Comments, Globe, In Focus, Latin America, Uncategorized

Why do Venezuela’s opposition and the USA need war?

In addition to the human drama that an armed attack against this Latin American nation would entail for its own people, an armed intervention by the United States, or in conjunction with its Western and local allies, would have enormous repercussions throughout the continent.


Juan Diego García


It would turn it into a scenario similar to those that occurred in Iraq, Libya, Ukraine or Syria. This may be the result of some kind of large-scale military operation against the government of Nicolás Maduro.

Everything points to the country’s right wing not having enough social bases to guarantee any kind of movement that would bring down the system and lead to the government’s resignation.

So far, at least, neither does the expected military coup seem to be forthcoming, which has traditionally been the mechanism most used by Washington to get rid of governments in opposition to the USA’s designs on the continent.

Neither has the electoral wager worked, due in part to the division of the right, its relatively poor support at the polls, its game of little skill in the parliamentary body and, of course, the majority support of Chavez, not only at the polls but within the population itself. From the outset, it has not been enough for the Venezuelan right to count on the generous support of Washington and its allies.

Neither has it been enough to have control over the key elements of the economy (trade, industry, finance and its quasi-monopoly of the media), nor has it been able to take advantage of the failures of the left-wing, which nevertheless continues to have sufficient social support, especially in broad popular sectors.

In this scenario, a rapid outcome in favour of the right does not seem easy or possible.

And in any case, extreme risings such as the unleashing of street violence provoked by specialist groups, financed and trained from abroad, or an attempt of a military coup with some sector of the armed forces would provoke widespread violence from the people, literally, a civil war that justifies (in the eyes of Washington and its allies) the mass bombing of the country, the de facto destruction of infrastructures and economic centres and, of course, the sacrifice of huge numbers of an innocent population.

It is the tactic used in the Middle East, in Libya and in Ukraine.

Only such a military strategy could deliver a triumph to the right.

Most likely, the Maduro government will be able to resist and sustain itself through massive mobilisation, with possible support from Russia and China.

Caracas’ response to the blockade and aggression would then have to be oriented to affect the interests of its attackers as far as possible: new markets for its oil and other mining resources (which are apparently considerable) in parallel to the drive of its own industrialisation and, of course, the impact of the assets that the aggressor countries have in Venezuela, as a compensatory measure for the damages caused by the various forms of aggression to the country.

Venezuela Nicolas Maduro Photo by Marcos Ortiz

Such a strategy by the United States and its European allies (with the subservient help of some local governments) would be repeating mistakes historically similar to those committed when a group of young rebels in Cuba in the 1960s tried to introduce some social and political reforms in a purely democratic manner but which affected the gringo interests on the island.

The brutal reaction through blockade, sabotage and military invasion did not succeed in overthrowing the Castro government:  it only achieved the radicalisation of the revolutionary process, which would soon lead to socialism.

Two interpretations seem required in this case.

One, what the bourgeois governments of the region (or at least of their prudent sectors) should do about the enormous risks that military aggression brings to Venezuela, that is to say, to what extent it seems convenient to them to apply in this region the formulae applied in Syria, Libya, Ukraine or Iraq; and to what extent the social processes that brought Chávez to power do not appear openly or latently in their own countries.

Another interpretation will undoubtedly be made by the popular sectors that rely on peaceful ways to get out of backwardness, poverty and dependency.

(Translated by Hannah Phelvin – Email: – Photos: Pixabay

Share it / Compartir:

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *