Only
days after threatening “fire and fury” against North Korea,
President Donald Trump said, “We have many options for Venezuela,
including a possible military option, if necessary.” Trump was
improvising, with no back-up from the Pentagon, and seems to be
inventing his militaristic bombast as he goes. But we cannot dismiss
the threat of military action against Venezuela.
There
is a long history of U.S. interference in the region. In Venezuela,
Washington endorsed a 2002 military coup attempt against the
president, Hugo Chávez. In recent weeks, the Trump administration
has leveled sanctions at Maduro and a number of Venezuelan officials,
and threatens further sanctions against the country’s oil industry.
Protests
have raged in Venezuela since January. Masked youth have taken to the
streets, erecting barricades, throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails,
rioting, and looting stores and warehouses. Daily life has ground to
a halt, crime is rampant, and weapons have flowed throughout the
population. The government has responded with a heavy hand, arresting
thousands, and using the National Guard to stop the protests. Tear
gas and rubber bullets are a common sight.
The
rightist opposition, far from arranging peaceful demonstrations, has
provoked this violence. There have been attacks on police barracks
and government supporters, and most dramatically, a helicopter attack
on the pro-Maduro Supreme Court in late June. The opposition’s goal
is to create an excuse for either the military or the United States
to step in, claiming to “keep the peace” and “restore
democracy.” The U.S. State Department has spent at least $49
million to support the right wing since 2009 and has deep ties to its
leaders.
The
ongoing crisis in Venezuela has deepened since the National
Constituent Assembly (ANC), elected on July 30, has begun to take
action. The opposition boycotted the election to the ANC, and
supporters of President Nicolás Maduro control the body.
On
Aug. 6, there was an attack at a military base in Carabobo, near the
city of Valencia. Video was released showing men claiming that the
attack was meant to “re-establish constitutional order.” The base
remained in government hands. Two men were shot dead and eight more
captured. Maduro claimed that his government “had to defeat
terrorism with bullets.”
On
Aug. 5, the ANC voted to remove Luisa Ortega Díaz, the Attorney
General, from her office. The National Guard took control of her
offices and supporters had to escort her from the area on a
motorbike. She denounced the current regime as a “totalitarian form
of government.”
Ortega,
a member of the ruling United Socialist Party (PSUV), broke with the
Maduro government this April. She was the leading critic of the
installation of the ANC and was likely to begin an investigation into
vote tampering during the election. Her office has made numerous
charges of corruption within the government and has charged the
National Guard with abuses during the country’s turbulent protests.
When
she was in office, the press speculated that Ortega might trigger
Article 350 of the Venezuelan constitution, which calls for
Venezuelans to “disown any regime, legislation or authority that
runs counter to democratic values, principles and guarantees, or that
undermines human rights.” Hailed as a hero by the Western media,
Ortega is in reality positioning herself as a figure who could be
useful in a right-wing coup.
On
Aug. 8, the ANC declared itself superior to the opposition-controlled
National Assembly. That body has not recognized the ANC as legitimate
and has declared its opposition to any decrees it issues, including
the dismissal of Ortega. The ANC has established a “truth
commission” that is poised to attack the political opponents of
Maduro and the PSUV government, and a Supreme Court packed with
Maduro loyalists has already removed five opposition mayors.
Maduro’s
government has increased its repression while facing a public that
grows more hostile by the day. Protests are suppressed whether they
come from the right-wing forces behind the opposition (Democratic
Unity Roundtable, or MUD) or parties to the left of the PSUV.
Independent forces to Maduro’s left have found their ability to
mobilize hampered, while the MUD grows in strength.
At
least 120 people have been killed during the protests. In response to
state repression, the regional trade bloc Mercosur suspended
Venezuela’s membership, and Peru has expelled its Venezuelan
ambassador in protest.
Economic
meltdown
The
unrest stands against a backdrop of economic meltdown. Analysts have
suggested that Venezuela’s economy may shrink between 7 and 10
percent this year, a catastrophic rate. Such statistics must be taken
with a grain of salt, however, since they come from sources like
Fedecamaras, the Venezuelan federation of Chambers of Commerce. In
the 2002 coup, Fedecamaras President Pedro Carmona was named as
interim president of the country, and it has been a leading
counter-revolutionary force. Still, all the symptoms of severe
economic crisis are in force.
Venezuela’s
currency, the bolivar, has crashed relative to the dollar. The
official exchange rate is 2000 bolivars to a dollar, but for most
citizens the “unofficial” rate is over 10,000 to a dollar. Food
and medicine are unaffordable for many, thanks to heavy inflation,
and other goods are priced beyond them. The hoarding of supplies by
the bourgeois opposition has also increased shortages of food and
basic goods.
The
army has taken charge of subsidized food-distribution as price
controls have fed an out-of-control black market. Four out of five
households were considered poor last year, and most live on the
minimum wage of 250,000 bolivars.
PDVSA,
the nationalized oil firm, has watched its revenue figures crash in
the past year, as creditors are drawing away most of its profits. The
firm has borrowed almost $6 billion as advance payments from the
Russian oil firm Rosneft. There was briefly a question of whether
Citgo (owned by PDVSA) could be subject to a lien from the Russian
company, but Rosneft has dumped its shares due to U.S. sanctions.
Russia functions as Venezuela’s lender of last resort, and stands
to reap a windfall if oil prices increase thanks to the crisis.
Pensions
and the minimum wage have not received their annual adjustments. This
symbolizes a deeper part of the crisis: Venezuela’s sovereign debt
is near collapse. Credit Suisse has banned the country’s bonds, and
Goldman Sachs was criticized for buying them. There is a growing
drumbeat in the financial press that Venezuela might default on its
debt, as payments come due in October and November of this year. Even
if the government can muster enough hard currency for this year, next
year’s payments loom heavily on the horizon.
Populism
under Chávez
Under
Hugo Chávez, who was president from 1999 until his death from cancer
in 2013, Venezuela was the jewel of Latin America’s “Pink Tide.”
After a 1999 constitutional reform, Chávez survived a coup d’etat
in 2002 with massive support from the Venezuelan working class.
Following an unsuccessful recall referendum in 2004 he began to set
himself out as an anti-neoliberal reformer.
Flush
with oil wealth from the state-owned oil firm PDVSA, Chávez’s
Venezuela created an aggressive welfare state and popular
organizations dedicated to social reform. His government established
closer diplomatic and trade relations with Cuba. Together, Cuba and
Venezuela founded the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our
America (ALBA), which grew to include Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua,
and several other countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.
But
Chávez’s rule was always based on an alliance with the
“Boli-bourgeoisie,” the capitalists who made their profits
alongside the oil industry, as well as the working class. Despite
grandiose claims of “21st-century socialism,” and a handful of
nationalizations, Chávez remained squarely inside the boundaries of
classical Latin American populism.
Maduro
became president of Venezuela under less than ideal circumstances.
Lacking Chávez’s charisma and facing a long-term decline of oil
prices, Maduro was forced into currency manipulations that crashed
Venezuela’s import trade. While he survived a recall attempt in
2014, at the end of 2015 Maduro and the PSUV lost control of the
National Assembly for the first time since the party was formed in
2007.
Maduro
declared an emergency in January 2016, and gave himself the ability
to rule by decree, which would persist until well into 2017. Then in
May of this year, the Supreme Court dismissed the Assembly and
granted Maduro further decree powers. The action against the Assembly
drew harsh criticism and had to be repealed, driving Maduro to call
for a Constituent Assembly, which would have formal power over the
National Assembly.
Revolutions
cannot be made halfway. Chávez’s Bolivarian Revolution improved
the lot of workers and the poor in Venezuela, and included inspiring
measures such as the building of local communes and workers taking
over abandoned factories. But it never followed the Russian and Cuban
revolutions in nationalizing the banks, agricultural land, and big
industries. This means that the oligarchs remained in control, and
has allowed the deep slide backward under Maduro.
Socialist
Action demands “Hands Off Venezuela!” Trump’s threats and
sanctions are aimed at fomenting a coup d’etat against the
Venezuelan government. We are completely opposed to Washington’s
support for the Venezuelan right-wing opposition, which has used mass
action tactics to destabilize the country. We cannot forget that
during the 2002 coup, the United States immediately recognized the
coup government as legitimate, and 15 years later is still hoping to
finish the job.
The
opposition is based in the predominantly white middle classes.
Chavismo’s base has been among the mestizo and Afro-Venezuelan
population, and middle-class whites see this as a threat to their
privileges. The opposition’s leadership is drawn from Venezuela’s
traditional elite, which traces its lineage back to the Spanish
conquest of the Americas, among them Henrique Capriles and Leopoldo
López. Former Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, who is now
organizing a network of the Latin American far right, has been among
those calling for a coup.
Chávez,
a former colonel, enjoyed the support of much of Venezuela’s
military throughout his career. Maduro, who worked his way up in the
civil bureaucracy, has no such connection. He has leaned on the
military increasingly throughout his presidency but has had to make
major concessions, giving more and more positions to officers and
using the National Guard in an attempt to tamp down resistance. This
poses obvious dangers: Maduro cannot lean on the military
permanently. Given incentive from the right wing, the army could
easily turn on Maduro and back a different leader, and there would be
nothing to stop them.
Maduro
particularly has had a tin ear for the Venezuelan masses, in contrast
to Chávez’s charisma. Even in normal times, this would be a
handicap. After four years of unrelenting crisis, it has led him to
deepen the authoritarian measures that Chávez was able to say with
honesty were rarely needed. The PSUV government is now guilty of
numerous crimes against the Venezuelan people. But we reject
unconditionally any attempts by the United States, the U.S.-backed
MUD opposition, or any foreign power to overthrow Maduro.
The
only way to secure and deepen the gains that workers made under
Chávez is to form a workers’ government. A revolutionary workers’
party that fights for socialism, independent of Maduro and the PSUV
as well as the MUD reactionaries, must be built to lead the working
class, armed and organized against a coup. Only such a government
could prioritize workers’ desperate needs against the entrenched
military and oligarchy interests.
Trump’s
direct threats are a new facet of U.S. attempts to install a pliable
client regime in Venezuela. This policy was put forward by both
George W. Bush and Barack Obama. It reflects a long history of U.S.
imperial intervention, including the Guatemala coup of 1954, the Bay
of Pigs invasion in Cuba, the overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile
in 1973, U.S. support for death squads in Nicaragua and El Salvador
in the 1980s, and most recently the 2009 coup in Honduras. In the
U.S. we need a strong, democratic antiwar movement, independent of
both the Democrats and Republicans, which can mount mass actions
around the demand, “Hands Off Venezuela!”
>> The article above was written by Wayne DeLuca, and is reprinted from Socialist Action.
No comments:
Post a Comment