The failure of (one more) attempted coup d’état in Venezuela is not just a defeat of the creole right and its leaders but above all of the main organisers of the attempt, the United States government, and by extension, of the European Union officials who have gone along with the coup from the beginning.
Juan Diego García
Added to their party are, of course, the Latin American leaders who, loyal to their own interests, see in the Venezuelan process the sign of popular movements that could well transpire in their own countries.
The main leaders of the so-called Lima Group – representing the hardest right-wing on the continent – are not exactly living through moments of social peace and economic stability in their own countries, and therefore, they have sufficient reasons to support the ventures of Washington and its European allies.
Unlike the United States, European governments quickly sought to distance themselves from Guaidó’s recent attempted coup, conveniently informed by their spy networks in Caracas of the low to nil probability of the coup’s success.
This failure was due to the fact that President Maduro enjoys the support of the armed forces, and above all, of an immense popular support base many times larger than that sustaining the local rightwing.
Indeed, beyond the propaganda – that extensive operation aiming to manipulate and indoctrinate the public about what is going on in Venezuela – those making decisions must always rely on real facts and not be so inept as to believe their own lies.
If this approach is not unfamiliar to Washington, what is driving them to continue with the strategy of a coup that seems to have no hope of being successful?
Surely they know in the US capital that everything indicates there is no certainty of a split occurring within the armed forces at the moment. Nor does it seem reasonable to think that Maduro will lose the popular support he counts on.
Despite the considerable losses caused to the Bolivarian government by the economic war, the measures taken by Caracas seem to be releasing much of the internal pressure and at least allow the government to conserve broad social support.
Outside the country, Maduro has obtained support from Russia, China and other countries whilst he takes on rivals affected by internal conflicts that are not to be underestimated. The Latin American governments belonging to the collective known as the Lima Group are, in the main, choosing to distance themselves from a coup d’état solution, but maintain their support of the Venezuelan right.
A not inconsiderable sector suggests that a solution should be reached through discussion, which is precisely what Maduro, the Mexican government and a section of the Europeans propose.
That’s to say that the coup is only being wagered by the United States, although really only as another stage in their long term strategy. Herein lies the crucial issue: what does Washington really want?
If hopeless military coups, street disturbances that are running out of steam, the economic war so deeply affecting the everyday lives of most citizens in the country and which a large scale media campaign blames Maduro for, if all this cannot cause the Bolivarian government to crumble, the only thing left to do is to send in the troops and invade Venezuela.
It doesn’t much matter if the military operation can count on the official support of its European allies or the no less formal support of the Organisation of American States and the Lima Group, who will justify it as an extreme but inevitable solution.
Only, it’s essential for some serious event to occur so that it can be justified. And this is exactly what they’re seeking out with military coup attempts, economic war and violent outbursts in the street executed by specially trained groups, financed from abroad.
It’s about causing a provocation that prompts Caracas to respond in such a way that would justify intervention. Civil war would be, no doubt, one of the most likely consequences and Maduro would have to opt for radical solutions and fight decisively to install true Socialism in Venezuela, as Chavez proposed from the beginning of the Bolivarian process.
What validity would the still prevailing bourgeoise order then have? Forced into a decisive battle the Venezuelan leaders would have to proceed upon radical ideals – that’s to say, by getting to the root of the problem – and any peaceful solution by dialogue would only be a viable alternative if such confrontation was not really favourable to the government. Accepting the status quo, inasmuch as there has been one, would only then be the result of a not completely favourable balance of forces.
The true establishment of a socialist system would suppose that current institutions would be replaced by others of a different nature, and above all, that the defining role would be taken by popular forms of power that are already in existence.
One of the inevitable results of every revolution is that a large segment of the population leaves the country, victims of their own fear “of communism”, affected by the inevitable breakdowns in the economy and public order, and of course, with the emigration of those whose economic and political interests are severely damaged.
This is the way every revolution goes, and the Bolivarian Revolution would be no exception. In fact, a large portion of the upper classes has already moved to Miami, Spain and other places of refuge, accompanied by a sector of the middle classes attracted by the supposed advantages of exile as promoted from abroad.
No less decisive for the success of a revolutionary solution (overhauling everything from the ground up) is a change in the extraction model (of above all oil and gold), greatly driving up national production on all fronts with the aim of saving the country from its condition as a dispensable secondary economy, the simple provider of primary resources, without its own real propulsion to guarantee true national autonomy in practice.
Of course, all this requires international support to open up new markets and new allies for the country. Russia, China, Turkey and Iran are already there.
How far the EU takes its support of the United States remains to be seen; they may look for a middle road that favours their own interests, like in the case of Cuba.
Therefore, the impression left by events is that the United States’ strategy is none other than to push for an incident that would allow them to justify aggression, a provocation that in the eyes of the world provides them with a reason to obtain, if not the full support of other countries, then at least their tolerance. This last thing, tolerance, is something European governments are skilled in practising: they do not openly support aggression but they don’t make any moves to avoid it and they even end up blaming the country under attack for not giving in to the imperialist blackmail.
(Translated by Elizabeth Dann)