On why the United Kingdom should become more engaged in the question of Venezuela
The principle of «non-interference» in the domestic affairs of sovereign states is a much-trumpeted canon of international relations. However, to those of us who are mere spectators in the lofty game of international power and diplomacy, this noble principle of peaceful coexistence seems a complete sham, as we observe how most countries (big and small) are constantly interfering in the internal affairs of each other (openly and covertly). But surely, there is a difference between «interference» and «intervention» and in this note… I will explain why the United Kingdom should become more engaged in the important question of Venezuela. I imagine that this contribution will set me up for censure by unsympathetic Chavistas, who in accordance with established practice and with the customary language and hyperbole, will likely denounce this note as a «treacherous» call for foreign interference in the internal affairs of Venezuela; an utter hypocrisy, when one considers the many times the Bolivarian Revolution has interfered in the internal affairs of many other countries (friend and foe alike) since the late Hugo Chavez rose to power. The one thing this note will not do… is suggest what kind of engagement it should be. I will leave that to those who understand the complicated game of international power and diplomacy better than I. But before going any further, I would first like to briefly consider why anyone should want to become involved in the question of Venezuela. To consider the detail of Venezuela’s economic and social malaise is beyond the scope of this note (for information on this, see my note: The end of the Bolivarian Revolution and how the Left sowed the seeds of its demise)… suffice to say that it is no longer controversial, even amongst government supporters, to say that the country is in the midst of an economic and social catastrophe. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is supposedly a democracy and «the people» of Venezuela want change… as evidenced by the overwhelming victory of the opposition at last December’s parliamentary election (for information on this, see my note: Will Chavismo finally kill off democracy in Venezuela?). So on the face of it, it should be a simple question of the electorate dismissing an incompetent and corrupt government (via democratic elections) and giving someone else the task of rebuilding the country. However, as the events of the last three months have shown even more clearly than usual… under Chavismo, the democracy-label is a farce. The trouble for the opposition, indeed for the country as a whole, is that twenty years of unbridled corruption, nepotism and many other questionable vices, make it virtually impossible for the incumbent government officials (and their wider circle) to even entertain the idea of regime change (peaceful or otherwise)… the stakes are too high. The recent launch of an investigation by the opposition-controlled National Assembly into allegations of fraud at the state oil company (PDVSA) is emblematic of the risks the PSUV leadership faces. The governing party can continue to frustrate and stifle parliament but only as long as they control the remaining branches of government and the armed forces. So they will do whatever it takes to stay in power, even if it means contradicting its own anti-capitalist narrative. For example, recent efforts to flog stakes in various oil fields across the country, in order to raise much needed hard currency, seem to go against the spirit of the late Hugo Chavez re-nationalisation efforts and rhetoric; even if the equity is sold to political aligned international partners.
People outside Venezuela may well ask… so what? Why does it matter to us, if the government of a country in Latin America is failing its own people? Why does it matter to us, if the people of this country are suffering… because of the failures of its corrupt and incompetent government? Why does it matter to us, if the political leadership of this country is entrenching itself in power by undemocratic means? Why should any of it matter to us… as long as Venezuelans keep their devastation inside their own borders? After all… people are responsible for the choices they make, and since Venezuelans elected the late Hugo Chavez and his PSUV into power, surely they should accept the full consequences of their «electoral» choices… as dire as these might be; or as the political philosopher once said: “people get the leaders they deserve”. But things are seldom this simple. The reason why it matters (or why it should matter) to those outside Venezuela, beyond the important moral imperative of defending democracy and human rights, is because the Bolivarian Revolution has been exporting its «toxic waste» to other shores for nearly twenty years and it will continue to do so with increasing intensity (like a cornered animal) until the democratic mechanisms of the country are allowed to function properly once again and the will of the people can re-establish itself. Mr. Tariq Ali, that leading figure of the British and international Left, called Venezuela «the frontline» of the battle against capitalism and he was right to do so, considering how Chavez used her petrodollars during his tenure (although Mr. Ali was mistaken in thinking that the PSUV was fighting the Left’s battles). There is no scope to list here the many ways in which the Bolivarian Revolution has shown itself to be a threat to the peace and stability of the region, suffice to say that The United States declared Venezuela a «national security threat» last year for good reasons; although I would have preferred for them to declare Chavez, the PSUV and the Bolivarian Revolution the threat and not Venezuela (if that were possible), because in reality Venezuela is just a hostage; and to those that consider the Bolivarian Revolution to be a threat to the peace and stability of only the Americas, I would invite them to follow the course of the Venezuelan parliament’s recently launched investigation into their alleged funding of the Spanish political party Podemos… could there be other similar examples across Europe and beyond? According to the «sphere of influence» principle, the United States and other Latin American nations are the appropriate countries for helping Venezuelans in their struggle for democracy. However, a combination of regional diplomatic impotence in the case of the local global super power, lack of traction in the case of some regional players, or complicity in the case of others, has produced regional paralysis regarding the question of Venezuela. As former Organisation of American States (OAS) Secretary General, Mr Jose Miguel Insulza, once said: The political crisis in Venezuela was one of the “most complex and painful” issues we have had to deal with, “because the countries refused to act”. The United States is unable to play a constructive leadership role because, for reasons that are not within the scope of this note, it has lost much of its influence in Latin America. The creation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) in 2011 and its almost complete isolation in the summer of 2014, when virtually the whole continent demanded the reincorporation of Cuba into the OAS community (amid US objections) are two symbolic examples of their loss of influence in the region. So while democracy dies in Venezuela, there are no pan-American «champions» to defend her from the ravages of Chavismo. The United States has tried to take on a more openly vigorous leadership role but every time they stick their head above the parapet, even when they seem to do so in good faith, the rest of the regional players knock them down… like the proverbial little mole in the old «Whack a Mole» arcade game machines. Consequently, the strategy appears to be… to chip at the edges and let the collapse of the economy and its society do the job. In other words, let the Bolivarian Revolution implode, because of the sheer weight of its many blunders and vices.
However, those that believe that the Bolivarian Revolution can end this way, underestimate its staying power. The PSUV can continue to borrow money abroad (from politically aligned folk who are less concerned with rising credit risk). They can continue to sell off (or mortgage) the country’s substantial assets: i.e. its natural resources. They can continue to strip value from the private sector: i.e. there are still plenty of assets in private hands. They can basically continue to dismantle the country brick by brick, to buy themselves time and wait for the commodity cycle to take oil prices back up to levels at which they might be able to stave-off the worst kinds of social unrest; and if the Castro brothers have been able to survive for so long in Cuba, with almost no resources, how long might the PSUV survive in Venezuela, with the world’s largest reserves of oil at its disposal? So it is imperative for the international community to become more constructively engaged in the question of Venezuela. But if the United States is constrained and Latin America is either toothless or compromised, who can step up to plate? Although competing world super-powers will always reject the idea of «spheres of influence» when it comes to their rivals, the concept does seem to guide the way they conduct international politics and diplomacy with their allies. For example, the United States may reject the idea of China claiming to have a sphere of influence over Asia, and China may reject the idea of the United States claiming to have a sphere of influence over Latin America… However, when projecting their influence abroad, both will most likely operate with (or through) allies selected on the basis of their respective location and their cultural, economic, or historical connections with the given territory or subject matter. Therefore, why should the United States partner with the United Kingdom when it comes to Venezuela? Beyond the strong moral, diplomatic, economic and lets call them Darwinian, reasons why Britain should be involved in the question of Venezuela, there is also a quixotic reason for her to do so. The two countries may not share a common language, they may be very different culturally and to be sure, they have had many diplomatic quarrels in the past (some of them big ones)… but they also share deep bonds of friendship and cooperation that go back a long way. For example, it may surprise folk to know that it was British capital (not American) that was at first most responsible for helping Venezuela move from being an agricultural backwater (exporting cocoa and tobacco) to being the world’s largest exporter of oil from the mid-1920s. But more importantly, it may surprise some readers to know about the critical role played by the United Kingdom in the independence of Venezuela. It would literally take tomes to do justice to the full scale of Britain’s intervention in Venezuela’s independence struggle, but I am sure that a few references will suffice to make the point. The two most revered «sons» of Venezuela, her two pre-eminent independence war heroes (Francisco de Miranda and Simon Bolivar) met… not in Venezuelan soil but in England; and it was from London that Miranda conspired, with the knowledge and (covert) support of the British government, to free Venezuela from the Spanish yoke (from whence he received the title of «Precursor» of the independence). Some readers may not know about the crucial role played by the “British Legion” in Venezuela’s independence war. In fact, this unofficial army of British officers played such an important role, that Simon Bolivar called them “the saviours of my Fatherland” and the mortal remains of three of them are buried alongside him, in the National Pantheon of Heroes. The Liberator decreed that in future, when British troops parade in Colombia (The Great) (the original name of the country that resulted from the union of Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela) they will do so “with bayonets fixed on their rifles”… the only army in the world with the right and honour to do so.
Francisco de Miranda had been lobbying Britain for support from the days of William Pitt the Younger. Britain eventually promise to do so and when Arthur Wellesley was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant General in 1808, the first official command he accepted, was that of leading an expedition of 9,000 men to Latin America, to assist Miranda in the liberation of Venezuela. It was only at the last minute, because of Napoleon’s invasion of Spain a few months earlier (which in effect made Spain an ally) that he was ordered to set sail for Portugal instead, to take part in the Peninsular Campaign; and Britain’s intention to officially support Venezuela was compromised. Without this twist of fate, perhaps Wellesley would not have become Duke of Wellington or beaten Napoleon at Waterloo and Britain might have played a more official and decisive role in Venezuela’s independence. How fitting… that two hundred years later Britain should once again have the opportunity to keep her promise and support Venezuelans in their struggle for freedom and democracy; and how wonderful it would be, if she was able to take up the gauntlet this time.
Virgilio Mendoza