Echoes of the past, shivers of the present «History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce», Karl Marx
Karl Marx may not have been right about some things but he was certainly right about one thing: the efforts of some countries to create a communist paradise on earth in the last century ended up as a tragedy; and the efforts of Latin American countries to repeat the experiment in this century is ending up as a farce. I recently had the opportunity to learn about a watershed moment in the history of Germany which has many parallels with what is happening in Venezuela these days: «The East German Uprising of 1953». Some of the key lessons of this remarkable episode of German and Cold War history argue in favour of a much more proactive approach by the international community on the question of Venezuela. On June 17th 1953 the people of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) rose up against the governing Socialist Unity Party of East Germany (SED). What had started the previous day as a few workers demanding better working standards and a handful of strikes, spread throughout the country (and across all sectors of society) like wildfire until it became a full blown rebellion in which «the people» of East Germany demanded the release of political prisoners, the resignation of the government and free elections, among other things. This note is not the place to review those events in detail but a few remarks are necessary. The people of East Germany rose up against a totalitarian and corrupt Marxist regime that had been supported by (and under the control of) the communists regime in Moscow. As the number of protesters increased, they became aware of their power and felt that, although the government had all the weapons, they could achieve victory by strength of numbers and determination. They were emboldened by comments from polititians in West Germany and the main western powers and by the sympathetic coverage of western media.
«We will show the world that it is possible to handle a totalitarian regime… We will assert the freedom of the world» Ernst Reuter, Mayor of West Berlin, 17 June, 1953 «The Germans did something in East Berlin, which is going to take up a very special place in the history of Germany… The Soviets may gun down German women and men because they have tanks and machine guns, but we know now – and the world knows it too – that there is courage and a spirit in the German people that will not suffer this oppression forever» New York Times, June 18, 1953
West German polititians such as Reuter and Chancellor Konrad Adenauer were outwardly optimistic because of U.S. developments and assurances. Perhaps the key factor at play was the more assertive tone of the new U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower (relative to his predecessor, Harry S Truman) with regards to the question of Germany and Russia. Eisenhower came to office arguing that Truman’s brand of containment was dangerously defensive and proceeded to design and implement a new strategy called «rollback», the objective of which was to «encourage and help the people of Eastern Europe throw off the yoke of Communism». However, soon after the new strategy was launched the East German uprising erupted spontaneously, which caught the Americans off guard. The civil unrest and the demands of the people seemed to be the very issues which «rollback» had sought to exploit. However, despite the appeals of West German polititians and a flood of news reports of East Berliners’ pleas for the U.S. to follow through on what they had promised, Washington did not support the rebellion and only went so far as to encourage passive resistance. The occupying Russian army did not get involved initially, but as the SED and the East German police were unable to contain the unrest, the Russian forces sent the tanks in, declared a state of emergency and brutally beat down the uprising. According to reports there were about 275 deaths and thousands of arrests during those fateful days, and later the authorities meted out sentences totalling some 8,000 years in prison 1
«The West failed in producing solidarity for the effective support of the suppressed. June 17 1953 was the first real test of the conception and determinedness of western policy. The west did not pass this test» «What did June 17 teach us?» Memorandum by Dr Rainer Hildebrandt published in 1954.
Looking at the old black and white photos of the East Berlin demonstrations and reading some of the comments made at the time by polititians (on both sides) and the ordinary people that were involved… sent shivers down my spine; the similarities with what has been happening in Venezuela these last few months are as uncanny as they are ominous. The East German uprising of 1953 may have shown the world that «there is courage and a spirit in the German people» but when all is said and done, what it really showed was that: if the people only have stones and sticks, flags and placards, wooden shields and hardhats, but they are fighting a totalitarian regime that is armed to the teeth, has control of all the resources and institutions of the nation and is determined to do whatever it takes to stay in power, then it does not matter whether the people have courage, spirit, numbers and justice on their side… they will remain oppressed while the international community stands on the side-lines. 1 From a paper published in the Journal of Cold War Studies in 2000 «Eisenhower and the Berlin Problem 1953 – 1954» by David G. Coleman
The United States and other western powers offered the East Germans nothing but empty words of support in 1953 and the outcome was another 35 years of suffering under the communist yoke... and a wall to boot. Unless the international community intervenes in the Venezuelan situation in a resolute manner, the courageous and spirited people of Venezuela will remain oppressed for a very long time and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela will become a destructive force that will increasingly undermine the peace and stability of the American continent and beyond. However, so far the international community’s efforts appear to be a shambles of division, contradictions, incoherence and dishonesty. One only hopes that there is a method to their madness and that as mere mortals, we just do not get to see the full picture. For example, on the diplomatic front… the United States has been one of the few countries that have consistently confronted the chavista regime both directly and through supranational institutions like the Organisation of American States (OAS). The U.S. has tirelessly campaigned for the OAS to adopt a more vigorous role. However, when it comes to taking concrete action, the UN of the Americas has been a toothless kitten. The recent saga of the application of the democratic charter to Venezuela is a case in point. The United States has not been able to exert any influence in the region. For instance, whenever there is a vote on Venezuela, the countries that commonly vote against the U.S. are not only the chavista regimes… but also many of the small countries and tiny Caribbean island states that are friendly with (and economically dependent on) the United States and its European partners. Somehow the Venezuelan regime has nurtured clientelistic networks with many of those small nations in exchange for a few cheap barrels of oil (and who knows what else) that the world’s ubiquitous superpower and its European partners have been unable to disrupt… perhaps they have not tried? Furthermore, many of these tiny Caribbean nations are also members of the British Commonwealth (or in fact are British Crown dependencies) and yet, the United Kingdom, which has recently become more vocal in its criticism of the Venezuelan regime, also seems to have been unable to influence them… perhaps it has not tried? The incoherency of the international community’s approach towards Venezuela is perhaps most shockingly exposed on the economic front. I do not want to explore this in detail, because I am mindful that the interplay of international trade, US dollar flows and diplomacy are difficult to grasp for us mere observers. However, it seems odd that the United States and its allies should be so vital for the survival of the chavista regime. For example, more than 70% of Venezuelan exports (which raise much needed US dollars) go… not to China, Russia or Cuba, but to the United States and countries aligned to it such as India, among others. Furthermore, although loans and investments to the regime do originate these days mostly from China and Russia, one still reads about banks and corporations from the United States and other allied countries closing deals with the chavistas (although this may change if the Trump administration implements the recently talked about sanctions). But the most shocking aspect of the international community’s disjointed approach towards Venezuela pertains the complacent way in which the key Latin American countries have been dealing with the whole issue. The governments in Brasilia, Mexico, Buenos Aires, Lima
and Bogota seem to do little beyond offering words of support to the people of Venezuela and lambasting the chavistas; and their approach is full of contradictions. For example, as suggested earlier, the East German Uprising of 1953 showed that nothing will change in Venezuela unless the international community intervenes with resolution; and yet, when the United States President takes it up a notch and declares that «nothing is off the table» when it comes to Venezuela, not even military options… the governments in Brasilia, Mexico, Buenos Aires, Lima and Bogota, which have been talking tough… were quick to side with the communists in Cuba in their condemnation of the United States; just as they did when the U.S. imposed sanctions on some of the key chavista officials. Incidentally, why is the United States the only country to have imposed sanctions on Venezuelan government officials? What is the point of corrupt officials in Caracas having access to the U.S. markets denied, and having their stolen assets (kept in the U.S.) confiscated… if they can get around the sanctions by enjoying the sanctuary of European and Latin American markets? But the height of hypocrisy and short-sightedness was epitomised when it transpired that a Brazilian company was providing the chavista regime with much of the tear gas, pepper spray and rubber bullets that they have been using to brutally put down anti-government protests; even though Brazil’s President has been one of the harshest critics of the regime’s brutal handling of the anti-government demonstrations… go figure! (It is said that the Brazilian company in question stopped supplying the regime… once the story broke out in the media). Brazil and Mr Temer ought to consider what happened to Spain. If one were to scan Spanish newspapers these days, one would think that she is the staunchest sworn enemy of the chavista regime. However, just over ten years ago Spain closed a record breaking arms deal with Venezuela, in which they sold Hugo Chavez about US$2bn worth of small warships and aircraft (not their first arms sale) despite calls from the United States to drop the deal, for obvious reasons. At the time Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero defended the sale and said that the equipment would help fight drug trafficking… the irony! The conviction of two of Nicolas Maduro’s nephews last year on charges of attempting to smuggle 800 kilograms of cocaine into the U.S and the record-breaking cocaine haul by French authorities in 2013… are just two of the myriad examples of why the Venezuelan government and its military are these days considered to be one of the worst drug trafficking problems in the hemisphere. However, the «Faustian deal» closed by Zapatero with Chavez did certainly burn Spain and particularly his own political party (the PSOE)… considering that a few years later Hugo Chavez financed Spain’s Podemos, which has caused so much turmoil in Spanish politics and that Podemos has probably been the main reason why Zapatero’s Socialist party has been out of power since then; at least Mr Zapatero himself did manage to wangle a sweet deal with the chavistas last year, for him to lead the latest round of time-wasting talks between them and the opposition. Do the Latin American governments not realise that the biggest risk to their democracies is the very chavista regime that they so often defend and trade with? If oil is the nourishment that feeds the revolution at home, it is also the catalyst which generates instability overseas;
instability that creates the ecosystems that breed the international partners, advocates and clients that are absolutely essential for its long term survival. If Washington and its Latin American and European partners were concerned when Cuba (the Bolivarian revolution’s mentor) exported its Marxist revolution across the continent (despite the U.S. embargo) they should consider (when deciding what to do) that Venezuela is like Cuba on steroids! The chavista regime controls the largest proven oil reserves on the planet! They have nearly as much oil as the United States, Canada and Russia combined; which on a per capita basis, means that Venezuelan oil reserves are about 60 times those of the United States. In other words (using last year’s numbers and ignoring the fact that Venezuela also has the world’s 7th largest gas reserves and many other natural resources)… Maduro and his cronies have enough oil to continue exporting their revolution across the American continent and beyond for nearly 500 years!
Virgilio Mendoza, 25th August, 2017