Things Not Going Well in Venezuela, 2.0

[Brisketexan 106889]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

So leaving it up to the people of Venezuela and not sticking our noses in it means supporting Maduro?

When Maduro has bought and has full ownership of the guys with the guns and tanks, and has all the economic power, and can withhold even food aid from the opposition?  Yeah, it does.  Preventing anything that even remotely levels the playing field and gives the opposition any protection and breathing room, well, that's pretty strong support for Maduro.

[hayden_horn 11402]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

When Maduro has bought and has full ownership of the guys with the guns and tanks, and has all the economic power, and can withhold even food aid from the opposition?  Yeah, it does.  Preventing anything that even remotely levels the playing field and gives the opposition any protection and breathing room, well, that's pretty strong support for Maduro.

he also controls the media.

[David Dennison 19536]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

When Maduro has bought and has full ownership of the guys with the guns and tanks, and has all the economic power, and can withhold even food aid from the opposition?  Yeah, it does.  Preventing anything that even remotely levels the playing field and gives the opposition any protection and breathing room, well, that's pretty strong support for Maduro.

And how does the opposition propose leveling the playing field once it is in power? Trickle down? Rising tide lifts all boats? Which neoliberal cliche will win the hearts and minds of Venezuelans and the military?

[Brisketexan 106889]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

And how does the opposition propose leveling the playing field once it is in power? Trickle down? Rising tide lifts all boats? Which neoliberal cliche will win the hearts and minds of Venezuelans and the military?

How about "be even slightly less authoritarian and corrupt," and go from there?  I mean, I know, that's way too much to ask -- we should just accept that such things will happen in a Socialist Workers Paradise, and be grateful for them.

You suckers think this is about competing economic systems.  Those are fucking window dressing for suckers.  It's really about authoritarianism and corruption, and which alternative offers a lesser dose. 

[bad_teammate 13517]

20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Excusing, enabling, and supporting authoritarian corrupt regimes because it suits your political philosophy -- y'all couldn't be more American if you tried, and you don't even see the irony.

Maduro is an illegitimate, undemocratic leader. He's an absolute moron, cares more about his own power than his people, and is terrible at leading Venezuela. Despite that, I do not support either covert or overt US action to "overthrow" him.

Is that "support"? If so, then it's a meaningless word.

But in reality, JohnBirchBrisket, every accusation is a confession. You're so all-fired interventionist with regard to Venezuela because of your perception of how the left (who you hate) feels about it. Your perception of Venezuela as a Socialist hellhole is why you are seeing demons hiding in the corners. You imagine that I (and others) are the opposite side of your coin, but we're not.

There is not one positive word in this thread about Maduro, and it's not because we're all secretly Maduro fanboys who conspire to hide our love of him. It's because no one here has anything positive to say about him.

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

And how does the opposition propose leveling the playing field once it is in power? Trickle down? Rising tide lifts all boats? Which neoliberal cliche will win the hearts and minds of Venezuelans and the military?

Get out of here with that nonsense. We don't build nations, we break them.

[Brisketexan 106889]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Maduro is an illegitimate, undemocratic leader. He's an absolute moron, cares more about his own power than his people, and is terrible at leading Venezuela. Despite that, I do not support either covert or overt US action to "overthrow" him.

Is that "support"? If so, then it's a meaningless word.

But in reality, JohnBirchBrisket, every accusation is a confession. You're so all-fired interventionist with regard to Venezuela because of your perception of how the left (who you hate) feels about it. Your perception of Venezuela as a Socialist hellhole is why you are seeing demons hiding in the corners. You imagine that I (and others) are the opposite side of your coin, but we're not.

There is not one positive word in this thread about Maduro, and it's not because we're all secretly Maduro fanboys who conspire to hide our love of him. It's because no one here has anything positive to say about him.

Get out of here with that nonsense. We don't build nations, we break them.

I'd be thrilled to see noted Socialist and hardcore leftist Erdogan go down in flames as well, if you'd like a point of reference.  My loathing of Maduro isn't about the window-dressing.  It's about people in a country that SHOULD be able to feed its population, and WAS able to feed its population, suffering greatly.  And doing so needlessly.....while the corrupt ruling elite hoard cash and gold.  I oppose bullshit populism (Bolsonaro bears watching, for example).  It uniformly turns into buttfucking of the people in favor of the corrupt power structure and leadership.  

[David Dennison 19536]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

How about "be even slightly less authoritarian and corrupt," and go from there?  I mean, I know, that's way too much to ask -- we should just accept that such things will happen in a Socialist Workers Paradise, and be grateful for them.

You suckers think this is about competing economic systems.  Those are fucking window dressing for suckers.  It's really about authoritarianism and corruption, and which alternative offers a lesser dose. 

Let's just hope they have a better plan for equitably distributing resources. We wouldn't want a repeat of Chavez.

[bad_teammate 13517]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I'd be thrilled to see noted Socialist and hardcore leftist Erdogan go down in flames as well, if you'd like a point of reference.  My loathing of Maduro isn't about the window-dressing.  It's about people in a country that SHOULD be able to feed its population, and WAS able to feed its population, suffering greatly.  And doing so needlessly.....while the corrupt ruling elite hoard cash and gold.  I oppose bullshit populism (Bolsonaro bears watching, for example).  It uniformly turns into buttfucking of the people in favor of the corrupt power structure and leadership.  

Do you also advocate starving the people of Turkey and Brazil until those nations get better leadership?

[Brisketexan 106889]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Do you also advocate starving the people of Turkey and Brazil until those nations get better leadership?

I do love how "failing to ship food to a country its own leadership is starving' is on us.  There's literally nothing you'll hold Maduro responsible for -- it's all our fault.  Replace "Maduro" with Trump, and you've got the Trumpkin mindset perfectly.

[bad_teammate 13517]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

I do love how "failing to ship food to a country its own leadership is starving' is on us.  There's literally nothing you'll hold Maduro responsible for -- it's all our fault.  Replace "Maduro" with Trump, and you've got the Trumpkin mindset perfectly.

We can't control Maduro. We can control us. You should think more about the things you can influence and less about the things you can't.

Our economic sanctions are making the poverty and starvation in Venezuela worse. That is, in fact, the entire point of the sanctions; to, as you advocate, starve the Venezuelan people into action against Maduro.

[Brisketexan 106889]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

We can't control Maduro. We can control us. You should think more about the things you can influence and less about the things you can't.

Our economic sanctions are making the poverty and starvation in Venezuela worse. That is, in fact, the entire point of the sanctions; to, as you advocate, starve the Venezuelan people into action against Maduro.

You're right.  Clearly, what we need to do is bail Maduro out of this jam.  Silly me.  I mean, I don't support Maduro....I just oppose every single thing that might jeopardize his hold on power.

[bad_teammate 13517]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

You're right.  Clearly, what we need to do is bail Maduro out of this jam.  Silly me.  I mean, I don't support Maduro....I just oppose every single thing that might jeopardize his hold on power.

I support free and fair elections in Venezuela and if Maduro was legitimately ousted I wouldn't lose 1/10th of a second of sleep because I do not care about Nicholas Maduro at all. I don't love him; I don't hate him. He's just one of dozens of terrible international leaders, a group that includes many of our close allies and even our own president. Just because you have powerful feelings about Maduro doesn't mean everyone else does.

If ensuring the safety and food security of the Venezuelan people means bailing out Maduro, then I absolutely support it. Increasing the suffering of men, women, and children to put pressure on a despot is absolutely inhuman. You know that, which is why your only dance move here is to scream "YOU LOVE MADURO!" over and over like the neo-cons screamed "YOU LOVE SADDAM!" when they were trying to goad everyone into supporting one of the greatest crimes in American history.

[Fozzz 152]

I'm just worried that economic warfare won't be enough to bring down that dastardly Maduro.  What if Maduro goes full Juche?  In order to free Venezuela from the clutches of Chavismo, we need to consider invasion.  A war would probably last a few months at most, and we would be greeted as liberators.  

[Brisketexan 106889]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I support free and fair elections in Venezuela and if Maduro was legitimately ousted I wouldn't lose 1/10th of a second of sleep because I do not care about Nicholas Maduro at all. I don't love him; I don't hate him. He's just one of dozens of terrible international leaders, a group that includes many of our close allies and even our own president. Just because you have powerful feelings about Maduro doesn't mean everyone else does.

If ensuring the safety and food security of the Venezuelan people means bailing out Maduro, then I absolutely support it. Increasing the suffering of men, women, and children to put pressure on a despot is absolutely inhuman. You know that, which is why your only dance move here is to scream "YOU LOVE MADURO!" over and over like the neo-cons screamed "YOU LOVE SADDAM!" when they were trying to goad everyone into supporting one of the greatest crimes in American history.

You don't love him.  You just oppose literally ANYTHING that might weaken his rule in any way.  You are a Trumpkin.  But with a latin flair.  Good for you.

[bad_teammate 13517]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You just oppose literally ANYTHING that might weaken his rule in any way.

Me: "I support free and fair elections in Venezuela..."

Brisket is broken.

[Brisketexan 106889]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Me: "I support free and fair elections in Venezuela..."

Brisket is broken.

"I support Donald Trump moderating his rhetoric, and only acting on international affairs after receiving and accounting for the advice of experts in the field."  Great.  Lovely wish.  Meaningless, but lovely.

You don't support anything TANGIBLE.  Maduro will keep Maduro-ing.  And you'll be a furrowed-brow Republican, VERY concerned about Trump, and wishing he WASN'T being so Trumpy.....but not only not supporting, but actually OPPOSING ANY measure that might actually cause something to change.  But I get it.  You're VERY concerned.  You and Jeff Flake should share a cabin together on the SS Concerned, the ship that never actually leaves port.

[SquishMitten 10497]

After fifteen minutes of reading, I haven’t learned anything about the goings-on in Venezuela, but I can confidently say Brisket and Bad teammate would be better off if they stopped responding to each other. Y’all sound like a drunk high school couple having a fight, responding without even hearing what the other person just said

[Brisketexan 106889]

8 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

After fifteen minutes of reading, I haven’t learned anything about the goings-on in Venezuela, but I can confidently say Brisket and Bad teammate would be better off if they stopped responding to each other. Y’all sound like a drunk high school couple having a fight, responding without even hearing what the other person just said

FUCK YOU MY MOTHER ALWAYS SAID YOU WERE TROUBLE AND SHE WAS RIGHT.

[F250 29200]

The U.S. sanctions are going to punish the citizens of Venezuela, this is an expected consequence of sanctions. This is just a diplomatic way of beating the oppressed in Venezuela while saying the "beatings will continue until morale improves!" as a way to turn the population and Maduro supporters against him. Does anyone that supports U.S. intervention to bring about regime change not see the ethical problems involved with intervention?

 

[bad_teammate 13517]

39 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You don't support anything TANGIBLE. 

Dude, you're just a liar at this point. You were right to take a hiatus from the thread and you should do it again.

There were already-ongoing mediated negotiations between Maduro's government and the opposition that were already happening before the 2018 election. An ugly, difficult, and slow process that does not involve civil war and starvation. Bring Maduro and the opposition to the negotiating table with regional partners (NOT the US) and offer humanitarian aid in the interim.

Lead by example. Develop and implement processes for democratic electoral transparency and fairness and advocate for their successful implementation in the international community. Encourage friends and partners to adopt similar models and spread them as much as possible. Press for international observers for all elections (we should model that by having them oversee OUR elections) and offer even fatter aid packages and economic incentives in return for that indignity to their sovereignty (and as reparations for the tremendous harm done to the Venezuelan people by these international sanctions).

For a democratic process to be genuine and authentic, it has to be trusted by the people who are intended to be governed. They will not (and SHOULD not) trust any process where our giant, corrupt foot is on anyone's throat.

[Brisketexan 106889]

12 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

There were already-ongoing mediated negotiations between Maduro's government and the opposition that were already happening before the 2018 election. An ugly, difficult, and slow process that does not involve civil war and starvation. Bring Maduro and the opposition to the negotiating table with regional partners (NOT the US) and offer humanitarian aid in the interim.

In other words, effectively nothing.  Indeed, why were there ANY talks to begin with?  What is the Maduro regime's incentive to sit down and have talks with ANYONE, about ANYTHING?  Because pressure from the locals because.....Maduro is making their lives shitty.  And your sole suggestion is.....provide pressure relief for Maduro.  Thus removing any incentive for the regime to engage in good-faith negotiations about anything. 

There is no path without suffering.  That's the ugly, awful truth.  People have been hungry for some time.  They are hungry today.  If this regime stays in power, they are going to be hungry, to varying degrees, for years to come.  Which path has a chance of making that period of suffering SHORTER, as opposed to longer?

It's like chemo -- you see the patient puking and losing his hair, and holler that we MUST stop the process that is making them puke.  The better play is to make it through the puking, and get rid of the cancer.

16 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Lead by example. Develop and implement processes for democratic electoral transparency and fairness and advocate for their successful implementation in the international community. Encourage friends and partners to adopt similar models and spread them as much as possible. Press for international observers for all elections (we should model that by having them oversee OUR elections) and offer even fatter aid packages and economic incentives in return for that indignity to their sovereignty (and as reparations for the tremendous harm done to the Venezuelan people by these international sanctions).

I said I was down with that from the beginning.  That should be our long-term approach, across the board.  But you and I both know that alone won't improve anything in today's Venezuela.  Practically speaking, you are suggesting ideals and platitudes.  Very Jeff Flake.

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

For a democratic process to be genuine and authentic, it has to be trusted by the people who are intended to be governed. They will not (and SHOULD not) trust any process where our giant, corrupt foot is on anyone's throat.

Yes.  They should trust the process where there's a massive imbalance of power, and they should trust the regime that has ITS giant, corrupt foot on their throat.  There's a reason that the authoritarian playbook has certain, set plays in it (control the military and bribe them with special privileges and cash, change the rule of law to prevent legal opposition from having a shot in future elections, use basics like food to both 1) buy the loyalty of supporters and 2) withhold it to punish any opposition, etc.) -- it's because they WORK.  Without any external pressure, the Maduro regime will be in power indefinitely.  And the people of Venezuela will be in their current plight indefinitely.  But hey, at least nobody will puke or lose their hair!

[Brisketexan 106889]

22 minutes ago, F250 said:

The U.S. sanctions are going to punish the citizens of Venezuela, this is an expected consequence of sanctions. This is just a diplomatic way of beating the oppressed in Venezuela while saying the "beatings will continue until morale improves!" as a way to turn the population and Maduro supporters against him. Does anyone that supports U.S. intervention to bring about regime change not see the ethical problems involved with intervention?

 

Is there anyone who suggested that there's an easy, non-morally ambiguous path forward that involves ZERO human suffering?  There are only bad choices on the menu now.  That's what happens when you have an authoritarian regime.

Which path has the best shot at ending long-term suffering?  

We all seem to acknowledge that the ONLY way to flip this regime is for the people to rise up and do so.  So, what makes a people rise up against a regime? EXACTLY what is happening there -- pointlessly imposed suffering, while those closest to the regime are fat and happy.  And what is the ONE thing that the Maduro fans (intentionally or unwittingly) want to do?  Provide OUTSIDE relief (hmmm, sounds like "intervention") so that the people are less inclined to seek regime change from within.

The regime is following and has been following a path that leads to starvation and suffering by the people.  The people are getting fed up.  And the proposal is....put an end to that, so the people will go back to being submissive to the regime.  Relief today's suffering....and ensure that it goes on to some extent for another 5 years?  10?  That's what will happen if we artificially manipulate the current leverage.

[workswithseed 2204]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I'd be thrilled to see noted Socialist and hardcore leftist Erdogan go down in flames as well, if you'd like a point of reference.  My loathing of Maduro isn't about the window-dressing.  It's about people in a country that SHOULD be able to feed its population, and WAS able to feed its population, suffering greatly.  And doing so needlessly.....while the corrupt ruling elite hoard cash and gold.  I oppose bullshit populism (Bolsonaro bears watching, for example).  It uniformly turns into buttfucking of the people in favor of the corrupt power structure and leadership.  

I understand but Bolsonaro also helped the people get more guns. I'm pretty biased, but to me that seems pretty antaiuthortative. I could be wrong but I hope he keeps up the trend.

[Brisketexan 106889]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

I understand but Bolsonaro also helped the people get more guns. I'm pretty biased, but to me that seems pretty antaiuthortative. I could be wrong but I hope he keeps up the trend.

Pay attention to who is getting them, and what they'll be used for.

Hint: it's good if you're a miner or rancher.  It's very, very bad if you are an indigenous person living on the land the miner or rancher wants.  Just as one point of reference.

[bad_teammate 13517]

22 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

In other words, effectively nothing.  Indeed, why were there ANY talks to begin with?  What is the Maduro regime's incentive to sit down and have talks with ANYONE, about ANYTHING?

Before the elections of 2018, Maduro was already negotiating with the opposition under the mediation of a regional third party. That was already happening. Even now, Maduro has stated that he would like further talks.

Just completely dishonest war-mongering on your part to say Maduro won't talk when he's been talking and says he wants further talks.

You just don't like the idea of ugly, protracted negotiations that don't involve us because it doesn't suit your Veruca Salt level of political engagement.

Quote

Which path has a chance of making that period of suffering SHORTER, as opposed to longer?

Is this a serious question?

For a democratic process to be genuine and authentic, it has to be trusted by the people who are intended to be governed.They will not (and SHOULD not) trust any process where our giant, corrupt foot is on anyone's throat.

We have no indication that a majority or even a plurality of Venezuelans want this level of Western intervention. Their democratic history tells us that they do not trust us at all.

So if you want a serious answer to your question, Veruca dear, it's pretty obvious: Legitimate talks between the warring factions mediated by a local partner that leads to free and fair elections that the people will actually trust and live with.

Using foreign power to install a democratic regime doesn't work because the people who are intended to be governed are not idiots and they know they are under the rule of the sock puppet of generally-hostile powers.

Quote

The people are getting fed up.  And the proposal is....put an end to that, so the people will go back to being submissive to the regime. 

"Go back to"? What are you talking about?

[Nivek 17409]

This politics board is exactly the same as Texags politics.  Just for the left.  

Problem is that you are so far gone you can no longer tell what is the left or right anymore when you choose to enter the bubble of lies.

The former Republicans on here actually give a shit. Some have also noticed a pattern that doesn’t seem to be working for the longterm benefit of society. They didn’t become democrats but they left the GOP. It is not that difficult to figure out.

[Brian Fantana 6864]

This is effectively a no-win situation for us. Starving a country's people out to pressure a leader we don't like, and military intervention to facilitate regime change are both Very Bad Things and there's no sense in blowing the "We Must Liberate the Poor Venezuelans" trumpet because you know damn well we don't give two shits about them. 

[atomheartbevo 90642]

Maybe he can invade the British Virgin Islands and Theresa May can channel Maggie Thatcher and solve this.  

Bolton and Co, are going to fuck this up so hard.  

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Before the elections of 2018, Maduro was already negotiating with the opposition under the mediation of a regional third party. That was already happening. Even now, Maduro has stated that he would like further talks.

Just completely dishonest war-mongering on your part to say Maduro won't talk when he's been talking and says he wants further talks.

You just don't like the idea of ugly, protracted negotiations that don't involve us because it doesn't suit your Veruca Salt level of political engagement.

Is this a serious question?

For a democratic process to be genuine and authentic, it has to be trusted by the people who are intended to be governed.They will not (and SHOULD not) trust any process where our giant, corrupt foot is on anyone's throat.

We have no indication that a majority or even a plurality of Venezuelans want this level of Western intervention. Their democratic history tells us that they do not trust us at all.

So if you want a serious answer to your question, Veruca dear, it's pretty obvious: Legitimate talks between the warring factions mediated by a local partner that leads to free and fair elections that the people will actually trust and live with.

Using foreign power to install a democratic regime doesn't work because the people who are intended to be governed are not idiots and they know they are under the rule of the sock puppet of generally-hostile powers.

"Go back to"? What are you talking about?

Maduro wants nothing short of total control and power. Any talks with a third party are smoke screens or they're just lackeys who'll lick his boot heels. 

[F250 29200]

40 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

This is effectively a no-win situation for us. Starving a country's people out to pressure a leader we don't like, and military intervention to facilitate regime change are both Very Bad Things and there's no sense in blowing the "We Must Liberate the Poor Venezuelans" trumpet because you know damn well we don't give two shits about them. 

The United States government certainly cares about the poor Venezuelans. The Trump administration has proven that they deeply care about Spanish speaking brown skinned people, see Puerto Rico, Nicaragua and our immigration for examples of how much our government cares. Ok, I am kidding they don't care but we have adults in charge of the situation, Bolton and Abrams are running this show.

If we can trust anyone to oversee regime change in a country with massive oil resources it's John Bolton and Elliot Abrams, they have done this before. Its not as if they made a shitty situation even shittier while benefiting the interests of Western O&G corporations. No, wait they have done that.

This time its different, the Venezuelan population wants the U.S. to intervene and we will be welcomed as liberators. Besides, this is the only option, it's not like there was another option available that involved Latin American and Iberian nations to deal with this problem. Well there was but the U.S. pressured Spain to shut it down.

 

 

[F250 29200]

The interesting thing about all of this is as soon as the Trump admin played the greatest hits from the Dubya administration it didn't take long for ex-Republicans to start tapping their feet to beat.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, F250 said:

The interesting thing about all of this is as soon as the Trump admin played the greatest hits from the Dubya administration it didn't take long for ex-Republicans to start tapping their feet to beat.

Well you see, this is what authoritarian type administrations do.  When things are dog shit domestically nothing rallies the troops like marching off to war.  

Those opposed to liberating the Venezuelan people are obviously traitors that don’t support our troops. 

[Bookman 4760]

14 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Well to be fair, some of you are just blathering idiots who don't know their left from their right.  But have unfocussed social outrage all the live long day.

Says the guy who voted for a corrupt, immoral, incompetent, failed businessman. You’re not allowed to call anyone an “idiot.”

[bernorange 8385]

Quote

A group of Latin American countries and Canada has urged the Venezuelan military to support opposition leader Juan Guaidó as interim president.

In a statement, 11 of the 14 members of the Lima Group called for a change of power without the use of force and the urgent delivery of humanitarian aid.
...
The group issued a 17-point declaration, following a meeting in the Canadian capital, Ottawa.

The document says the governments of Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay and Peru "reiterate their recognition and support for Juan Guaidó" as interim president of Venezuela.

The 11 group members also urged the world community "to take measures to prevent the Maduro regime from conducting financial and trade transactions abroad, from having access to Venezuela's international assets and from doing business in oil, gold and other assets".

However, three members of the Lima Group - Guyana, Mexico and St Lucia - did not back the declaration.

The Lima Group was set up in 2017 with the aim of helping to find a peaceful solution to the Venezuela crisis.
...
At least 17 EU countries have officially recognised Mr Guaidó as interim president of Venezuela.

It follows the rejection of a deadline set by the UK, France, Germany, Spain and others for President Maduro to call new elections.

Other EU nations, such as Greece and Ireland, have called for fresh elections but stopped short of recognising Mr Guaidó.
...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-47126434

[GHOSTUSER 361]

WSJ has an incredible article today describing the inspiring bold decision of patriotism by Pres. Guaidó and his allies to take the course of action they have taken naming the head of the National Assembly as the real President of Venezuela. Bold, decisive leadership by an impressive 35 year old man fighting tyranny, suffering and starvation brought about by Chavista socialism. Bravo to Pres. Guaidó and the rest of the opposition. I hope a patriot in Maduro ‘s security detail takes the necessary action to save their country even at the cost of his own life by assassinating Maduro. If there is any way the US can assist in that effort, I hope we’d do so.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-the-hell-is-going-on-how-a-tiny-cabal-galvanized-venezuelas-opposition-11549555626

‘What the Hell Is Going On?’ How a Small Group Seized Control of Venezuela’s Opposition

The plan to unseat Nicolás Maduro came together quickly and secretly, taking many within the country’s notoriously fractious opposition by surprise

By 

David Luhnow, 

Juan Forero and 

José de Córdoba

Feb. 7, 2019 11:07 a.m. ET

CARACAS, Venezuela—What appeared to be a carefully calibrated policy to oust Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was actually a big gamble by a small group of opposition leaders acting on a hastily assembled plan.

When Juan Guaidó declared himself Venezuela’s interim president on Jan. 23 in front of a crowd of 100,000 people under a broiling sun, some leading opposition figures had no idea he would do so, say people who work with Mr. Guaidó and other top leaders. That included a few standing alongside him. A stern look of shock crossed their faces. Some quietly left the stage.

“What the hell is going on?” one member of a group of politicians wrote to the others in a WhatsApp group chat. “How come we didn’t know about this.” 

The plan was largely devised by a group of four opposition leaders—two in exile, one under house arrest and one barred from leaving the country. It came together only in recent weeks, as Mr. Maduro prepared to start a second six-year term on Jan. 10 after elections widely seen as a sham. Mr. Maduro has denounced the ceremony as part of a U.S.-backed coup to overthrow his government.

The act of political skulduggery paid off. The crowd reacted ecstatically to Mr. Guaidó, and one nation after another recognized him within hours.

The strategy has dramatically altered Venezuela’s political landscape, empowering a faction led by Mr. Guaidó’s Popular Will party that has long lobbied for more direct confrontation with the Maduro regime.

Opposition leaders agreed Mr. Maduro was illegitimate and that the National Assembly, with the 35-year-old Mr. Guaidó as its newly elected head, was the country’s lone democratic institution. However, many were initially against the idea of naming Mr. Guaidó interim president, according to people familiar with the matter. They worried it might make eventual negotiation with Mr. Maduro impossible while deepening the misery for millions suffering from food and medicine shortages and political persecution against his rivals.

Others argued it was critical to strike quickly, and that waiting for consensus was futile.

“This was the moment to go for it,” said Maria Corina Machado, one of the four behind the strategy. The timing was also irresistible. The swearing-in took place on a symbolic day in Venezuela: On Jan. 23, 1958, students, unions and the military rose up to topple military dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez.

Mr. Guaidó himself only agreed to act the day before he declared himself president, his aides said. Some politicians—including those in the traditional Democratic Action Party, the largest opposition party—weren’t told of the plan.

“We didn’t want them to mess it up,” said one opposition leader who knew of the strategy.

That evening, after Mr. Guaidó’s move sparked an outpouring of support, opposition politicians of all stripes, including from Democratic Action, publicly backed the move. 

“We’ve become part of the political package facing off with the government,” said Edgar Zambrano, 63, a member of Democratic Action and the vice president of the National Assembly. 

Mr. Zambrano, one of the opposition leaders who appeared surprised on stage on Jan. 23, said the possibility of Mr. Guaidó assuming the presidency had been discussed in the weeks before, but that the final decision was in the hands of the young leader because of the risks it entailed.

Edgar Zambrano, left, with Mr. Guaidó, center, on Jan. 5. Photo: Fernando Llano/Associated Press

For now, at least, the events have electrified the opposition’s base. Mr. Guaidó draws large, boisterous crowds. He has appointed ambassadors for what is, in essence, a parallel government. His team has laid out plans to bring humanitarian aid from Colombia in a tactic designed to test the resolve of Venezuelan troops loyal to Mr. Maduro.

“Only a few weeks ago, I was totally depressed,” said Michael Penfold, an adviser to the opposition who counts himself as one of the doves who has now become a hawk. “I thought nothing was ever going to get Maduro out of power. Now, I wouldn’t be surprised if Maduro resigns within days.” 

The government, meanwhile, seems caught off guard and under siege, symbolized by the sandbags and soldiers toting machine guns that surround Mr. Maduro’s Miraflores presidential palace. On frequent appearances on state TV, Mr. Maduro can be seen jogging with troops and leading them in chants of, “Traitors, never! Loyal, always!”

If the opposition can force out Mr. Maduro, Popular Will and its head, Leopoldo López, will likely take the driver’s seat for any future democratic election, politicians and political analysts say. Mr. López, Mr. Guaidó’s political mentor, is under house arrest in Caracas.

Mr. López, who attended college and graduate school in the U.S., has long had close contact with American diplomats and is pro-free market. Mr. Guaidó has laid out an economic recovery plan that calls on private companies to help rescue Venezuela’s decaying oil industry, a proposal Mr. López had a hand in shaping.

The perception that the hard-line faction of the opposition has won the day could make the regime more liable to dig in, making any negotiation more unlikely. One opposition plan posits that Mr. Maduro would negotiate his own removal, leaving in exchange for, say, safe passage to a friendly country.

Nicolás Maduro walked with the military in Maracay, Venezuela, Feb. 4. Photo: miraflores palace/EPA/Shutterstock

With the opposition taking action, “the Maduro team doesn’t want to talk to them and doesn’t trust them,” said Phil Gunson, who tracks Venezuela’s crisis for the International Crisis Group, a nonprofit that studies conflicts. “They think they will all end up in jail or strung up from lampposts.”

If Mr. Maduro holds firm, it is likely to deepen the economic hardship for millions of Venezuelans. He could even emerge stronger, able to brag that he beat back a superpower. 

Mr. Zambrano, the member of Democratic Action, said that one big risk with the opposition strategy is thinking it will all be over too soon and not planning for a long and drawn-out confrontation. 

“We’ve committed a lot of errors in strategies, thinking the government was going to be ousted in a day,” he said. “Whoever bases their politics on that is going to fail.” 

The road to the standoff comes after three years of setbacks for the opposition that left them despondent, according to interviews with prominent members of several parties.

It also left four prominent leaders with the sense that the time for dramatic action was growing near. All have been targets of the regime.

Antonio Ledezma, 63, is a former Caracas mayor who spent time jailed and under house arrest before escaping to Spain.

His close ally is Ms. Machado, 51, an industrial engineer whose brief career as a lawmaker in the National Assembly included getting her nose broken in an attack by ruling party lawmakers, being accused of trying to assassinate Mr. Maduro, and getting expelled from the legislature in 2014. She is considered among the more intrepid of opposition leaders for holding rallies and speeches in pro-government communities, where she has been physically beaten and fired upon.

Julio Borges, 49, who lives in exile in Colombia, was the peacenik of the group. A father of quadruplets, he had long favored negotiations and elections. His position hardened toward taking action after he was threatened with jail early last year, forcing him and his family to flee.

And then there is Mr. López, 47, the head of Popular Will. The best-known adversary of the regime outside of Venezuela, he has maintained close ties with his opposition colleagues despite being confined at his apartment with an ankle monitor. He was jailed after protests in 2014 on charges that rights groups, as well as his prosecutors who have since defected, called trumped up. He’s a distant relative of Simón Bolívar, the liberation hero whose legacy Mr. Maduro’s Socialist Party has long leaned on.

The four leaders had in the past often bitterly disagreed over how to remove Mr. Maduro—and before him, Hugo Chávez, who turned Venezuela toward socialism after he took office in 1999. 

Leopoldo López arrived home after being released from jail in July 2017. He has been under house arrest since then. Photo: Carlos Becera/Bloomberg News

Some in the opposition argued a tough approach led to costly blunders, including a short-lived 2002 coup that ended up strengthening Mr. Chavez’s hand, and demonstrations in 2014 and 2017 that failed to force Mr. Maduro’s ouster while taking the lives of nearly 200 young people. 

“The opposition was a mess,” Mr. Borges said. “We had no plan. Some wanted dialogue, others not.”

The government’s own autocracy fueled the hardening in the opposition. It neutered the opposition-controlled congress, created a parallel assembly, illegally sunk a recall referendum on Mr. Maduro and barred leading opponents from running against Mr. Maduro last year.

The four leaders saw some factors breaking their way. Some 60 countries called the presidential vote illegitimate. The geopolitical stars aligned from South America to Washington and Europe, as conservative governments opposed to Mr. Maduro took power and policy makers in Washington who had long wanted to take action on Venezuela received the go-ahead. 

By the end of last year, the country was descending into anarchy. Inflation had hit 1.7 million percent for the year. Food and medicine shortages were critical, and oil production was falling fast. December was marked by protests as Venezuelans tried to celebrate Christmas without pork, a holiday tradition. 

By December, the four were discussing strategy every day. 

“We spent hours every day on Zoom, talking about what to do,” said Mr. Borges, referring to the videoconferencing app. 

A rally in support of Mr. Guaidó, Feb. 2. Photo: Oscar B.Castillo/FRACTURES COL for The Wall Street Journal

Ms. Machado recalled hundreds of conversations. “It has been very difficult,” she said, “because, of course, Antonio [Ledezma] and I had a position that was more accelerated” toward directly taking on the regime.

One confidant who spoke with Mr. López said that the deteriorating conditions and increasing hopelessness left the group in agreement to take Mr. Maduro head on. “López said, ‘If we don’t solve this now, then Venezuelans will fall into the same passivity the Cubans have, and we will be done,’” the confidant said.

Mr. López, who is barred from talking to the press by Maduro regime, couldn’t be reached for comment. 

By January, there was consensus among much of the opposition that the National Assembly was the sole democratic voice in the country, and therefore the legitimate source of power. By chance, the rotating presidency of the National Assembly fell to Popular Will, which put forward Mr. Guaidó as a fresh face known for working across parties.

A breakthrough came on Jan. 4, when the Lima Group of 14 Latin American countries and Canada issued a letter calling on Mr. Maduro to hand over power to the National Assembly. The near-bellicose nature of the letter surprised opposition leaders, reinforcing the idea they should take action. 

When Mr. Guaidó should try to assume the interim presidency was up for debate. Some argued that it should happen before Mr. Maduro took the oath. Others proposed creating a commission to challenge Mr. Maduro’s claim to office.

As late as Jan. 22, the day before it happened, Mr. Guaidó wasn’t fully convinced. He came around after Vice President Mike Pence called to assure that, if he were to invoke the Venezuelan constitution in being sworn in as the country’s rightful leader, the U.S. would back the opposition.

“It’s true the opposition was in rough seas, but we are now swimming together in the same direction,” said Mr. Ledezma.

—Kejal Vyas, Ryan Dube and Arian-Campo Flores contributed to this article.

Write to David Luhnow at david.luhnow@wsj.com, Juan Forero at Juan.Forero@wsj.com and José de Córdoba at jose.decordoba@wsj.com

[David Dennison 19536]

1 minute ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

WSJ has an incredible article today describing the inspiring bold decision of patriotism by Pres. Guaidó and his allies to take the course of action they have taken naming the head of the National Assembly as the real President of Venezuela. Bold, decisive leadership by an impressive 35 year old man fighting tyranny, suffering and starvation brought about by Chavista socialism. Bravo to Pres. Guaidó and the rest of the opposition. I hope a patriot in Maduro ‘s security detail takes the necessary action to save their country even at the cost of his own life by assassinating Maduro. If there is any way the US can assist in that effort, I hope we’d do so.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-the-hell-is-going-on-how-a-tiny-cabal-galvanized-venezuelas-opposition-11549555626

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

‘What the Hell Is Going On?’ How a Small Group Seized Control of Venezuela’s Opposition

The plan to unseat Nicolás Maduro came together quickly and secretly, taking many within the country’s notoriously fractious opposition by surprise

By 

David Luhnow, 

Juan Forero and 

José de Córdoba

Feb. 7, 2019 11:07 a.m. ET

CARACAS, Venezuela—What appeared to be a carefully calibrated policy to oust Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was actually a big gamble by a small group of opposition leaders acting on a hastily assembled plan.

When Juan Guaidó declared himself Venezuela’s interim president on Jan. 23 in front of a crowd of 100,000 people under a broiling sun, some leading opposition figures had no idea he would do so, say people who work with Mr. Guaidó and other top leaders. That included a few standing alongside him. A stern look of shock crossed their faces. Some quietly left the stage.

“What the hell is going on?” one member of a group of politicians wrote to the others in a WhatsApp group chat. “How come we didn’t know about this.” 

The plan was largely devised by a group of four opposition leaders—two in exile, one under house arrest and one barred from leaving the country. It came together only in recent weeks, as Mr. Maduro prepared to start a second six-year term on Jan. 10 after elections widely seen as a sham. Mr. Maduro has denounced the ceremony as part of a U.S.-backed coup to overthrow his government.

The act of political skulduggery paid off. The crowd reacted ecstatically to Mr. Guaidó, and one nation after another recognized him within hours.

The strategy has dramatically altered Venezuela’s political landscape, empowering a faction led by Mr. Guaidó’s Popular Will party that has long lobbied for more direct confrontation with the Maduro regime.

Opposition leaders agreed Mr. Maduro was illegitimate and that the National Assembly, with the 35-year-old Mr. Guaidó as its newly elected head, was the country’s lone democratic institution. However, many were initially against the idea of naming Mr. Guaidó interim president, according to people familiar with the matter. They worried it might make eventual negotiation with Mr. Maduro impossible while deepening the misery for millions suffering from food and medicine shortages and political persecution against his rivals.

Others argued it was critical to strike quickly, and that waiting for consensus was futile.

“This was the moment to go for it,” said Maria Corina Machado, one of the four behind the strategy. The timing was also irresistible. The swearing-in took place on a symbolic day in Venezuela: On Jan. 23, 1958, students, unions and the military rose up to topple military dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez.

Mr. Guaidó himself only agreed to act the day before he declared himself president, his aides said. Some politicians—including those in the traditional Democratic Action Party, the largest opposition party—weren’t told of the plan.

“We didn’t want them to mess it up,” said one opposition leader who knew of the strategy.

That evening, after Mr. Guaidó’s move sparked an outpouring of support, opposition politicians of all stripes, including from Democratic Action, publicly backed the move. 

“We’ve become part of the political package facing off with the government,” said Edgar Zambrano, 63, a member of Democratic Action and the vice president of the National Assembly. 

Mr. Zambrano, one of the opposition leaders who appeared surprised on stage on Jan. 23, said the possibility of Mr. Guaidó assuming the presidency had been discussed in the weeks before, but that the final decision was in the hands of the young leader because of the risks it entailed.

Edgar Zambrano, left, with Mr. Guaidó, center, on Jan. 5. Photo: Fernando Llano/Associated Press

For now, at least, the events have electrified the opposition’s base. Mr. Guaidó draws large, boisterous crowds. He has appointed ambassadors for what is, in essence, a parallel government. His team has laid out plans to bring humanitarian aid from Colombia in a tactic designed to test the resolve of Venezuelan troops loyal to Mr. Maduro.

“Only a few weeks ago, I was totally depressed,” said Michael Penfold, an adviser to the opposition who counts himself as one of the doves who has now become a hawk. “I thought nothing was ever going to get Maduro out of power. Now, I wouldn’t be surprised if Maduro resigns within days.” 

The government, meanwhile, seems caught off guard and under siege, symbolized by the sandbags and soldiers toting machine guns that surround Mr. Maduro’s Miraflores presidential palace. On frequent appearances on state TV, Mr. Maduro can be seen jogging with troops and leading them in chants of, “Traitors, never! Loyal, always!”

If the opposition can force out Mr. Maduro, Popular Will and its head, Leopoldo López, will likely take the driver’s seat for any future democratic election, politicians and political analysts say. Mr. López, Mr. Guaidó’s political mentor, is under house arrest in Caracas.

Mr. López, who attended college and graduate school in the U.S., has long had close contact with American diplomats and is pro-free market. Mr. Guaidó has laid out an economic recovery plan that calls on private companies to help rescue Venezuela’s decaying oil industry, a proposal Mr. López had a hand in shaping.

The perception that the hard-line faction of the opposition has won the day could make the regime more liable to dig in, making any negotiation more unlikely. One opposition plan posits that Mr. Maduro would negotiate his own removal, leaving in exchange for, say, safe passage to a friendly country.

Nicolás Maduro walked with the military in Maracay, Venezuela, Feb. 4. Photo: miraflores palace/EPA/Shutterstock

With the opposition taking action, “the Maduro team doesn’t want to talk to them and doesn’t trust them,” said Phil Gunson, who tracks Venezuela’s crisis for the International Crisis Group, a nonprofit that studies conflicts. “They think they will all end up in jail or strung up from lampposts.”

If Mr. Maduro holds firm, it is likely to deepen the economic hardship for millions of Venezuelans. He could even emerge stronger, able to brag that he beat back a superpower. 

Mr. Zambrano, the member of Democratic Action, said that one big risk with the opposition strategy is thinking it will all be over too soon and not planning for a long and drawn-out confrontation. 

“We’ve committed a lot of errors in strategies, thinking the government was going to be ousted in a day,” he said. “Whoever bases their politics on that is going to fail.” 

The road to the standoff comes after three years of setbacks for the opposition that left them despondent, according to interviews with prominent members of several parties.

It also left four prominent leaders with the sense that the time for dramatic action was growing near. All have been targets of the regime.

Antonio Ledezma, 63, is a former Caracas mayor who spent time jailed and under house arrest before escaping to Spain.

His close ally is Ms. Machado, 51, an industrial engineer whose brief career as a lawmaker in the National Assembly included getting her nose broken in an attack by ruling party lawmakers, being accused of trying to assassinate Mr. Maduro, and getting expelled from the legislature in 2014. She is considered among the more intrepid of opposition leaders for holding rallies and speeches in pro-government communities, where she has been physically beaten and fired upon.

Julio Borges, 49, who lives in exile in Colombia, was the peacenik of the group. A father of quadruplets, he had long favored negotiations and elections. His position hardened toward taking action after he was threatened with jail early last year, forcing him and his family to flee.

And then there is Mr. López, 47, the head of Popular Will. The best-known adversary of the regime outside of Venezuela, he has maintained close ties with his opposition colleagues despite being confined at his apartment with an ankle monitor. He was jailed after protests in 2014 on charges that rights groups, as well as his prosecutors who have since defected, called trumped up. He’s a distant relative of Simón Bolívar, the liberation hero whose legacy Mr. Maduro’s Socialist Party has long leaned on.

The four leaders had in the past often bitterly disagreed over how to remove Mr. Maduro—and before him, Hugo Chávez, who turned Venezuela toward socialism after he took office in 1999. 

Leopoldo López arrived home after being released from jail in July 2017. He has been under house arrest since then. Photo: Carlos Becera/Bloomberg News

Some in the opposition argued a tough approach led to costly blunders, including a short-lived 2002 coup that ended up strengthening Mr. Chavez’s hand, and demonstrations in 2014 and 2017 that failed to force Mr. Maduro’s ouster while taking the lives of nearly 200 young people. 

“The opposition was a mess,” Mr. Borges said. “We had no plan. Some wanted dialogue, others not.”

The government’s own autocracy fueled the hardening in the opposition. It neutered the opposition-controlled congress, created a parallel assembly, illegally sunk a recall referendum on Mr. Maduro and barred leading opponents from running against Mr. Maduro last year.

The four leaders saw some factors breaking their way. Some 60 countries called the presidential vote illegitimate. The geopolitical stars aligned from South America to Washington and Europe, as conservative governments opposed to Mr. Maduro took power and policy makers in Washington who had long wanted to take action on Venezuela received the go-ahead. 

By the end of last year, the country was descending into anarchy. Inflation had hit 1.7 million percent for the year. Food and medicine shortages were critical, and oil production was falling fast. December was marked by protests as Venezuelans tried to celebrate Christmas without pork, a holiday tradition. 

By December, the four were discussing strategy every day. 

“We spent hours every day on Zoom, talking about what to do,” said Mr. Borges, referring to the videoconferencing app. 

A rally in support of Mr. Guaidó, Feb. 2. Photo: Oscar B.Castillo/FRACTURES COL for The Wall Street Journal

Ms. Machado recalled hundreds of conversations. “It has been very difficult,” she said, “because, of course, Antonio [Ledezma] and I had a position that was more accelerated” toward directly taking on the regime.

One confidant who spoke with Mr. López said that the deteriorating conditions and increasing hopelessness left the group in agreement to take Mr. Maduro head on. “López said, ‘If we don’t solve this now, then Venezuelans will fall into the same passivity the Cubans have, and we will be done,’” the confidant said.

Mr. López, who is barred from talking to the press by Maduro regime, couldn’t be reached for comment. 

By January, there was consensus among much of the opposition that the National Assembly was the sole democratic voice in the country, and therefore the legitimate source of power. By chance, the rotating presidency of the National Assembly fell to Popular Will, which put forward Mr. Guaidó as a fresh face known for working across parties.

A breakthrough came on Jan. 4, when the Lima Group of 14 Latin American countries and Canada issued a letter calling on Mr. Maduro to hand over power to the National Assembly. The near-bellicose nature of the letter surprised opposition leaders, reinforcing the idea they should take action. 

When Mr. Guaidó should try to assume the interim presidency was up for debate. Some argued that it should happen before Mr. Maduro took the oath. Others proposed creating a commission to challenge Mr. Maduro’s claim to office.

As late as Jan. 22, the day before it happened, Mr. Guaidó wasn’t fully convinced. He came around after Vice President Mike Pence called to assure that, if he were to invoke the Venezuelan constitution in being sworn in as the country’s rightful leader, the U.S. would back the opposition.

“It’s true the opposition was in rough seas, but we are now swimming together in the same direction,” said Mr. Ledezma.

—Kejal Vyas, Ryan Dube and Arian-Campo Flores contributed to this article.

Write to David Luhnow at david.luhnow@wsj.com, Juan Forero at Juan.Forero@wsj.com and José de Córdoba at jose.decordoba@wsj.com

 

I'm not sure you can grasp why this would be unwise given the political atmosphere in Donald Trump's America, but please try.

[Parliament 14594]

[Q]Mr. Guaidó has laid out an economic recovery plan that calls on private companies to help rescue Venezuela’s decaying oil industry...[/q]

I'm mostly in favor of this guy, but this sentence makes me take pause. If foreign companies will be involved, we need to know they won't just strip resources and expatriate all the profits.

[hpslugga 4097]

On 2/4/2019 at 2:01 PM, Brisketexan said:

You don't support anything TANGIBLE. 

I can't speak for bad_teammate, but as someone who's equally opposed to US interventionism, I'll help you as best I can. Before I start, there's actually another dimension to this that should make us all the more skeptical of the US stance: the Russia factor. Suppose that all this Trump and Putin stuff is actually true. Well then that means he's likely just paying lip service to the Guaido position and it shouldn't be taken seriously in the first place because Putin supports Maduro. This also could be similar to the US position on Nicaragua near the end of the Carter years when they supported the policy known as "Somocismo sin Somoza" or when the US position on Iraq after the Gulf War went from support for Saddam Hussein to preferring "an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam Hussein." Those kinds of shifts are commonly referred to as "distinctions without differences." Nonetheless, I'll assume in my following remarks that they actually do support Guaido in the manner they say they do:

1. There is a provision of the Venezuelan Constitution, Article 233, that does allow Guaido (in this case) to assume the role of Interim President for no longer than 30 days prior to holding a new election. The article is worded like this, translated to English:

"When an elected President [Maduro] becomes permanently unavailable [i.e. his ouster] prior to his inauguration, a new election by universal suffrage and direct ballot shall be held within 30 consecutive days. Pending election and inauguration of the new President, the President of the National Assembly [Guaido] shall take charge of the Presidency of the Republic"

Now of course, Maduro's fanbois would argue that "his inauguration happened so this is inapplicable," but the truth is that it wasn't the traditional (i.e. legal) type of inauguration as the Venezuelan constitution mandates, so the whole thing was a sideshow and he has not been inaugurated. Further, Guaido could run in such an election. But are the same US officials who are insisting that Guaido is the interim President also insisting that he hold elections in 30 days? And if they do really do recognize him only as an interim guy as they've said they do, are they planning on endor$ing potential candidates in these pending elections? The answers to those questions are particularly disturbing when we pretty well know what they are, and they're rather ugly.

2. The Trump Administration is already tipping its hand that it wants US-based multinationals to acquire the ability to sell that oil and claim the majority of the profits, a move which would absolutely devastate Venezuela's economy (and by "economy," I mean for the whole of the country, not a handful of billionaires). They do not care about average Venezuelans, and anyone who says that they do is living in a world of Make Believe as there is precisely and exactly zero evidence to support such an outlandish claim. 

3. We seriously have no record whatsoever of engaging in military interventionism for humanitarian purposes in our Post-WWII history in Latin America. The US record on the region in general is abominable, atrocious, abysmal, amoral...and those are just some of the A-words. Venezuela is sitting atop very large oil reserves, and that oil belongs to the people of Venezuela. It's been that way formally since 1976, with a heightened emphasis in the early 2000's, and wouldn't you know who won the pony, that's when the US tried to overthrow the regime responsible for making it that way and it was precisely and exactly for that reason. I think this is the biggest problem that you, hayden, etc are grappling with: you guys seem to think that our government has the slightest humanitarian concerns for the people of Venezuela. They do not.

I actually have those concerns. I've no doubt that at least some of you guys do, too. I have no doubt as to your sincerity. But you're beyond mistaken if you think any US administration has had your level of compassion, let alone this one. You cannot seriously believe that any intervention we take with the current leadership could be anything other than purely predatory in nature. I mean shit, Elliott Abrams and John Bolton? Fucking really??? You know better than that. Those fuckers care about Venezuelan oil, not Venezuelan people.

And before you say "well at this point, anything is better than Maduro..." no, it's not. Things could be much worse. Things could end up like Guatemala in 1954 or El Salvador in the late 70's/early 80's. If ever there were two post-WWII facsimiles to Nazi-style states that there have ever been, those would be them. And the horror of it all was that we caused it to be that way for our own selfish purposes.

Venezuela is in pretty bad shape, Maduro and his thugs are beyond responsible for it, but they'd be doing so much worse if they weren't seeing at least some level of benefits from that oil as they do today. They are Major Fucked right now, but without that, they're Totally Fucked. Do not assume for one microsecond that this current administration isn't capable of doing that. They are. Abrams in specific has done this before and he gets off on it. He's a sick and twisted individual who should have been brought forth on war crimes charges decades ago, and it's beyond scandalous that he's even allowed to have contact with ANY persons from the acting US Executive Branch, let alone get a fucking job in same. To make matters worse, the difference between him and Bolton is a mere flea's hop.

So, what is there to do tangibly?

Simple: allow international institutions to involve themselves in it diplomatically, and don't let a single state interject itself as the primary mediator. Allow the OAS (preferably) to involve itself in negotiations that will allow Maduro to leave peacefully (one of the major reasons he won't leave right now is that he's beyond terrified of being placed before a firing squad) but also assist in the transition power over to Guaido for the 30-day period that their constitution allows before having new elections. When that happens, those elections need to be as closely monitored as the Gaza elections of 2006 were, and they need to come out with a "free and fair" grade. At that point, the people of Venezuela need to sort it out amongst themselves. Also, the OAS members need to prohibit themselves from funding any of the potential candidates. These need to be Venezuelan candidates funded by Venezuelan money and voted for by Venezuelan people, and it also needs to not be fucked with via a post-election coup by some state *cough* that didn't like the result.

bernorange posted some BBC article that leads off "A group of Latin American countries and Canada has urged the Venezuelan military to support opposition leader Juan Guaidó as interim president." I. Have. No. Problem. With. This.

But my position on that is a qualified one: I do not oppose this, provided however that the United States stays out of it. In all those interventions/coups that I've mentioned over and over, it followed a similar pattern: the CIA would basically take over the country's military so that it could take over. Subsequently, we would provide arms and other aid whenever it was requested.

THAT is what we're opposed to, and we're also opposed to that concept that Parliament just described: "we need to know they won't just strip resources and expatriate all the profits." Given the history of private oil companies in general, I wouldn't trust them not to engage in such endeavors even if their tongues were notarized.

But you seem to have this very black-and-white view that if we don't support direct US interventionism, we are supporting Maduro. Either that or you seem to think that direct US interventionism can be benevolent and relatively disinterested (basically the William F Buckley argument about Vietnam in the 60's). Either way, that's just sheer nonsense. You're one of the posters with which I disagree on a number of topics, but I respect you and will be the first to say that you're smart enough to know better than that. I just went on a massive binge of adding posters to my Ignored Users list because while it's one thing to disagree with someone, it's possible for one to learn something from the other in doing so, and I added to my list everyone from which I can learn nothing helpful and they'd refuse to learn anything from me. You do not match such a description in the slightest.

Anyways, getting the US involved in military interventionism (or corporate interventionism like the kind Guaido is outlining, which is curious since he's only an interim figure that's laying out long-term policy solutions) is like asking Bill Cosby to run a woman's shelter, Keith Richards to run a drug rehab facility, Bobby Knight to lead an anger management course, Charles Manson to be a prison warden, or whatever analogy that fits this absolutely perverse and disgraceful concept.

 

Edited February 7, 2019 by hpslugga

[Brisketexan 106889]

2 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

So, what is there to do tangibly?

Simple: allow international institutions to involve themselves in it diplomatically, and don't let a single state interject itself as the primary mediator. Allow the OAS (preferably) to involve itself in negotiations that will allow Maduro to leave peacefully (one of the major reasons he won't leave right now is that he's beyond terrified of being placed before a firing squad) but also assist in the transition power over to Guaido for the 30-day period that their constitution allows before having new elections. When that happens, those elections need to be as closely monitored as the Gaza elections of 2006 were, and they need to come out with a "free and fair" grade. At that point, the people of Venezuela need to sort it out amongst themselves. Also, the OAS members need to prohibit themselves from funding any of the potential candidates. These need to be Venezuelan candidates funded by Venezuelan money and voted for by Venezuelan people, and it also needs to not be fucked with via a post-election coup by some state *cough* that didn't like the result.

bernorange posted some BBC article that leads off "A group of Latin American countries and Canada has urged the Venezuelan military to support opposition leader Juan Guaidó as interim president." I. Have. No. Problem. With. This.

But my position on that is a qualified one: I do not oppose this, provided however that the United States stays out of it.

First, thank you for the thoughtful post.

You might be surprised to find that I don't disagree with most of what I quoted above.  I already stated my opposition to military intervention (either directly or indirectly).  And yes, the Abrams-Bolton team makes the whole matter suspect as hell.  I am a fan of neither.

That said, I strongly agree with "allow international institutions to involve themselves in it diplomatically, and don't let a single state interject itself as the primary mediator."  It should indeed be a multi-national affair, and as I understand, right now, it is.

As for this: "Allow the OAS (preferably) to involve itself in negotiations that will allow Maduro to leave peacefully (one of the major reasons he won't leave right now is that he's beyond terrified of being placed before a firing squad)" - man, ain't that always the trick?  I agree.  That is often the least-bad solution.  A well-developed sense of justice wants him hanged -- and hey, if his own people storm the castle and do that, que sera sera.  But otherwise, providing an exit plan is often necessary to secure an exit.  And, in the grand scheme, even though he'll abscond with a huge chunk of wealth, it's not so much of the country's wealth that it can't be recouped in a short time.

As for "but also assist in the transition power over to Guaido for the 30-day period that their constitution allows before having new elections. When that happens, those elections need to be as closely monitored as the Gaza elections of 2006 were, and they need to come out with a "free and fair" grade. At that point, the people of Venezuela need to sort it out amongst themselves." - Fully agreed.  As well as what followed.

The one thing I have a quibble with is "provided however that the United States stays out of it."  We're an American state.  A not-insignificant one.  I understand that we shouldn't dominate the entire discussion, but sitting on the sidelines completely is folly.  We can be, and should demonstrate that we can be, a responsible member of the greater American community -- we're not exactly insignificant in this hemisphere.

Now, whether Team Trump and Abrams or Bolton will  screw that up -- well, shit.  I have zero faith in this admin to do a single goddamned thing right, or for the right reasons.  So, with that understanding in hand, my enthusiasm for American participation in this process is somewhat diminished.  Again, we're at a place in American politics where all of our options are bad, regardless of the subject or the policy.

[bad_teammate 13517]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I understand that we shouldn't dominate the entire discussion, but sitting on the sidelines completely is folly.

Why?

[hpslugga 4097]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

First, thank you for the thoughtful post.

I do not flatter by nature, but you need to know that posters like you deserve them, like I said, even when we find ourselves in stark opposition on issues like these.

Quote

The one thing I have a quibble with is "provided however that the United States stays out of it."  We're an American state.  A not-insignificant one.

Perhaps I should have been a little more clear in that I'm simply re-emphasizing my position on unilateral action by the US. I'm not at all suggesting that it sideline itself in a joint effort by the OAS (or the UN or whoever the fuck it ends up being). Just sideline itself from a solo effort. Mea culpa if that was not clear.

 

Edited February 7, 2019 by hpslugga

[Brisketexan 106889]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Why?

Fundamentally, because we're a significant hemispheric stakeholder.

[ztejas 44228]

30 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Those kinds of shifts are commonly referred to as "distinctions without differences."

Repped

[TwiceHorn 32077]

One thing I suspect explains the "ingobiernable" problem of Central and South America is the gulf within their society, partly wealth and partly education/cultural, to the extent those are separable.  Also probably applies to Russia. 

There is a peasant class, heavily rural and indigenous, and they are far more peasant-like, serfs really, than the American underclass.  And they are numerous.  And then there are ruling elites.  The underclass seems really susceptible to whatever utopian sales pitch the latest strongman is offering, and enough of the ruling elites get on board, either out of idealism or "moar shit for me," and you get an almost instantly corruptible or corrupted government. Rinse and repeat. 

Also, the serfs really seem, ultimately, to prefer being told what to do by their government, rather than having the freedom to make their own choices.  And that works until it doesn't.

[bad_teammate 13517]

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Fundamentally, because we're a significant hemispheric stakeholder.

What does this actually mean, though?

[Brisketexan 106889]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

What does this actually mean, though?

Economically: we have significant economic interests connected with Venezuela (see, e.g., Citgo).  Nevermind the economic interrelationship among all American countries.

Politically: we have regional interests in not having a failed state create strains on/friction with neighbors.

Politically: we have a strong political (and economic) interest in Latin American countries adopting stable models of governance and leadership.  Bottom line, having a crazy guy doing stupid shit in the boat we're all in is bad for everyone, including us.

[bad_teammate 13517]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Economically: we have significant economic interests connected with Venezuela (see, e.g., Citgo).  Nevermind the economic interrelationship among all American countries.

This is an extremely bad reason to get involved.

Quote

Politically: we have regional interests in not having a failed state create strains on/friction with neighbors.

1) What impact would it actually have on our national security interests?

2) Why not simply support the regional neighbors in their attempts to handle this business?

Quote

Politically: we have a strong political (and economic) interest in Latin American countries adopting stable models of governance and leadership.  Bottom line, having a crazy guy doing stupid shit in the boat we're all in is bad for everyone, including us.

It's just astonishing to me that this level of vagueness is what people use to justify pounding the poor, starving people of other nations into submission or death.

Literally the only specific argument you can make about these "interests" is oil.

[Brisketexan 106889]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

This is an extremely bad reason to get involved.

 

So, regional economic stability is not a valid interest - huh.  In a world where economics is perhaps the chief player (shit happens via economics/commerce, diplomacy, and warfare -- that's pretty much it).....that's an interesting take.  I mean, we can PRETEND that economic interests don't matter, but we'd be literally the only nation state on earth participating in that fantasy.

[Fozzz 152]

This is the kind of constructive engagement Brisket supports.

Quote

Eugenia Russian, president of FUNDALATIN, one of the oldest human rights NGOs in Venezuela, founded in 1978 before the Chavez and Maduro governments and with special consultative status at the UN, spoke to The Independent on the significance of the sanctions.

“In contact with the popular communities, we consider that one of the fundamental causes of the economic crisis in the country is the effect that the unilateral coercive sanctions that are applied in the economy, especially by the government of the United States,” Ms Russian said.

She said there may also be causes from internal errors, but said probably few countries in the world have suffered an “economic siege” like the one Venezuelans are living under.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/venezuela-us-sanctions-united-nations-oil-pdvsa-a8748201.html

We have to starve them to save them.  Nevermind the fact that the vast majority of Venezuelans don't support Brisket's plan.

Quote

According to a study conducted in early January 2019 by the local polling firm Hinterlaces, 86 percent of Venezuelans would disagree with international military intervention. And 81 percent oppose the US sanctions that have gravely hurt the South American nation’s economy.

https://grayzoneproject.com/2019/01/29/venezuelans-oppose-intervention-us-sanctions-poll/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

[GHOSTUSER 361]

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:I'm not sure you can grasp why this would be unwise given the political atmosphere in Donald Trump's America, but please try.

We’d be assuming our historical role ever since the late 19th century in helping to install a friendly government that advances our interests that would end the starvation in Venezuela. Whether you like it or not, we are the global superpower and hemispheric hegemon. We have a responsibility to the rest of the countries in the Americas to assist where we can in advancing liberal democracy, free enterprise and other American values. If the CIA can assist in any way with the logistics of coordinating an assassination of Maduro that is the most humane way of ending the strife in Venezuela and ending their people’s hunger. Long live President Guaidó. Seeing Maduro killed will have a cathartic effect for the Venezuelan people like it did for the Italians in stringing up Il Duce.

Edited February 7, 2019 by Iconoclast Texan