for this battle to swallow Venezuela by the always-losing Miami mafia.
None of the fallacies that the team of advisors manufactured for him could be sustained. This proves that those who devised them intended to drive Trump to [commit] political suicide.
The media, ready for the farce, began it by sending out a statement by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. It assured him that Guaidó had been “duly” elected, to adjust the narrative of U.S. interference in Venezuela to that new lying discourse on the coup. The authorities, and much of the U.S. media began to refer to the phony Juan Guaidó as the “duly elected president of Venezuela.
In reality, Guaido had not been duly elected as president, nor had he participated in any Venezuelan election for that highest office. He was barely elected to a seat in parliament in 2015, and from there promoted to a substantial position of power within parliament by virtue of U.S. support.
Then, in January, Trump’s advisers began to pressure Guaidó into trying to take over the country. The false legal pretext was that the constitution allowed the head of parliament to be named “interim president” if the elected did not show up to take office.
What is true and known to all Venezuelan citizens is that President Maduro took office on January 10, after being elected in fair elections. The inauguration took place before the Supreme Court instead of the Assembly building where the opposition obtained a reduced majority, which was a pretext for those preparing the coup to later assert that this was not legal.
The recognition by the United States of the legitimacy of Guaidó’s seizure of power was a cynical move. To call him “duly elected president” an absolute lie.
“Knowing what I learned when the attempt to oust Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in 2002 did not surprise me when the effort was renewed by the Trump administration. The more so when characters like Elliott Abrams, Marco Rubio and Rick Scott – not to mention John Bolton – began to appear on the White House payroll.
That’s what Larry Wilkerson, a retired U.S. Army colonel and former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, has declared.
“But the bloodshed in Venezuela – military and civilian – and the dead and wounded U.S. soldiers and Marines won’t give this old soldier any comfort,” he said.
“I know the Venezuelan military, I’ve trained some of them. Most of them, if the U.S. military arrives in Venezuela, will enter the very formidable hills with jungle backdrops. They will harass, kill, take prisoners from time to time and, in general, they will endure forever or until the gringos leave. We could remember how the North Vietnamese and the Taliban did it; so will the Venezuelans.
May 3, 2019.
This article may be reproduced by quoting the newspaper POR ESTO as the source.
You must be logged in to post a comment.